IMO

SOLAS
Adoption: 1 November 1974

Entry into force: 25 May 1980
Introduction and history

Amendment procedure
Technical provisions
Chapter I - General Provisions
Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability,
machinery and electrical installations
Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction
Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements
Chapter IV - Radiocommunications
Chapter V - Safety of navigation
Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes
Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods
Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships
Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships
Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft
Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety
Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security
Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers
Amendments year by year

The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties
concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the
second in 1929, the third in 1948, and the fourth in 1960.
The 1960 Convention - which was adopted on 17 June 1960 and entered into force on 26 May 1965 - was the first major
task for IMO after the Organization's creation and it represented a considerable step forward in modernizing regulations
and in keeping pace with technical developments in the shipping industry.
The intention was to keep the Convention up to date by periodic amendments but in practice the amendments procedure
proved to be very slow. It became clear that it would be impossible to secure the entry into force of amendments within a
reasonable period of time.
As a result, a completely new Convention was adopted in 1974 which included not only the amendments agreed up until
that date but a new amendment procedure - the tacit acceptance procedure - designed to ensure that changes could be
made within a specified (and acceptably short) period of time.
Instead of requiring that an amendment shall enter into force after being accepted by, for example, two thirds of the
Parties, the tacit acceptance procedure provides that an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless,
before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of Parties.
As a result the 1974 Convention has been updated and amended on numerous occasions. The Convention in force today is
sometimes referred to as SOLAS, 1974, as amended.
Amendment procedure
Article VIII of the SOLAS 1974 Convention states that amendments can be made either:
After consideration within IMO

Amendments proposed by a Contracting Government are circulated at least six months before consideration by the
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) - which may refer discussions to one or more IMO Sub-Committees - and amendments
are adopted by a two-thirds majority of Contracting Governments present and voting in the MSC. Contracting Governments
of SOLAS, whether or not Members of IMO are entitled to participate in the consideration of amendments in the so-called
"expanded MSC".
Amendments by a Conference
A Conference of Contracting Governments is called when a Contracting Government requests the holding of a Conference
and at least one-third of Contracting Governments agree to hold the Conference. Amendments are adopted by a two-thirds
majority of Contracting Governments present and voting.
In the case of both a Conference and the expanded MSC, amendments (other than to Chapter I) are deemed to have been
accepted at the end of a set period of time following communication of the adopted amendments to Contracting
Governments, unless a specified number of Contracting Governments object. The length of time from communication of
amendments to deemed acceptance is set at two years unless another period of time - which must not be less than one
year - is determined by two-thirds of Contracting Governments at the time of adoption.
Amendments to Chapter I are deemed accepted after positive acceptance by two-thirds of Contracting Governments.
Amendments enter into force six months after their deemed acceptance.
The minimum length of time from circulation of proposed amendments through entry into force is 24 months - circulation:
six months, adoption to deemed acceptance date: 12 months minimum; deemed acceptance to entry into force: six
months.
However, a resolution adopted in 1994 makes provision for an accelerated amendment procedure to be used in exceptional
circumstances - allowing for the length of time from communication of amendments to deemed acceptance to be cut to six
months in exceptional circumstances and when this is decided by a Conference. In practice to date, the expanded MSC has
adopted most amendments to SOLAS, while Conferences have been held on several occasions - notably to adopt whole
new Chapters to SOLAS or to adopt amendments proposed in response to a specific incident.
The main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and
operation of ships, compatible with their safety. Flag States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag comply
with its requirements, and a number of certificates are prescribed in the Convention as proof that this has been done.
Control provisions also allow Contracting Governments to inspect ships of other Contracting States if there are clear
grounds for believing that the ship and its equipment do not substantially comply with the requirements of the Convention
- this procedure is known as port State control.The current SOLAS Convention includes Articles setting out general
obligations, amendment procedure and so on, followed by an Annex divided into 12 Chapters.
Chapter I - General Provisions

Includes regulations concerning the survey of the various types of ships and the issuing of documents signifying that the
ship meets the requirements of the Convention. The Chapter also includes provisions for the control of ships in ports of
other Contracting Governments.
Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations
The subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments must be such that after assumed damage to the ship's
hull the vessel will remain afloat and stable. Requirements for watertight integrity and bilge pumping arrangements for
passenger ships are also laid down as well as stability requirements for both passenger and cargo ships.
The degree of subdivision - measured by the maximum permissible distance between two adjacent bulkheads - varies with
ship's length and the service in which it is engaged. The highest degree of subdivision applies to passenger ships.
Requirements covering machinery and electrical installations are designed to ensure that services which are essential for
the safety of the ship, passengers and crew are maintained under various emergency conditions. The steering gear
requirements of this Chapter are particularly important.
Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction

Includes detailed fire safety provisions for all ships and specific measures for passenger ships, cargo ships and tankers.
They include the following principles: division of the ship into main and vertical zones by thermal and structural
boundaries; separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structural boundaries;
restricted use of combustible materials; detection of any fire in the zone of origin; containment and extinction of any fire in
the space of origin; protection of the means of escape or of access for fire-fighting purposes; ready availability of fire-
extinguishing appliances; minimization of the possibility of ignition of flammable cargo vapour.

The Chapter includes requirements for life-saving appliances and arrangements, including requirements for life boats,
rescue boats and life jackets according to type of ship.
The International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code gives specific technical requirements for LSAs and is mandatory under
Regulation 34, which states that all life-saving appliances and arrangements shall comply with the applicable requirements
of the LSA Code.
Chapter IV - Radiocommunications
The Chapter incorporates the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). All passenger ships and all cargo ships
of 300 gross tonnage and upwards on international voyages are required to carry equipment designed to improve the
chances of rescue following an accident, including satellite emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs) and
search and rescue transponders (SARTs) for the location of the ship or survival craft.
Regulations in Chapter IV cover undertakings by contracting governments to provide radiocommunciation services as well
as ship requirements for carriage of radiocommunications equipment. The Chapter is closely linked to the Radio
Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union.
Chapter V - Safety of navigation

Chapter V identifies certain navigation safety services which should be provided by Contracting Governments and sets forth
provisions of an operational nature applicable in general to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Convention as
a whole, which only applies to certain classes of ship engaged on international voyages.
The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; routeing of
ships; and the maintenance of search and rescue services.
This Chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in distress and for
Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.
The chapter makes mandatory the carriage of voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic ship identification systems
(AIS) for certain ships.
Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes

The Chapter covers all types of cargo (except liquids and gases in bulk) "which, owing to their particular hazards to ships
or persons on board, may require special precautions".
The regulations include requirements for stowage and securing of cargo or cargo units (such as containers).
The Chapter requires cargo ships carrying grain to comply with the International Grain Code.
Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods

The regulations are contained in three parts:
Part A - Carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form - includes provisions for the classification, packing, marking,
labelling and placarding, documentation and stowage of dangerous goods. Contracting Governments are required to issue
instructions at the national level and the Chapter makes mandatory the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code, developed by IMO, which is constantly updated to accommodate new dangerous goods and to supplement or revise
existing provisions.
Part A-1 - Carriage of dangerous goods in solid form in bulk - covers the documentation, stowage and segregation
requirements for these goods and requires reporting of incidents involving such goods.
Part B covers Construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous liquid chemicals in bulk and requires chemical
tankers built after 1 July 1986 to comply with the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code).
Part C covers Construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk and gas carriers constructed after 1
July 1986 to comply with the requirements of the International Gas Carrier Code (IGC Code).
Part D includes special requirements for the carriage of packaged irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level
radioactive wastes on board ships and requires ships carrying such products to comply with the International Code for the
Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF
Code).
The chapter requires carriage of dangerous goods to be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code). The IMDG Code was first adopted by IMO in 1965 and has been kept up to
date by regular amendments, including those needed to keep it in line with United Nations Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods which sets the basic requirements for all the transport modes
Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships

Gives basic requirements for nuclear-powered ships and is particularly concerned with radiation hazards. It refers to
detailed and comprehensive Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships which was adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1981.
Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships

The Chapter makes mandatory the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which requires a safety management
system to be established by the shipowner or any person who has assumed responsibility for the ship (the "Company").
Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft

The Chapter makes mandatory the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC Code).
Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety

The Chapter clarifies requirements relating to authorization of recognized organizations (responsible for carrying out
surveys and inspections on Administrations' behalves); enhanced surveys; ship identification number scheme; and port
State control on operational requirements.
Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security

The Chapter was adopted in December 2002 and entered into force on 1 July 2004. Regulation XI-2/3 of the new chapter
enshrines the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code). Part A of the Code is mandatory and part B
contains guidance as to how best to comply with the mandatory requirements. The regulation requires Administrations to
set security levels and ensure the provision of security level information to ships entitled to fly their flag. Prior to entering a
port, or whilst in a port, within the territory of a Contracting Government, a ship shall comply with the requirements for the
security level set by that Contracting Government, if that security level is higher than the security level set by the
Administration for that ship.
Regulation XI-2/8 confirms the role of the Master in exercising his professional judgement over decisions necessary to
maintain the security of the ship. It says he shall not be constrained by the Company, the charterer or any other person in
this respect.
Regulation XI-2/5 requires all ships to be provided with a ship security alert system, according to a strict timetable that will
see most vessels fitted by 2004 and the remainder by 2006. When activated the ship security alert system shall initiate
and transmit a ship-to-shore security alert to a competent authority designated by the Administration, identifying the ship,
its location and indicating that the security of the ship is under threat or it has been compromised. The system will not
raise any alarm on-board the ship. The ship security alert system shall be capable of being activated from the navigation
bridge and in at least one other location.
Regulation XI-2/6 covers requirements for port facilities, providing among other things for Contracting Governments to
ensure that port facility security assessments are carried out and that port facility security plans are developed,
implemented and reviewed in accordance with the ISPS Code.
Other regulations in this chapter cover the provision of information to IMO, the control of ships in port, (including measures
such as the delay, detention, restriction of operations including movement within the port, or expulsion of a ship from
port), and the specific responsibility of Companies.
Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers

The Chapter includes structural requirements for bulk carriers over 150 metres in length.
The Protocol of 1978 - Tanker safety and pollution prevention

The 1981 amendments -chapter II-1 and II-2 updated
The 1983 amendments -revised chapter III
The 1988 (April) amendments - post Herald of Free Enterprise
The 1988 (October) amendments - stability of passenger ships
The 1988 Protocol - HSSC
The 1988 amendments - GMDSS
The 1989 amendments - chapters II-1 and II-2
The 1990 amendments - subdivision and stability: probabilistic approach
The 1991 amendments - revised chapter VI
The April 1992 amendments - measures for existing ro-ro passenger ships
The December 1992 amendments -fire safety of new passenger ships
The May 1994 amendments (Conference) - Accelerated amendmentprocedure
NewChapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships
New Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft
New Chapter XI - Special measures to enhance maritime safety
The May 1994 amendments (MSC) - emergency towing, ship reporting systems
The December 1994 amendments - cargo code made mandatory
The May 1995 amendments - ships routeing systems made mandatory
The November 1995 amendments (Conference) - ro-ro safety post-Estonia
The June 1996 amendments - revised chapter III
The December 1996 amendments -new Fire Test Procedures Code
The June 1997 amendments - Vessel Traffic Services regulation
The November 1997 amendments (Conference) - New chapter XII bulk carrier safety
The May 1998 amendments - amendments to chapters II-1, IV, VI
The May 1999 amendments - INF Code made mandatory
The May 2000 amendment - helicopter landing area
The December 2000 amendments - VDRs, AIS made mandatory in revised chapter V, revised chapter II-1
The June 2001 amendments - ch VII, ch IX
The May 2002 amendments - IMDG Code made mandatory
The December 2002 amendments (Conference) - measures to enhance maritime security
The December 2002 amendments - bulk carrier new regulations
The June 2003 amendments - ch V
May 2004 amendments - persons in distress at sea, accidents with lifeboats
December 2004 amendments - bulk carriers, free-fall lifeboats, S-VDRs
May 2005 amendments - revised chapter II-1
May 2006 amendments - LRIT
May 2006 amendments - other issues
December 2006 amendments - passenger ship safety
October 2007 amendments - GMDSS providers
May 2008 - mandatory casualty investigation code
December 2008 - mandatory IS code
December 2008 - mandatory IMSBC code
The Protocol of 1978

Adoption: 17 February 1978
The 1978 Protocol was adopted at the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention, which was
convened in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977.
The conference adopted measures affecting tanker design and operation, which were incorporated into both the SOLAS
Protocol of 1978 as well as the Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (1978 MARPOL Protocol).
The 1978 SOLAS Protocol made a number of important changes to Chapter I, including the introduction of unscheduled
inspections and/or mandatory annual surveys and the strengthening of port State control requirements. Chapter II-1,
Chapter II-2 and Chapter V were also improved.
The main amendments included the following:
New crude oil carriers and product carriers of 20,000 dwt and above were required to be fitted with an inert gas system.
An inert gas system became mandatory for existing crude oil carriers of 70,000 dwt and above by 1 May 1983, and by 1
May 1985 for ships of 20,000-70,000 dwt.
In the case of crude oil carriers of 20-40,000 dwt there was provision for exemption by flag States where it was considered
unreasonable or impracticable to fit an inert gas system and high-capacity fixed washing machines are not used. But an
inert gas system is always required when crude oil washing is operated.
An inert gas system was required on existing product carriers from 1 May 1983 and by 1 May 1985 for ships of 40-70,000
dwt and down to 20,000 dwt which were fitted with high capacity washing machines.
In addition to requiring that all ships of 1,600 grt and above be fitted with radar, the Protocol required that all ships of
10,000 grt and above have two radars, each capable of being operated independently.
All tankers of 10,000 grt and above to have two remote steering gear control systems, each operable separately from the
navigating bridge.
The main steering gear of new tankers of 10,000 grt and above to comprise two or more identical power units, and be
capable of operating the rudder with one or more power units.
The 1981 amendments

Entry into force: 1 September 1984
Chapters II-1 and II-2 were re-written and updated.
In Chapter II-1, the provisions of resolution A.325(IX) Recommendation concerning regulations for machinery and
electrical installations in passenger and cargo ships (adopted in November 1975) were incorporated and made mandatory.
Changes to regulations 29 and 30 on steering gear introduced the concept of duplication of steering gear control systems
in tankers. These measures were agreed taking into account concerns following the 1978 Amoco Cadiz disaster and
relevant provisions in the 1978 SOLAS Protocol.
Chapter II-2 was re-arranged to take into account strengthened fire safety requirements for cargo ships and passenger
ships.
The revised Chapter II-2 incorporated the requirements of resolution A.327(IX) Recommendation concerning fire safety
requirements for cargo ships, which included 21 regulations based on the principles of: separation of accommodation
spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structural boundaries; protection of means of escape; early
detection, containment or extinction of any fire; and restricted use of combustible materials. Other amendments to
Chapter II-2 related to provisions for halogenated hydrocarbon extinguishing systems, special requirements for ships
carrying dangerous goods, and a new regulation 62 on inert gas systems.
Some important changes were also made to Chapter V, including the addition of new requirements concerning the carriage
of shipborne navigational equipment, covering such matters as gyro and magnetic compasses; the mandatory carriage of
two radars and of automatic radar plotting aids in ships of 10,000 grt and above; echo-sounders; devices to indicate speed
and distance; rudder angle indicators; propeller revolution indicators; rate of turn indicators; radio-direction finding
apparatus; and equipment for homing on the radiotelephone distress frequency.
In addition, a few minor changes were made to Chapter III; seven regulations in Chapter IV were replaced, amended or
added and a number of small changes were made to Chapter VII.
The 1983 amendments

Adoption: 17 June 1983
Entry into force: 1 July 1986
The most extensive changes involved Chapter III, which was completely rewritten. The Chapter in the 1974 Convention
differed little from the texts which appeared in the 1960 and 1948 SOLAS Conventions and the amendments were designed
not only to take into account the many technical advances which had taken place since then but also to expedite the
evaluation and introduction of further improvements.
There were also a few minor changes to Chapter II-1 and some further changes to Chapter II-2 (including improvements
to the 1981 amendments) designed particularly to increase the safety of bulk carriers and passenger ships. Some small
changes were made to Chapter IV.
Amendments to Chapter VII extended its application to chemical tankers and liquefied gas carriers by making reference to
two new Codes, the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
(IBC Code) and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC
Code). Both apply to ships built on or after 1 July 1986.
The 1988 (April) amendments

