THE MAGAZINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL … · 2015 as the principal cut-off date for all single-hull tankers, the flag State administration may allow for some newer single-hull ships

FANTASY CRUISES – BUT IMO INSISTSSAFETY IS A REALITY

ACCELERATED SINGLE-HULL TANKERPHASE-OUT AGREED

BUNKERS CONVENTION PLUGSCOMPENSATION REGIME GAP

ISM CODE APPROACHES FORREMAINING SHIPS

I S S U E 2 . 2 0 0 1

IM NEWST H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

www.imo.org. No.2 2001 IMO NEWS 3

IMO News • Issue 2 2001

Contents

The International MaritimeOrganization (IMO)4, Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SRUKTel +44 (0)20 7735 7611Fax +44 (0)20 7587 3210Email (general enquiries)[email protected] Website www.imo.org

Managing EditorLee Adamson([email protected])

Assistant EditorNatasha Brown([email protected])

Editorial productionAubrey Botsford, Brian Starkey

AdvertisingHanna Moreton([email protected], tel +44 (0)20 7735 7611)

DistributionLesley Brooks([email protected]), Christine Gregory

IMO News is the magazine ofthe International MaritimeOrganization and isdistributed free of charge toqualified readers. Theopinions expressed are notnecessarily those of IMO andthe inclusion of anadvertisement implies noendorsement of any kind byIMO of the product or serviceadvertised. The contents maybe reproduced free of chargeon condition thatacknowledgement is given toIMO News.

Please allow at least tenweeks from receipt at IMO foradditions to, deletions from orchanges in the mailing list.

Copyright © IMO 2001Pub 474/01

Opinion

4 The agreed accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers is a triumph for safer shipping, cleaner oceans and the proper legislative process, says IMO Secretary-General William A. O’Neil

I Intelligence

5 IMO agrees single-hull tanker phase-out

6 New measures for seafarers’ welfare agreed

7 Bunker convention plugs compensation gap

8 ISM Code – next deadline approaches

9 New member joins IMO

9 Flag States urged to complete self-assessment form

Features

10-12 When size really does matterCruise ships are getting larger as the industry giants vie for prestige and passengers. IMO News reports on measures to ensure that the safety regime keeps pace

From the meetings

14-16 Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) 6th session

16-18 Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) 44th session

18-20 Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI) 9th session

21-24 Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 46th session

IMO at work

25 Seafarers’ memorial forges ahead; maritime code for CEMAC States; IMO organizes East Asia oil spill response courses; SAR training for Black Sea

26 IMO projects win SIDS success; Second CASIT course launched; IMLI graduation ceremony

27 Ballast water symposium confirms more research needed; Colour it clean

28 IMO unveils new web site; Asia-Pacific meeting focuses on quality shipping; Once-in-a-lifetime experience for Secretary-General

29 Barbados hosts first quality workshop; Governments seek IMO help in piracy fight

30 Secretary-General in Africa talks; Obituary: Dr Giuliano Pattofatto

The futuristic centralarcade aboard Voyager of

the Seas, the world’slargest cruise ship. IMO’sexamination of the safety

issues surrounding thenew generation of largepassenger ships is now

taking shape, as a featureon page 10 reveals

Opinion

4 IMO NEWS No.2 2001 www.imo.org.

Public awareness of the marine environment and the damage caused by oil carried bytankers has never been so acute as it is today. In the months after the sinking of the Erika,

the entire membership of IMO and the world maritime community was repeatedly troubled bya series of maritime accidents involving tankers, including the Ievoli Sun, the Castor, theKristal, and the collision of the Baltic Carrier with the Tern which spilt thousands of tons ofheavy fuel oil into the Baltic Sea.

While statistics may show that accident rates and the number of both total losses and oilspills have been declining over the years, public perception is to the contrary. Generallyspeaking, the safety measures established under the SOLAS Convention and the operationalpractices under the MARPOL Convention are having a positive effect. But the catastrophicdamage resulting from an oil spill accident, whatever the cause, continues to be a focus for theconcern of the general public and politicians.

The investigations into the Erika incident carried out by the French government and theMaltese maritime authority concluded that age, corrosion, insufficient maintenance andinadequate surveys were all strong contributing factors to the structural failure of the ship.There was a wide consensus that the Erika and other recent accidents involving oil tankerspointed to a need for additional international measures to eradicate substandard vessels,particularly substandard oil tankers, given the catastrophic impact such ships may have on themarine environment in the case of an accident.

With the decision taken by the MEPC to modify regulation 13G of MARPOL, IMO hasresponded to that need by adopting a new, accelerated phase-out schedule for single-hulltankers. It is a global response to a global problem and will apply to all tankers, regardless ofwhere they trade or where they originate.

The serious accidents that have taken place since the Erika disaster and the wide coverageof those accidents in both the maritime and non-maritime media confirm that the shippingindustry has a long way to go to be convincing in its claim that an improvement in safety and areduction in pollution have been achieved. Therefore IMO must face the problems in thecurrent system of surveys and maintenance. The quality of ageing tanker fleets, surveys andrepair works, the role of classification societies and the responsibilities of flag Stateadministrations continue to be matters of great concern to IMO.

To deal with the fallout from the Erika we worked out a schedule, following consultationswith the Chairmen of the MEPC and MSC, which advanced the date of the 46th session of theMEPC so that the amendments adopted can be put into force in September next year, which isthe earliest possible time permitted under the IMO Convention.

The MEPC was charged with the difficult task of striking the right balance between thevarious technical, environmental, commercial and political considerations involved and comingto an agreement on the amendments to MARPOL. In tackling this with its usual spirit of co-operation, it succeeded in reaching a compromise solution by consensus. The final productadvances the cause of safety and the protection of the marine environment. Not only that, it re-affirms IMO’s unique ability to act as a forum in which all the interested parties can contributeto the debate and influence the outcome.

Advancing the cause of safety


In a landmark decision for the cause of safershipping and cleaner oceans, the

International Maritime Organization (IMO)has approved a new global timetable foraccelerating the phase-out of single-hull oiltankers.

At the end of a week-long meeting of theOrganization’s Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee (MEPC 46, see page21) at IMO headquarters in London,delegates from IMO’s 158 Member Statesagreed to a timetable that will see mostsingle-hull oil tankers eliminated by 2015 orearlier. Double-hull tankers offer greaterprotection of the environment from pollutionin certain types of accident. All new oiltankers built since 1996 are required to havedouble hulls.

The new phase-out timetable, which will beenshrined in a revised regulation 13G of theMARPOL Convention, is one of a range ofpost-Erika measures tabled by IMO. The dateof the meeting had been re-scheduled toensure that the new regulation will enter intoforce at the earliest possible time permittedunder the MARPOL Convention, inSeptember 2002.

Although the new phase-out timetable sets2015 as the principal cut-off date for all single-hull tankers, the flag State administrationmay allow for some newer single-hull shipsregistered in its country that conform tocertain technical specifications to continuetrading until the 25th anniversary of theirdelivery.

However, any Port State can deny entry ofany single-hull tankers whose life has beenextended in that way to its ports or offshoreterminals. Port States must communicatetheir intention to do this to IMO. Already theEuropean Union Member States, togetherwith Cyprus and Malta, have indicated thatthey would do this.

As an additional precautionary measure, aCondition Assessment Scheme (CAS) willhave to be applied to all Category 1 vesselscontinuing to trade after 2005 and allCategory 2 vessels after 2010. A resolutionadopting the CAS was passed at the meeting.

Although the CAS does not specifystructural standards in excess of theprovisions of other IMO conventions, codes

and recommendations, its requirementsstipulate more stringent and transparentverification of the reported structuralcondition of the ship and that documentaryand survey procedures have been properlycarried out and completed.

The requirements of the CAS includeenhanced and transparent verification of thereported structural condition of the ship andverification that the documentary and surveyprocedures have been properly carried outand completed. The Scheme requires thatcompliance with the CAS is assessed duringthe Enhanced Survey Programme of

Inspections concurrent with intermediate orrenewal surveys currently required byresolution A.744(18), as amended.

The existing MARPOL regulation 13G,adopted in 1992, already legislated for thephasing-out of single-hull tankers but over amore protracted period which would haveallowed some ships to continue trading untiltheir 30th anniversary. IMO’s success inagreeing the accelerated timetable has drawnpraise from the wider shipping industry. RolfWestfal-Larsen, the Chairman of theInternational Chamber of Shipping, said, “Weapplaud IMO for having reached a

satisfactory outcomeon the phasing-outof single-hulltankers. The IMO'sability to act swiftlyin the interest of itsmembers has beenconfirmed and itsrole as theindustry's standard-setting body hasbeen firmlyunderlined.”

Accelerated phase-out forsingle-hull tankers New global timetable agreed atIMO environmental meeting

Intelligence

Guide to the tanker categories

The revised regulation 13G identifies three categories of tankers.

“Category 1 oil tanker” means oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil,heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils,which do not comply with the requirements for protectively located segregated ballast tanks (commonlyknown as Pre-MARPOL tankers).

“Category 2 oil tanker” means oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil,heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils,which do comply with the protectively located segregated ballast tank requirements (MARPOL tankers).

“Category 3 oil tanker” means an oil tanker of 5,000 tons deadweight and above but less than the tonnagespecified for Category 1 and 2 tankers.

Other post-Erika measures

The MARPOL amendments follow amendments adopted by IMO in October 2000 to raise by 50 percent thelimits of compensation payable to victims of pollution by oil from oil tankers under the InternationalConvention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC Convention) and the International Conventionon the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (IOPC Fund).

In addition, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in December 2000 adopted amendments to theguidelines on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers(resolution A.744(18)) with relation to the evaluation of the longitudinal strength of the hull girder of oiltankers. Furthermore, IMO has taken action on several other operational matters and its Committees andSub-Committees are incorporating work programme items relating to a list of measures aimed at enhancingsafety and minimizing the risk of oil pollution, drawn up in response to the Erika incident.

The MEPC has agreed to bring forward the date bywhich all tankers should be of double-hullconstruction

The accelerated phase-out timetable is aimed at ensuring tanker tonnage is modern and safe


In a move aimed at improving the workingconditions and ensuring the basic human

rights of seafarers, States are to be formallyurged to require shipowners to provideadequate financial security to cover claimsfrom seafarers in cases of abandonment,personal injury and death. Two new draftresolutions and associated Guidelines werefinalised by a joint International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) and International LabourOrganization (ILO) Working Group on Friday4 May, marking the successful completion ofan initiative that began following submissionsto the IMO Legal Committee and the ILOGoverning Body during 1998 and 1999.

The resolutions and Guidelines addressthe fact that, although there are internationalinstruments covering certain aspects of theproblems relating to abandonment, death andpersonal injury of seafarers, some are notwidely implemented and none deals withthese problems comprehensively.

As a result, seafarers who have beenabandoned in foreign ports often suffersevere hardships, including lack of food,medical care, and other necessities of life, aswell as delays in their repatriation, while the

claims for compensation of seafarers or theirfamilies in respect of injury or death aresometimes subject to delay. There is also aperception that, in some cases, there hasbeen pressure to reduce the amount of claimsin return for an expedited settlement.

The draft resolution on provision offinancial security in case of abandonment ofseafarers states that abandonment ofseafarers is a serious problem involving ahuman and social dimension and recognizesthat, given the global nature of the shippingindustry, seafarers need special protection.

The concern is that, if shipowners do nothave adequate financial security, seafarersmay not receive due remuneration or bepromptly repatriated in cases ofabandonment. The draft resolution affirmsthat provision for repatriation, maintenancewhile abandoned and payment ofremuneration should form part of theseafarer's contractual and/or statutory rightsand are not affected by the failure or inabilityof the shipowner to perform its obligations.

It also recognizes that, in cases where theshipowner fails to perform, flag States and, in

some cases, the State of nationality of theseafarer or the port State may be called uponto intervene.

The draft Guidelines say that shipownersshould provide a financial security systemthat provides for the expenses of therepatriation to be met without cost to theseafarer, and for the maintenance of theseafarer from the time of abandonment to thetime of arrival at the place of repatriation.The payment of all outstanding remunerationand contractual entitlements should becovered, as well as the payment of otherexpenses incurred by the seafarer during theperiod of abandonment arising from theabandonment.

They add that, should the shipowner fail tofulfil its responsibilities, the financial securitysystem should provide for repatriation of theseafarer by appropriate and expeditiousmeans, normally by air, and includingprovision for food and accommodation of theseafarer from leaving the ship until arrival atthe place of repatriation, medical care,passage and transport of personal effects andany other reasonable charges.

The financial securitysystem may take the form of asocial security scheme,insurance, a national fund, orother forms of financialsecurity. It should provide aright of direct access by theseafarer to the financialsecurity, and apply regardlessof the nationality of theseafarer.

The Guidelines also statethat shipowners should ensurethat their seagoing shipsengaged on internationalvoyages have on board acertificate attesting to theexistence of a financial securitysystem in the event ofabandonment of seafarers,which should be posted in aprominent position in theseafarers’ accommodation.Shipowners should also displayon board contact details of thepersons or entity responsible

IMO/ILO Working Group agrees newseafarers’ welfare measures

Intelligence

The draft IMO/ILO resolutions and Guidelines enshrine the shipowner’s responsibility to provide seagoing staff with a decent workingenvironment and define some basic rights to financial compensation for seafarers or their relatives in cases of abandonment, injury or death.


IMO adopts convention onliability and compensation forpollution from ships' bunkers

Intelligence

for handling claims covered by theGuidelines.

The draft resolution on claims for personalinjury to or death of seafarers notes a need torecommend minimum internationalstandards for the responsibilities ofshipowners in respect of contractual claims insuch cases. The draft resolution expressesthe concern that, if shipowners do not haveeffective insurance cover or other form offinancial security, seafarers are unlikely toobtain full and prompt compensation. It statesthat putting in place effective arrangementsfor the payment of compensation is part ofthe shipowners’ responsibilities to providesafe and decent working conditions.

The draft Guidelines give definitions forcontractual claims, effective insurance and soon, and set out shipowners' responsibilities toarrange for effective insurance cover with theaim of ensuring that seafarers receive promptand full payment of their claims. They alsorecommend ships should carry a certificateissued by the insurer attesting to coveragefor personal injury and death.

The Guidelines include a model receiptand release form which would be signed bythe seafarer or heir or dependent and whichwould acknowledge receipt of a sum insatisfaction of the employer's obligation topay contractual compensation for personalinjury and/or death. But, importantly, theform would state that payment is to be madewithout admission of liability on the part ofthe shipowner and without prejudice to theseafarer’s right to pursue any claim at law inrespect of negligence, tort or any other legalredress available and arising out of theincident.

The resolutions and their associatedGuidelines will now be presented to the IMOLegal Committee in October this year forapproval and to the 22nd IMO Assembly inNovember for adoption. They will also bepresented to the ILO Governing Body inNovember 2001 for adoption by that body.Once adopted, they will come into force on 1January 2002.

The last significant gap in theinternational regime for compensating

victims of oil spills from ships is set to beclosed with the adoption by IMO of a newconvention on liability and compensation forpollution from ships' bunkers. A diplomaticconference held from 19 to 23 March 2001 atIMO headquarters in London reachedagreement on the details of the convention,which will enter into force one year after theappropriate criteria have been met.

The International Convention on CivilLiability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage,2001, will apply to ships over 1,000 grosstonnage. It will enter into force one year afterthe date on which 18 States, including fiveStates with ships whose combined grosstonnage is not less than 1 million grosstonnage, have either signed it withoutreservation as to ratification, acceptance orapproval or have deposited instruments ofratification, acceptance, approval oraccession with the IMO Secretary-General.

The bunkers convention provides a free-standing instrument covering pollution damageand is modelled on the InternationalConvention on Civil Liability for Oil PollutionDamage, 1969 (CLC). A key requirement ofboth is the need for the registered owner of avessel to maintain compulsory insurance cover.Another key provision in the bunkersconvention is the requirement for direct action,which would allow a claim for compensationfor pollution damage to be brought directlyagainst an insurer. The convention covers onlypollution damage in the territory, territorial seaand exclusive economic zone of a State Party.

The Conference also adopted threeresolutions associated with the convention. A resolution on limitation of liability urges allStates that have not yet done so to ratify oraccede to the Protocol of 1996 to amend theConvention on Limitation of Liability forMaritime Claims, 1976, which raises thelimits of liability and therefore the amountsof compensation payable in the event of anincident, compared to the 1976 Convention.The Protocol will enter into force 90 daysafter being accepted by 10 States, and hasreceived four acceptances to date.

A resolution on the promotion of technicalco-operation urges all IMO Member States topromote and provide support to States thatrequest technical assistance in assessing theimplications of ratifying and complying withthe Convention, developing nationallegislation to give effect to the Convention,and introducing measures for trainingpersonnel charged with the effectiveimplementation and enforcement of theConvention.

The third resolution, on protection forpersons taking measures to prevent orminimize the effects of oil pollution, urgesStates, when implementing the Convention,to consider the need to introduce legalprovision for protection for persons takingmeasures to prevent or minimize the effectsof bunker oil pollution. It recommends thatpersons taking reasonable measures toprevent or minimize the effects of oilpollution be exempt from liability unless theliability in question resulted from theirpersonal act or omission or recklessness.

Commenting on the successful outcome ofthe conference, IMO Secretary-General Mr.William A. O’Neil said, “With the adoption ofthis Convention the Organization has nowput in place all the elements of a liability andcompensation regime for damage caused bythe sea carriage of oils and other hazardousand noxious substances. This is a majorcontribution towards the protection of theenvironment, which will benefit coastalStates and all other victims of pollutioncaused by bunker oil spills.”

Mr O’Neil went on to stress theimportance of swift ratification andimplementation of the Convention. He said,“The work of IMO and its Membership on

A containership bunkering in Singapore; it has beenestimated that the average amount of bunkers carriedin non-tankers averages around 14 million tonnes atany given time. The new bunker convention plugs animportant gap in the oil spill compensation regime


this subject will not stop with the signing ofthe Final Act of the Conference. Our effortsshould turn immediately to the task ofbringing the Convention into force at theearliest possible date, and to arranging for itsimplementation.”

The need for a bunkers convention washighlighted in 1996 in a submission to the75th session of the Legal Committee whichreferred to the UK P&I Club’s Analysis ofMajor Claims 1993, which had stated that“...half of the total number of pollution claimsarose from incidents involving ships notcarrying oil cargo.”

It has been estimated that, on average, theamount of bunkers carried in non-tankers isaround 14 million tonnes at any given time –compared with approximately 130 milliontonnes of oil carried as cargo on the world’sseas. Some bulk carriers and containershipscarry more oil as bunkers than coastaltankers carry as cargo.

Furthermore, Oil Spill Intelligence Reportdata confirmed that, even for larger spills,the number of non-tanker vessel spills wassignificantly greater than the number oftanker spills. Dealing with bunker spills fromnon-tankers was made more difficult by thelack of a liability and compensation regime,while the nature of fuel oil itself made spillsof such oils more difficult – and more costly– to clean up.

Intelligence

Liability and CompensationConventions adopted by IMO

International Convention on Civil Liability for OilPollution Damage (CLC), 1969

International Convention on the Establishment ofan International Fund for Compensation for OilPollution Damage (FUND), 1971

Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Fieldof Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material(NUCLEAR), 1971

Athens Convention relating to the Carriage ofPassengers and their Luggage by Sea (PAL), 1974

Convention on Limitation of Liability for MaritimeClaims (LLMC), 1976

International Convention on Liability andCompensation for Damage in Connection with theCarriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substancesby Sea (HNS), 1996

International Convention on Civil Liability forBunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.

With the implementation date for thenext tranche of ships little more than

a year away, IMO Secretary-General WilliamO’Neil has renewed calls for effective andconscientious implementation of theInternational Safety Management (ISM)Code. At the same time, Mr O’Neilannounced his intention to instigate anassessment of the impact of the Code since itbecame mandatory for passenger ships, oiland chemical tankers, gas carriers, and bulkcarriers on 1 July 1998. The Code is due to

become mandatory for all other cargo shipsof 500 gross tons and above on 1 July 2002.

Stressing that the shipping industryshould spare no effort in making the ISMCode work, Mr O’Neil told delegates to the9th session of the Sub-Committee on FlagState Implementation in February, “Weshould not allow it to become merely a paperexercise.”

The ISM Code was adopted in the early1990s to provide a blueprint for the way

ISM Code must notbecome “paper exercise”warns Secretary-General

Chemical tankers (above) have been subject to the ISM Code since 1998 but the regime is about to be extended toall other cargo ships of 500 gross tons and above, including containerships (below), on 1 July 2002.

IMOSecretary-General Mr. WilliamA. O’Neil has urged

governments to complete the Organization’sFlag State Performance Self-AssessmentForm, describing the response so far asunsatisfactory. “So far, we have received 32completed self-assessment forms, which, twoyears after the forms were first circulated byan MSC circular, we cannot consider asatisfactory rate of response. I therefore, once again, request those

governments which have not yet done so tocomplete the form in time for your nextsession,” he said in his opening speech to the9th session of the Sub-Committee on FlagState Implementation.

The Flag State Performance Self-Assessment Form is intended to be used byflag States voluntarily to obtain a clearpicture of how well their maritimeadministrations are functioning and to maketheir own assessment of their performanceas flag States.

IMO Assembly resolution A.881(21) invitesMember Governments to submit a copy oftheir self-assessment so that a database,which would assist IMO in its efforts toachieve consistent and effectiveimplementation of IMO instruments, couldbe established.

shipping companies manage and operatetheir fleets and to promote the developmentof a widespread safety culture andenvironmental conscience in shipping. Bydefining the company’s responsibility forsafety and ensuring that senior managementcould more easily be held accountable, theCode seeks to ensure that safety should begiven top priority. Mr O’Neil told delegates tothe Sub-Committee, “IMO, its MemberGovernments and the world maritimecommunity at large have placed greatexpectations in the anticipated contribution ofthe Code to enhanced safety andenvironmental protection.”

Mr O’Neil welcomed the analysis reportedby the Swedish P&I Club which has shownthat ships complying with the ISM Code havemade significant claim improvements incomparison with non-ISM Code ships. He saidhe believed such a demonstration of thebenefits to be gained by those who haveintroduced the systems of the Code shouldalso give encouragement to those who have toimplement the same systems between now and1 July 2002. Mr O’Neil urged governmentsand industry to ensure that the benefits to begained from effective implementation of theISM code are realized in the second and finaltranche of ships as well.


Intelligence

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia hasbecome a member of the International

Maritime Organization (IMO), following itsdeposit, on 11 December 2000, of aninstrument of acceptance of the Convention onthe International Maritime Organization, asamended, with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

The country’s membership of IMO followsthe adoption of resolution 55/12 by the UnitedNations General Assembly under which theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted tomembership of the United Nations.

