There have been instances where underwriters have declared
certain areas to be 'war risk zones', for example the Malacca
Straits in June 2005. Not because of actual war but because of
piracy attacks. When such a declaration is made shipping
companies may decide to recoup any additional insurance premium
they may have to pay by charging 'war risk' as a separate,
additional freight cost to shippers. This is of interest to coffee
producers because, Inevitably in today's coffee economy, such costs
will be passed back to the producer in the form of lower
prices…
The particular decision referred to above was taken by the Joint
War Committee or JWC, part of the Lloyd's Insurance Market
Association, following a report on shipping security it had
commissioned because of piracy attacks. For more see www.the-lma.com. Strictly
speaking, 'war' of course means a dispute between nations,
conducted by military and/or naval attack. But this was not the
case in the Malacca Straits, nor along the Somali coast where
similar problems occurred.
In insurance The Institute War Clauses (Commodity
Trades) [1] speak of 'loss or damage to the
coffee caused by war, civil war, revolution, rebellion,
insurrection or resulting civil strife or any hostile act by or
against a belligerent power'. But 'war' does not equal
piracy… Yet, where such acts occur frequently, underwriters have to
consider this additional risk and do so by declaring the area in
question to be a 'war risk zone'. Individual insurance companies
then determine what level of additional premium to apply - this
calculation will depend on their assessment of the situation as
well as the reinsurance arrangements they have in place. [2]
Individual shipping companies, faced with demands for additional
premium on vessels sailing through or passing the declared danger
zone, basically have three options:
Within all three options a commercial decision then has to be
made on whether or not to charge 'war risk' as a separate,
additional freight cost to shippers or receivers. As is done with
bunker (fuel) surcharges for example - see 05.01.04. By quoting
freight and surcharge together the 'war risk' issue in question
automatically becomes part of the contract of carriage, the bill of
lading.
However, insuring cargo against 'war risk' is not
the responsibility of the shipping company: the conditions
of the contract of carriage firmly place the onus on the owners of
the goods. Thus, the additional premium mentioned here is
that payable for the insurance of the vessel. A
premium paid by the shipping company that may result in a surcharge
on the ocean freight it in turn charges to shippers.
Of course the owners (receivers) of the cargo most likely also
have to pay additional 'war risk' insurance to cover the goods they
ship… And if all these additional costs become substantial then it
is inevitable that prices will suffer: new costs or cost increases
that are introduced between 'production' and 'landing of the goods
abroad' in the end usually fall on producers in in the form of
lower prices.
Finally, the foregoing only provides a brief overview of what
usually takes place between declaring that 'war risk' exists, and
shippers or receivers being asked to pay a surcharge for this. The
legal definitions and interpretations of what constitutes 'war
risk' are extremely complicated and cannot be explained here, nor
can the level of surcharges individual companies might apply be
estimated.
1.
The insurance industry utilises a number of acknowledged
definitions of what covers certain types of risk - this is
one of them. War Clauses also deal with capture, seizure,
damage due to derelict mines etc. as well as general average or
salvage charges. Other Clauses relevant to the trade in coffee are
the Institute Commodity Trades Clauses (A), dealing with
loss/damage to goods, general average and salvage charges, and
liability under the 'both to blame collision' clause which
appears in some bills of lading; and the Institute Strikes
Clauses (Commodity Trades) dealing with loss/damage caused by
strikers, locked-out workers or people taking part in labour
disturbances, riots or civil commotions, and any terrorist or
person acting from a political motive in addition to general
average or salvage charges connected with the
foregoing.
2. The implementation of such a move, i.e. the levying of
higher insurance premiums for 'war risk', was previously arranged
jointly by the underwriters concerned who then advised the relevant
shipping conferences. Usually, this resulted in a standard,
across-the-board charge applicable to all shipping lines. Today
however this is no longer the case, mostly as a result of the
introduction of strict anti-cartel legislation that forbids 'joint
price setting' by underwriters and shipping companies alike. See
05.01.02 for an explanation of 'shipping conferences'.