Adoption: 21 April 1988
Entry into force: 22 October 1989
In March 1987 the car ferry Herald of Free Enterprise capsized shortly after leaving Zeebrugge in Belgium and sank with
the loss of 193 lives. The United Kingdom proposed a series of measures designed to prevent a recurrence, the first
package of which was adopted in April 1988.
They included new regulations 23-2 and 42-1 of Chapter II-1 intended to improve monitoring of doors and cargo areas and
to improve emergency lighting.
The 1988 (October) amendments

Adoption: 28 October 1988
Entry into force: 29 April 1990
Some of these amendments also resulted from the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster and included details of how
stability of passenger ships in a damaged condition should be determined and a requirement for all cargo loading doors to
be locked before a ship leaves the berth.
The amendments also made it compulsory for passenger ships to have a lightweight survey at least every five years to
ensure their stability has not been adversely affected by the accumulation of extra weight or any alterations to the
superstructure.
Other amendments concerning the stability of passenger ships in the damaged condition were also adopted. These
regulations had been in preparation before the Herald of Free Enterprise incident and their adoption was brought
forward.
The 1988 Protocol (HSSC)

Entry into force: 3 February 2000
The Protocol introduced a new harmonized system of surveys and certification (HSSC) to harmonize with two other
Conventions, Load Lines and MARPOL 73/78. The aim is to alleviate problems caused by the fact that as requirements in
the three instruments vary, ships may be obliged to go into dry-dock for a survey required by one convention shortly after
being surveyed in connection with another.
By enabling the required surveys to be carried out at the same time, the system is intended to reduce costs for shipowners
and administrations alike.
The 1988 (GMDSS) amendments

IMO had begun work on the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) in the 1970s and its introduction
marked the biggest change to maritime communications since the invention of radio.
The amendments which replaced the existing Chapter IV phased in the introduction of the GMDSS in stages between 1993
and 1 February 1999. The basic concept of the system is that search and rescue authorities ashore, as well as ships in the
vicinity, will be rapidly alerted in the event of an emergency.
The GMDSS makes great use of the satellite communications provided by Inmarsat but also uses terrestrial radio.
The equipment required by ships varies according to the sea area in which they operate - ships travelling to the high seas
must carry more communications equipment than those which remain within reach of specified shore-based radio facilities.
In addition to distress communications, the GMDSS also provides for the dissemination of general maritime safety
information (such as navigational and meteorological warnings and urgent information to ships).
The 1989 amendments

The main changes concern Chapter II-1 and II-2 of the Convention and deal with ships' construction and with fire
protection, detection and extinction.
In Chapter II-1, one of the most important amendments is designed to reduce the number and size of openings in
watertight bulkheads in passenger ships and to ensure that they are closed in the event of an emergency.
In Chapter II-2, improvements were made to regulations concerning fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems, smoke detection
systems, arrangements for fuel and other oils, the location and separation of spaces and several other regulations.
The International Gas Carrier Code - which is mandatory under SOLAS - was also amended.
The 1990 amendments

Adoption: May 1990
Important changes were made to the way in which the subdivision and stability of dry cargo ships is determined. They
apply to ships of 100 metres or more in length built on or after 1 February 1992.
The amendments introduced a new part B-1 of Chapter II-1 containing subdivision and damage stability requirements for
cargo ships based upon the so-called "probabilistic" concept of survival, which was originally developed through study of
data relating to collisions collected by IMO.
This showed a pattern in accidents which could be used in improving the design of ships: most damage, for example, is
sustained in the forward part of ships and it seemed logical, therefore, to improve the standard of subdivision there rather
than towards the stern. Because it is based on statistical evidence as to what actually happens when ships collide, the
probabilistic concept provides a far more realistic scenario than the earlier "deterministic" method, whose principles
regarding the subdivision of passenger ships are theoretical rather than practical in concept.
Amendments were also made to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied
Gases in Bulk (IGC Code).
The 1991 amendments

Adoption: 24 May 1991
Entry into force: 1 January 1994
Chapter VI (Carriage of grain) was completely revised to extend it to include other cargoes and it was retitled Carriage of
cargoes. The text is shorter, but the Chapter is backed up by two new Codes. The International Grain Code is mandatory
while the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing is recommended. The Chapter also refers to the Code of
Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargoes and the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes. In Chapter II-
2, fire safety requirements for passenger ships were improved and other changes were made to Chapter III and Chapter V.
The April 1992 amendments

New standards concerning the stability of existing ro-ro passenger ships after damage were included in amendments to
Chapter II-1. They were based on measures to improve the damage stability of new ro-ro passenger ships which came into
force on 29 April 1990 but were slightly modified. The measures were phased in over an 11-year period beginning 1
October 1994.
A number of other amendments to SOLAS were adopted, including improved fire safety measures for existing passenger
ships carrying more than 36 passengers, including mandatory requirements for smoke detection and alarm and sprinkler
systems in accommodation and service spaces, stairway enclosures and corridors. Other improvements involved the
provision of emergency lighting, general emergency alarm systems and other means of communication.
Some of these measures became applicable for existing ships on 1 October 1994. Those dealing with smoke detection and
alarm systems and sprinklers applied from 1 October 1997. Requirements concerning stairways of steel-frame
construction, for fire-extinguishing systems in machinery spaces and for fire doors were mandatory from 1 October 2000.
The April 1992 amendments were particularly important because they applied to existing ships. In the past, major changes
to SOLAS had been restricted to new ships by so-called "grandfather clauses". The reason for this is that major changes
involve expensive modifications to most ships, and there had previously been a reluctance to make such measures
retroactive.
The December 1992 amendments

Adoption: 11 December 1992
The most important amendments were concerned with the fire safety of new passenger ships. They made it mandatory for
new ships (i.e. those built after 1 October 1994) carrying more than 36 passengers to be fitted with automatic sprinklers
and a fire detection and alarm system centralized in a continuously-manned remote control station. Controls for the remote
closing of fire doors and shutting down of ventilation fans must be located at the same place.
New standards for the fire integrity of bulkheads and decks were introduced and improvements made to standards for
corridors and stairways used as a means of escape in case of fire. Emergency lighting which can be used by passengers to
identify escape routes is required.
Other amendments affected the fire safety of ships carrying 36 passengers or less and also oil tanker fire safety.
Three Codes were also amended. Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) entered into force on 1 July 1994 and affect ships built after that date.
Amendments to the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code)
entered into force on 1 July 1994. The Code is voluntary and applies to existing ships.
The May 1994 amendments (Conference)

Entry into force: 1 January 1996 (Chapters X, XI) 1 July 1998 (Chapter IX)
The Conference adopted three new SOLAS Chapters as well as a resolution on an accelerated amendment procedure.
Accelerated amendment procedure

The Conference adopted a resolution on an accelerated amendment procedure to be used in exceptional circumstances. It
states that a Conference of Contracting Governments can reduce the period after which an amendment to the technical
Chapters of the Convention (which excludes the articles and Chapter I) is deemed to have been accepted from 12 months
to six months, in exceptional circumstances.
Article VIII of SOLAS deals with the procedures for amending the Convention. The existing text says that proposed
amendments have to be circulated to Governments at least six months prior to adoption and cannot enter into force until
at least 18 months after adoption. This makes a total of 24 months, from circulation (six months), through adoption, to
deemed acceptance date (12 months after adoption), to entry into force (six months after deemed acceptance date).
The resolution adopted by the conference states that the circulation period will remain at six months as will the period
between the date on which the amendment is deemed to have been accepted and the date of entry into force. But the
period between adoption and deemed acceptance date can be reduced to six months from 12. The total period between
circulation of an amendment and its entry into force could thus be reduced from 24 months to 18 - in exceptional
circumstances.
Chapter IX: Management for the Safe Operation of Ships

This new Chapter to the Convention was designed to make mandatory the International Safety Management Code, which
was adopted by IMO in November 1993 (Assembly resolution A.741(18)).
The amendments introducing the new Chapter IX entered into force on 1 July 1998. The Chapter applies to passenger
ships and tankers from that date and to cargo ships and mobile drilling units of 500 gross tonnage and above from 1 July
2002.
The Code establishes safety management objectives which are:

- to provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment;
- to establish safeguards against all identified risks;
- to continuously improve safety management skills of personnel, including preparing for

emergencies.
The Code requires a safety management system (SMS) to be established by "the Company", which is defined as the
shipowner or any person, such as the manager or bareboat charterer, who has assumed responsibility for operating the
ship.
The company is then required to establish and implement a policy for achieving these objectives. This includes providing
the necessary resources and shore-based support. Every company is expected "to designate a person or persons ashore
having direct access to the highest level of management".
The procedures required by the ISM Code should be documented and compiled in a Safety Management Manual, a copy of
which should be kept on board.
Chapter X: Safety Measures for High Speed Craft

The new Chapter made mandatory the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft.
Chapter XI: Special Measures to Enhance Safety:

The new Chapter entered into force on 1 January 1996.
Regulation 1 states that organizations entrusted by an Administration with the responsibility for carrying out surveys and
inspections shall comply with the guidelines adopted by IMO in resolution A.739(18) in November 1993.
Regulation 2 extends to bulk carriers aged five years and above, the enhanced programme of surveys applicable to
tankers under MARPOL 73/78. The enhanced surveys should be carried out during the periodical, annual and intermediate
surveys prescribed by the MARPOL and SOLAS Conventions.
The related guidelines on enhanced surveys pay special attention to corrosion. Coatings and tank corrosion prevention
systems must be thoroughly checked and measurements must also be carried out to check the thickness of plates.
Regulation 3 provides that all passenger ships of 100 gross tonnage and above and all cargo ships of 300 gross tonnage
and above shall be provided with an identification number conforming to the IMO ship identification number scheme, as
adopted by resolution A.600(15) in 1987.
Regulation 4 makes it possible for port State control officers inspecting foreign ships to check operational requirements
"when there are clear grounds for believing that the master or crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures
relating to the safety of ships"
Reference is made to resolution A.742(18), adopted in November 1993. The resolution acknowledges the need for port
States to be able to monitor not only the way in which foreign ships comply with IMO standards but also to be able to
assess "the ability of ships' crews in respect of operational requirements relevant to their duties, especially with regard to
passenger ships and ships which may present a special hazard"
The "clear grounds" referred to are defined in the annex to the resolution. They include such factors as operational
shortcomings, cargo operations not being conducted properly, the involvement of the ship in incidents caused by
operational mistakes, absence of an up-to-date muster list and indications that crew members may not be able to
communicate with each other.
Port State control inspections are normally limited to checking certificates and documents. But if certificates are not valid
or if there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment, or its crew, does not
substantially meet the requirements of a relevant instrument, a more detailed inspection may be carried out.
The operations and procedures selected for special attention include ascertaining that crew members are aware of their
duties as indicated in the muster list; communications; fire and abandon ship drills; familiarity with the ship's damage
control and fire control plans; bridge, cargo and machinery operations; and ability to understand manuals and other
instructions.
The May 1994 amendments

Three new regulations were added to Chapter V:
Regulation 15.1 required all tankers of 20,000 dwt and above built after 1 January 1996 to be fitted with an emergency
towing arrangement to be fitted at both ends of the ship. Tankers built before that date had to be fitted with a similar
arrangement not later than 1 January 1999.
Regulation 22 was aimed at improving navigation bridge visibility.
Regulation 8.1 made mandatory the use of ship reporting systems approved by IMO. General principles for ship reporting
systems were previously adopted by IMO in 1989 as a recommendation. The systems are used to provide, gather or
exchange information through radio reports.
The regulation made it mandatory for ships entering areas covered by ship reporting systems to report in to the coastal
authorities giving details of sailing plans.
In Chapter II-2 improvements were made to regulation 15, which deals with fire protection arrangements for fuel oil,
lubrication oil and other flammable oils.
Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC
Code) and the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases (Gas Carrier Code) relate to the
filling limits for cargo tanks.

In Chapter VI (Carriage of Cargoes), the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing was made mandatory. The
Code was adopted as a recommendation in 1991. The amendments made it mandatory to provide the cargo information
required by the Code and for cargo units, including containers, to be loaded, stowed and secured in accordance with a
manual that must be at least equivalent to the Code.
The Code was also made mandatory under Chapter VII (Carriage of dangerous goods).

Regulation 8 of Chapter V was amended to make ships' routeing systems compulsory. Governments are responsible for
submitting proposals for ships' routeing systems to IMO in accordance with amendments to the General Provisions on
Ships' Routeing, which were adopted at the same time.
The November 1995 amendments (Conference)

Adopted: 29 November 1995
The conference adopted a series of amendments to SOLAS, based on proposals put forward by the Panel of Experts on the
safety of roll on-roll off passenger ships which was established in December 1994 following the sinking of the ferry
Estonia.
The most important changes relate to the stability of ro-ro passenger ships in Chapter II-1.
The SOLAS 90 damage stability standard, which had applied to all ro-ro passenger ships built since 1990, was extended to
existing ships in accordance with an agreed phase-in programme. Ships that only meet 85% of the standard had to comply
fully by 1 October 1998 and those meeting 97.5% or above, by 1 October 2005. (The SOLAS 90 standard refers to the
damage stability standard in the 1988 (October) amendments to SOLAS adopted 28 October 1988 and entering into force
on 29 April 1990.)
The conference also adopted a new regulation 8-2, containing special requirements for ro-ro passenger ships carrying 400
passengers or more. This is intended to phase out ships built to a one-compartment standard and ensure that they can
survive without capsizing with two main compartments flooded following damage.
Amendments to other Chapters in the SOLAS Convention included changes to Chapter III, which deals with life saving
appliances and arrangements, including the addition of a section requiring ro-ro passenger ships to be fitted with public
address systems, a regulation providing improved requirements for life-saving appliances and arrangements and a
requirement for all passenger ships to have full information on the details of passengers on board and requirements for the
provision of a helicopter pick-up or landing area.
Other amendments were made to Chapter IV (radiocommunications); Chapter V (safety of navigation) - including a
requirement that all ro-ro passenger ships should have an established working language - and Chapter VI (carriage of
cargoes).
The conference also adopted a resolution which permits regional arrangements to be made on special safety requirements
for ro-ro passenger ships.
The June 1996 amendments

A completely revised Chapter III on life-saving appliances and arrangements was adopted. The amendments take into
account changes in technology since the Chapter had been last re-written in 1983.
Many of the technical requirements were transferred to a new International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code, applicable to
all ships built on or after 1 July 1998. Some of the amendments apply to existing ships as well as new ones.
Other SOLAS Chapters were also amended.
In Chapter II-1, a new part A-1 dealing with the structure of ships was added. Regulation 3-1 requires ships to be
designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with structural requirements of a recognized classification society or
with applicable requirements by the Administration. Regulation 3-2 deals with corrosion prevention of seawater ballast
tanks and other amendments to Chapter II-1 concern the stability of passenger and cargo ships in the damaged condition.
In Chapter VI, Regulation 7 was replaced by a new text dealing with the loading, unloading and stowage of bulk cargoes. It
is intended to ensure that no excessive stress is placed on the ship's structure during such operations. The ship must be
provided with a booklet giving advice on cargo handling operations and the master and terminal representative must agree
on a plan to ensure that loading and unloading is carried out safely.
In Chapter XI, an amendment was made regarding authorization of recognized organizations.
The International Bulk Chemicals (IBC) and Bulk Chemicals (BCH) Codes were also amended. The IBC Code is mandatory
under SOLAS and applies to ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk that were built after 1 July 1986. The BCH is
recommended and applies to ships built before that date.