With the accession of the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia, the number of IMO MemberStates remains at 158.

Federal Republic of Yugoslaviajoins IMO

Self-assessment forms – Secretary-General urges Governments to respond


Royal Caribbean’s flagship Voyager of the Seas isno ordinary ship. At 142,000 gross tons, she

currently holds the title of the world’s largest cruiseship. Imagine the Eiffel Tower in Paris tipped on itsside, and you have some idea of her length. With acapacity of around 1800 crew and over 3100passengers, she can carry the population of a smalltown. She boasts the highest “space-per-guest” ratioin the cruise market today and fully embraces thenew concept of “the ship is the destination” withsuch innovative recreational features as an ice rink,a street fair and even an artificial rock-face forbudding mountaineers.

Ships such as this have broken the boundaries ofconvention in terms of their concept, their designand their sheer size. So many things distinguishcruise ships from other ship types but a key factorin their very conception is that they create theirown market. Whereas containerships, for instance,are built in response to their owners’ perceptions ofthe market’s requirement, cruise ship ownerscreate a concept and then set out to sell it.

Safety, of course, is a vital concern for passengership designers and operators. These vessels havethe highest of profiles and their success could beundermined entirely if the public were to loseconfidence in them. Although it cannot be deniedthat a number of incidents in recent years have

indicated the vulnerability of these ships, it is alsotrue that, overall, their safety record is good. Byand large, they avoid the worst excesses of theweather. Passengers demand that they should do soand a typical power installation capable of providing25 knots enables them to outrun a hurricane. Butwhile the modern cruise giants have the power andspeed to dodge the weather, they are particularlyvulnerable to fire. Every passenger is a potentialignition source and the hotel services clearly havean inherent risk.

Prompted by a concern that the trend towardever larger vessels could lead to new giants of thecruise world which might pose safety-relatedquestions unforeseen by existing regulations, IMOSecretary-General William O’Neil took a personalinitiative to raise the issue during the 72nd meetingof the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in May2000. As a result, the MSC agreed to undertake aglobal consideration of the safety issues pertainingto these ships and a working group on largepassenger-ship safety began work at the nextsession of the Committee in November–December2000, to review the current safety regime as itrelates to large passenger ships.

Others have joined Mr O’Neil in his efforts toplace a coherent emphasis on the safety of largepassenger vessels. Michael Crye, president of the

International Council of CruiseLines (ICCL), an industry bodywith consultative status at IMO,said “Safety is our mostimportant priority.” He added,“Sixty million people have safelysailed on cruise ships over thelast two decades.” And RearAdmiral Robert North, AssistantCommandant of Marine Safetyfor the United States CoastGuard, has said “Passengercruise ship safety is the numberone priority of the Coast Guardand we are committed toworking to ensure continuouspassenger safety improvement.”

In March this year, the CruiseIndustry Coalition (CIC), a jointinitiative of the ICCL and theCruise Lines InternationalAssociation (CLIA), announcedthe results of a passenger safetystudy which they commissionedin response to Mr O’Neil’s

Larger ships, new safety challengesCruise ships are getting larger as the industry giants vie for prestige and passengers. IMO News reports on measures to ensure that the safety regime keeps pace

Features • Safety of Large Passenger Vessels

Voyager of the Seas – the world’s largestpassenger ship, but for how long?


initiative. Among other things, the studyhighlighted the difficulty in safely evacuating somepassengers, such as the elderly and injured, fromlifeboats to rescue vessels. It is clear that thedifficulties would not end even with successfulevacuation. Thousands of people, unfamiliar withships and the sea, crowded into lifeboats andliferafts, would present aunique search-and-rescuechallenge.

What has now emergedfrom IMO is a plan for a bodyof work that will constitute oneof the largest everinvestigations into the safety-related aspects a particularship type ever carried out. Theguiding philosophy of thework hinges on the followingfive elements.

• the regulatory frameworkshould place more emphasis on the prevention ofa casualty from occurring in the first place.

• future large passenger ships should be designedfor improved survivability so that, in the event ofa casualty, persons can stay safely on board asthe ship proceeds to port.

• the regulatory framework should permitalternative designs and arrangements in lieu ofthe prescriptive regulations, provided that at leastan equivalent level of safety is achieved.

• large passenger ships should be crewed,equipped and have arrangements to ensure the

safety of persons on board for survival in the areaof operation, taking into account climaticconditions and the availability of SAR functions.

• large passenger ships should be crewed andequipped to ensure the health, safety, medicalcare and security of persons on board until morespecialized assistance is available.

These five elementshave spawned a host ofspecific tasks andobjectives, which aresummarized in the table(right). The work willbe spread among sevenIMO bodies and willbuild into athoroughgoing reviewof the existing safetyregime as it applies tothese ships.

The unique circumstances of the cruise industryencourage ship designers to seek the key sellingpoints that will make their creation somebody’sdream holiday destination. Passengers’ demands forcomfort, space and sheer prestige, coupled witheconomies of scale, mean that the quest for size islikely to continue. IMO’s work is aimed at ensuringthat, while this buoyant sector of the shippingindustry continues to expand and push at theboundaries of convention, the key issues of safedesign and operation can keep pace.

How IMO isaddressing the safetyof large passengerships

Sub-Committee on Stability, LoadLines and Fishing Vessel Safety(SLF)Objective: To improve shipsurvivability in the event ofgrounding, collision or flooding witha view to minimizing the need toabandon the ship. Tasks and considerations include:Subdivision criteria; damage stabilitycriteria; measures to limit the spreadof flooding through watertightbulkhead penetrations and doors;characterize the designedsurvivability of the ship to be able tolink the design of the ship to theavailability of SAR functions and thearea of operation; how thesurvivability can be improved andthe implication this would have forthe design of large passenger shipsof increasing size; ranking damageissues; reliability of equipment,structural integrity of the ship afterdamage.

Sub-Committee on Ship Designand Equipment (DE)Objective: To review requirementsfor life-saving appliances andarrangements with a view toimproving evacuation and recoverymeasures.Tasks and considerations include:Number, capacity, design andeffectiveness of survival craft;launching systems; arrangementsfor boarding and launching ofsurvival craft; safety of crew duringdrills and equipment testing;demographics of persons on board(children, elderly, etc.); IMO andindustry standards for PFDs;reliability of equipment.

Objective: To consider measures toensure ships can safely proceed toport after a fire or flooding casualty. Tasks and considerations include:Segregated machinery spaceconcept and vital system redundancyissues; measures to ensure ship cansafely proceed to port under its ownpower after fire or flooding in any

Safety of Large Passenger Vessels • Features

With features like an ice rink (left)and a rock climbing wall (below)the Voyager pushes theboundaries of established cruiseconventions

Passengers take a turn around the deck – on in-line skates

one compartment or zone; emergencytowing arrangements; damage controlsystems; secondary command and controlissues and communications capabilities;emergency power requirements.

DE and SLF jointlyObjective: To develop measures to assessalternative designs and arrangements sothat new concepts and technologies may bepermitted in lieu of the prescriptiveregulation, provided that an equivalent levelof safety is achieved. Tasks and considerations include: How tofacilitate new concepts such as the use ofnew survival modules in lieu of traditionalsurvival craft; measures to providefunctional requirements for the approval ofalternative designs and arrangements.

Sub-Committee on Fire Protection (FP)Objective: To consider fire protection andprevention measures with a view toimproving ship survivability. Tasks and considerations include: Mainvertical and horizontal zone requirements;fire boundary penetration requirements;means to keep smoke and fire fromspreading beyond the space of origin;specifically addressing emergency responseby crew; shipboard safety systems andboundaries; means to link fire preventionand protection measures to the fire risk oflaundry areas, carpenter shops, solventcleaning rooms and other specific spacesnot generally covered by the existinggeneral categorization and regulations; the“safe haven” concept and development offunctional requirements; rapid mitigationstrategies such as fast initial responsemeasures, automation of fire dampers,integrated systems technologies, etc.;measures to prevent fire casualties; fire andsmoke protection for medical facilities;review of smoke and toxicity criteria withregard to new materials which may beused; equipment reliability issues.

Objective: To consider escape, muster andevacuation issues with a view to ensuringthe safe and orderly movement of personsduring an emergency. Tasks and considerations include: Methodsto link evacuation time to vessel’s survivaltime, including use of evacuation analysisearly in the design process andsimplification of escape routearrangements; crowd management issues;passenger and crew notification issues;

passenger demographics; properlyaccounting for persons during anemergency; familiarization ofpassengers with the ship; thenumber and location of extralifejackets; measures to improveevacuation while alongside in port;measures for child safety; familyseparation and persons with specialneeds.

Sub-Committee onRadiocommunications andSearch and Rescue (COMSAR) Objective: To evaluate recovery andrescue techniques and equipmentand propose measures asappropriate. Tasks and considerations include:Measures and techniques to transferpersons from survival craft and recoveringpersons from the water to other ships,which may include the use of rescue boats,scramble nets, means of rescue, pilotboarding ladders and helicopters;compatibility of ships of all types for use aspossible SAR facilities; evaluation oftechniques, fittings and equipment torecover survival craft; reliability ofequipment; new concepts as well asadequacy of current requirements.

Sub-Committee on Standards ofTraining and Watchkeeping (STW)Objective: To review human element issueswith regard to operations, management andtraining with a view towards improvingsafety.Tasks and considerations include:Communication and language issues,including crew to crew, crew to passengersand ship to SAR facilities, taking intoaccount signage and that the use ofmultiple languages is typical for largepassenger ships; training issues, includingadditional fire-fighting training for seniorofficers, frequency of drills and STCWrequirements; crew fatigue issues.

Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation(NAV)Objective: To consider measures to improveprevention of groundings and collisions. Tasks and considerations include:Awareness of water depth and squat issues;review availability of international aids tonavigation for vessels operating in remoteareas; review pilot and bridge teaminterface management issues; review

bridge team resource managementmeasures; quality and availability ofhydrographic information for operation inremote areas; voyage planning issues;reliability of equipment issues; need forrequiring modern navigation equipment toavoid collisions and groundings.

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)Objective: To review medical managementpractices, including facilities, equipment,personnel qualifications and staffing levels.Tasks and considerations include:Pharmaceuticals carried on board; training,certification and manning issues;telecommunications equipment; secondarymedical facilities in the event of loss of theprimary facilities in the event of a casualty.

Objective: To evaluate measures related toship security. Tasks and considerations include: IMOguidelines with a view to harmonizingvarious national standards; clarification ofvague words and phrases in existingsecurity guidelines to ensure consistency ofenforcement.

Objective: To review measures related tohealth safety on board.Tasks and considerations include: Freshwater supply and safety issues; food safetyissues; diseases in relation to swimmingpools and jacuzzis; structural requirementsfor food preparation areas with sanitationrequirements, as well as constructionguidelines; equipment reliability issues;ventilation issues.


Features • Safety of Large Passenger Vessels

Voyage Dunes – another futuristic leisurearea aboard Voyager of the Seas


BooksCharts

Codes of Practice

PilotsCD-ROMS

VideosSI s

Model Courses

Flash CardsInstruments

Trade, Library & Mail Order

Sales Worldwide

We stock Adlard Coles, Brown, Son & Ferguson, Butterworth-Heinneman, Hydrographic, DETR, IMO, Informa, LLP, MCA, Nautical Institute, Newnes, OCIMF,

Oilfield Publications, Stationery Office, Thomas Reed, Witherby, and more

Admiralty Chart Agents

Cargo HandlingDivingCoastal

EngineeringElectronics

Marine EngineeringInsurance

Law of ShippingMedical and First

AidMerchant Shipping

MeteorologyNaval ArchitectureNavigation/Rules

of the RoadOffshore Oil & GasSafety, Rescue &

SurvivalShip Operations and Management

TankersYacht Design

Do you need a book quickly?

We hold stocks of many of the key nautical and technical publications and can obtain many more at short notice. We now have more than 7000 nautical titles listed on our website which can be searched by author, title or publisher and

ordered on line using our secure server.

24/48 hour delivery service available in UK for in-stock titles. Most other titles can be obtained within 7-10 days.


From the meetings • Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases

• 6th session:

• 5–9 February 2001

Work on revising the current Annex I(Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution

by Oil) of MARPOL should be completed by 2003,the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gasesagreed at its 6th session. The move follows thedecision of the Marine Environment ProtectionCommittee (MEPC) that the revised Annex Ishould be developed to incorporate all existing andnew requirements and replace entirely the currentAnnex I.

The aim is to produce a user-friendly, simplifiedAnnex, incorporating the various amendmentsadopted since MARPOL entered into force in 1983,which have resulted in a complicated set ofregulations and unified interpretations. In manycases, end-users find it difficult and sometimesconfusing to comprehend the requirements.

The proposed new draft Annex will deleterequirements that will be outdated by the time itcomes into force; separate hardware fromoperational requirements; and make clear thedistinctions between requirements for new shipsand existing ships (such as the phasing-in ofdouble-hull requirements for oil tankers).

The Sub-Committee noted that it was importantto make clear the substantive and editorialamendments that were made during the revision.The Sub-Committee also recognized that therenumbering of regulations in the revised Annexcould cause confusion as people were used to thecurrent numbering.

Accidental oil outflowperformance for tankers – draftnew regulation agreed in principleThe Sub-Committee agreed in principle to a draftnew MARPOL regulation in Annex I on accidentaloil outflow performance, intended to providecriteria for the level of protection against oilpollution in the event of stranding or collision. Thedraft regulation, developed by a correspondencegroup and reviewed by a working group during thesession, is based on probabilistic methodology foroil outflow analysis.

The draft regulation establishes the maximumpermissible mean oil outflow parameter dependingon the size of tanker – with different levelspermitted for different tankers. The Sub-Committeeagreed to use a simplified approach in which oilcapture is approximated, acknowledging that thisapproach maintains reasonable accuracy whilesimplifying the calculation procedure.

The aim is to provide a means of calculating theprobable maximum quantity of oil which wouldactually be released from a double-hull tankershould there be damage. This calculation of themean oil outflow would take into account the likelyoutflow of oil from cargo tanks which would becaptured by non-oil compartments as well as afigure for the probability of a specific cargo tankbeing penetrated and the extent to which it mightbe damaged. The Sub-Committee agreed theproposed regulation should apply to tankers of5,000 dwt and above.

The Sub-Committee also agreed in principle todraft amendments to the Interim guidelines for theapproval of alternative methods of design andconstruction of oil tankers under regulation 13F(5)of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, to harmonize theguidelines with the proposed new regulation.Regulation 13F requires all new tankers to be builtwith double hulls – but allows in paragraph (5) for“other methods of design and construction of oiltankers” to be accepted provided they “ensure atleast the same level of protection against oilpollution in the event of collision or stranding.”

The Sub-Committee agreed to re-establish thecorrespondence group to complete the draftexplanatory notes to the probabilistic methodologyfor oil outflow analysis and to evaluate further theapplication of the proposed draft MARPOLregulation to current oil tanker designs, especiallyVLCCs.

2003 target date to completeMARPOL Annex I

Could DNA tagging of oil help to identify rogue polluters? A BLG correspondence group hasbeen established to investigate further


Review of Annex II of MARPOL73/78 continuesThe Sub-Committee continued its revision of AnnexII (Noxious liquid substances carried in bulk) ofMARPOL 73/78. The completion of a revisedAnnex II depends on the completion of a productevaluation being carried out by the Joint Group ofExperts on the Scientific Aspects of MarineEnvironmental Protection (GESAMP) under therevised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure.

The revised procedure takes into account thedevelopment of harmonized hazard classificationsystems covering physical and biological propertiesthat affect safety and protection of the environmentunder the United Nations Committee of Experts onthe Transport of Dangerous Goods and theOrganization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD).

GESAMP's Working Group on the Evaluation ofthe Hazards of Harmful Substances Carried byShips (EHS) is re-evaluating each product listed inthe International Code for the Construction andEquipment of Ships Carrying DangerousChemicals in Bulk (IBC Code).

The Working Group creates a revised GESAMPHazard Profile (GHP), which is more extensivethan the current one. This is then used by the BLGSub-Committee's ESPH (Evaluation of Safety andPollution Hazards) Working Group to assign theappropriate Pollution Category and Ship Type foreach product when they are transported underAnnex II of MARPOL 73/78.

As part of the development of a revised Annex IIof MARPOL 73/78, the BLG Sub-Committee isproposing alternative pollution categorizationsystems, possibly simplifying the existing 5-category system for defining pollution categoriesinto a 3-category system. However, final decisionson which system would be most appropriate aredependent on largely completing the productevaluation process.

The Sub-Committee discussed the choice ofpollution category systems but agreed for the timebeing to continue developing the Annex on thebasis of both the 3-category and the 5-categorysystem. The system chosen will affect finalregulations on stripping limits (referring to theamount of product that might be left in tanks afteremptying) and discharge criteria.

Evaluation of Safety and PollutionHazards (ESPH) Working GroupThe Sub-Committee reviewed the report of theintersessional ESPH Working Group meeting andnoted that it was anticipated that approximately 65%and 80% of the 650 products identified in theInternational Code for the Construction andEquipment of Ships Carrying DangerousChemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) would have beenassigned a revised GESAMP Hazard Profile forpossible application to the proposed pollutioncategorization systems by April 2001 and April 2002respectively.

The Sub-Committee agreed that completion ofapproximately 50% of the classifications shouldallow a preliminary discussion on the choice ofproposed pollution categorization systems and 75%should allow a final decision to be made. On thatbasis, therefore, this time schedule should allowthe revision of the text of Annex II to be completedby 2003.

Oil tagging systems –correspondence groupestablishedThe Sub-Committee agreed to establish acorrespondence group to look into the benefits andpossible applications of DNA tagging of oil.

The decision to review DNA tagging followed asubmission to the MEPC by the United Kingdom.In its paper to the MEPC, the United Kingdomreported on a full-scale test on the DNA tagging ofoil and noted that the use of secure identificationtags, unique to each ship, would be a majoradvance in enforcing Annex I to MARPOL 73/78through deterring illegal discharges of oil becausethese could be traced to the offending ship. Theapplication would ensure that polluters could beidentified, prosecuted and made to pay for theconsequences of illegal discharge. This would havea great deterrent effect and so prevent pollution.

In an update to the Sub-Committee, the UnitedKingdom reported on the continuing full-scale trialsof applying DNA tagging to heavy fuel oil. Inresponse to questions raised by other delegations,the United Kingdom noted that the trials showedthat DNA tags will only survive while immersed inoil and will rapidly biodegrade if removed; thatthere is no limit on the number of different codes

revision of

Should FPSOs have their own regulatoryregime or be classed as tankers orplatforms? More work needed, says BLG


that can be created and therefore such codescould be unique for each ship, if necessary;and that research has shown that it isunaffected by weather and ultravioletradiation.

The Sub-Committee agreed thecorrespondence group should consider theresults of the United Kingdom trial; collectinformation on the cost benefits of oiltagging; identify the most appropriateapplications and practicalities of using thetechnology; review the environmental impactof using DNA tagging; identify concerns andlimitations of tagging technology; considereffects on engine operations; and submit areport to the next session, BLG 7.

Devices to prevent passageof flame into cargo tanks –revised circular agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed to a draft MSCcircular, for submission to MSC 74 forapproval, on Amendments to Revisedstandards for the design, testing and locatingof devices to prevent the passage of flameinto cargo tanks in tankers (MSC/Circ. 677).The amendments referred to incorporate areference to ISO standard 15364:2000 onpressure/vacuum valves for cargo tanks.

Application of MARPOL toFPSOs/FSUs The Sub-Committee reviewed the report of acorrespondence group which looked intowhether Floating Production Storage andOffloading Units (FPSOs) and FloatingStorage Units (FSUs) should be classed astankers or platforms – and comply withMARPOL Annex I regulations – or whetherthey should they have their own regulatoryregime. The Sub-Committee agreed furtherwork was needed on the issue and invitedsubmissions to the next session.

Adraft revised SOLAS regulation aimed atimproving surveys of large bulk carriers

and tankers was agreed by IMO’s Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment(DE) at its 44th session. The proposedrevised regulation II-1/12-2 is intended toensure that vessels can be properly inspectedthroughout their lifespan, by designing andbuilding the ship to provide easy access.Without adequate access, the structuralcondition of the vessel can deteriorateundetected and major structural failure canarise.

The proposed revised draft regulation isbased on a proposal by the Bahamasdeveloped in response to the Erika incidentand focusing on the fact that the continuedadequacy of the strength of large bulkcarriers and tankers depends on their beingproperly surveyed – which requires action atthe design stage.

Currently, SOLAS chapter II-1(Construction – structure, sub-division andstability, machinery and electricalinstallations), Part B (Subdivision andstability), regulation 12-2 specifiesrequirements for access to spaces in thecargo area of oil tankers (only) includingcofferdams, ballast tanks, cargo tanks, etc.The minimum dimensions of horizontal andvertical openings are set out.

Nevertheless, according to the Bahamassubmission, ships continue to be built withlittle consideration as to how they will besurveyed by flag State inspectors andclassification society surveyors or how thecrew will be able to monitor the condition oftheir own ship. Without adequate access, thestructural condition of the vessel candeteriorate undetected, and major structuralfailure can arise. A comprehensive approachto design and maintenance is required tocover the whole projected life of the ship.

It has long been recognized that the onlyway to be assured of the adequacy of a ship’sstructure is through regular survey. Theprovision of a suitable means of access to thehull structure for the purposes of carryingout overall and close-up surveys andinspections has not been included in IMOconventions, although the need to provideaccess has been mentioned or envisaged in

several IMO instruments. Classificationsociety rules also do not include provision forproper access.

Proposed draft regulationThe proposed draft revised regulation SOLASII-1/12-2, on access to and within spacesin the cargo area of oil tankers and bulkcarriers, is intended to apply to new ships(size and date of construction to be decidedby the Maritime Safety Committee).

The regulation would require each spacewithin the cargo area to be provided with apermanent means of access to enable,throughout the life of a ship, overall andclose-up inspections and thicknessmeasurements of the ship’s structures to becarried out by the Administration, theCompany, as defined in regulation IX/1, andthe ship’s personnel and others as necessary.

Where permanent access was difficult, theAdministration may allow, in lieu, theprovision of portable means of access such asstaging, moveable platforms and ladders,provided the means of attaching, rigging,suspending or supporting the portable meansof access forms a permanent part of theship’s structure. The regulation wouldrequire the ship’s access provisions to bedescribed in a Ship Structure Access Manualto be kept on board.

The Sub-Committee also prepared drafttechnical provisions for means of access forinspections, which would be mandatory underthe new regulation, for further considerationat DE 45. While the regulation would includegeneral technical specifications, specificswould be included in the technical provisions.

The draft revised regulation will be putforward to the MSC for approval andsubsequent adoption, with possible entry intoforce planned for 2004.

Other post-Erika issuesThe Sub-Committee reviewed a number ofissues relating to the elimination ofsubstandard ships referred to it by the MSCfor preliminary assessment.

The Sub-Committee agreed thatconsideration of protection of fuel tanks shouldbe included in the DE Sub-Committee’s work

From the meetings • Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment

• 44th session:

• 5–9 March 2001

New draft SOLAS regulation onaccess to spaces in cargo areasagreed


programme since leaked fuel oil presented areal hazard.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the proposedmeasure to review resolution A.744(18) on theenhanced programme of inspections duringsurveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers, to makesurvey procedures stricter, could be accommodatedwithin the current ongoing review of the resolution.

Draft amendments to enhancedsurvey guidelines agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed draft amendments toAssembly resolution A.744(18) (as amended) –Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme ofInspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers andOil Tankers – for submission to the MSC.

The amendments are intended to align theGuidelines with revisions to InternationalAssociation of Classification Societies (IACS)Unified Requirements (UR) Z10.1 and Z10.2. Therevisions to the Unified Requirements were basedon the safety measures taken by IACS following theErika incident. IACS Members have agreed toimplement those measures from 1 July 2001 at thelatest.

Draft asbestos guidelines agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed a draft MSC circular onguidelines for maintenance and monitoring of on-board materials containing asbestos, for submissionto the MSC.

The draft circular is intended to provide guidanceto the Administrations, companies, seafarers andothers closely involved with the operation of shipson how to deal with asbestos on board ships inservice, with the principalobjective of minimizing exposureto asbestos fibres of passengers,crew, riding crews, maintenancepersonnel in port, etc., while theship is in service.

In December 2000 the MSCadopted amendments to SOLAS toprohibit the new installation ofmaterials which contain asbestoson all ships.

Improved thermalprotection – draftguidelines agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed draftguidelines aimed at improving

thermal protection andcovering inspections ofimmersion suits and anti-exposure suits.

The draft MSC circular,including draft guidelines for monthly shipboardinspection of immersion suits and anti-exposuresuits by ships’ crews, gives recommendedprocedures for carrying out monthly inspections ofthese suits in accordance with SOLAS regulationsIII/20.7 and III/36.1.

Draft guidelines on fuel oilsampling agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed draft guidelines for thesampling of fuel oil for determination of compliancewith Annex VI – Regulations for the prevention ofair pollution by ships – of MARPOL 73/78, togetherwith an associated draft MEPC Circular, forsubmission to MEPC 46 in April 2001 for approval.The primary objective of the guidelines is toestablish an agreed method to obtain arepresentative sample of the fuel oil for combustionpurposes delivered for use on board ships.

Regulation 18(3) of Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78requires details of fuel oil for combustion purposesdelivered to, and used on board, the ship to berecorded by means of a bunker delivery note.

Draft guidelines for shipsoperating in Arctic ice-coveredwatersThe Sub-Committee agreed draft guidelines forships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters and anassociated draft MSC/MEPC Circular, pending

input from other Sub-Committees.

The guidelines are aimed atensuring safe navigation of ships andthe prevention of pollution in Arcticwaters. Ships operating in the Arcticenvironment are exposed to a numberof unique risks. Poor weatherconditions and the relative lack ofgood charts, communication systems,and other navigational aids posechallenges for mariners. Theremoteness of the areas makes rescueor clean-up operations difficult andcostly. Cold temperatures may reducethe effectiveness of numerouscomponents of the ship, ranging fromdeck machinery and emergency

Access to cargo spaces is not alwayssimple. A draft revised SOLAS regulationaddresses the issue in the light of a post-Erika submission from the Bahamas

(left) DE agreed draft guidelines aimed atimproving thermal protection andcovering inspections for thermal suits


From the meetings • Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation

• 9th session:

• 19–23 February 2001

equipment to sea suctions. When ice ispresent, it can impose additional loads on thehull, propulsion system and appendages.

The guidelines are therefore intended toaddress additional provisions deemednecessary for consideration beyond existingrequirements of the SOLAS Convention inorder to take into account the climaticconditions of Arctic ice-covered waters and tomeet appropriate standards of maritime safetyand pollution prevention.

The draft guidelines cover design,outfitting and operation of relevant ships,including crewing by adequate numbers ofsuitably trained personnel.

Emergency towing guidelines– amendments agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed draftamendments to the guidelines for emergencytowing arrangements on tankers (resolutionMSC.35(63)) to bring the guidelines into linewith the amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-4 adopted by the MSC at its 73rd sessionin December 2000.

The revised SOLAS regulation II-1/3-4states that – as per the current regulation –emergency towing arrangements should befitted at both ends on board every tanker ofnot less than 20,000 tonnes deadweight.

Work on lifeboat accidentsneeded, says Sub-CommitteeThe Sub-Committee agreed to request theMSC to include a new work programme itemon measures to prevent accidents withlifeboats, following submissions by severaldelegations reporting a significant number ofcasualties and serious injuries arising duringlifeboat maintenance, inspection and drills.

The Sub-Committee concluded that themajority of accidents were related to failureor mal-operation of on-load releaseequipment. Many accidents were caused bypoor maintenance or mal-adjustment ofequipment which did not appear to complywith the existing provisions of SOLASregulation III/20 (Operational readiness,maintenance and inspections), while somefollowed failures of communication and/orprocedures. The causes of such accidentsneeded to be established and addressed as amatter of urgency, the Sub-Committeeagreed.

The Sub-Committee developed apreliminary draft Assembly resolution

including measures to prevent theregistration of “phantom ships” – inparticular, when ships are transferred fromone register to another.

The issue of phantom ships has been raisedat IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)as part of concerns surrounding piracy andarmed robbery against ships – in some casesships have been hijacked and re-registered.There is therefore a need for flag States to becertain that ships are not being registered onthe basis of false or inaccurate information.

The need to look at registration issues alsocomes in response to the seventh session ofthe United Nations Commission onSustainable Development (CSD 7), whichinvited IMO “as a matter of urgency to developmeasures, in binding form where IMO membersconsider it appropriate, to ensure that ships of allflag States meet international rules and standardsso as to give full and complete effect to UNCLOS,especially article 91 (Nationality of ships), as wellas provisions of other relevant conventions. In thiscontext, the Commission emphasizes theimportance of further development of effective portState control.”

The proposed preliminary draft Assemblyresolution would invite Governments toreview their ship registration procedures toensure that adequate safeguards are in placeto prevent the registration of phantom ships.It would also invite Governments to exhaustall means available to them to obtain evidencethat a ship previously registered underanother State's flag has been deleted, or thatconsent to the transfer of the ship has beenobtained from that State’s register. Prior toregistration of any ship, Governments shouldverify its identity, including the IMO ShipIdentification Number, where appropriate,and other records of the ship so that the shipdoes not fly the flags of two or more Statessimultaneously,

Governments would be urged to acceptonly original paper documents orelectronically submitted documents whoseauthenticity had been verified, and toencourage greater vigilance from all thosethat might come into contact with ships thatmay have been improperly registered,including those involved in port operations,ship surveying, chartering, brokering andinsurance.

Preventing “phantom ships”– draft resolution discussed

A draft Assembly resolution prepared by FSI would toughen the procedures surrounding ships changingflags and identities


ISM Code – revisedguidelines forimplementationThe Sub-Committee agreed draft revisedguidelines to update resolution A.788(19),Guidelines on Implementation of theInternational Safety Management (ISM)Code by Administrations, to take into account thesecond phase of ISM implementation under whichall ships not covered by the first round ofimplementation will be required to have ISMcertification by 1 July 2002. The revision takes intoaccount amendments to the ISM Code adopted inDecember 2000, which also enter into force on 1July 2002.

The amendments included the replacement ofchapter 13 (on certification, verification andcontrol) with a new chapter 13 (on certification)and additional chapters 14 (Interim certification), 15(Forms of certificate) and 16 (Verification); as wellas a new appendix giving forms of documents andcertificates.

The ISM Code has applied to passenger ships,including passenger high-speed craft, and to oiltankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulkcarriers and cargo high-speed craft of 500 grosstonnage and above since 1 July 1998. It will apply toother cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling unitsof 500 gross tonnage and above not later than 1 July2002.

The revised guidelines are to be forwarded to theMSC and MEPC for approval and then to the 22ndassembly in November 2001 for adoption. Theintention is that the revised guidelines will replacethe current guidelines on 1 July 2002.

Port State control – notification ofdetentionsThe Sub-Committee agreed sample forms for portState control officers to use when notifyingdetention and release of ships. The forms shouldsupplement the Port State Control Procedures setout in resolution A.787(19), as amended.

Chapter 5 of resolution A.787(19), as amended,stipulates that “in the case of a detention,notification shall be made to the flag StateAdministration. If such notification is madeverbally, it should be subsequently confirmed inwriting. Likewise, the recognized organizationswhich have issued the relevant certificates onbehalf of the flag State should be notified, whereappropriate.”

The Sub-Committee invited the port State toendeavour to notify flag States of detentions in themost timely and expedient manner possible, andalso to notify detentions to the relevant recognizedorganization (RO). The Sub-Committee also agreeda draft MSC/MEPC Circular, on measures toimprove port State control procedures, whichrecommends that the whole concept of port Statecontrol of ships would be significantly improved bygreater endeavours by port States to notify flagStates of detentions and by establishing amechanism for a constructive and timely dialoguebetween flag States and port States on port Statecontrol interventions.

The Sub-Committee agreed that all forms oftraining of port State control officers (PSCOs)should explicitly address the requirement forreporting detentions to the flag State and the ROand that individual port States and regionalagreements on port State control ensure thatexplicit requirements and procedures for thenotification of flag States and ROs in the event of adetention are included in their instructions forPSCOs, i.e. in checklists, guidelines and/orManuals for Surveyors. The draft circular will beput forward to the MSC and MEPC for approval.

Revised Guidelines on implementation ofthe ISM Code take on specialsignificance with the impendingextension of the Code next July to allcargo ships above 500 gross tonnage(above). Passenger ships (below) arealready covered by the Code.


MARPOL mandatory reports –Parties urged to complyThe Sub-Committee urged Parties toMARPOL 73/78 to comply with therequirement to submit mandatory reports onviolations of the Convention to IMO. Only 25Parties submitted reports for 1999.

From the reports submitted, it was clearthat there are still ships which do not evenhave the IOPP Certificate, Oil Record Bookor the required pollution preventionequipment on board – implementation ofMARPOL 73/78 is therefore still a majorconcern.

Accidents involving survivalcraft The Sub-Committee forwarded to the Designand Equipment and Standards of Trainingand Watchkeeping Sub-Committees a noterelating to a review of accidents involvingships’ survival craft. The note refers toinformation submitted by flag States onincidents involving lifeboats and liferafts,including a study by the United Kingdomwhich listed 12 deaths in a period of 11 yearsas a result of lifeboat/rescue craft incidentsand 71 injuries caused by operation oflifeboats or their associated launchingsystems.

The note states that lifeboats are evolvinginto relatively sophisticated items of a ship’sequipment but the evidence suggests that theability of ship’s crews to operate and maintainthese boats, and their launching systems,competently is not keeping up with therelevant legislative and technicaldevelopments.

VDR operational mattersThe Sub-Committee agreed the following, forthe purpose of accident investigation only.

• Recovery of the VDR: Recovery of theVDR is conditional on the accessibility ofthe VDR or the data contained within. TheMarine Casualty Investigator of the flagState, the investigating State or any otherState, at the request of the flag State, wouldbe responsible for the recovery of theVDR.

• Custody of VDR/data: Upon deciding toconduct an investigation, the Marine

Casualty Investigator would need to havecustody of the data in order to carry outthe casualty investigation. If the data arenot available, the removal of the VDR fromthe vessel might be required.

• Ownership of VDR/data: Ownership ofthe VDR/data is not an issue during acasualty investigation as it is similar to thelog-book or other recorded data; it isassumed that the owner of the vessel ownsthe VDR and data. The owner wouldensure that the Marine CasualtyInvestigator would be able to access andtake custody of the VDR/data in the eventof a casualty.

• Read-out of VDR/data: In accordancewith resolution A.849(20), Code for theInvestigation of Marine Casualties andIncidents, the Lead Investigating Statewould arrange for the read-out of the VDRsuch that the data are presented in a formsuitable for the investigation.

• Access to data: During the investigationof a casualty or incident, the MarineCasualty Investigator would need to haveaccess to the data. As would occur withthe log-book or other recordedinformation, copies of the informationshould be made available to theshipowners and investigating States.

Endorsement of certificateswith survey completion dateThe Sub-Committee agreed a draft MSCcircular to invite Administrations orrecognized organizations to endorse ships’certificates with the completion date of thesurvey on which they are based. The aim ofthe circular is to address difficulties in findinginformation on the date of completion of thelast survey. This applies in particular tocertificates issued prior to the introduction ofthe harmonized system of survey andcertification (HSSC) on 3 February 2000.

HSSC/enhanced surveyguidelines – draft circularagreed The Sub-Committee agreed a draft MSCcircular intended to address the inconsistencybetween resolution A.744(18), Guidelines onthe Enhanced Programme of Inspectionsduring Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil

Tankers, and resolution A.746(18), SurveyGuidelines under the Harmonized System ofSurvey and Certification, concerning thealignment of a dry-dock survey with therenewal survey.

Revised guidance onself–assessment form agreedThe Sub-Committee agreed RevisedGuidance to assist flag States in the self-assessment of their performance, to beadopted as an Assembly resolution (at the22nd Assembly in November 2001) followingapproval by the Maritime Safety Committee(MSC) and Marine Environment ProtectionCommittee (MEPC). The draft resolutionwould update resolution A.881(21) to includecriteria and performance indicators whichwere included in a Circular issued in June2000 (MSC/Circ.954 MEPC/Circ.373).

From the meetings • Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation

• 9th session:

• 19–23 February 2001


• Marine Environment Protection Committee From the meetings

• 46th session:

• 23–27 April 2001

The meeting agreed a revised chapter 13G of theMARPOL Convention which includes a new,

accelerated phase-out timetable for single-hull oiltankers. The new regulation will enter into force inSeptember 2002, the earliest possible timepermitted under the MARPOL Convention.

The new phase-out timetable sets 2015 as theprincipal cut-off date for all single-hull tankers. Inthe years leading up to that date, ships will bewithdrawn from service according to their year ofdelivery (see table right). The new regulationidentifies three categories of tankers, as follows:

Category 1 oil tanker – oil tankers of 20,000 tonsdeadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil,heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying otheroils, which do not comply with the requirements forprotectively located segregated ballast tanks(commonly known as Pre-MARPOL tankers).

Category 2 oil tanker – oil tankers of 20,000 tonsdeadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil,heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of30,000 tons deadweight and above carrying otheroils, which do comply with the protectively locatedsegregated ballast tank requirements (MARPOLtankers).

Category 3 oil tanker – an oil tanker of 5,000 tonsdeadweight and above but less than the tonnagespecified for Category 1 and 2 tankers.

A Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) will haveto be applied to all Category 1 vessels continuing totrade after 2005 and all Category 2 vessels after2010. A resolution adopting the CAS was passed atthe meeting. Although the CAS does not specifystructural standards in excess of the provisions ofother IMO conventions, codes andrecommendations, its requirements stipulate morestringent and transparent verification of thereported structural condition of the ship and thatdocumentary and survey procedures have beenproperly carried out and completed.

The requirements of the CAS include enhancedand transparent verification of the reportedstructural condition of the ship and verification thatthe documentary and survey procedures have beenproperly carried out and completed. The Schemerequires that compliance with the CAS is assessedduring the Enhanced Survey Programme ofInspections concurrent with intermediate orrenewal surveys currently required by resolutionA.744(18), as amended.

Flag State Administrationsmay allow for some newersingle-hull ships registeredin their country that conformto certain technicalspecifications to continuetrading until the 25thanniversary of their delivery.However, under theprovisions of paragraph 8(b),any port State can denyentry of those single-hulltankers whose life isextended in this way to portsor offshore terminals. Theymust communicate theirintention to do this to IMO.

New global timetable to phase outsingle-hull tankers

Category 1 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 19752005* for ships delivered in 1976 and 19772006* for ships delivered in 1978, 1979 and 19802007* for ships delivered in 1981 or later

Category 2 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 1975 2005 for ships delivered in 1976 and 19772006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 19792007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981 2008 for ships delivered in 19822009 for ships delivered in 19832010* for ships delivered in 1984 2011* for ships delivered in 19852012* for ships delivered in 19862013* for ships delivered in 19872014* for ships delivered in 19882015* for ships delivered in 1989 or later

Category 3 2003 for ships delivered in 1973 or earlier2004 for ships delivered in 1974 and 19752005 for ships delivered in 1976 and 19772006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 19792007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 19812008 for ships delivered in 19822009 for ships delivered in 19832010 for ships delivered in 19842011 for ships delivered in 19852012 for ships delivered in 19862013 for ships delivered in 19872014 for ships delivered in 1988 2015 for ships delivered in 1989 or later

Category of oil tanker Year

* subject to CAS compliance

Tanker safety worldwide was given a considerable boost by theMEPC’s agreement on a revised timetable for the phase-out of single-hull tankers


From the meetings • Marine Environment Protection Committee

• 46th session:

• 23–27 April 2001

Convention to outlaw TBT andother organotin compounds inmarine anti-foulantsThe Committee worked on finalising a draftproposed Convention on the Control of HarmfulAnti-fouling Systems, scheduled to be adopted at aConference in October this year. The essence ofthe Convention is that ships should no longer beallowed to apply organotin compounds after1 January 2003, leading to a complete ban by 1January 2008.

Under the terms of the proposed newConvention, ships above a certain size would berequired to have their anti-fouling systemssurveyed and to carry an anti-fouling certificate.Anti-fouling systems to be prohibited or controlledwould be listed in Annex I of the Convention.Initially, the Annex would include reference toorganotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems. The Convention would allow forother substances to be included in the Annex andsets out a procedure for doing this: a proposal for aparticular substance to be prohibited or restrictedwould be put before a group established by IMOwhich would assess the adverse affects of theparticular anti-fouling system. The Conventionwould provide an agreed format for an internationalanti-fouling certificate and set out procedures forsurvey and certification.

The MEPC approved in principle the draftConvention at its 45th meeting last October, but a

number of issuesremain open fordiscussion before theplanned conferencein October this year.The Conference willbe tasked withfinalising specificarticles, includingentry into forcecriteria and whetherships should beallowed to over-paintexisting TBTcoatings with a sealeror be required tosandblast back tobare steel in order tocomply with theConvention’srequirements.

Reducing the effects of harmfulorganisms in ships’ ballast water The MEPC also continued working towardsconvening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt aConvention on the management and control ofballast water in 2003, and in the interim agreed ajoint MEPC/MSC Circular emphasizing the needfor ballast water and sediment management optionsto be taken into account when developing andbuilding new ships. The Circular is subject toapproval by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)at its next session (30 May to 8 June).

The management of ballast water has become animportant issue in international efforts to reducepollution from ships. When a ship takes on ballastwater, it may also inadvertently ingest a soup ofmicroscopic aquatic organisms, some of which maybe toxic, others potentially harmful if removed fromtheir own local ecosystem and introduced intoanother when discharged. Alien species that haveno natural enemies can reproduce dramatically andcause tremendous damage.

Ballast water exchange at sea is currently theonly widely used technique for preventing thespread of unwanted aquatic organisms in ships’ballast water. But this technique has a number oflimitations. Ship safety is a main concern, withweather and sea conditions playing a critical role indetermining when ‘at-sea exchange’ is safe. It is,however, likely that new ships will be designed toaccommodate ballast exchange in a much wider

Hull coatings once again came under thespotlight at MEPC as work continued onthe draft proposed Convention on theControl of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems


range of circumstances. Moreover, the percentageof organisms successfully removed by the methoddepends largely on the type of organism.

The MEPC agreed to establish a correspondencegroup to work on developing a Ballast WaterTreatment (BWT) Standard which could ultimatelybe used to assess the validity of other treatmentoptions.

The proposed new instrument for ballast watermanagement is based on a so-called “two-tier”approach. Tier 1 includes requirements that wouldapply to all ships, such as mandatory requirementsfor a Ballast Water and Sediments ManagementPlan, a Ballast Water Record Book and arequirement that new ships shall carry out ballastwater and sediment management procedures to agiven standard or range of standards. Existing shipswould be required to carry out ballast watermanagement procedures after a phase-in period, butthese procedures may differ from those to beapplied to new ships.

Tier 2 includes special requirements which mayapply in certain areas and would includeprocedures and criteria for the designation of suchareas in which additional controls may be applied tothe discharge and/or uptake of ballast water. Thetext for Tier 2 remains to be developed.

Ship recyclingThe Committee agreed to re-establish aCorrespondence Group on Ship Recycling to lookfurther into IMO’s perceived role in the matter,with the possibility of establishing a working groupat the next session to discuss the issue in depth.

IMO’s role in the recycling of ships, theterminology used to refer to ship scrapping, wasfirst raised at the 44th MEPC session in March2000, following which a correspondence group wasestablished to research this issue and provide arange of information about current ship recyclingpractices and suggestions on the role of IMO. TheCommittee agreed that the Correspondence Groupshould now work on several issues, with a view tosubmitting a report to the next session in 2002.

Special Areas and ParticularlySensitive Sea AreasMEPC 46 approved new draft Guidelines for theDesignation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78and new draft Guidelines for the Identification ofParticularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs).

In Annexes I, II and V, MARPOL 73/78 definescertain sea areas as special areas in which, fortechnical reasons relating to their oceanographicaland ecological condition and to their sea traffic, theadoption of special mandatory methods for theprevention of sea pollution is required. Under theConvention, these special areas are provided with ahigher level of protection than other areas of thesea. A PSSA is an area that needs special protectionthrough action by IMO because of its significancefor recognized ecological or socio-economic orscientific reasons and which may be vulnerable todamage by international maritime activities.

The revised guidelines are scheduled to beadopted in the form of an Assembly resolution bythe 22nd Assembly in November. They will updateand replace resolution A.720(17) and resolutionA.885(21), Procedures for designation ofparticularly sensitive sea areas and the adoption ofassociated protective measures and amendments tothe guidelines contained in resolution A.720(17).

