31/07/2012
Malcolm Tarbitt, Director of Security and Risk Advisory at the International Centre for Sport Security, attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in Sao Paulo recently, where he participated in a panel discussion on the protection of Fan Zones and public places used for major events.
Brazil is currently the host to the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics. Traditionally, the military police in Brazil perform the task of inner perimeter security at sport venues, and are finding it challenging to relinquish control of this vital function to private security companies. This is especially so in light of the security fiasco experienced by the 2012 London Olympics.
In answering a question on how safe it is to allow private security companies to perform the task of stewarding and inner perimeter security at sport events, Malcolm informed them that if certain simple basics are addressed there is no need for concern. These include the standard phases of the event and understanding what the requirements are for each one (Bidding- and Technical Inspection phases before being awarded the event, and then the Planning-, Implementation-, Testing-, Ex*****on-, Close-out- and Legacy Phases after being awarded the event), a compact yet complete Security Committee (including the Local Organising Committee and relevant government law enforcement-, intelligence- and military stakeholders) to jointly manage all security aspects of the event, as well as a quality tender and contracting (procurement) programme based upon sound security requirements, followed by continuous contracts-, project- and operations management throughout the respective phases. If this is done, it would be impossible to suddenly establish a year before the event that one’s private security force has to be increased by 100% or that one’s security service provider cannot deliver the required quantity and quality of security personnel only weeks before the event starts!
Although it is clear from media reports that the security service provider did not deliver according to contract, the Local Organising Committee and the Government (Home Office) should have project managed the contract which would have indicated well in advance whether the security service provider was meeting delivery milestones or not.
Another crucial aspect is the planning and ex*****on of a Testing Programme for an event. Unlike the FIFA World Cup which has an official test event a year in advance of the World Cup (the FIFA Confederations Cup), the Olympics do not. It is therefore imperative to plan well in advance to host one’s own test events in order to ensure that policies, procedures, training and operations are optimal for the main event. If the private security service provider was managed effectively, then the private security would have been a key aspect of the Testing Programme.
Malcolm then emphasised that the point he was making, is that Brazil should not be concerned about the poor delivery of private security companies for an event such as the 2012 London Olympics, as the Security Committee remains in control of all planning and ex*****on. Any failure of private security companies to deliver for an event can only be attributed to the Security Committee (bearing the basics in mind), and NOT to private security companies.
If one sticks to the basics, then common sense will become common practice. Unfortunately the 2012 London Olympics have not managed to do this, which has turned what should have been ‘spectacular security’ into a ‘security spectacle’. Sadly, this has made security the spectacle, instead of the sport.