Chapter II-2 was considerably modified, with changes to the general introduction, Part B (fire safety measures for
passenger ships), Part C (fire safety measures for cargo ships) and Part D (fire safety measures for tankers). The changes
made mandatory a new International Code for Application of Fire Test Procedures intended to be used by Administrations
when approving products for installation in ships flying their flag.
Amendments to Chapter II-1 included a requirement for ships to be fitted with a system to ensure that the equipment
necessary for propulsion and steering are maintained or immediately restored in the case of loss of any one of the
generators in service.
An amendment to Chapter V aims to ensure that the crew can gain safe access to the ship's bow, even in severe weather
conditions. Amendments were also made to two regulations in Chapter VII relating to carriage of dangerous goods and the
IBC Code was also amended.
The amendments included a new Regulation 8.2 on Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) in Chapter V. VTS are traffic management
systems, for example those used in busy straits. This Regulation sets out when VTS can be implemented. It says Vessel
Traffic Services should be designed to contribute to the safety of life at sea, safety and efficiency of navigation and the
protection of the marine environment, adjacent shore areas, worksites and offshore installations from possible adverse
effects of maritime traffic.
Governments may establish VTS when, in their opinion, the volume of traffic or the degree of risk justifies such services.
But no VTS should prejudice the "rights and duties of governments under international law" and a VTS may only be made
mandatory in sea areas within a State's territorial waters.
In Chapter II-1, a new regulation 8.3 on "Special requirements for passenger ships, other than ro-ro passenger ships,
carrying 400 persons or more" effectively makes these ships comply with the special requirements for ro-ro passenger
ships in Regulation 8.2 which were adopted in November 1995. The special requirements are aimed at ensuring the ships
can survive without capsizing with two main compartments flooded following damage.
The November 1997 amendments (Conference)

The Conference adopted a Protocol adding a new Chapter XII to the Convention entitled Additional Safety Measures for
Bulk Carriers.
The regulations state that all new bulk carriers 150 metres or more in length (built after 1 July 1999) carrying cargoes with
a density of 1,000 kg/m3 and above should have sufficient strength to withstand flooding of any one cargo hold, taking
into account dynamic effects resulting from presence of water in the hold and taking into account the recommendations
adopted by IMO.
For existing ships (built before 1 July 1999) carrying bulk cargoes with a density of 1,780 kg/m3 and above, the transverse
watertight bulkhead between the two foremost cargo holds and the double bottom of the foremost cargo hold should have
sufficient strength to withstand flooding and the related dynamic effects in the foremost cargo hold.
Cargoes with a density of 1,780 kg/m3 and above (heavy cargoes) include iron ore, pig iron, steel, bauxite and cement.
Lighter cargoes, but with a density of more than 1,000 kg/m3, include grains such as wheat and rice, and timber.
The amendments take into account a study into bulk carrier survivability carried out by the International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS) at the request of IMO. IACS found that if a ship is flooded in the forward hold, the bulkhead
between the two foremost holds may not be able to withstand the pressure that results from the sloshing mixture of cargo
and water, especially if the ship is loaded in alternate holds with high density cargoes (such as iron ore). If the bulkhead
between one hold and the next collapses, progressive flooding could rapidly occur throughout the length of the ship and
the vessel would sink in a matter of minutes.
IACS concluded that the most vulnerable areas are the bulkhead between numbers one and two holds at the forward end
of the vessel and the double bottom of the ship at this location. During special surveys of ships, particular attention should
be paid to these areas and, where necessary, reinforcements should be carried out.
The criteria and formulae used to assess whether a ship currently meets the new requirements, for example in terms of
the thickness of the steel used for bulkhead structures, or whether reinforcement is necessary, are laid out in IMO
standards adopted by the 1997 Conference.
Under Chapter XII, surveyors can take into account restrictions on the cargo carried in considering the need for, and the
extent of, strengthening of the transverse watertight bulkhead or double bottom. When restrictions on cargoes are
imposed, the bulk carrier should be permanently marked with a solid triangle on its side shell. The date of application of
the new Chapter to existing bulk carriers depends on their age. Bulk carriers which are 20 years old and over on 1 July
1999 have to comply by the date of the first intermediate or periodic survey after that date, whichever is sooner. Bulk
carriers aged 15-20 years must comply by the first periodical survey after 1 July 1999, but not later than 1 July 2002. Bulk
carriers less than 15 years old must comply by the date of the first periodical survey after the ship reaches 15 years of
age, but not later than the date on which the ship reaches 17 years of age.

Amendments were made to regulation 14 on Construction and initial testing of watertight bulkheads, etc., in passenger
ships and cargo ships in Chapter II-1. Paragraph 3 is replaced to allow visual examination of welded connections, where
filling with water or a hose test are not practicable.
In Chapter IV, the amendments included:
- a new regulation 5-1 requiring Contracting Governments to ensure suitable arrangements are in place for
registering Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) identities (including ship's call sign,
Inmarsat identities) and making the information available 24 hours a day to Rescue Co-ordination Centres;
- a new paragraph 9 to regulation 15 Maintenance requirements covering testing intervals for satellite
emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs);
- a new regulation 18 on Position updating requiring automatic provision of information regarding the ship's
position where two-way communication equipment is capable of providing automatically the ship's position
in the distress alert.
Amendments in Chapter VI to paragraph 6 of regulation 5 Stowage and securing make it clear that "all cargoes, other than
solid and liquid bulk cargoes" should be loaded, stowed and secured in accordance with the Cargo Securing Manual. A
similar amendment was adopted for Regulation 6 of Chapter VII, also covering Stowage and securing.

Amendments to Chapter VII make the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,
Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code) mandatory.
The INF Code sets out how the material covered by the Code should be carried, including specifications for ships. The
material covered by the code includes:
- Irradiated nuclear fuel - material containing uranium, thorium and/or plutonium isotopes which has been used
to maintain a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.
- Plutonium - the resultant mixture of isotopes of that material extracted from irradiated nuclear fuel from
reprocessing
- High-level radioactive wastes - liquid wastes resulting from the operation of the first stage extraction system
or the concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction stages, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated fuel, or
solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted.
The INF Code applies to all ships regardless of the date of construction and size, including cargo ships of less than 500
gross tonnage, engaged in the carriage of INF cargo. The INF Code does not apply to warships, naval auxiliary or other
ships used only on government non-commercial service, although Administrations are expected to ensure such ships are in
compliance with the Code.
Specific regulations in the Code cover a number of issues, including: damage stability, fire protection, temperature control
of cargo spaces, structural consideration, cargo securing arrangements, electrical supplies, radiological protection
equipment and management, training and shipboard emergency plans.
Ships carrying INF cargo are assigned to one of three classes, depending on the total radioactivity of INF cargo which is
carried on board, and regulations vary slightly according to the Class:
Class INF 1 ship - Ships which are certified to carry INF cargo with an aggregate activity less than 4,000 TBq
(TeraBecquerel - measurement of radioactivity).
Class INF 2 ship - Ships which are certified to carry irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive wastes with an
aggregate activity less than 2 x 106 TBq and ships which are certified to carry plutonium with an aggregate activity less
than 2 x 105 TBq.
Class INF 3 ship - Ships which are certified to carry irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive wastes and ships
which are certified to carry plutonium with no restriction of the maximum aggregate activity of the materials.
The INF Code was first adopted as a recommendatory Code by the eighteenth session of the Assembly on 4 November
1993 (resolution A.748(18)). The twentieth session of the Assembly adopted amendments to the INF Code to include
specific requirements for shipboard emergency plans and notification in the event of an incident (resolution A.853(20),
adopted on 27 November 1997).
The Maritime Safety Committee also adopted a redrafted text of the INF Code incorporating amendments reflecting its
mandatory nature.
The May 2000 amendment

SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 28.2 for helicopter landing areas is amended to require a helicopter landing area only for
ro-ro passenger ships. Regulation 28.1 of SOLAS Chapter III requires all ro-ro passenger ships to be provided with a
helicopter pick-up area and existing ro-ro passenger ships were required to comply with this regulation not later than the
first periodical survey after 1 July 1997.
The requirement for a helicopter landing area for all passenger ships of 130 metres in length and upwards was deferred to
1 July 1999 but it was decided to amend the regulation to make this requirement applicable to ro-ro passenger ships only.

A number of amendments were adopted.
A revised SOLAS chapter V (Safety of Navigation) brings in a new mandatory requirement for voyage data recorders
voyage data recorders (VDRs) to assist in accident investigations. Regulation 20 requires the following ships to fit VDRs:
- passenger ships constructed on or after 1 July 2002;
- ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than the first survey on or after 1 July
2002;
- passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than 1
January 2004; and
- ships, other than passenger ships, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July
2002.
The new chapter also requires automatic identification systems (AIS), capable of providing information about the ship to
other ships and to coastal authorities automatically, to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards
engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages
and passenger ships irrespective of size built on or after 1 July 2002.
It also applies to ships engaged on international voyages constructed before 1 July 2002, according to the following
timetable:
- passenger ships, not later than 1 July 2003;
- tankers, not later than the first survey for safety equipment on or after 1 July 2003;
- ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 50,000 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than 1 July
2004;
- ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 10,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000
gross tonnage, not later than 1 July 2005;
- ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 10,000
gross tonnage, not later than 1 July 2006; and
- ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 3,000 gross
tonnage, not later than 1 July 2007.
Note: the phase-in schedule for AIS on ships 300 gross tonnage and upwards was amended by the 2002
amendments to a final date of 2004 (see below).
Amendments to SOLAS chapter X (Safety measures for high-speed craft) make mandatory for new ships the High-Speed
Craft Code 2000. The 2000 HSC Code updates the mandatory High-Speed Craft Code adopted in 1994. The 2000 HSC will
apply to all HSC built after the date of entry into force, 1 July 2002. The original HSC Code was adopted by IMO in May
1994, but the rapid pace of development in this sector of shipping has meant an early revision of the Code. The original
Code will continue to apply to existing high-speed craft. The changes incorporated in the new Code are intended to bring it
into line with amendments to SOLAS and new recommendations that have been adopted in the past four years - for
example, requirements covering public address systems and helicopter pick-up areas
A revised SOLAS chapter II-2 (Construction, - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction) as well as a new
International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code) were adopted. The revised chapter is intended to be clear,
concise and user-friendly, incorporating the substantial changes introduced in recent years following a number of serious
fire casualties. The revised chapter includes seven parts, each including requirements applicable to all or specified ship
types, while the Fire Safety Systems (FSS) Code, which is made mandatory under the new chapter, includes detailed
specifications for fire safety systems in 15 Chapters.
A new regulation in SOLAS Chapter II-1 (Construction - Structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical
installations) prohibits the new installation of materials which contain asbestos on all ships. The new regulation
3-5 is included in SOLAS Chapter II-1 (Construction - Structure, Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical
installations.
Amendments to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol include amendments to reflect the changes to SOLAS chapter V, such as the
details of navigational systems and equipment referred to in the records of equipment attached to certificates.
Amendments to the International Code for the Application of Fire Test Procedures (FTP Code) add new parts 10
and 11 to annex 1 on Test for fire-restricting material for high-speed craft and test for fire-resisting divisions of high-speed
craft.
Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
(IBC Code) and the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code)
relate to cargo hose requirements, protection of personnel and carriage of carbon disulphide. Entry into force 1 July 2002.
Amendments to the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) include the replacement of Chapter 13
Certification, verification and control with chapters 13 Certification; and adding of chapters 14 Interim Certification; 15
Forms of Certificate; and 16 Verification; as well as a new appendix giving forms of documents and certificates.
Amendments to the Code for the Construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (BCH Code)
relate to ship's cargo hoses, tank vent systems, safety equipment, operational requirements; and amendments to the Code
for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (GC Code) relate to ship's cargo hoses,
personnel protection and operating requirements.
The June 2001 Amendments

Adoption: June 2001
Amendments to Chapter VII - Carriage of Dangerous Goods - and to the International Code for the Safe Carriage of
Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code) to align them
with Amendment 30 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code.
Also amendments to the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (1994 HSC Code) to bring the provisions for
navigational equipment of the 1994 HSC Code in line with the relevant provisions of the 2000 HSC Code (which enters into
force on 1 July 2002 for ships built after that date). In particular the amendments relate to carriage of voyage data
recorders and carriage of automatic identification systems (AIS).

The amendments to chapter SOLAS VII (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) make the International Maritime Dangerous Goods
Code (IMDG Code) mandatory and separated requirements for packaged goods and goods in solid form in bulk into two
Parts A and A-1. The IMDG Code was adopted in a mandatory form.
However, the provisions of the following parts of the Code will remain recommendatory:
- chapter 1.3 (Training);
- chapter 2.1 (Explosives, Introductory Notes 1 to 4 only);
- chapter 2.3, section 2.3.3 (Determination of flashpoint only);
- chapter 3.2 (columns 15 and 17 of the Dangerous Goods List only);
- chapter 3.5 (Transport schedule for Class 7 radioactive material only);

- chapter 5.4, section 5.4.5 (Multimodal dangerous goods form), insofar as layout of the form is concerned;
and
- chapter 7.3 (Special requirements in the event of an incident and fire precautions involving dangerous goods
only).
In practice, this means that from the legal point of view, the whole of the IMDG Code is made mandatory, but provisions of
recommendatory nature are editorially expressed in the Code (e.g. using the word "should" instead of "shall") to clarify
their status.
The mandatory IMDG Code incorporates certain changes relating to specific products, as well as relevant elements of the
amendments to the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations adopted by the UN
Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods at its twenty-first session in Geneva from 4 to 13 December
2000.
Also, amendments to the 1978 SOLAS Protocol, make changes to the Record of Equipment for the Passenger Ship Safety
Certificate (Form P); Record of Equipment for the Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (Form R); and Record of Equipment
for the Cargo Ship Safety Certificate (Form C).
The December 2002 amendments (Conference) - Measures to enhance maritime security

The amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention were adopted by a Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security and are
aimed at enhancing maritime security on board ships and at ship/port interface areas. Among other things, these
amendments create a new SOLAS chapter dealing specifically with maritime security, which in turn contains the mandatory
requirement for ships to comply with the the new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code). The Code
contains detailed security-related requirements for Governments, port authorities and shipping companies in a mandatory
section (Part A), together with a series of guidelines about how to meet these requirements in a second, non-mandatory
section (Part B). The Conference also adopted a series of resolutions designed to add weight to the amendments,
encourage the application of the measures to ships and port facilities not covered by the Code and pave the way for future
work on the subject..
Modifications to Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) contain a new timetable for the fitting of Automatic Information Systems
(AIS). Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000 gross
tonnage, will be required to fit AIS not later than the first safety equipment survey after 1 July 2004 or by 31 December
2004, whichever occurs earlier. Ships fitted with AIS shall maintain AIS in operation at all times except where international
agreements, rules or standards provide for the protection of navigational information."
The existing SOLAS Chapter XI (Special measures to enhance maritime safety) has been re-numbered as Chapter XI-1.
Regulation XI-1/3 is modified to require ships' identification numbers to be permanently marked in a visible place either on
the ship's hull or superstructure. Passenger ships should carry the marking on a horizontal surface visible from the air.
Ships should also be marked with their ID numbers internally.
And a new regulation XI-1/5 requires ships to be issued with a Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) which is intended to
provide an on-board record of the history of the ship. The CSR shall be issued by the Administration and shall contain
information such as the name of the ship and of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship
was registered with that State, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of
the registered owner(s) and their registered address. Any changes shall be recorded in the CSR so as to provide updated
and current information together with the history of the changes.
New Chapter XI-2 (Special measures to enhance maritime security)

A brand-new Chapter XI-2 (Special measures to enhance maritime security) is added after the renumbered Chapter XI-1.
This chapter applies to passenger ships and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, including high speed craft,
mobile offshore drilling units and port facilities serving such ships engaged on international voyages.
Regulation XI-2/2 of the new chapter enshrines the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code). Part A
of this Code is mandatory and part B contains guidance as to how best to comply with the mandatory requirements.
The regulation requires Administrations to set security levels and ensure the provision of security level information to ships
entitled to fly their flag. Prior to entering a port, or whilst in a port, within the territory of a Contracting Government, a ship
shall comply with the requirements for the security level set by that Contracting Government, if that security level is higher
than the security level set by the Administration for that ship.
this respect.
port), and the specific responsibility of Companies.
The December 2002 amendments (by the expanded MSC)

Chapter XII (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers)
• New regulation XII/12 on Hold, ballast and dry space water level detectors require the fitting of high
level alarms and level monitoring systems on all bulk carriers, in order to detect water ingress. The
regulation requires the fitting of such alarms on all bulk carriers regardless of their date of
construction.
• New regulation XII/13 on Availability of pumping systems would require the means for draining and
pumping dry space bilges and ballast tanks any part of which is located forward of the collision
bulkhead to be capable of being brought into operation from a readily accessible enclosed space.
SOLAS chapter II-1 (Construction - structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations)
• In Part B (Subdivision and stability), new regulation II-1/3-6 Access to spaces in cargo areas of oil
tankers and bulk carriers is intended to ensure that vessels can be properly inspected throughout their
lifespan, by designing and building the ship to provide suitable means for access. Associated Technical
provisions for means of access for inspections are mandatory under the regulation. Without adequate
access, the structural condition of the vessel can deteriorate undetected and major structural failure
can arise. The regulation requires each space within the cargo area to be provided with an appropriate
means of access to enable, throughout the life of a ship, overall and close-up inspections and
thickness measurements of the ship's structures to be carried out by the Administration, the Company,
and the ship's personnel and others as necessary.
• In Part C (Machinery Installation), new paragraph added to regulation 31 - Machinery control, to
require automation systems to be designed in a manner which ensures that threshold warning of
impending or imminent slowdown or shutdown of the propulsion system is given to the officer in
charge of the navigational watch in time to assess navigational circumstances in an emergency.
Chapter II-2 (Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction)
• The amendments concern references to the IMDG Code and reflect amendments to SOLAS chapter VII
(Carriage of Dangerous Goods) adopted in May 2002 which make the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) mandatory.
• The amendments to Regulation 26 - Additional requirements for ro-ro passenger ships, requires
liferafts carried on ro-ro passenger ships to be fitted with a radar transponder in the ratio of one
transponder for every four liferafts. The regulation is made applicable to existing ships as well as new
ships.
Also adopted, amendments to the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium
and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on board Ships (INF Code) - The amendments in the sections on definitions and
application reflect amendments to SOLAS chapter VII (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) adopted in May 2002 which make the
IMDG Code mandatory.