There are currently two designated PSSAs: theGreat Barrier Reef, Australia, and the Sabana –Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba. The Sabana –Camagüey Archipelago was designated a PSSA inSeptember 1997.

Colombia’s Malpelo Island PSSAagreed in principleThe Committee considered additional informationprovided by Colombia in respect of an applicationfor the marine area around Malpelo Island tobecome a PSSA and agreed in principle that theproposal met the criteria for PSSA designation.However, the Committee instructed the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, which meets forits next session in July 2001, to report back on anynavigational issues to be taken into account prior tofinal approval being given.

United States Florida Keys PSSAagreed in principleThe Committee considered an application by theUnited States for the marine area around theFlorida Keys to become a PSSA and agreed inprinciple that the proposal met the criteria for PSSAdesignation. However, the Committee instructedthe Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, whichmeets for its next session in July 2001, to reportback on any navigational issues to be taken intoaccount prior to final approval being given.


OPRC Working GroupThe Working Group on Implementation of theOPRC Convention received a detailed report fromFrance about the clean-up operation following thesinking of the Erika and discussed some of theissues the incident raised in terms of responding tothis kind of oil spill.

The Group also developed an initial programmeof topics for the 3rd International R&D Forum, tobe held in Brest, France in March 2002, which willexamine research and development of newtechnology in oil spill response, particularlyregarding spills of high-density or heavy oils likebunker oil.

The OPRC Group and the Committee alsoapproved a joint IMO/Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) publication on Guidance onManaging Seafood Safety During and After Oil Spills.

Air pollutionThe MEPC reviewed submissions relating togreenhouse gas emissions from ships and agreedto establish a working group at the next session toevaluate proposals for reducing greenhouse gasemissions contained in the IMO Study onGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, to collateand evaluate information submitted by Members,identify appropriate Sub-Committees forinvolvement, draw up a work plan and preparematerials for consideration in developing an IMOstrategy for greenhouse gas reduction.

The Committee also approved a report to the UNCommission on Sustainable Development on IMO’smajor developments since UNCED 1992, as part ofthe so-called “Rio + 10” process.

Exhaust emissions from ships are under heavy scrutiny. MEPC agreed to establish a working group at its next session to evaluateproposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships

Circulars andResolutions

Sewage – MEPC Circ agreedThe Committee agreed an MEPCcircular on information fromContracting States to MARPOLAnnex IV (Prevention of pollutionby sewage from ships) to IMO ofregulations on discharge ofsewage in waters under theirjurisdiction and available receptionfacilities for sewage in their ports.The aim of the Circular is torequest States to provide theinformation required, in order tofacilitate the implementation ofMARPOL Annex IV when it entersinto force.

Flag State implementationissues – draft circulars andresolutionsThe MEPC approved the followingdraft circulars and resolutionsagreed by the Sub-Committee onFlag State Implementation (FSI).The drafts are subject toconcurrence by the MSC at its74th session in May–June:

• draft MSC/MEPC circular onCommunication of informationon authorization of recognizedorganizations (ROs);

• draft Assembly resolution onRevised self-assessment of flagState performance, forsubmission to the twenty-second session of the Assemblyfor adoption;

• draft Assembly resolution onRevised guidelines on theimplementation of the ISMCode by Administrations, forsubmission to the twenty-second session of the Assemblyfor adoption;

• draft MSC/MEPC circular onMeasures to improve port Statecontrol procedures;

• draft MSC/MEPC circular onEndorsement of certificateswith the date of completion ofthe survey on which they arebased.

The MEPC also endorsed anMSC/MEPC Circular on thebeneficial impact of the ISM Codeand its role as an indicator of safeoperation and environmentalprotection.

From the meetings • Marine Environment Protection Committee

• 46th session:

• 23-27 April 2001


IMO at work

Major building work at the InternationalMaritime Organization headquarters on the

Albert Embankment is currently being carried outto accommodate the memorial to seafarers, which isdue to be unveiled formally on World Maritime Day,September 27th.

The finished sculpture will stand over sevenmetres tall and be cast in 10 tonnes of bronze.When completed, the prow of the bronze ship willproject beyond the building line and over thepavement. Floodlighting has beenspecially designed toemphasise the scale andgrandeur of thesculpture, ensuringthat this newmonument will bevisible to all. Tohouse the sculpture,a portion of the firstfloor overhang isbeing removed, makingit vertically level with theground floor reception area.

The Morris Singer Foundry has had some 20people working for several months in their LashamFoundry on the project. More than 100 individualpieces are being compiled into four major sectionswhich will be transported individually to London,where the sculpture will be completed in situ, readyfor its unveiling.

Mr Jose Luis Lopez-Sors, Director of theMerchant Marine Directorate of Spain, will presentIMO, on behalf of his government, with a

commemorative medallion. 500copies of the medallion

will be minted.

The Ministers of Transport of thecountries party to the Economic and

Monetary Commission for Central Africa(CEMAC) – Cameroon, Central AfricanRepublic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guineaand Gabon – have adopted the first-everregional maritime code for francophoneAfrica at a meeting organized in Cameroon(5–17 May 2001).

The new code, which replaces a textadopted in 1994, has been prepared by an IMOconsultant and represented the conclusion of18 months of work on the issue. The code isintended to take into account newdevelopments in shipping and in vesseltechnology and sets out harmonized standardsfor the CEMAC region with respect to safetyand marine pollution protection.

IMO’s Technical Co-operation Fund providedfinancial support to conduct three seminars andto provide legal advice to national experts.

Seafarers’ memorial forges ahead

Rugged, reliable, dependable; the patternfor the figure that will top the IMOmemorial, currently taking shape atsculptor Michael Sandle’s workshop,embodies all the traditional characteristicsof the seafarer

The Government of Spain is donating 500 commemorativemedallions to mark the unveiling of the memorial

New maritimecode for CEMACMember States Aregional project to conduct training

courses on oil pollution preparednessand response was completed with a finalcourse on response to marine oil spills forsupervisors and on-scene commanders heldin Singapore in October 2000. The projectstarted in 1997 and delivered five regional orsub-regional training courses. The othertraining courses were held in Bangkok(Thailand), Bandar Seri Begawan (BruneiDarussalam), Dalian (China) and Singapore,with the objective of promoting co-operationin accordance with the requirements ofOPRC 1990 in five subregions, covering the

Gulf of Thailand, Southern South China Sea,Lombok and Makassar Straits, Gulf ofTongkin and Yellow Sea. The RegionalProgramme on Partnerships inEnvironmental Management for the Seas ofEast Asia (PEMSEA) and the Singapore–IMOMOU on Third Country TrainingProgrammes contributed to the delivery ofthe training courses. In addition, a newregional project has been developed tointegrate contingency planning, oil spillpreparedness, response and clean-up, claimsfor damage, and sustainable managementregimes at selected sites.

IMO organizes oil spill response courses for East Asia

The first of a series of SAR trainingcourses to assist with the establishment

and the effective operation of adequate SARservices on the Black Sea was convened from19 to 27 April 2001 in Varna, Bulgaria. All ofthe countries that participated in this training

have signed the SAR Convention and haveeither developed, or are in the process ofdeveloping, the national legislation needed toprovide search and rescue services asrequired by the SAR Convention.

Search and Rescue training for Black Sea


IMO at work

In May, Secretary-General William O’Neiladdressed the first graduating class of the

new Millennium from the IMO InternationalMaritime Law Institute (IMLI) in Malta. In aspeech to the graduates, Mr O’Neil said,“Like your predecessors, the 208 graduatesfrom 83 countries world-wide, you have hadthe opportunity to benefit from a highlyspecialized programme of studies inmaritime law and also to share in the uniqueexperience of attending this global institutionhere in Malta.”

Mr O’Neil emphasized the importance ofthe new graduates’ role in the internationalmaritime community. “The task of developingand managing the legal framework to ensurethat quality shipping is able to prosper in ahighly competitive world,” he said, “dependsin large measure on the knowledge and skillof lawyers. This Institute, over the pastdecade, has made a major contribution to thepost-graduate training of lawyers to properly

prepare them to undertake the associatedduties and responsibilities in a highlyprofessional manner.”

IMLI is an international centre for thetraining of specialists in maritime law. Itprovides suitably qualified people,particularly from the developing countries,with high-level facilities for advancedtraining, study and research in internationalmaritime law and legislation for theregulation of international shipping. It wasfounded in the late 1980s, when IMO realizedthat there was an insufficient number ofskilled legal practitioners available,particularly in developing countries, to createthe legal framework necessary for the properimplementation of IMO standards world-wide.

The Institute is administered under thesupervision, control and direction of a Boardof Governors (above) which is presided overby Mr O’Neil.

IMLI graduates hold key tolegal framework

IMLI board members meet the IMO Secretary-General and IMO directors at IMO headquarters to discuss future syllabi

IMO projectswin SIDSsuccess

Two IMO technical co-operation projectshave been selected by the United

Nations’ Division for SustainableDevelopment as success stories in promotingthe sustainable development of Small IslandDeveloping States (SIDS)

The first project, for the Caribbean IslandStates, has developed model shipping Acts,which countries can adapt to their particularrequirements. The project has alsodeveloped a regional code for the safety ofvessels under 24 metres in length and iscurrently finalizing technical regulations togive effect to the model Acts. The materialsalready developed have been distributedwidely throughout the Caribbean and otherdeveloping regions, thereby providing a trulyglobal benefit.

The second project, for the Pacific IslandCountries, is supporting the development andmodernization of national legislation toensure effective implementation andenforcement of international standards onmarine environment protection. Additionally,the project will introduce a harmonizedregulatory regime for the maritime sectoracross the Pacific Island region.

Second CASITcourselaunched

Asecond Caribbean Ship Inspectors’Training programme (CASIT) was

inaugurated in Port of Spain, Trinidad andTobago, on 30 April 2001. The course, inwhich 12 Caribbean nationals areparticipating, involves nine weeks of class-room and practical training on ship surveyingand inspection, with the objective of buildingup further capacities for the effectiveimplementation of the Caribbean MOU onport State control. Trainees willsubsequently carry out shadow attachmentsfor further practical training, and this will behosted and organized by the US Coast Guardin Florida, over a period of four weeks.


IMO at work

It is likely to be some years before a new ballast water treatmentsystem is developed, proven effective, approved and accepted for

operational use. Ballast water exchange will therefore remain aprimary method for some time yet, despite its limitations. That wasone of the major conclusions of the 1st International Ballast WaterTreatment R&D Symposium and Standards Workshop, held at IMOheadquarters in London during March 2001. Nearly 200 delegatesattended the event, which was convened by the Global Ballast WaterManagement Programme (GloBallast) as a part of its efforts tostimulate and co-ordinate world-wide research into the problem ofballast water management.

Twenty six papers were presented at the symposium by the world’sleading ballast water treatment experts, covering all the technologiescurrently being explored and updating the latest results from themajor R&D projects.

According to GloBallast, the symposium confirmed that all thevarious technologies for ballast water management are currently at avery early stage of development and significant further research isrequired. It now seems likely that any new ballast water treatmentsystem will involve a combination of technologies, for exampleprimary filtration or physical separation followed by a secondarybiocidal treatment.

Abstracts of papers presented are currently available on theGloBallast web site http://globallast.imo.org, on the page titled‘Ballast Water Treatment’.

The symposium was immediately followed by the 1st InternationalBallast Water Treatment Standards Workshop from 28 to 30 March, aninvitation-only event tailored for abroad representation from theshipping industry, watertreatment industry, marinescience community, governmentsand environmental organizations.

