Charter Party Insights: Who Pays for Security Guards When Calling the U.S.?

 ⚖️ Charter Party Insights: Who Pays for Security Guards When Calling the U.S.?

👉 Clause in Focus:
“For Ivory Coast and Nigeria, Charterers agree that if vessel goes to USA thereafter during the course of this charter party, then cost for deploying security guards, if required by USA Coast Guard, security guards cost to be for Charterers’ account.”

 

1️⃣ Headline & Hook

🔐 Security at Sea & in Port: Decoding Security Guard Costs in Charter Parties

 

❓ Have you ever wondered who bears the cost when U.S. authorities demand security guards onboard?
❓ Can a simple post-Nigeria voyage to the U.S. trigger unexpected expenses for Owners or Charterers?
❓ Do you know how to safeguard your position during fixture negotiations when such clauses are inserted?

 

If these questions made you pause, you’re not alone. Let’s break it down.

 

2️⃣ Clause Breakdown (Deep Dive)

This clause allocates financial responsibility for security guards when a vessel trades from Ivory Coast or Nigeria to the USA.

🔎 Why does this matter?

• The U.S. Coast Guard sometimes imposes strict security protocols (e.g., when vessels call from certain “higher risk” regions).
• In practice, this can mean placing armed or unarmed guards onboard during U.S. port stays.
• The cost? Easily running into thousands of dollars—which neither Owners nor Charterers want to pay unexpectedly.

⚡ Implications:

• For Owners: Without this clause, the cost could fall on them, reducing voyage earnings.
• For Charterers: They must budget for these expenses if the trading pattern includes Ivory Coast/Nigeria followed by U.S. calls.
• For Operators: Day-to-day coordination with local agents and security firms is essential to avoid delays and disputes.

📌 Example Scenario:

• MV Kamsarmax loads cargo at Abidjan (Ivory Coast).
• Fixture continues, vessel is instructed to discharge at Houston, USA.
• Upon arrival, the U.S. Coast Guard requires 2 security guards onboard throughout the stay.
• Cost: USD 10,000.
• Thanks to this clause, Charterers pay—avoiding Owners’ exposure.

⚖️ Industry Notes:

• BIMCO guidelines emphasize clear risk allocation in charter parties regarding war zones, piracy, and security measures.
• Case precedents show disputes often arise when security obligations are not explicitly covered. This clause reduces that gray area.

 

3️⃣ Practical Guidance

✅ For Owners:

• Ensure such clauses are included when trading from West Africa to the U.S.
• Confirm wording specifies Charterers’ account for all related costs.
• Keep detailed records of invoices to support reimbursement claims.

✅ For Charterers:

• Budget realistically for such voyages.
• Negotiate limits (e.g., maximum number of guards or capped cost).
• Verify with agents ahead of U.S. calls what requirements may arise.

✅ For Operators:

• Liaise early with U.S. agents to confirm if guards are mandated.
• Arrange security in advance to avoid last-minute costs/delays.
• Keep all communications transparent between Owners and Charterers.

💡 Risk Management Tip: Treat security clauses like insurance—better to have it allocated upfront than face costly surprises later.

 

4️⃣ Conclusion + Call-to-Action (CTA)

Shipping is as much about contracts as it is about cargoes. A few lines in a charter party can save (or cost) thousands of dollars. Security guard cost allocation is one such line—small in wording, huge in impact.

👉 What do you think? Have you faced disputes over security guard costs in your operations? Share your experiences below—I’d love to hear them.

🚢 Stay tuned with ShipOpsInsights with Dattaram for more practical wisdom on navigating charter party clauses with clarity and confidence.

👍 Like, 💬 Comment, 🔄 Share, and ✅ Follow for deeper shipping insights!