Adoption: June 2003
Chapter V - Safety of Navigation

Amendments to SOLAS regulations V/2 Definitions and V/22 Navigation Bridge Visibility add the definition of "length" to
regulation V/2 and a consequential editorial change is made to regulation V/22. The definition states that "length of a ship
means its length overall".
Amendments to SOLAS regulation V/28 on Records of navigational activities add a new paragraph on daily reporting. The
amendment will require all ships of 500 gross tonnage and above, engaged on international voyages exceeding 48 hours,
to submit a daily report to their company, to include ship's position; ship's course and speed; and details of any external or
internal conditions that are affecting the ship's voyage or the normal safe operation of the ship. The aim of the
amendments is to address the responsibilities of ship operators to provide information of benefit to those responsible for
mounting rescue operations.

Adoption: May 2004
Access to and within spaces in the cargo area of oil tankers and bulk carriers - Amendments to regulation II-1/3-6
mainly to allow the provision of non-permanent means of access onboard ships (the requirements for provision of
permanent means of access were introduced in the December 2002 amendments).
Persons in distress at sea

Amendments to chapter V (Safety of Navigation) - to add a definition of search and rescue services; to set an obligation to
provide assistance, regardless of nationality or status of persons in distress, and mandate co-ordination and co-operation
between States to assist the ship's master in delivering persons rescued at sea to a place of safety; and to add a new
regulation on master's discretion.
Accidents with lifeboats

Amendments to SOLAS chapter III (Life-saving appliances and arrangements) which are intended to help prevent
accidents with lifeboats during drills. The amendments, which are expected to enter into force on 1 July 2006, stem from
work by the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) intended to address the unacceptably high number of
accidents with lifeboats that have been occurring over recent years. Crew have been injured, sometimes fatally, while
participating in lifeboat drills and/or inspections.
The amendments to Regulation 19 (Emergency training and drills) and Regulation 20 (Operational readiness, maintenance
and inspections) concern the conditions in which lifeboat emergency training and drills should be conducted and introduce
changes to the operational tests to be conducted during the weekly and monthly inspections, so as not to require the
assigned crew to be on board in all cases.
Carriage of immersion suits

Amendments to SOLAS chapter III Regulation 32 - Personal life-saving appliances to make changes to the number of
immersion suits to be carried on all cargo ships. The amendments introduce carriage requirements for one immersion suit
per person on board all cargo ships, including bulk carriers. At present, the regulation requires carriage of at least three
immersion suits for each lifeboat on a cargo ship, as well as thermal protective aids for persons not provided with
immersion suits.
With the adoption of the amendments, immersion suits become, as lifejackets, a personal life-saving appliance for each
person on board thus offering better thermal protection and improved chance of survival and rescue. The MSC also
adopted consequential amendments to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol relating to the records of equipment.
IMDG Code amendments

Amendments to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code update several sections of the Code relating to
the carriage of dangerous goods and also include a new chapter 1.4 on Security Provisions intended to address the security
of dangerous goods being transported by sea. The amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2006, but
may be applied on a voluntary basis from 1 January 2005.
December 2004 amendments
Adoption: December 2004

Entry into fore: 1 July 2006
Bulk carrier safety

A new text for SOLAS chapter XII (Additional safety measures for bulk carriers) incorporates revisions to some regulations
and new requirements relating to double-side skin bulk carriers.
The amendments include the addition of a new regulation 14 on restrictions from sailing with any hold empty and
requirements for double-side skin construction as an optional alternative to single-side skin construction. The option of
double-side skin construction will apply to new bulk carriers of 150m in length and over, carrying solid bulk cargoes having
a density of 1,000 kg/m3 and above.
Free-fall lifeboats on bulk carriers

an amendment to regulation 31 in SOLAS chapter III (Life-saving appliances and arrangements) makes mandatory the
carriage of free-fall lifeboats on bulk carriers.
Simplified Voyage Data Recorders

Amendments to regulation 20 of SOLAS chapter V (Safety of Navigation) give a phased-in carriage requirement for a
shipborne simplified voyage data recorder (S-VDR).
The regulation requires a VDR, which may be an S-VDR, to be fitted on existing cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and
upwards, phasing in the requirement for cargo ships of 20,000 gross tonnage and upwards first, to be followed by cargo
ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards.
The S-VDR is not required to store the same level of detailed data as a standard VDR, but nonetheless should maintain a
store, in a secure and retrievable form, of information concerning the position, movement, physical status, command and
control of a vessel over the period leading up to and following an incident.
May 2005 amendments
Adoption: May 2005

Entry into force: 1 January 2007/1 January 2009
A revised SOLAS chapter II-1 was adopted with entry into force set for 1 January 2009. The revision of SOLAS chapter II-1
is intended to harmonize the provisions on subdivision and damage stability for passenger and cargo ships. The revised
provisions in parts A, B and B-1 will be applicable to new ships built after the expected entry into force date of 1 January
2009.
The amendments, which have been intensively developed over the past decade, are based on the "probabilistic" method of
determining damage stability, which is itself based on the detailed study of data collected by IMO relating to collisions.
Because it is based on statistical evidence concerning what actually happens when ships collide, the probabilistic concept is
believed to be far more realistic than the previously-used "deterministic" method.
The revision has taken into account the results of the HARDER (Harmonisation of Rules and Design Rational) research
project: a project undertaken by a consortium of European industrial, research and academic institutions to study the
probabilistic approach for assessing a ship's damage stability and to develop new criteria and indexes for subdivision based
on probability of survival, taking into account effects from waves, heeling moments, cargo shift, transient effects and
equalization arrangements.
Other amendments to SOLAS, with an expected entry into force date of 1 January 2007, including:
• New SOLAS regulation II-1/3-7 to require ship construction drawings to be maintained on board and
ashore.
• New SOLAS regulation II-1/3-8 concerning towing and mooring equipment. The regulation will require
all ships to be provided with arrangements, equipment and fittings of sufficient safe working load to
enable the safe conduct of all towing and mooring operations associated with the normal operation of
the ship.
• New SOLAS regulation II-1/23-3 concerning water level detectors in the cargo hold(s) on new single
hold cargo ships other than bulk carriers.
• Amendment to SOLAS regulation II-1/31 Machinery control to restrict the application of propulsion
control automation systems to new ships only.
Also, with expected entry into force of 1 January 2009, new SOLAS regulations XI-1/3-1 and amendments to regulation XI-
1/5 on the mandatory company and registered owner identification number.
May 2006 amendments LRIT
Adoption: May 2006

The new regulation on LRIT is included in SOLAS chapter V on Safety of Navigation, through which LRIT will be introduced
as a mandatory requirement for the following ships on international voyages: passenger ships, including high-speed craft;
cargo ships, including high-speed craft, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards; and mobile offshore drilling units.
The SOLAS regulation on LRIT establishes a multilateral agreement for sharing LRIT information for security and search
and rescue purposes, amongst SOLAS Contracting Governments, in order to meet the maritime security needs and other
concerns of such Governments. It maintains the right of flag States to protect information about the ships entitled to fly
their flag, where appropriate, while allowing coastal States access to information about ships navigating off their coasts.
The SOLAS regulation on LRIT does not create or affirm any new rights of States over ships beyond those existing in
international law, particularly, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), nor does it alter or affect
the rights, jurisdiction, duties and obligations of States in connection with UNCLOS.
The LRIT information ships will be required to transmit include the ship's identity, location and date and time of the
position. There will be no interface between LRIT and AIS. One of the more important distinctions between LRIT and AIS,
apart from the obvious one of range, is that, whereas AIS is a broadcast system, data derived through LRIT will be
available only to the recipients who are entitled to receive such information and safeguards concerning the confidentiality
of those data have been built into the regulatory provisions. SOLAS Contracting Governments will be entitled to receive
information about ships navigating within a distance not exceeding 1000 nautical miles off their coast.
The regulation foresees a phased-in implementation schedule for ships constructed before its expected entry into force
date of 1 January 2008 and an exemption for ships operating exclusively in sea area A1 from the requirement to transmit
LRIT information, since such ships are already fitted with AIS. It also identifies which authorities may have access to LRIT
information.
Also adopted were performance standards and functional requirements for LRIT and an MSC resolution on Arrangements
for the timely establishment of the long range identification and tracking system.
May 2006 amendments
Adoption: May 2006

Amendments to SOLAS Chapter II-2 - Fire protection

These include amendments relating to Regulation 9 - Containment of fire, so as to include a requirement for water-mist
nozzles which should be tested and approved in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Organization; and in
Regulation 15 - Arrangements for oil fuel, lubricating oil and other flammable oils, new text relating to the application of
the regulation to ships constructed on or after 1 February 1992 and on or after 1 July 1998.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements

In Regulation 7 - Personal life-saving appliances, the amendments add a new requirement for infant lifejackets. For
passenger ships on voyages of less than 24 hours, a number of infant lifejackets equal to at least 2.5% of the number of
passengers on board is to be provided; and for passenger ships on voyages of 24 hours or greater, infant lifejackets are to
be provided for each infant on board. A further amendment relates to the provision of lifejackets for larger passengers and
states that, if the adult lifejackets provided are not designed to fit persons with a chest girth of up to 1,750 mm, a
sufficient number of suitable accessories are to be available on board to allow them to be secured to such persons.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter IV - Radiocommunications

The amendments relate to the provision of radio equipment, in Regulation 7, to require ships to carry an EPIRB capable of
transmitting a distress alert through the polar orbiting satellite service (COSPAS-SARSAT) operating in the 406 MHz band;
and, in Regulations 9 and 10, to clarify that the means of initiating ship-to-shore distress alerts may be through the
Inmarsat geostationary satellite service by a ship earth station.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter V - Safety of navigation

The amendment adds a new paragraph to Regulation 22 - Navigation bridge visibility to allow ballast water exchange at
sea, provided that the master has determined that it is safe to do so and takes into consideration any increased blind
sectors or reduced horizontal fields of vision resulting from the operation to ensure that a proper lookout is maintained at
all times. The operation should be conducted in accordance with the ship's ballast water management plan, taking into
account the recommendations on ballast water exchange. The commencement and termination of the operation should be
recorded in the ship's record of navigational activities.
Amendments to the International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code)
The amendments replace the text of Chapter 5 Fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems with a revised text.
Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code)

The amendments include the requirement that all life saving appliances should withstand in stowage an air temperature
range of 30°C to +65°C and personal life-saving appliances should remain operational throughout an air temperature
range of -15°C to +40°C. The colour of life-saving appliances is now specified to be "of international or vivid reddish
orange, or a comparably highly visible colour on all parts where this will assist detection at sea". The existing section 2.2
on General requirements for lifejackets is revised and replaced. Further amendments relate to specifications for immersion
suits and anti-exposure suits.
Amendments to Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the Administration
(Resolution A.739(18))
The amendments to the guidelines, which are mandatory under SOLAS chapter XI-1, add a new paragraph 2-1 to require
the use of only exclusive surveyors and auditors for surveys and certification, although radio surveys may be subcontracted
to non-exclusive surveyors.

Entry into force: 1 July 2008/1 July 2010
Revised passenger ship safety standards

The package of amendments to SOLAS were the result of a comprehensive review of passenger ship safety initiated in
2000 with the aim of assessing whether the current regulations were adequate, in particular for the large passenger ships
now being built.
The work in developing the new and amended regulations has based its guiding philosophy on the dual premise that the
regulatory framework should place more emphasis on the prevention of a casualty from occurring in the first place and that
future passenger ships should be designed for improved survivability so that, in the event of a casualty, persons can stay
safely on board as the ship proceeds to port.
The amendments include new concepts such as the incorporation of criteria for the casualty threshold (the amount of
damage a ship is able to withstand, according to the design basis, and still safely return to port) into SOLAS chapters II-1
and II-2. The amendments also provide regulatory flexibility so that ship designers can meet any safety challenges the
future may bring. The amendments include:
· alternative designs and arrangements;
· safe areas and the essential systems to be maintained while a ship proceeds to port after a casualty, which will
require redundancy of propulsion and other essential systems;
· on-board safety centres, from where safety systems can be controlled, operated and monitored;
· fixed fire detection and alarm systems, including requirements for fire detectors and manually operated call points to
be capable of being remotely and individually identified;
· fire prevention, including amendments aimed at enhancing the fire safety of atriums, the means of escape in case of
fire and ventilation systems; and
· time for orderly evacuation and abandonment, including requirements for the essential systems that must remain
operational in case any one main vertical zone is unserviceable due to fire.
The amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 July 2010.
Fire regulations on balconies

Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2 and to the International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code) to strengthen the
fire protection arrangements in relation to cabin balconies on passenger vessels were developed in response to the fire
aboard the cruise ship Star Princess, while on passage between Grand Cayman and Montego Bay, Jamaica, in March
2006. The fire began on an external balcony and spread over several decks.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2 are aimed at ensuring that existing regulations 4.4 (Primary deck coverings),
5.3.1.2 (Ceilings and linings), 5.3.2 (Use of combustible materials) and 6 (Smoke generation potential and toxicity) are
also applied to cabin balconies on new passenger ships.
For existing passenger ships, relevant provisions require that furniture on cabin balconies be of restricted fire risk unless
fixed water spraying systems, fixed fire detection and fire alarm systems are fitted and that partitions separating balconies
be constructed of non combustible materials, similar to the provisions for new passenger ships.
The amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 July 2008.
Prevention of accidents involving lifeboats