After a scene-setting first day,the workshop broke into smallerworking groups to brainstorm thedevelopment of possible ballastwater treatment standards and, inparticular, a biologicaleffectiveness standard (‘biologicaleffectiveness’ meaning removing,killing or rendering inactiveorganisms in ballast water). Theworkshop unanimously agreedfive Primary Criteria that any newtreatment systems should meetand 10 Fundamental Principlesthat should be applied indeveloping biologicaleffectiveness standards.

The workshop report was submitted to the Ballast Water WorkingGroup of the 46th meeting of MEPC held from 23 to 27 April. MEPCwelcomed the report and agreed to use it as the basis from which todevelop standards for use in the new international convention onballast water. A correspondence group has been tasked to do this, co-ordinated by the USA.

Colourit cleanThis eye-catching and

colourful poster will formthe centrepiece of Helmepa’spublic awareness campaign forthe summer of 2001. Eachyear Helmepa, the Greekshipping industry’s voluntaryanti-pollution organization,stages a poster competitionthrough its section forschoolchildren, HelmepaJunior. The winning entry isprinted as a poster on which the names of thewinning group's members and their teacher areprinted in both Greek and English. The posterthen takes centre stage in Helmepa’s summerpublic awareness campaign and is widelydisseminated in Greece and throughout the world.

Since 1993 more than 15,000 children haveparticipated in Helmepa Junior's Programme,which is supported both morally and financially byGreek seafarers, companies' staff and shipowners.

Delegates to the 1st International Ballast Water treatment R&D Symposium met at IMOto discuss the latest technical advances

Ballast water symposium confirmsmore research needed


IMO at work

IMO spins new web

IMOhas launched a re-designed and re-structured websiteaimed at providing even more information to the public

and the shipping industry in a more user-friendly and intuitive style.

As well as offering general information about IMO and itsstructure, the new site features a newsroom containing all the latestIMO media releases, speeches by the Secretary-General and in-depthanalysis of the latest “hot topics”. Technical content is groupedlogically under sections entitled Safety, Marine Environment, Legal,Human Element, and Facilitation. There is also a special section onthe IMO’s technical co-operation activities. An on-line shopping facilityallows users to browse and make purchases from the IMO’spublications catalogue, while the information resources sectionprovides a portal to a huge array of maritime-related websites throughthe IMO Directory of Maritime Links. A site index provides a readyreference point for all areas of the site, and a search engine addsfurther functionality.

The site has been designed so that most users should be able tofind the answers to any questions they have without having to use theemail facility.

Quality shippingin focus at Asia-Pacificmeeting

IMOSecretary-General William O’Neil has stressed theimportance of regional co-operation in port State control

to an audience of key shipping industry figures in the Asia-Pacificregion. In his keynote address to the International Symposium onSafer Shipping in the APEC Region (Sydney, Australia, March 2001)he told delegates, “I am convinced that the sharing of informationgathered by individual regional port State control groupings will havean increasingly significant impact in our crusade against substandardshipping.”

One of the key topics discussed at the meeting was the integrationof the various regional port State control agreements into a globalPSC network. Mr O’Neil gave his strong support for the idea, sayingthat “the sharing of information about ships that trade betweenregions, as well as moves to harmonize and standardize procedures

and to agree on standards oftraining and recruitment ofinspectors throughout theinternational PSC regime, canonly be for the good.” He addedthat APEC countries were wellplaced to take a strong initiativein this, as several APECmembers are signatories to morethan one regional port Statecontrol MOU.

APEC (Asia-Pacific EconomicCo-operation) was established in1989 in response to the growinginterdependence among Asia-Pacific economies. Begun as aninformal dialogue group, APEChas since become the primaryregional vehicle for promotingopen trade and practicaleconomic co-operation. Today,APEC's 21 member economieshave a combined GrossDomestic Product of over US$18trillion in 1999 and 43.85 percentof global trade.

The Sydney symposium wascombined with Australia’sNational Shipping IndustryConference, 2001, at which MrO’Neil gave a keynote address.

Once-in-a-lifetime experience

IMOSecretary-General William O’Neil enjoyed a “once-in-a-lifetime” experience when he was aguest at the traditional “Schaffer Meal” organised by the Haus Seefahrt institution in

Bremen. This private charity for sailors and their dependents dates back to the mid-sixteenth century,since when it has provided accommodation and support to needy seafarers. The Schaffer Meal began asa farewell banquet for sailors returning to the sea after the winter lay-up. It is open to all members of thecharity and its guild, but tradition dictates that guests can only participate once in their lifetime.


IMO at work

The first regional seminar and workshop onQuality Standards Systems has been held in

Barbados. The seminar, which took place in May,consisted of a series of lectures followed byworkshops that identified the processes andprocedures required to introduce a QualityStandards System into the maritimeadministration of any State.

A case study involving a mythical administration was introduced atthe outset and each lecture with its subsequent workshop wasreferenced to this administration.This was the first time that thefull course (seminar andworkshop) had been presented,and 24 participants from Antigua& Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize,Dominica, Guyana, Jamaica, St.Vincent and the Grenadines, andTrinidad & Tobago attended.

The seminar was arranged inco-ordination with the CaribbeanIMO Regional Co-ordinator, andhosted by the Government ofBarbados from 7 to 11 May 2001,within the framework of aregional project for Caribbeancountries, supported financiallyby the IMO Integrated TechnicalCo-operation Programme (ITCP)and the International TransportWorkers’ Federation (ITF). Tenof the participants were ex-WMUgraduates, now working in theircountries’ maritimeadministrations or shippingindustry.

The workshops are carried outin groups, the aim of which is toensure that each group hasrepresentatives from differentadministrations so that they can

draw upon each other's strengths and weaknesses and start to addresstheir own specific problems with the assistance of others.

Ameeting initiated by IMO to address growingconcern about the level and severity of attacks

on shipping in south-east Asia took place inSingapore on 15 and 16 March 2001. It broughttogether representatives from Asian and Pacificcountries that either experience extensive piracy orarmed robbery activities in waters off their coastsor which it was felt could play a substantial role inaddressing the problem due to their strategiclocation in relation to the most affected areas.

While the effectiveness of co-ordinated patrolsand joint exercises to test existing anti-piracysystems and strengthen co-operation amongneighbouring countries in their efforts to deal withthe problem was recognized and encouraged, anoverall lack of regional co-operation was identifiedas one of several elements currently hindering areduction in armed attacks in the area.

Delegates therefore invited IMO Secretary-General William O’Neil to undertake consultationswith Governments in the region with a view toconvening a meeting, at an appropriate time, toconsider establishing a formal regional agreementon co-operation against piracy and armed robberyagainst ships.

The meeting went on to express concern at thedisappointing level at which flag States werereporting attacks or attempted attacks on theirships to IMO and invited the IMO’s MaritimeSafety Committee to urge all States once again tomake such reports. The meeting also urged theshipping industry to ensure that all attacks orattempted attacks are reported promptly to thenearest Rescue Co-ordination Centre, thedesignated focal point of the coastal Stateconcerned and the flag State concerned.Furthermore, it was felt that a more precisecategorization of attacks would present a moreaccurate picture of the situation, and the MSC wasinvited to consider doing so.

The meeting also encouraged participatingGovernments which lacked the necessary expertiseand associated resources to seek technicalassistance from IMO in order to improve theircapabilities to prevent and suppress piracy andarmed robbery against ships in their waters.

Governments seek IMO help in fight against piracy

Barbadoshosts firstqualityworkshop

Participants at the Barbados quality systems workshop built up a case study around a mythical national shippingadministration


IMO at work

IMOSecretary-General WilliamO’Neil pictured with Mr

John Paul Muindi, IMO’s Regional Co-ordinator for Eastern and Southern Africa,during his visit to Kenya in April this year.Mr O’Neil attended a meeting of theUnited Nations’ Administrative Committeeon Co-ordination, which is attended by theheads of all the United Nations agencies.Mr O’Neil also used the trip as anopportunity to have talks with Mr KlausTopfer, Executive Director of the UnitedNations Environment Programme, whichis based in Nairobi, and The Hon. MusaliaMudavadi, the Kenyan Minister ofTransport.

At present, IMO has three regional co-ordinatorsfor Technical Co-operation activities in Africa, one

in Kenya, one in Ghana and one in Côte d'Ivoire.The Kenya office is located within UNDP offices atthe United Nations Office in Nairobi (UNON)complex.

Dr Giuliano Pattofatto

Dr Giuliano Pattofatto,technical director of the

Italian classification societyRegistro Italiano Navale, died at hishome on Thursday 8th March aftersuffering a heart attack. He was 60.

In the early 1970s Mr Pattofattobegan a long and distinguishedparticipation in the work of theIMO as a member of the Italiandelegation. His abilities andpersonality ensured he was muchsought after as a chairman both ofsub-committees and other groups.

After serving as chairman of theSub-Committee on Ship Design andEquipment from 1990 to 1993, hebecame chairman of the MaritimeSafety Committee in 1994. His fiveyears in that position coincidedwith a period of intense regulatoryactivity that focused on bulk carriersafety, the aftermath of the Estoniacatastrophe, and the introduction ofthe International SafetyManagement Code.

Important preparatory work wasalso carried out under hisleadership for the 1994, '95 and '97Safety of Life at Sea Conferences,which saw the emphasis of much ofIMO’s regulatory work changefrom technical to human elementaspects.

His fortitude and dedication toduty were never more clearlydemonstrated than when struck bya heart problem which necessitateda major operation soon after hetook over the chairmanship of theMSC. He did not consider for amoment giving up this onerouswork and declared himself fit forduty even before he had completelyrecovered.

Safety at sea was an obsession forhim and he served it always, notonly from his office at RINA and hischair at the MSC, but also duringhis extensive travels around theworld preaching safety, safety andmore safety.

ObituaryIMO Secretary-Generalin Africa talks

PORT STATE CONTROLRESIDENTIAL COURSE, LONDON, 18 - 27 MARCH 2002

This widely recognised and practical intensive course is now in its 12thsuccessive year. The course is designed especially for officials in

national marine departments, port or terminal operators, shipmanagers and shipowners.

The course covers in detail the major IMO conventions and codesalong with other relevant international regulations and conventions,inspection systems and documentation. The Course is taught by an

experienced team of practitioners from the UK, USA and Europe.

The course fees are sterling £2,950 and cover tuition, meals andstudent type accommodation in central London for the duration of the

course. The course fees without the accommodation and meals are £2,700.

The course is conducted by the Centre for Maritime Co-operationof the International Chamber of Commerce.

Further details can be obtained from:

Mr Ben Roberts, Course Co-ordinatorICC Centre for Maritime Co-operation

Maritime House, 1 Linton Road, Barking, Essex IG11 8HG,United Kingdom

Tel: ++ 44 020 8591 3000 Fax: ++ 44 020 8594 2833E-mail [email protected]


For further details, please contact the IMO Publishing Service

Tel +44 (0)20 7463 4137Fax +44 (0)20 7587 3210Email [email protected] www.imo.org

Guiding hands for maritime safety issuesALL AVAILABLE AS BOOK AND CD-ROM

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

An issue not to be ignored

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

Before you carry dangerous goods!

International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and Supplement

G L O B A L M A R I T I M E D I S T R E S S A N D S A F E T Y S YS T E M

Documents

THE MAGAZINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL … · 2015 as the principal cut-off date for all single-hull tankers, the flag State administration may allow for some newer single-hull ships