EU gives $2m to fight piracy in the region
Eastern and southern Africa, and Indian Ocean region countries have initiated a new anti-piracy project with a startup grant of $2 million from the European Union, The East African reports.
The MASE (Maritime Security) project, which has been under development since May 2010, was signed last week by regional economic blocs including Comesa, EAC, Igad and the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in Mauritius.
This is a major development for countries affected by piracy, especially Kenya. In October, the IOC set up Anti-Paracy Unite in Seychelles.
The MASE project is meant to develop national and regional capacities at three levels. First, it will support legal and legislative capabilities to countries willing to prosecute pirates; second, it will assist the region address economic impact of piracy among them the impact of money laundering; and, thirdly, will enable exchange of information to promote maritime security.
The first regional ministerial conference on maritime piracy was held in Seychelles in May 2010. Since then, Mariani Alexandrio, the head of EU delegation in Mauritius, who is in charge of Indian Ocean Islands argues, the region has gone a long way.
So far, estimated ransom payments in 2011 amount to $138.5 million for the 29 vessels and 25 hostages released independently of their ships. This amount is higher than last year at this time. As a result, the Seychelles invited the Chinese to set up an anti piracy base in the Indian Ocean island.
At least 14 ships and an estimated 262 hostages are in the control of Somali pirates, as well as an unknown number of small dhows.
But the number of pirate attacks off the Somali coast has declined considerably in recent weeks due to strong winds and storms with pirates reporting that at least six of their groups and six of their boats were lost at sea.
Despite the increased arrests of pirates in the Indian Ocean, Kenya is still struggling to sharpen the new anti-piracy legislation. In November 2010, Kenyan High Court judge Mohamed Ibrahim caused a stir when he ordered the release of nine alleged Somali pirates.
Justice Ibrahim’s decision was based on the contradiction between Section 5 and Section 69(1) of the Kenyan Penal Code, under which all suspected pirates, had been charged prior the February 2009 passage of the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA).
Kenya’s complaint
The Kenya government complained that the seafarers operating in the Indian Ocean was using the country as a dumping ground, since even those countries that captured the pirates were not willing to try them in their countries despite having superior laws.
The government was forced to persuade parliament to pass the MSA in February 2009, as more pirates started streaming into the Kenyan courts. The law came into effect seven months later.
In April 2010, Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula announced that Kenya had discharged its international obligation while others shied away from doing so. He argued that Kenya could no longer bear the burden of the international responsibility.
To date, maritime experts argue that Kenyan cooperation is still depended more on the perceived financial assistance that can be gleaned from donors rather than the burden of international responsibility.
The MASE (Maritime Security) project, which has been under development since May 2010, was signed last week by regional economic blocs including Comesa, EAC, Igad and the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) in Mauritius.
This is a major development for countries affected by piracy, especially Kenya. In October, the IOC set up Anti-Paracy Unite in Seychelles.
The MASE project is meant to develop national and regional capacities at three levels. First, it will support legal and legislative capabilities to countries willing to prosecute pirates; second, it will assist the region address economic impact of piracy among them the impact of money laundering; and, thirdly, will enable exchange of information to promote maritime security.
The first regional ministerial conference on maritime piracy was held in Seychelles in May 2010. Since then, Mariani Alexandrio, the head of EU delegation in Mauritius, who is in charge of Indian Ocean Islands argues, the region has gone a long way.
So far, estimated ransom payments in 2011 amount to $138.5 million for the 29 vessels and 25 hostages released independently of their ships. This amount is higher than last year at this time. As a result, the Seychelles invited the Chinese to set up an anti piracy base in the Indian Ocean island.
At least 14 ships and an estimated 262 hostages are in the control of Somali pirates, as well as an unknown number of small dhows.
But the number of pirate attacks off the Somali coast has declined considerably in recent weeks due to strong winds and storms with pirates reporting that at least six of their groups and six of their boats were lost at sea.
Despite the increased arrests of pirates in the Indian Ocean, Kenya is still struggling to sharpen the new anti-piracy legislation. In November 2010, Kenyan High Court judge Mohamed Ibrahim caused a stir when he ordered the release of nine alleged Somali pirates.
Justice Ibrahim’s decision was based on the contradiction between Section 5 and Section 69(1) of the Kenyan Penal Code, under which all suspected pirates, had been charged prior the February 2009 passage of the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA).
Kenya’s complaint
The Kenya government complained that the seafarers operating in the Indian Ocean was using the country as a dumping ground, since even those countries that captured the pirates were not willing to try them in their countries despite having superior laws.
The government was forced to persuade parliament to pass the MSA in February 2009, as more pirates started streaming into the Kenyan courts. The law came into effect seven months later.
In April 2010, Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula announced that Kenya had discharged its international obligation while others shied away from doing so. He argued that Kenya could no longer bear the burden of the international responsibility.
To date, maritime experts argue that Kenyan cooperation is still depended more on the perceived financial assistance that can be gleaned from donors rather than the burden of international responsibility.
