BIFAlink
Policy & Compliance
www.bifa.org
TT Talk: Protecting your cargo from wet damage
As TT regularly articulates, around 65% of cargo damage incidents are attributable in part to the way that goods are packed within the CTU. The CTU Code, and the more recent ‘CTU Code – a quick guide’ and complementary container packing checklist published by the Cargo Integrity Group, provide invaluable guidance for actors in the supply chain to mitigate such risks. Pre-packing unit condition checks are a critical step in protecting the cargo during its journey. Checks for signs of pests, dust, debris, transferable stains and odours are vitally important. So too are checks for physical damage, holes, evidence of repairs and items such as rust or water trails that might indicate water ingress. What is the main cause? TT claims data for 2020 suggests that 25% of wet cargo damage was caused by water ingress to the CTU through pre-existing damage that probably should have been identified as part of the cargo packing process. Once cargo has entered the intermodal supply chain, TT claims data suggests that a Claims relating to wet damage to cargo are all too frequent. Many of these can be avoided entirely with a robust pre- loading condition checking procedure. While humidity and condensation are inevitable challenges through the supply chain, pre-existing cargo transport unit (CTU) damages should be an easy check
further 17% of wet damage claims stem from impact damage to the unit during transit. Of course, throughout the intermodal transit there are a number of touch points at road, rail and maritime terminals, where damage might occur. It is evident that road traffic accidents may also give rise to cargo being exposed to the elements. Where does the exposure occur? By mode, the TT data indicates that the greatest risk is posed by the maritime mode which accounted for 65% of reported claims. This in part is explained by the length of time that the cargo is in transit – extending the period of exposure – in addition to the different climatic zones through which the cargo is moved. Road transit was the next most prominent mode at 14%, where shorter journeys, fewer intermodal changes and operator-owned units likely
influence the better experience. Wet damage arising under air carriage contracts accounted for only 7% of reported claims in TT data for 2020, reflecting shorter transit periods and different handling parameters. Data suggest that the primary exposure, unsurprisingly, rests in the period between the airside warehouse and physical loading to, or unloading from, the aircraft. Perhaps surprisingly, incidents where cargo was wet damaged while in storage accounted for 13% of reported claims. Causation varied, but included damage occurring to or within the storage facility itself and, with increasing frequency, incidence of flooding. Burst piping or malfunction of a sprinkler system accounted for 42% of storage-related wet damage claims. However, 31% of these incidents followed sudden heavy rainfall that overcame drain provisions. This latter point highlights the
Once cargo has entered the intermodal supply chain, TT claims data suggest that a further 17% of wet damage claims stem from impact damage to the unit during transit.
14
January 2022
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker