top of page
Technology Sector
Our Distribution Zones

Distribution Zones


World's Busiest Ports


In return for SAID's assistance in the development of the EIM business model and international marketing of the GDU, in 2019 SAID was awarded Global Distribution Rights to 2/3rd's of the world including; Australia, New Zealand (Oceania), South East Asia, India, Japan and 51 countries of Europe. Within the SAID global distribution network exists 10 of the world’s 20 busiest shipping ports including:


Singapore, Busan, Jebel Ali, Klang, Rotterdam, Kaohsiung, Antwerp, Hamburg, Tanjung and Keihin.


In September 2018, the GDU was officially launched by SAID to over 450 delegates including; International Institutional Investors and Import/Export Port authorities at the 'Who Will Own the Forests' #14 Conference & The 'World Ports Authority Projects Professionals Group' Conference, both held concurrently in Portland, Oregon, USA.


Active engagement and questions with delegates post the two presentations delivered an impressive wide-range of key stakeholder interests. Institutional Investors, Pension Funds among others, and in particular their respective Asset Managers - Timber Investment Management Organisation’s (TIMO’s) highlighted the commercial sensitivities of annual asset valuations wherein existing export markets provide an important alternative to domestic market pricing. Market competition (domestic and export) is a key factor in support of asset valuations underpinned by these important Timberland Supply Chains. TIMO’s were particularly interested in the GDU’s ability to secure existing ‘business as usual’ export markets against growing government restrictions on the continued use of Methyl bromide (eg. as experienced in 2019 with increased restrictions and/or absolute removal of Methyl bromide use without emission capture in North Carolina, USA and New Zealand). 


TIMO’s highlighted that adoption of existing emission capture technology (without destruction capability) and corresponding necessary disposal procedures for removal of impregnated toxic media post fumigation added significant economic instability to existing supply chains. For commercial Timberlands located at larger distances to port, risk to the commerciality of these Timberlands would result in these assets no longer being considered viable given the significant increased costs of alternative fumigation to the existing status quo. Pleasingly, the cost of GDU applications is a fraction of those alternatives, a cost easily absorbed throughout the supply-chain. 


The importance of reliable biosecurity in global export and import supply-chains demands continual ‘business as usual’ processes and procedures be retained where possible. Whilst a very few alternative biocidal treatments or technologies have indeed proved to be a suitable alternative to methyl bromide fumigation across a very narrow spectrum of activity or application, none have yet to match methyl bromide’s broad spectrum of application, control and efficacy.  The significantly higher costs of some alternatives, reliability of treatment and elevated risks profiles associated with their use still engenders a general distrust of their ‘suitability for purpose’ and value. 


Major trading countries such as India, China, USA, Singapore, Australia, the European Union (a country that has banned the use of methyl bromide, even for QPS use), and many others will not accept the importation of specific produce unless fumigation has occurred using the fail-safe, proven and cost-effective methyl bromide.


For those key stakeholders involved in global Port Logistics the ability to adopt the GDU ensures existing port layouts, protocols and purpose-built infrastructure remains unchanged. In some ports physical space commands are at a premium with logistical treatments of suspect containers having traditionally established that space to fit efficient and timely pest control procedures.  As evidenced in discussion with a French port authority spokesperson, the use of fumigation off-port reportedly added a logistical cost of over Euro 2,500 per container truck. Such imposts on the supply chain, support strong interest in retaining the use of traditionally accepted fumigation practices. 

Blank Print Document (3).png
bottom of page