An amendment to SOLAS regulation III/19.3.3.4 concerns provisions for the launch of free-fall lifeboats during abandon-
ship drills. The amendment will allow, during the abandon-ship drill, for the lifeboat to either be free-fall launched with only
the required operating crew on board, or lowered into the water by means of the secondary means of launching without
the operating crew on board, and then manoeuvred in the water by the operating crew. The aim is to prevent accidents
with lifeboats occurring during abandon-ship drills. The amendment is expected to enter into force on 1 July 2008.
Protective coatings
Amendments to SOLAS regulations II-1/3-2 make mandatory Performance standard for protective coatings of dedicated
seawater ballast tanks on all new ships and of double-side skin spaces of bulk carriers.
The SOLAS amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 July 2008 and the performance standard will apply to ships
for which the building contract is placed on or after 1 July 2008; or, in the absence of a building contract, the keels of
which are laid on or after 1 January 2009, or the delivery of which is on or after 1 July 2012.
Other amendments
· amendments to the FSS Code relating to fire extinguishers, specifically portable foam applicators; fixed foam fire-
extinguishing systems; fixed-pressure water-spraying and water-mist fire-extinguishing systems, fixed fire detection
and fire alarm systems for cabin balconies. Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code), including those related to life rafts, life
boats and rescue boats, particularly in relation to stowage and release mechanisms. Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in
Bulk (IBC Code), relating to fire protection and fire extinction, and the revised chapters 17 (Summary of minimum
requirements), 18 (List of products to which the code does not apply) and 19 (Index of Products Carried in Bulk).
Entry into force on 1 January 2009.
· amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk
(IGC Code), to update the references to SOLAS regulations and to add two more chemicals to the list of products in
chapter 19 (Summary of minimum requirements). Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the International Codes of Safety for High-Speed Craft (1994 HSC Code and the 2000 HSC Code), to
update them in line with relevant SOLAS amendments and, in the case of the 2000 HSC Code, to revise requirements
relating to testing and calculations for buoyancy, stability and subdivision. Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the Protocol of 1988, relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, to
include in the Record of equipment for the relevant safety certificate an entry regarding the long-range identification
and tracking system. Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, including
amendments of a reference in regulation 22 (Scuppers, inlets and discharges) and an amendment in regulation 39
(Minimum bow height and reserve buoyancy). Entry into force on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the Dynamically Supported Craft (DSC) Code to update it in line with relevant amendments to SOLAS.
Will become effective on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the Gas Carrier (GC) Code, to update it in line with certain fire safety requirements in SOLAS. Will
become effective on 1 July 2008.
· amendments to the Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (resolution MSC.81(70)), including
revisions to prototype tests for lifebuoys, lifejackets, immersion suits, anti-exposure suits and thermal protective aids,
liferafts, lifeboats, rescue boats and fast rescue boats, launching and embarkation appliances, position-indicating
lights for life-saving appliances and hydrostatic release units; and revisions to production and installation tests for
survival craft, launching and stowage arrangements. The amendments will become effective on 1 July 2008.
October 2007 amendments

Amendment to SOLAS chapter IV, to add a new regulation 4-1 on GMDSS satellite providers. The new regulation provides
for the MSC to determine the criteria, procedures and arrangements for the evaluation, recognition, review and oversight
of the provision of mobile satellite communication services in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
Amendment to SOLAS chapter VI, to add a new regulation 5-1 on material safety data sheets (MSDS), to require ships
carrying MARPOL Annex I cargoes (oil) and marine fuel oils to be provided with a material safety data sheet prior to
loading such cargoes. The regulation refers to the Recommendation for material safety data sheets (MSDS) for MARPOL
Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, adopted by the Organization through resolution MSC.150(77).
Amendments to forms contained in the appendix to the Annex to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol to add a section to cover
alternative design and arrangements (Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety
Construction Certificate and Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate). Also, similar amendments to the forms for the
Nuclear Passenger Safety Certificate and the Nuclear Cargo Ship Safety Certificate contained in the appendix to the Annex
to the 1974 SOLAS Convention.
May 2008 amendments

Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2, regarding drainage of special category and ro-ro spaces to prevent accumulation of
water on the vehicle deck of ro-ro ships;
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter XI 1 to add a new Regulation 6 (Additional requirements for the investigation of marine
casualties and incidents) to make mandatory parts I and II of the new Casualty Investigation Code;
A new SOLAS regulation II-1/3-9 (Means of embarkation on and disembarkation from ships), to require ships built after its
adoption and entry into force to be provided with means of embarkation and disembarkation, such as gangways and
accommodation ladders;
A new SOLAS regulation and amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-4 (Emergency towing arrangements on tankers), to
extend the regulation to ships other than tankers. The MSC also approved Guidelines for owners/operators on preparing
emergency towing procedures; and
Amendments to regulations III/6, III/26 and IV/7 to replace requirements for "radar transponders" with a requirement for
a "search and rescue locating device".
Amendments to 1988 SOLAS Protocol

Amendments to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol, to replace the reference to "radar transponders" with a reference to "search and
rescue locating devices", in the form of safety certificate for passenger ships and forms of safety certificate for cargo ships.

Amendments to the SOLAS Convention and to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol to make mandatory the International Code on
Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code).
The 2008 IS Code provides, in a single document, both mandatory requirements and recommended provisions relating to
intact stability, taking into account technical developments, in particular regarding the dynamic stability phenomena in
waves, based on state-of-the-art concepts. The Code's mandatory status, under both the SOLAS Convention and the 1988
Load Lines Protocol, will significantly influence the design and the overall safety of ships.

Amendments to SOLAS chapter VI to make mandatory the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (IMSBC Code)
The IMSBC Code will replace the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC Code), which was first adopted as a
recommendatory code in 1965 and has been updated at regular intervals since then.
The aim of the mandatory IMSBC Code is to facilitate the safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk cargoes by providing
information on the dangers associated with the shipment of certain types of cargo and instructions on the appropriate
procedures to be adopted.
Conventions
Introduction
Adopting a convention
Entry into force
Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession
Signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval
Accession
Amendment
Enforcement
IMO conventions
Tacit acceptance procedure
Introduction
The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge in international commerce which
followed resulted in the adoption of a number of international treaties related to shipping, including safety. The subjects
covered included tonnage measurement, the prevention of collisions, signalling and others.
By the end of the nineteenth century suggestions had even been made for the creation of a permanent international
maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was not put into effect, but international co-operation
continued in the twentieth century, with the adoption of still more internationally-developed treaties.
By the time IMO came into existence in 1958, several important international conventions had already been developed,
including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties dealing with load lines and the prevention of collisions at sea.
IMO was made responsible for ensuring that the majority of these conventions were kept up to date. It was also given the
task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.
The creation of IMO coincided with a period of tremendous change in world shipping and the Organization was kept busy
from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing instruments kept pace with changes in shipping
technology. It is now responsible for nearly 50 international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous
protocols and amendments.
This is the part of the process with which IMO as an Organization is most closely involved. IMO has six main bodies
concerned with the adoption or implementation of conventions. The Assembly and Council are the main organs, and the
committees involved are the Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Legal Committee and
the Facilitation Committee. Developments in shipping and other related industries are discussed by Member States in
these bodies, and the need for a new convention or amendments to existing conventions can be raised in any of them.
Normally the suggestion is first made in one of the committees, since these meet more frequently than the main organs.
If agreement is reached in the committee, the proposal goes to the Council and, as necessary, to the Assembly.
If the Assembly or the Council, as the case may be, gives the authorization to proceed with the work, the committee
concerned considers the matter in greater detail and ultimately draws up a draft instrument. In some cases the subject
may be referred to a specialized sub-committee for detailed consideration.
Work in the committees and sub-committees is undertaken by the representatives of Member States of the Organization.
The views and advice of intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations which have a working
relationship with IMO are also welcomed in these bodies. Many of these organizations have direct experience in the
various matters under consideration, and are therefore able to assist the work of IMO in practical ways.
The draft convention which is agreed upon is reported to the Council and Assembly with a recommendation that a
conference be convened to consider the draft for formal adoption.
Invitations to attend such a conference are sent to all Member States of IMO and also to all States which are members of
the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies. These conferences are therefore truly global conferences open to all
Governments who would normally participate in a United Nations conference. All Governments participate on an equal
footing. In addition, organizations of the United Nations system and organizations in official relationship with IMO are
invited to send observers to the conference to give the benefit of their expert advice to the representatives of
Governments.
Before the conference opens, the draft convention is circulated to the invited Governments and organizations for their
comments. The draft convention, together with the comments thereon from Governments and interested organizations is
then closely examined by the conference and necessary changes are made in order to produce a draft acceptable to all or
the majority of the Governments present. The convention thus agreed upon is then adopted by the conference and
deposited with the Secretary-General who sends copies to Governments. The convention is opened for signature by
States, usually for a period of 12 months. Signatories may ratify or accept the convention while non-signatories may
accede.
The drafting and adoption of a convention in IMO can take several years to complete although in some cases, where a
quick response is required to deal with an emergency situation, Governments have been willing to accelerate this process
considerably.
Entry into force

The adoption of a convention marks the conclusion of only the first stage of a long process. Before the convention comes
into force - that is, before it becomes binding upon Governments which have ratified it - it has to be accepted formally by
individual Governments.
Each convention includes appropriate provisions stipulating conditions which have to be met before it enters into force.
These conditions vary but generally speaking, the more important and more complex the document, and the more
stringent are the conditions for its entry into force. For example, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974, provided that entry into force requires acceptance by 25 States whose merchant fleets comprise not less than 50 per
cent of the world's gross tonnage; for the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, the
requirement was acceptance by 25 States whose combined merchant fleets represent not less than 65 per cent of world
tonnage.
When the appropriate conditions have been fulfilled, the convention enters into force for the States which have accepted -
generally after a period of grace intended to enable all the States to take the necessary measures for implementation.
In the case of some conventions which affect a few States or deal with less complex matters, the entry into force
requirements may not be so stringent. For example, the Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime
Carriage of Nuclear Material, 1971, came into force 90 days after being accepted by five States; the Special Trade
Passenger Ships Agreement, 1971, came into force six months after three States (including two with ships or nationals
involved in special trades) had accepted it.
For the important technical conventions, it is necessary that they be accepted and applied by a large section of the
shipping community. It is therefore essential that these should, upon entry into force, be applicable to as many of the
maritime states as possible. Otherwise they would tend to confuse, rather than clarify, shipping practice.
Accepting a convention does not merely involve the deposit of a formal instrument. A Government's acceptance of a
convention necessarily places on it the obligation to take the measures required by the convention. Often national law has
to be enacted or changed to enforce the provisions of the convention; in some cases, special facilities may have to be
provided; an inspectorate may have to be appointed or trained to carry out functions under the convention; and adequate
notice must be given to shipowners, shipbuilders and other interested parties so they make take account of the provisions
of the convention in their future acts and plans.
At present IMO conventions enter into force within an average of five years after adoption. The majority of these
instruments are now in force or are on the verge of fulfilling requirements for entry into force.

The terms signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession refer to some of the methods by which a State can
express its consent to be bound by a treaty.
Signature
Consent may be expressed by signature where:
• the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
• it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature
should have that effect;
• the intention of the State to give that effect to signature appears from the full powers
of its representatives or was expressed during the negotiations (Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 12.1).
A State may also sign a treaty "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval". In such a situation, signature does not
signify the consent of a State to be bound by the treaty, although it does oblige the State to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it has made its intention clear not to become a party to the
treaty (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18(a))

Most multilateral treaties contain a clause providing that a State may express its consent to be bound by the instrument by
signature subject to ratification.
In such a situation, signature alone will not suffice to bind the State, but must be followed up by the deposit of an
instrument of ratification with the depositary of the treaty.
This option of expressing consent to be bound by signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval originated in an
era when international communications were not instantaneous, as they are today.
It was a means of ensuring that a State representative did not exceed their powers or instructions with regard to the
making of a particular treaty. The words "acceptance" and "approval" basically mean the same as ratification, but they are
less formal and non-technical and might be preferred by some States which might have constitutional difficulties with the
term ratification.
Many States nowadays choose this option, especially in relation to multinational treaties, as it provides them with an
opportunity to ensure that any necessary legislation is enacted and other constitutional requirements fulfilled before
entering into treaty commitments.
The terms for consent to be expressed by signature subject to acceptance or approval are very similar to ratification in
their effect. This is borne out by Article 14.2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which provides that "the
consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions similar to those which
apply to ratification."
Accession
Most multinational treaties are open for signature for a specified period of time. Accession is the method used by a State to
become a party to a treaty which it did not sign whilst the treaty was open for signature.
Technically, accession requires the State in question to deposit an instrument of accession with the depositary. Article 15 of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that consent by accession is possible where the treaty so provides,
or where it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed or subsequently agreed that consent by
accession could occur.
Amendment
Technology and techniques in the shipping industry change very rapidly these days. As a result, not only are new
conventions required but existing ones need to be kept up to date. For example, the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1960 was amended six times after it entered into force in 1965 - in 1966, 1967, 1968,
1969, 1971 and 1973. In 1974 a completely new convention was adopted incorporating all these amendments (and other
minor changes) and has itself been modified on numerous occasions.
In early conventions, amendments came into force only after a percentage of Contracting States, usually two thirds, had
accepted them. This normally meant that more acceptances were required to amend a convention than were originally
required to bring it into force in the first place, especially where the number of States which are Parties to a convention is
very large.
This percentage requirement in practice led to long delays in bringing amendments into force. To remedy the situation a
new amendment procedure was devised in IMO. This procedure has been used in the case of conventions such as the
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and SOLAS 1974, all of which incorporate a procedure involving the "tacit
acceptance" of amendments by States.
Parties, the “tacit acceptance” procedure provides that an amendment shall enter into force at a particular time unless
before that date, objections to the amendment are received from a specified number of Parties.
In the case of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, an amendment to most of the Annexes (which constitute the technical parts of
the Convention) is `deemed to have been accepted at the end of two years from the date on which it is communicated to
Contracting Governments...' unless the amendment is objected to by more than one third of Contracting Governments, or
Contracting Governments owning not less than 50 per cent of the world's gross merchant tonnage. This period may be
varied by the Maritime Safety Committee with a minimum limit of one year.
As was expected the "tacit acceptance" procedure has greatly speeded up the amendment process. The 1981
amendments to SOLAS 1974, for example, entered into force on 1 September 1984. Compared to this, none of the
amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS Convention between 1966 and 1973 received sufficient acceptances to satisfy the
requirements for entry into force.
Enforcement
The enforcement of IMO conventions depends upon the Governments of Member Parties.
Contracting Governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and also set
the penalties for infringements, where these are applicable.
They may also have certain limited powers in respect of the ships of other Governments.
In some conventions, certificates are required to be carried on board ship to show that they have been inspected and have
met the required standards. These certificates are normally accepted as proof by authorities from other States that the
vessel concerned has reached the required standard, but in some cases further action can be taken.
The 1974 SOLAS Convention, for example, states that "the officer carrying out the control shall take such steps as will
ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers or the crew".
This can be done if "there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship and its equipment does not
correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate".
An inspection of this nature would, of course, take place within the jurisdiction of the port State. But when an offence
occurs in international waters the responsibility for imposing a penalty rests with the flag State.
Should an offence occur within the jurisdiction of another State, however, that State can either cause proceedings to be
taken in accordance with its own law or give details of the offence to the flag State so that the latter can take appropriate
action.
Under the terms of the 1969 Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas, Contracting States are empowered to
act against ships of other countries which have been involved in an accident or have been damaged on the high seas if
there is a grave risk of oil pollution occurring as a result.
The way in which these powers may be used are very carefully defined, and in most conventions the flag State is primarily
responsible for enforcing conventions as far as its own ships and their personnel are concerned.
The Organization itself has no powers to enforce conventions.
However, IMO has been given the authority to vet the training, examination and certification procedures of Contracting
Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),
1978. This was one of the most important changes made in the 1995 amendments to the Convention which entered into
force on 1 February 1997. Governments will have to provide relevant information to IMO's Maritime Safety Committee
which will judge whether or not the country concerned meets the requirements of the Convention.
Relationship between Conventions and interpretation

Some subjects are covered by more than one Treaty. The question then arises which one prevails. The Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties provides in Article 30 for rules regarding the relationship between successive treaties relating to the
same subject-matter. Answers to questions regarding the interpretation of Treaties can be found in Articles 31, 32 and 33
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A Treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. When a Treaty
has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty
provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.
Uniform law and conflict of law rules

A substantive part of maritime law has been made uniform in international Treaties. However, not every State is Party to all
Conventions and the existing Conventions do not always cover all questions regarding a specific subject. In those cases
conflict of law rules are necessary to decide which national law applies. These conflict of law rules can either be found in a
Treaty or, in most cases, in national law.
IMO conventions
The majority of conventions adopted under the auspices of IMO or for which the Organization is otherwise responsible, fall
into three main categories.
The first group is concerned with maritime safety; the second with the prevention of marine pollution; and the third with
liability and compensation, especially in relation to damage caused by pollution. Outside these major groupings are a
number of other conventions dealing with facilitation, tonnage measurement, unlawful acts against shipping and salvage,
etc.

The amendment procedures contained in the first Conventions to be developed under the auspices of IMO were so slow
that some amendments adopted have never entered into force. This changed with the introduction of the "tacit
acceptance" procedure.
Tacit acceptance is now incorporated into most of IMO's technical Conventions. It facilitates the quick and simple
modification of Conventions to keep pace with the rapidly-evolving technology in the shipping world. Without tacit
acceptance, it would have proved impossible to keep Conventions up to date and IMO's role as the international forum for
technical issues involving shipping would have been placed in jeopardy.
In the spring of 1968, IMO - then still called IMCO, the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organization - celebrated the 20th
anniversary of the adoption of the IMO Convention. It should have been an occasion for some congratulations. But all was
not well. Many of the Organization's Member States were not happy with the progress that had been made so far.
Many were concerned about the Organization's structure and its ability to respond to the changes taking place in shipping.
In March, 1967, the oil tanker Torrey Canyon had gone aground off the coast of England, resulting in what was then the
world's biggest oil spill. IMO was called upon to take action to combat oil pollution and to deal with the legal issues that
arose. But would it be able to do so?
The general disquiet was summed up by Canada in a paper submitted to the 20th session of the IMO Council in May 1968.
It stated that "the anticipations of twenty years ago have not been fulfilled" and went on to complain of the effort required
by Member States in attending meetings and dealing with the technical problems raised by IMO. The paper was discussed
by the Council which agreed to establish a working group to prepare a draft statement of the objectives of IMO and an
inventory of further objectives which the Organization could usefully fulfil in the field of international maritime transport.
In November 1968 the working group reported back to the Council. It outlined a list of activities, far broader than the
programmes undertaken by IMO so far. This was approved by the Council, which also agreed that IMO needed to improve
its working methods.
The working group was asked to report to the Council again at its 22nd session in May 1969.This time it put forward a
number of proposals for improving IMO's working methods, the most important of which concerned the procedures for
amending the various Conventions that had been adopted under IMO's auspices.
The problem facing IMO was that most of its Conventions could only be updated by means of the "classical" amendment
procedure. Amendments to the 1960 SOLAS Convention, for example, would enter into force "twelve months after the date
on which the amendment is accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Governments including two-thirds of the
Governments represented on the Maritime Safety Committee. This did not seem to be a difficult target when the
Convention was adopted, because to enter into force the Convention had to be accepted by only 15 countries, seven of
which had fleets consisting of at least 1 million gross tons of merchant shipping.
But by the late 1960s the number of Parties to SOLAS had reached 80 and the total was rising all the time as new
countries emerged and began to develop their shipping activities. As the number of Parties rose, so did the total required
to amend the Convention. It was like trying to climb a mountain that was always growing higher and the problem was
made worse by the fact that Governments took far longer to accept amendments than they did to ratify the parent
Convention.
The Council approved the working group's proposal that "it would be a useful first step to undertake a comparative study of
the conventions for which IMO is depositary and similar instruments for which other Members of the United Nations family
are responsible." This proposal was endorsed by the 6th regular session of the IMO Assembly in October 1969 and the
study itself was completed in time to be considered by the Assembly at its 7th session in 1971.
It examined the procedures of four other UN agencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Health
Organization (WHO).
It showed that all of these organizations were able to amend technical and other regulations. These amendments became
binding on Member States without a further act of ratification or acceptance being required.
On the other hand, IMO had no authority to adopt, let alone amend conventions. Its mandate allowed it only to "provide
for the drafting of conventions, agreements or other instruments and to recommend these to Governments and to
intergovernmental organizations and to convene such conferences as may be necessary." Article 2 of the IMO Convention
specifically stated that IMO's functions were to be "consultative and advisory".
The Organization could arrange a conference - but it was up to the conference to decide whether the Convention under
discussion should or should not be adopted and to decide how it should be amended. The study concluded that "any
attempt to bring IMO procedure and practice into line with the other organizations would, therefore, entail a change either
in the constitutional and institutional structure of the Organization itself or in the procedure and practice of the diplomatic
conferences which adopt the conventions of IMO.
The first might involve an amendment to the IMO Convention itself. The second might require that diplomatic conferences
convened by IMO should grant greater power to the organs of IMO in regard to the review and revision of the instruments.
The study was discussed at length by the Assembly. Canada pointed out that the amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS
Convention in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 had failed to enter into force and this "sufficed to show that IMO would
henceforth have to tackle serious institutional problems." A note submitted to the conference by Canada stated that
"unless the international maritime community is sufficiently responsive to these changed circumstances, States will once
again revert to the practice of unilaterally deciding what standards to apply to their own shipping and to foreign flag
shipping visiting their ports."
The result was the adoption of resolution A.249(VII) which referred to the need for an amendment procedure "which is
more in keeping with the development of technological advances and social needs and which will expedite the adoption of
amendments." It called for the Legal Committee and Maritime Safety Committee to prepare draft proposals for
consideration by the 8th Assembly.
A growing urgency was added by the fact that IMO was preparing a number of new conventions for adoption during the
next few years. Conferences to consider a new Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
and an International Convention for Safe Containers were both scheduled for 1972, a major Convention dealing with the
Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships for 1973 and a conference to revise SOLAS was scheduled for 1976. All of these
treaties required a new, easier amendment procedure than the traditional method.
The MSC discussed the amendment question at its 25th session in March 1972. A working group was formed to discuss the
matter in detail and concluded that at current rates of acceptance the requisite "two-thirds" target needed to amend
SOLAS 1960 "will not be achieved...for many years, possibly never." Moreover, any future amendments would almost
certainly suffer the same fate. This would include any amendments intended to improve the amendment procedure itself.
The working group reported: "It follows that the only realistic way of bringing an improved amending procedure into effect
within a reasonable period of time is to incorporate it into new or revised technical conventions.
A few weeks later, the Legal Committee held its 12th session. Among the documents prepared for the meeting was a report
on discussions that had taken place at the MSC and a detailed paper prepared by the Secretariat. The paper analysed the
entry into force and amendment processes of various IMO Conventions and referred to two possible methods that had
been considered by the Assembly, for speeding up the amendment procedure. Alternative I was to revise each Convention
so that greater authority for adopting amendments might be delegated to the appropriate IMO organs. Alternative II was
to amend the IMO Convention itself and give IMO the power to amend Conventions.
The study then considered Alternative I in greater detail. The main reason why amendments took so long to enter into
force was the time taken to gain acceptance by two-thirds of Contracting Governments. One way of reducing this period
would be by "specifying a date ...of entry into force after adoption by the Assembly, unless that date of amendment is
explicitly rejected by a certain number or percentage of Contracting Governments." The paper said that this procedure
"has the advantage that all Contracting Governments would be able to advance the preparatory work for implementing the
amended regulations and the industry would be in a position to plan accordingly."
The Committee established a working group to consider the subject and prepared a preliminary study based on its report,
which again referred to the disadvantages of the classical amendment system. The study continued: "The remedy for this,
which has proved to be workable in practice, in relation to a number of conventions, is what is known as the 'tacit' or
'passive' acceptance procedure. This means that the body which adopts the amendment at the same time fixes a time
period within which contracting parties will have the opportunity to notify either their acceptance or their rejection of the
amendment, or to remain silent on the subject. In case of silence, the amendment is considered to have been accepted by
the party...".
The tacit acceptance idea immediately proved popular. The Council, at its meeting in May, decided that the next meeting of
the Legal Committee should consist of technical as well as legal experts so that priority could be given to the amendment
issue. The Committee was asked to give particular attention to tacit acceptance.
The idea was given non-governmental support by the International Chamber of Shipping, which had consultative status
with IMO and submitted a paper stating that the lack of an effective amendment procedure created uncertainties and was
detrimental to effective planning by the industry. The classical procedure had also encouraged some governments to
introduce unilateral legislation that, however well intentioned, was "seriously disruptive to international shipping services."
The paper said that if other Governments did the same " the disruption to international shipping and the world trade which
it serves would become increasingly severe. Such unilateral action strikes at the purpose of IMO."
By the time the Legal Committee met for its 14th session in September 1972, there was general agreement that tacit
acceptance offered the best way forward. Other ideas, such as amending the IMO Convention itself, had too many
disadvantages and would take too long to introduce. There was some concern about what would happen if a large number
of countries did reject an amendment and the Committee members agreed that tacit acceptance should apply only to the
technical content of Conventions, which was often contained in annexes. The non-technical articles should continue to be
subject to the classical (or "positive") acceptance procedure.
The Committee also generally agreed that alternative procedures for amending the technical provisions should be retained
but it did not reach consensus on another issue: should amendments be prepared and adopted by an appropriate IMO
body, such as the Maritime Safety Committee - or by Contracting Parties to the Convention concerned? This was an
important point at the time, since many Contracting Parties to IMO Conventions were not yet Members of IMO itself and
might object to treaties they had ratified being amended without them even being consulted.
This issue was still unsettled when the Conference on Revision of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea opened in October 1972. The purpose of the conference was to update the Collision Regulations and to separate them
from the SOLAS Convention (the existing regulations were annexed to SOLAS 1960).
The amendment procedure is contained in Article VI. Amendments to the Collision Regulations adopted by the MSC (by a
two-thirds majority) have to be communicated to Contracting Parties and IMO Member States at least six months before
being considered by the Assembly. If adopted by the Assembly (again by a two-thirds majority), the amendments enter
into force on a date determined by the Assembly unless more than one third of Contracting Parties notify IMO of their
objection. On entry into force, any amendment shall "for all Contracting Parties which have not objected to the
amendment, replace and supersede any previous provision to which the amendment refers."
Less than two months later, on 2 December 1972 a conference held in Geneva adopted the International Convention for
Safe Containers, Article X of which contains procedures for amending any part or parts of the Convention. The procedure is
the traditional "positive" acceptance system, under which amendments enter into force twelve months after being adopted
by two-thirds of Contracting Parties. However, Article XI contains a special procedure for amending the technical annexes
which also incorporates tacit acceptance. The procedure is slightly different from that used in the Collision Regulations, one
difference being that the amendments can be adopted by the MSC "to which all Contracting Parties shall have been invited
to participate and vote." This answered the question of how to take into account the interests of Parties to Conventions
that were not Member States of IMO.
The next Convention to be considered was the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), which was successfully adopted in May 1973. It, too, incorporated tacit acceptance procedures for amending
the technical annexes. In the meantime, IMO was preparing for a new SOLAS convention. This was considered necessary
because none of the amendments adopted to the 1960 version had entered into force and did not appear likely to do so in
the near future. The 1966 Load Lines Convention also contained a classical amendment procedure and the intention was to
combine the two instruments in a new Convention, which was scheduled to be considered in 1976.
The MSC discussed this proposal at its 26th session in October-November, but it was clear that this would be a daunting
and time-consuming task. The combined instrument might be a good idea for the future - but the real priority was to get
the amendments to SOLAS 1960 into force as quickly as possible and to make sure that future amendments would not be
delayed. A working group was set up to consider the various alternatives, but opinion began to move in favour of a
proposal by the United Kingdom that IMO should concentrate on an interim Convention designed to bring into force the
amendments adopted since 1960. The new Convention, it was suggested, would consist of the 1960 text with the addition
of a tacit acceptance amendment procedure and the addition of amendments that had already been adopted.
Another advantage, the United Kingdom pointed out, was that the conference called to adopt the revised Convention
"might be held considerably earlier than 1976 since comparatively little preparation would be needed." The subject was
discussed again at the MSC's 27th session in the spring of 1973 and, although some delegations wanted a more
comprehensive revision, others felt that the workload would be so great that the conference would be seriously delayed. By
a vote of 12 in favour and four abstentions, the Committee decided to call a conference with limited scope, as proposed by
the United Kingdom.
On 21 October, 1974, the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea opened in London and on 1 November a new
SOLAS Convention was adopted, which incorporated the tacit acceptance procedure.
The tacit acceptance amendment procedure has now been incorporated into the majority of IMO's technical Conventions
and has been extended to some other instruments as well. Its effectiveness can be seen most clearly in the case of SOLAS
1974, which has been amended on many occasions since then. In the process, the Convention's technical content has been
almost completely re-written.
SUA Protocol 2005
5.42
SALVAGE 1989
14-Jul-96
57
47.16
OPRC 1990
13-May-95
97
67.03
HNS Convention 1996
13
13.64
OPRC/HNS 2000
14-Jun-07
24
32.83
BUNKERS Convention 2001
21-Nov-08
40
76.43
AFS Convention 2001
17-Sep-08
39
66.89
Convention on the International Maritime Organization
Adoption: 6 March 1948

Entry in force: 17 March 1958
Background
The Geneva Conference 1948

Long process to entry into force
Entry into force of IMCO Convention 1958
The 1964 amendments - englargement of Council to 18 Members
The 1965 amendments - membership of Maritime Safety Committee increased to 16
The 1974 amendments - enlargement of Council to 24, MSC to consist of all Members
The 1977 amendments - Article 1 amended, institutionalisation of Technical Co-operation Committee
The 1979 amendments - enlargement of Council to 32
The 1991 amendments - institutionalisation of Facilitation Committee
The 1993 amendments - enlargement of Council to 40 Members
Articles of the Convention summary
The importance of international co-operation in shipping has been recognized for centuries, and has long been manifested
in maritime traditions such as ships taking refuge in foreign ports in the event of bad weather and going to the aid of
others in distress, irrespective of their nationality.
In 1889 an international maritime conference in Washington, DC, United States discussed a proposal to set up a
permanent international body to cater for the needs of shipping. This followed the establishment of a number of other
international organization, such as the International Telegraph (now Telecommunications) Union (established 1865); the
International (now World) Meteorological Organization (1873); and the Universal Postal Union (1874).
But the plan for a shipping body was rejected. The Conference announced: "for the present the establishment of a
permanent international maritime commission is not considered expedient". The reason - although not stated explicitly -
was that the shipping industry was suspicious of any attempt to control its activities and restrict its commercial freedom.
In 1945, the United Nations was established and, in the same decade, a number of international organizations were
formed, each dealing with a different subject. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was founded in 1944,
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was created in 1945, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in 1945 and the World Heath Organization (WHO) in 1947. All were members of the United Nations
system. In 1948, a Conference was held to establish a similar body for shipping.
The Geneva conference 1948

The Geneva conference opened in February 1948 and on 6 March 1948 the Convention establishing the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) was adopted. (The name was changed in 1982 to International
Maritime Organization (IMO)).
The aims of the new Organization were summarized in Article 1 (since amended – see below) of the Convention:
(a) To provide machinery for co-operation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices
relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade, and to encourage the
general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety and efficiency of
navigation;
(b) To encourage the removal of discriminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting shipping
engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce of the world
without discrimination; assistance and encouragement given by a Government for the development of its national
shipping and for purposes of security does not in itself constitute discrimination, provided that such assistance and
encouragement is not based on measures designed to restrict the freedom of shipping of all flags to take part in
international trade;
(c) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of matters concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping
concerns in accordance with Part II;
(d) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of any matters concerning shipping that may be referred to it
by any organ or specialized agency of the United Nations;
(e) To provide for the exchange of information among Governments on matters under consideration by the
Organization.
In the 1948 convention text, there was no reference to marine pollution or the environment, now among IMO's greatest
concerns. Maritime safety was only referred to briefly, at the end of paragraph (a). The emphasis was on economic action
to promote "freedom" and end "discrimination". Paragraphs (b) and (c) were of concern to a number of Governments who
regarded promises to create "a world without discrimination" and to take action against "unfair restrictive practices", as
dangerous interference in the practice of free enterprise.
In Part II of the Convention, dealing with the Organization's functions, Article 2 stated: "The functions of the Organization
shall be consultative and advisory."
Article 3 (b) said that, in order to achieve the purposes set out in Article 1, IMO should "provide for the drafting of
conventions, agreements, or other suitable instruments, and to recommend these to Governments and to
intergovernmental organizations, and to convene such conferences as may be necessary". IMO was not given the authority
itself to adopt treaties. Article 3 (c) said that IMO should "provide machinery for consultation among Members and the
exchange of information among Governments".
It was expected in 1948 that Article 1 (b) in particular would prove controversial, because Article 4 stated: "When, in the
opinion of the Organization, any matter concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping concerns is incapable of
settlement through the normal processes of international shipping business, or has in fact so proved, and provided it shall
first have been the subject of direct negotiations between the Members concerned, the Organization shall, at the request of
those Members, consider the matter."
The Convention provided for three main organs: the Assembly, the Council and the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC).
The Assembly was to consist of all Member States and to meet once every two years, with provision for extraordinary
sessions if necessary. Its main tasks were to vote on the budget and decide financial arrangements, to determine the
general policy of the Organization to achieve the purposes of Article 1 and to adopt resolutions submitted to it by the
Council and the MSC.
The Council originally consisted of 16 Member States (now 40 – see below) elected by the Assembly, of which, according to
Article 17:
(a) six shall be governments of the nations with the largest interest in providing international shipping services;
(b) six shall be governments of other nations with the largest interest in international seaborne trade;
(c) two shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Governments of nations having a substantial interest in
providing international shipping services, and
(d) two shall be elected by the Assembly from among the governments of nations having substantial interest in
international seaborne trade.
The main functions of the Council were to receive recommendations and reports of the MSC and transmit them to the
Assembly; to appoint the Secretary-General, with the approval of Assembly; to submit budget estimates and, between
sessions of the Assembly, to perform other functions of the Organization.
The MSC was also an elected body consisting of 14 Members elected by the Assembly (later expanded to include all
Members – see below). Eight were to be the largest shipowning nations and the remainder were to be elected "so as to
ensure adequate representation of other Members, governments of other nations with an important interest in maritime
safety, such as nations interested in the supply of large numbers of crews or in the carriage of large numbers of berthed
and unberthed passengers, and of major geographical areas". Members were to be elected every four years and were to
be eligible for re-election.
The duties of the MSC (Article 29) were to consider "aids to navigation, construction and equipment of vessels, manning
from a safety standpoint, rules for the prevention of collisions, handling of dangerous cargoes, maritime safety procedures
and requirements, hydrographic information, log-books and navigational records, marine casualty investigation, salvage
and rescue and any other matters directly affecting maritime safety".
The Convention then went on to deal with the Secretariat, finances, voting (each Member was to have one vote), the
headquarters (it was to be in London) and various other matters.
Article 59 stated that the Convention "would enter into force on the date when 21 States, of which seven shall each have a
total tonnage of not less than 1,000,000 gross tons of shipping, have become parties to the Convention...".
The question of funding was left to the IMO Assembly to decide. Article 41 of the Convention stated that the Assembly
"should apportion the expenses among the Members in accordance with a scale to be fixed by it after consideration of the
proposals of the Council thereon".
Long process to entry into force

