Cargo Tracking Note: The return of misunderstood good project.

Recently, the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers Council, Barrister Hassan Bello, told the bewildered maritime stakeholders that Cargo Tracking Note (CTN) would soon be reintroduced to the import business in the country.

The news took no small number of industry stakeholders by surprise because they thought they have effectively buried the concept in the dust bin of history.

CTN is one of the most controversial but highly misunderstood few government projects that has suffered public odium and widespread mistrust.

Twice, it was introduced by government and twice it was hastily suspended as a result of ceaseless barrage of attacks by grossly misinformed Publics.

Cargo Tracking Note (CTN) also known as Bordereau de Suivi Cargaison (BSC) or Loading Certificate is an official shipping document that contains information related to the cargo and its movement between ports.

It is also known as Advance Cargo Declaration System (ACD) which is a global initiative to monitor and verify cargo on transit from port of origin to port of destination

Various shipper councils in different countries require this document on all imports.

CTN is requested by Customs from importers for clearance of cargo. All documents related to cargo must have CTN number if shipped under CTN.

CTN number must be provided to the ocean carrier at the loading port for addition in the manifest and Bill of Lading. Cargo traveling by sea must be issued with a CTN before departure by an approved agent.

After the 11th September terrorist attack on the USA, for safety and security, marine cargoes are getting tracked by countries in accordance with ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) Code.

Many Countries like the European Union, Asia, the Middle East, the United State and Africa have made CTN compulsory.

CTN generally contains shipper information, consignee information, details of cargo including weight, dimension, value of shipment, and how the cargo is shipped.

Thus, in 2010, as a result of its security advantages and global acceptance, the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) introduced it to import business in the country.

However, as a result of insufficient information, public enlightenment and lack of wide consultation with stakeholders coupled with the less transparent manner it was introduced, instant public outcry muzzled the project and was suspended.

In 2015, it was reintroduced in similar fashion as in 2010 with concealed guile, yet it was shot down by critical stakeholders.

We therefore understand and acknowledge the level of anxiety and perplexity of industry stakeholders at the third coming of the CTN project.

Nigeriamaritime360.com, in as much as it recognises the validity of the general uneasiness in the industry about the reintroduction of the controversial project, will not however share the widespread negative sentiments on the CTN.

Our stand is based on our belief in the project as a veritable method to curb irregularities in the import trade.

We equally frown at the shoddy presentation and implementation of the project in the two previous attempts which expectedly led to its sudden abortion.

The first attempt in 2010 was done in the crudest, annoying and opaque manner when the NPA literally jumped the introduction of the project on the industry’s stakeholders.

The barrage of attacks and its subsequent suspension was later justified when it was discovered that the project was used to scam millions of people in the industry by some powerful select few in the presidency that time.

In her memoirs, the former Minister of Finance, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, alleged how the proceeds of the CTN in 2010 were shared by few powerful but unscrupulous government officials in the presidency.

It was this oddity that reinforced the opposition to the return of the project in 2015 which made it short-lived.

Government’s lack of transparency on the possible cost implications of the project as well as who bears these costs have also inhibited support of the critical stakeholders for the concept.

That is why we commend the efforts of the present leadership of Shippers Council led by Barrister Hassan Bello on the wide consultations with stakeholders, especially the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) which is expected to bear the cost of the project.

We believe that if the project enjoys the support of this critical segment in the industry, its third coming will not suffer the same fate of the two previous attempts.

Nigeriamaritime360.com is not unmindful of the valid reasons of the opponents of the project.

They have argued, rightly so, that introduction of the CTN would be additional cost to the already over-burdened shippers and their agents.

Yes, we agree that this project comes with a cost but the cost, to our mind, will pale into insignificance in the face of the multiple benefits of the project.

The implementation of the CTN is expected to enhance the security of the owners of the cargo and the country as it tracks the consignment from the origin to its destination, knowing the nature of the cargo, its weight, value and the materials used.

We are glad that government, through its implementing agency, Nigeria Shippers Council, for the first time in its previous futile efforts, owned up on the cost implication of the project and who bears the cost.

“The cargo tracking note will soon be reintroduced at a very negligible cost” so declared Barr. Bello.
“Tracking note is a security thing because when we have it, there won’t be smuggling of fire arms and all other contraband.
“Smuggling of contraband won’t happen because everything coming in will be tracked, we will know the weight of the cargo, values and materials used.

“CTN would also help the Standard Organisation of Nigeria and National Agency for Food Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC) to fight substandard products and fake drugs respectively.

“So, SON will benefit by knowing whether products being imported are fake or not, NAFDAC will benefit”

We are aware that many may regard this as a familiar rhetoric by the government agency which they may find hard to believe given their two previous experiences.

But we are convinced that the cost of the project, which the government says is minimal, will in the long run, be truly negligible in the face of its benefits to the country.

According to official sources, under the CTN, containers attract a fee of $25 per unit, RORO vehicles $10 per unit, break bulk cargoes attract $0.2 per unit while conventional /groupage cargo attract $1 per freight.

Similarly, while crude oil export attracts $0.1 per ton, both the empty containers and non-crude oil export attract no fee.

These statistics were as at 2015 which may have been subject to change.

However, the cost is still low compared to what other Central and African countries charge which ranges from 35 Euro to 65 Euro.

Despite this cost, we believe the reintroduction of CTN is germane at this period at a time the country practices destination inspection scheme that allows self-declaration and assessment on the point of destination.

Unlike during the now rested pre-shipment regime when pre-shipment inspection agents examined goods at the port of loading for quantity, quality, value, the present regime of destination inspection does not have such luxury.

Loading of goods at the port of origin is not witnessed by government inspectors or agents as this is usually done at the whims of the importers with the active collaboration of the manufacturers or exporters.

This is what fuels high incidents of importation of contraband and illicit goods such as arms and ammunition into the country as well as concealment and under-declaration.

With the derelict state of our scanners at our ports, more of these illicit goods escape into the society than the few ones intercepted and seized.

This present reality as we observed has punctured the argument against the CTN which was made three years ago by Dr Frank Ojadi, the Head, Operations Management, Department of the prestigious Lagos Business School (LBS), Pan-Atlantic University, who based his opposition not only on the cost but that the project is repetitious of the safety and security mechanism embedded in pre-shipment inspection scheme which he argued still failed.

However, our support for the project is firmly rooted in the success it has recorded in the global arena, especially in some African countries such as Angola, Benin Republic, Central African Republic, Togo and Cote D’Ivoire.

We however encourage the present administration in shippers’ council to continue its sensitisation and wide consultation drive in a bid to win the confidence and support of all the opponents of the project who understandably are sceptical about the genuine intention of government and the workability of the project.

We also want to advise that government should abandon the path of deceit and lack of transparency which truncated the previous efforts.

With adequate will power and genuine purpose to make success of the project as being currently exhibited by the leadership of Shippers Council, we can only hope that the unbelieving antagonists of the project may give it benefit of the doubt that its reintroduction is not an attempt by government to subject the hapless shippers to another round of rip-off game.