It was hoped that the Convention would enter into force relatively quickly. The Geneva conference established a
preparatory committee to deal with such matters as rules of procedure, draft financial regulations and a provisional
agenda. It also resolved that a conference to revise the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), due
to be held in London later in 1948, should draft provisions taking into account the duties and functions which had been
accorded to IMO, the intention being to delegate future responsibilities for the Convention to IMO.
However, not everyone wanted to see IMO come into existence. To some countries, much of Article 1 was unacceptable.
Some were afraid that the treaty would lead to interference with their own national shipping industries and laws. Others
felt that the IMO Convention was written by and for the benefit of the handful of countries which dominated shipping at
that time.
By the mid-1950s the delay in ratifying the IMO convention was causing concern. The 1948 SOLAS Convention was already
in need of revision. New maritime problems were also beginning to emerge, among them oil pollution. In 1954 a
conference in London adopted the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution by Oil and agreed that it would
become the responsibility of IMO once the new organization was established.
Gradually the number of Parties to the Convention increased. But many of them registered declarations or reservations
which had the effect of greatly restricting the Organization's area of activities. Several used identical wording stating "it is
in the field of technical and nautical matters that the Organization can make its contribution towards the development of
shipping and seaborne trade throughout the world. If the Organization were to extend its activities to matters of a purely
commercial or economic nature, a situation might arise where the Government (of the country concerned) would have to
consider resorting to the provisions regarding withdrawal".
Entry into force 1958

On 17 March, 1958, Egypt became the 21st State to accept the IMO Convention and it finally entered into force 12 months
later. But by the time the new Organization met for the first time in January 1959, so many reservations had been
submitted that it was clear that it would not be able to engage in any activities that might be regarded as economic or
commercial. It would have to confine itself to mainly technical issues, especially those involving safety as defined in Article
29.
The first Assembly met in January 1959 and much of its work concerned administrative arrangements, one of the most
important being the apportionment of expenses among Member States. Resolution A.20(I) agreed that each Member
should pay a basic assessment to be determined by the percentage of its contribution to the United Nations. Countries
paying less than 2% would have to pay $US 2,000, while those paying 10% or more would have to pay $US10,000.
Each Member would additionally pay an additional assessment determined by the gross registered tonnage of its merchant
marine, as shown in the latest edition of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, on the basis of one share for every 1,000 tons. In
practice, therefore, contributions to the IMO budget are based primarily on shipping tonnage rather than national wealth.
This system is unique in the United Nations system.
The 1964 amendments – entry into force 1967

The 1960s saw the emergence of new nations, many of which had an interest in maritime affairs. Membership of IMO was
growing and in September 1964, at the 2nd Extraordinary Session of the Assembly, IMO adopted an amendment to the
IMO Convention that increased the size of the Council to 18.
The main shipowning and trading nations continued to have six seats each, but a third group (c) was added consisting of
six Member States "which have special interests in maritime transport or navigation and whose election to the Council will
ensure the representation of all major geographic areas of the world".

The 4th regular session of the Assembly in 1965 adopted an amendment to Article 28 increasing membership of the
Maritime Safety Committee to 16. Of these, eight were to be elected from among the ten largest shipowning States and
four to be elected in such a way as to ensure that Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania and Europe were all represented.
The other four seats "shall be elected from among States not otherwise represented on the Committee".
The 1964 and 1965 amendments were important because they acknowledged the fact that the membership of IMO was not
only growing but was changing. The dominance of the traditional maritime countries was coming to an end as more and
more developing nations joined the Organization.

At the 5th Extraordinary Session in October 1974, Council membership was increased to 24 Member States. This was done
by enlarging Group (c) to 12 Member States.
More significantly, Article 28 was amended. The existing text was replaced by one line stating: "The Maritime Safety
Committee shall consist of all Members". These amendments did much to counter the criticism that IMO was still
dominated by traditional shipowning nations. The change in membership was underlined by the adoption of resolution
A.316 (ES.V) which noted that "a high number of the members of the Organization is constituted by developing countries
and that such fact has not so far been reflected in the composition of the governing bodies of the Organization".
The resolution stated that the amendments were adopted "as a recognition of the need of wider and more equitable
representation in the Council and all sectors interested in the work of the Organization, having regard to the increased
membership of the Organization and the need to improve the representation of developing countries in the Council".

In 1967, the Torrey Canyon oil spill illustrated the immense environmental damage that could result from an accident
involving a large oil tanker. The protection of the marine environment became a major issue, but the Torrey Canyon spill
also revealed a number of deficiencies in the international system for assessing liability and compensation for oil spill
damage. IMO established a Legal Committee to deal with the latter and a new sub-committee of the MSC to handle
environmental issues.
By the mid-1970s both subjects were recognized as being important enough to become a permanent part of the IMO work
programme. In 1975, the 9th Assembly adopted resolution A.358(IX) which formed a new Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) and raised it and the Legal Committee to the same status as the MSC.
Article 1 of the Convention was changed by adding to the list of purposes "the prevention and control of marine pollution
from ships; and to deal with legal matters related to the purposes set out in this Article."
Also, the name of the Organization was changed to the International Maritime Organization. It was felt that the original
name was confusing, especially the inclusion of the word "Consultative", which gave the impression that IMO could only
talk, rather than take decisions and act.

IMO’s 10th assembly adopted amendments to Article I parts (a) and (d) to accommodate the Organization's growing
involvement in environmental, administrative and legal issues. Article 2, which then limited IMO's role to being consultative
and advisory, was deleted and subsequent articles renumbered.
The Technical Co-operation Committee (which had been established in 1969) was raised to the same status as the MSC,
Legal Committee and MEPC.

The council was increased in size to 32, with 16 places for Group (c).
The 1991 amendments – entry into force – see status of Conventions summary
The amendments raise the Facilitation Committee to the same status as the other Committees. The Committee seeks to
standardize the documentary procedures involved in international maritime trade and to remove the unnecessary "red
tape" that is often involved.
The amendments will enter into force after ratification by two-thirds of IMO Members.
The 1993 amendments – entry into force 7 November 2002

The amendments increased the size of the Council to 40, with Groups (a) and (b) increased to ten and Group (c) to 20
Member States. The adoption of the amendments followed concern over elections to the Council held during the 17th
session of the Assembly, when several time-consuming votes had to be held to decide membership of Group (a) because
so many Members were seeking election.
Convention on the International Maritime Organization

(Available to purchase – see Publications)
Articles of the Convention – Summary
Part 1 – Purposes of the Organization

Article 1 – states the purposes of the organization are:
(a) To provide machinery for co-operation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and
practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade, and to
encourage the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety,
efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships; and to deal with
administrative and legal matters related to the purposes set out in this Article;
(b) To encourage the removal of discriminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting
shipping engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce
of the world without discrimination; assistance and encouragement given by a Government for the development
of its national shipping and for purposes of security does not in itself constitute discrimination, provided that
such assistance and encouragement is not based on measures designed to restrict the freedom of shipping of all
flags to take part in international trade;
(c) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of matters concerning unfair restrictive practices by
shipping concerns in accordance with Part II;
(d) To provide for the consideration by the Organization of any matters concerning shipping and the effect of
shipping on the marine environment that may be referred to it by any organ or specialized agency of the United
Nations;
(e) To provide for the exchange of information among Governments on matters under consideration by the
Organization.
Part II – Functions
Article 2 – states that IMO provides for the drafting of conventions, agreements or other suitable instruments; provides
machinery for consultation among Members and exchange of information; facilitates technical co-operation.
Article 3 – states that for matters “capable of settlement through the normal processes of international shipping
business”, the IMO should recommend their resolution in that manner.
Part III – Membership

Articles 4-10 – give procedures for becoming a Member (or Associate Member) of IMO, by becoming Party to the IMO
Convention.
Part IV – Organs
Article 11 – states the Organization consists of an Assembly, Council, Maritime Safety Committee, Legal Committee,
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), Technical Co-operation Committee and “such subsidiary organs as the
Organization may at any time consider necessary”; and a Secretariat.
Part V- The Assembly

Articles 12-15 – give constitution (all Members) and functions of the Assembly. Part VI – The Council Articles 16-26
– relate to composition, election procedures and functions of the Council. Part VII – Maritime Safety Committee
Articles 27-31 – give constitution (all Members) and functions/work of the Committee.
Part VIII – Legal Committee

Part IX – Marine Environment Protection Committee

Part X – Technical Co-operation Committee

Part XI – The Secretariat

Articles 47-52 – give functions and duties of the Secretariat.
Part XII – Finances

Articles 53-56 – give financial obligations of the Member States
Part XIII – Voting

Article 57 – Each Member has one vote, decisions shall be by a majority vote.
Part XIV – Headquarters of the Organization

Article 58 – The headquarters is established in London; the Assembly may by two-thirds majority vote change the site if
necessary; sessions may be held in any place other than Headquarters if Council deems it necessary.
Part XV – Relationship with the United Nations and other organizations

Articles 59-63 – relate to relationships and co-operation with the United Nations, intergovernmental organizations and
non-governmental organizations.
Part XVI – Legal capacity, privileges and immunities

Articles 64-65 – refers to the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the
United Nations and refers to Appendix II of the IMO Convention which gives provisions on legal capacity, privileges and
immunities which should be applied by Members and by the Organization.
Part XVII – Amendments

Articles 66-68 – Amendments to the IMO Convention must be adopted by two-third majority vote of the Assembly and
enter into force 12 months after acceptance by two-thirds of Member States.
Part XVIII – Interpretation

Articles 69-70 – questions or disputes over interpretation or application of the Convention shall be referred to the
Assembly; if they cannot be settles, they must be referred to the International Court of justice for an advisory opinion.
Part XIX – Miscellaneous Provisions

Articles 71-73 – cover signature and acceptance; territories; withdrawal.
Part XX – Entry into force

Articles 74-77 – entry into force provisions.
Action dates
IMO's conventions are regularly amended and revised while new instruments/protocols are adopted. The dates of entry
into force of amendments/instruments already adopted are shown.
Date of entry into

Convention or Code
force
1 January 2009 May 2005 amendments to SOLAS - revised chapter II-1
1 July 2009 October 2007 amendments to SOLAS

1 January 2010 October 2006 amendments to MARPOL - revised Annex III
1 July 2010 October 2008 MARPOL amendments - revised Annex VI
1 July 2010 May 2006 and December 2006 amendments to SOLAS
1 July 2010 May 2008 amendments to SOLAS - mandatory casualty investigation Code
December 2008 amendments to SOLAS - 2008 IS code

1 January 2011 December 2008 amendments to SOLAS - IMSBC Code
Expanded Information
Date of entry into

Convention or Code
force
1 January 2009 May 2005 amendments to SOLAS
A revised SOLAS chapter II-1 is intended to harmonize the provisions on subdivision and damage
stability for passenger and cargo ships. The revised provisions in parts A, B and B-1 will be applicable to
new ships built after the expected entry into force date of 1 January 2009.
The amendments, which have been intensively developed over the past decade, are based on the
"probabilistic" method of determining damage stability, which is itself based on the detailed study of
data collected by IMO relating to collisions. Because it is based on statistical evidence concerning what
actually happens when ships collide, the probabilistic concept is believed to be far more realistic than the
previously-used "deterministic" method.
The revision has taken into account the results of the HARDER (Harmonisation of Rules and Design
Rational) research project: a project undertaken by a consortium of European industrial, research and
academic institutions to study the probabilistic approach for assessing a ship's damage stability and to
develop new criteria and indexes for subdivision based on probability of survival, taking into account
effects from waves, heeling moments, cargo shift, transient effects and equalization arrangements.
Also, new SOLAS regulations XI-1/3-1 and amendments to regulation XI-1/5 on the mandatory company
and registered owner identification number.
And amendments to add the IMO unique company and registered identification number to relevant
certificates and documents in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and
for Pollution Prevention (the ISM Code) and International ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.
Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), relating to fire protection and fire extinction, and the revised chapters 17
(Summary of minimum requirements), 18 (List of products to which the code does not apply) and 19
(Index of Products Carried in Bulk). Entry into force on 1 January 2009.
1 July 2009 October 2007 amendments to SOLAS
Amendment to SOLAS chapter IV, to add a new regulation 4-1 on GMDSS satellite providers. The new
regulation provides for the MSC to determine the criteria, procedures and arrangements for the
evaluation, recognition, review and oversight of the provision of mobile satellite communication services
in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
Amendment to SOLAS chapter VI, to add a new regulation 5-1 on material safety data sheets (MSDS),
to require ships carrying MARPOL Annex I cargoes (oil) and marine fuel oils to be provided with a
material safety data sheet prior to loading such cargoes. The regulation refers to the Recommendation
for material safety data sheets (MSDS) for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, adopted by
the Organization through resolution MSC.150(77).
Amendments to forms contained in the appendix to the Annex to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol to add a
section to cover alternative design and arrangements (Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, Cargo Ship
Safety Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate and Cargo Ship Safety Equipment
Certificate). Also, similar amendments to the forms for the Nuclear Passenger Safety Certificate and the
Nuclear Cargo Ship Safety Certificate contained in the appendix to the Annex to the 1974 SOLAS
Convention.
1 January 2010 October 2006 amendments to MARPOL - revised Annex III
The revised MARPOL Annex III Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried
by sea in packaged form. The Annex has been revised to harmonize the regulations with the criteria for
defining marine pollutants which have been adopted by the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG)
Sub-Committee, based on the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
1 July 2010 October 2008 MARPOL amendments - revised Annex VI
Amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships even further.
The main changes to MARPOL Annex VI will see a progressive reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx)
emissions from ships, with the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%),
effective from 1 January 2012; then progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subject to
a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.
The limits applicable in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) will be reduced to 1.00%, beginning on
1 July 2010 (from the current 1.50 %); being further reduced to 0.10 %, effective from 1 January 2015.
Progressive reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines were also agreed, with
the most stringent controls on so-called "Tier III" engines, i.e. those installed on ships constructed on or
after 1 January 2016, operating in Emission Control Areas.
The revised Annex VI will allow for an Emission Control Area to be designated for SOx and particulate
matter, or NOx, or all three types of emissions from ships, subject to a proposal from a Party or Parties
to the Annex, which would be considered for adoption by the Organization, if supported by a
demonstrated need to prevent, reduce and control one or all three of those emissions from ships.
1 July 2010 May 2006 amendments to SOLAS
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter II-2 - Fire protection

These include amendments relating to Regulation 9 - Containment of fire, so as to include a requirement
for water-mist nozzles which should be tested and approved in accordance with the guidelines approved
by the Organization; and in Regulation 15 - Arrangements for oil fuel, lubricating oil and other
flammable oils, new text relating to the application of the regulation to ships constructed on or after 1
February 1992 and on or after 1 July 1998.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements

In Regulation 7 - Personal life-saving appliances, the amendments add a new requirement for infant
lifejackets. For passenger ships on voyages of less than 24 hours, a number of infant lifejackets equal to
at least 2.5% of the number of passengers on board is to be provided; and for passenger ships on
voyages of 24 hours or greater, infant lifejackets are to be provided for each infant on board. A further
amendment relates to the provision of lifejackets for larger passengers and states that, if the adult
lifejackets provided are not designed to fit persons with a chest girth of up to 1,750 mm, a sufficient
number of suitable accessories are to be available on board to allow them to be secured to such
persons.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter IV - Radiocommunications

The amendments relate to the provision of radio equipment, in Regulation 7, to require ships to carry an
EPIRB capable of transmitting a distress alert through the polar orbiting satellite service (COSPAS-
SARSAT) operating in the 406 MHz band; and, in Regulations 9 and 10, to clarify that the means of
initiating ship-to-shore distress alerts may be through the Inmarsat geostationary satellite service by a
ship earth station.
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter V - Safety of navigation

The amendment adds a new paragraph to Regulation 22 - Navigation bridge visibility to allow ballast
water exchange at sea, provided that the master has determined that it is safe to do so and takes into
consideration any increased blind sectors or reduced horizontal fields of vision resulting from the
operation to ensure that a proper lookout is maintained at all times. The operation should be conducted
in accordance with the ship's ballast water management plan, taking into account the recommendations
on ballast water exchange. The commencement and termination of the operation should be recorded in
the ship's record of navigational activities.
Amendments to the International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code)
The amendments replace the text of Chapter 5 Fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems with a revised text.
Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code)

The amendments include the requirement that all life saving appliances should withstand in stowage an
air temperature range of 30°C to +65°C and personal life-saving appliances should remain operational
throughout an air temperature range of -15°C to +40°C. The colour of life-saving appliances is now
specified to be "of international or vivid reddish orange, or a comparably highly visible colour on all parts
where this will assist detection at sea". The existing section 2.2 on General requirements for lifejackets
is revised and replaced. Further amendments relate to specifications for immersion suits and anti-
exposure suits.
Amendments to Guidelines for the authorization of organizations acting on behalf of the

Administration (Resolution A.739(18))
The amendments to the guidelines, which are mandatory under SOLAS chapter XI-1, add a new
paragraph 2-1 to require the use of only exclusive surveyors and auditors for surveys and certification,
although radio surveys may be subcontracted to non-exclusive surveyors.
December 2006 amendmentsto SOLAS
Revised passenger ship safety standards

The package of amendments to SOLAS were the result of a comprehensive review of passenger ship
safety initiated in 2000 with the aim of assessing whether the current regulations were adequate, in
particular for the large passenger ships now being built.
The work in developing the new and amended regulations has based its guiding philosophy on the dual
premise that the regulatory framework should place more emphasis on the prevention of a casualty from
occurring in the first place and that future passenger ships should be designed for improved survivability
so that, in the event of a casualty, persons can stay safely on board as the ship proceeds to port.
The amendments include new concepts such as the incorporation of criteria for the casualty threshold
(the amount of damage a ship is able to withstand, according to the design basis, and still safely return
to port) into SOLAS chapters II-1 and II-2. The amendments also provide regulatory flexibility so that
ship designers can meet any safety challenges the future may bring. The amendments include:
s
of
es
ca
p
e
in
ca
se
of
fir
e
a
n
d
v
e
nt
il
at
io
n
sy
st
e
m
s;
a
n
d
·
ti
m
e
fo
r
or
d
er
ly
e
v
ac
u
at
io
n
a
n
d
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
nt
,
in
cl
u
di
n
g
re
q
ui
re
m
e
nt
s
fo
r
th
e
es
se
nt
ia
l
sy
st
e
m
s
th
at
1 July 2010 May 2008 amendments to SOLAS
Amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2, regarding drainage of special category and ro-ro spaces to prevent
accumulation of water on the vehicle deck of ro-ro ships;
Amendments to SOLAS Chapter XI 1 to add a new Regulation 6 (Additional requirements for the
investigation of marine casualties and incidents) to make mandatory parts I and II of the new Casualty
Investigation Code;
A new SOLAS regulation II-1/3-9 (Means of embarkation on and disembarkation from ships), to require
ships built after its adoption and entry into force to be provided with means of embarkation and
disembarkation, such as gangways and accommodation ladders;
A new SOLAS regulation and amendments to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-4 (Emergency towing
arrangements on tankers), to extend the regulation to ships other than tankers. The MSC also approved
Guidelines for owners/operators on preparing emergency towing procedures; and
Amendments to regulations III/6, III/26 and IV/7 to replace requirements for "radar transponders" with
a requirement for a "search and rescue locating device".
Amendments to 1988 SOLAS Protocol

Amendments to the 1988 SOLAS Protocol, to replace the reference to "radar transponders" with a
reference to "search and rescue locating devices", in the form of safety certificate for passenger ships
and forms of safety certificate for cargo ships.
December 2008 amendments to SOLAS - 2008 IS code
Amendments to the SOLAS Convention and to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol to make mandatory the
International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code).
The 2008 IS Code provides, in a single document, both mandatory requirements and recommended
provisions relating to intact stability, taking into account technical developments, in particular regarding
the dynamic stability phenomena in waves, based on state-of-the-art concepts. The Code's mandatory
status, under both the SOLAS Convention and the 1988 Load Lines Protocol, will significantly influence
the design and the overall safety of ships.
1 January 2011 December 2008 amendments to SOLAS
Amendments to SOLAS chapter VI to make mandatory the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes
Code (IMSBC Code) The IMSBC Code will replace the Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes (BC
Code), which was first adopted as a recommendatory code in 1965 and has been updated at regular
intervals since then.
The aim of the mandatory IMSBC Code is to facilitate the safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk
cargoes by providing information on the dangers associated with the shipment of certain types of cargo
and instructions on the appropriate procedures to be adopted.
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs)

Introduction
Amendment procedure
Technical provisionsPart A - General (Rules 1-3)
Part B - Steering and Sailing (Rules 4-19)
Section 1 - Conduct of vessels in any condition of visibility (Rules 4-10)
Rule 6 - safe speed
Rule 10 - vessels in or near traffic separation schemes
Section II - Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18)
Rule 13 - overtaking
Rule 14 - head-on situationsSection III - conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19)
Part C Lights and Shapes (Rules 20-31)
Part D - Sound and Light Signals (Rules 32-37)
Part E - Exemptions (Rule 38)
Annexes
The 1981 amendments - rule 10 amended
The 1987 amendments - crossing traffic lanes
The 1989 amendments - inshore traffic zone
The 1993 amendments - positioning of lights
The 2001 amendments - WIG craft
Introduction
The 1972 Convention was designed to update and replace the Collision Regulations of 1960 which were adopted at the
same time as the 1960 SOLAS Convention.
One of the most important innovations in the 1972 COLREGs was the recognition given to traffic separation schemes -
Rule 10 gives guidance in determining safe speed, the risk of collision and the conduct of vessels operating in or near
traffic separation schemes.
The first such traffic separation scheme was established in the Dover Strait in 1967. It was operated on a voluntary basis
at first but in 1971 the IMO Assembly adopted a resolution stating that that observance of all traffic separation schemes be
made mandatory - and the COLREGs make this obligation clear.
Amendment procedure
Under the "tacit acceptance" procedure incorporated in the Convention, an amendment must first be adopted by two-thirds
of those present and voting in the Maritime Safety Committee. It is then communicated to Contracting Parties and
considered by the IMO Assembly. If adopted by two-thirds of the States present and voting in the Assembly, it
automatically enters into force on a specified date unless more than one third of the Contracting Parties notify the
Organization of their objection.In addition, a Conference for the purpose of revising the Convention or its regulations or
both may be convened by IMO at the request of not less than one-third of Contracting Parties.
The COLREGs include 38 rules divided into five sections: Part A - General; Part B - Steering and Sailing; Part C - Lights and
Shapes; Part D - Sound and Light signals; and Part E - Exemptions. There are also four Annexes containing technical
requirements concerning lights and shapes and their positioning; sound signalling appliances; additional signals for fishing
vessels when operating in close proximity, and international distress signals.
Part A - General (Rules 1-3)

Rule 1 states that the rules apply to all vessels upon the high seas and all waters connected to the high seas and
navigable by seagoing vessels.
Rule 2 covers the responsibility of the master, owner and crew to comply with the rules.
Rule 3 includes definitions.
Part B- Steering and Sailing (Rules 4-19)

Section 1 - Conduct of vessels in any condition of visibility (Rules 4-10)
Rule 4 says the section applies in any condition of visibility.
Rule 5 requires that "every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all
available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
Rule 6 deals with safe speed. It requires that: "Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed...". The Rule
describes the factors which should be taken into account in determining safe speed. Several of these refer specifically to
vessels equipped with radar.The importance of using "all available means" is further stressed in Rule 7 covering risk of
collision, which warns that "assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar
information"
Rule 8 covers action to be taken to avoid collision.
In Rule 9 a vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway is obliged to keep "as near to the outer
limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable." The same Rule obliges a vessel
of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel not to impede the passage of a vessel "which can safely navigate only
within a narrow channel or fairway."
The Rule also forbids ships to cross a narrow channel or fairway "if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which
can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway." The meaning "not to impede" was classified by an amendment to
Rule 8 in 1987. A new paragraph (f) was added, stressing that a vessel which was required not to impede the passage of
another vessel should take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. Such vessel
was obliged to fulfil this obligation also when taking avoiding action in accordance with the steering and sailing rules when
risk of collision exists.
Rule 10 of the Collision Regulations deals with the behaviour of vessels in or near traffic separation schemes adopted by
the Organization. By regulation 8 of Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) of SOLAS, IMO is recognized as being the only
organization competent to deal with international measures concerning the routeing of ships.
The effectiveness of traffic separation schemes can be judged from a study made by the International Association of
Institutes of Navigation (IAIN) in 1981. This showed that between 1956 and 1960 there were 60 collisions in the Strait of
Dover; twenty years later, following the introduction of traffic separation schemes, this total was cut to only 16.
In other areas where such schemes did not exist the number of collisions rose sharply. New traffic separation schemes are
introduced regularly and existing ones are amended when necessary to respond to changed traffic conditions. To enable
this to be done as quickly as possible the MSC has been authorized to adopt and amend traffic separation schemes on
behalf of the Organization.
Rule 10 states that ships crossing traffic lanes are required to do so "as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general
direction of traffic flow." This reduces confusion to other ships as to the crossing vessel's intentions and course and at the
same time enables that vessel to cross the lane as quickly as possible.
Fishing vessels "shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane" but are not banned from fishing. This is
in line with Rule 9 which states that "a vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel
navigating within a narrow channel or fairway."In 1981 the regulations were amended. Two new paragraphs were added to
Rule 10 to exempt vessels which are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre "when engaged in an operation for the safety
of navigation in a traffic separation scheme" or when engaged in cable laying.
In 1987 the regulations were again amended. It was stressed that Rule 10 applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by
the Organization (IMO) and does not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other rule. It was also to clarify that if a
vessel is obliged to cross traffic lanes it should do so as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of the
traffic flow. In 1989 Regulation 10 was further amended to clarify the vessels which may use the "inshore traffic zone."
Section II - Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18)
Rule 11 says the section applies to vessels in sight of one another.
Rule 12 states action to be taken when two sailing vessels are approaching one another.
Rule 13covers overtaking - the overtaking vessel should keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
Rule 14 deals with head-on situations. Crossing situations are covered by Rule 15 and action to be taken by the give-way
vessel is laid down in Rule 16.
Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to
avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the
way is not taking appropriate action.
Rule 18 deals with responsibilities between vessels and includes requirements for vessels which shall keep out of the way
of others.
Section III - conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19)
Rule 19 states every vessel should proceed at a safe speed adapted to prevailing circumstances and restricted visibility. A
vessel detecting by radar another vessel should determine if there is risk of collision and if so take avoiding action. A vessel
hearing fog signal of another vessel should reduce speed to a minimum.
Part C Lights and Shapes (Rules 20-31)
Rule 20 states rules concerning lights apply from sunset to sunrise.Rule 21 gives definitions.
Rule 22 covers visibility of lights - indicating that lights should be visible at minimum ranges (in nautical miles)
determined according to the type of vessel.
Rule 23 covers lights to be carried by power-driven vessels underway.
Rule 24 covers lights for vessels towing and pushing.
Rule 25 covers light requirements for sailing vessels underway and vessels under oars.
Rule 26 covers light requirements for fishing vessels.
Rule 27 covers light requirements for vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre.
Rule 28 covers light requirements for vessels constrained by their draught.
Rule 29 covers light requirements for pilot vessels.
Rule 30 covers light requirements for vessels anchored and aground.Rule 31 covers light requirements for seaplanes
Part D - Sound and Light Signals (Rules 32-37)
Rule 32 gives definitions of whistle, short blast, and prolonged blast.
Rule 33 says vessels 12 metres or more in length should carry a whistle and a bell and vessels 100 metres or more in
length should carry in addition a gong.
Rule 34 covers manoeuvring and warning signals, using whistle or lights.
Rule 35 covers sound signals to be used in restricted visibility.
Rule 36 covers signals to be used to attract attention.
Rule 37 covers distress signals.
Part E - Exemptions (Rule 38)
Rule 38 says ships which comply with the 1960 Collision Regulations and were built or already under construction when
the 1972 Collision Regulations entered into force may be exempted from some requirements for light and sound signals for
specified periods.
Annexes
The COLREGs include four annexes:
Annex I - Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes
Annex II - Additional signals for fishing vessels fishing in close proximity
Annex III - Technical details of sounds signal appliances
Annex IV - Distress signals, which lists the signals indicating distress and need of assistance.
Annexes I and IV were amended in 1987 to clarify the positioning of certain lights carried on smaller vessels and to add
"approved signals transmitted by radiocommunications systems" (ie distress alerts transmitted in the GMDSS). A section
on location signals from search and rescue radar transponders was added in 1993.
The 1981 amendments

Entry into force: 1 June 1983
A number of rules are affected but perhaps the most important change concerns rule 10, which has been amended to
enable vessels carrying out various safety operations, such as dredging or surveying, to carry out these functions in traffic
separation schemes.
The 1987 amendments

Entry into force: 19 November 1989
The amendments affect several rules, including rule 1(e) ? vessels of special construction: the amendment classifies the
application of the Convention to such ships; Rule 3(h), which defines a vessel constrained by her draught; Rule 10(c) ?
crossing traffic lanes.
The 1989 amendments

The amendment concerns Rule 10 and is designed to stop unnecessary use of the inshore traffic zone.
The 1993 amendments

The amendments are mostly concerned with the positioning of lights.
The 2001 amendments

The amendments include new rules relating to Wing-in Ground (WIG) craft. The following are amended:
• General Definitions (Rule 3) - to provide the definition of wing-in-ground (WIG) craft;

• Action to avoid collision (Rule 8 (a)) - to make it clear that any action to avoid collision should be taken in
accordance with the relevant rules in the COLREGs and to link Rule 8 with the other steering and sailing rules;
• Responsibilities between vessels (Rule 18) - to include a requirement that a WIG craft, when taking off, landing
and in flight near the surface, shall keep clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation and also
that a WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules as for a power-driven vessel;
• Power-driven vessels underway (Rule 23) - to include a requirement that WIG craft shall, in addition to the lights
prescribed in paragraph 23 (a) of the Rule, exhibit a high-intensity all-round flashing red light when taking off,
landing and in-flight near the surface;
• Seaplanes (Rule 31) - to include a provision for WIG craft;
• Equipment for sound signals and sound signals in restricted visibility (Rules 33 and 35) - to cater for small
vessels;
• Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes (Annex I) - amendments with respect to high-speed craft
(relating to the vertical separation of masthead lights); and
• Technical details of sound signal appliances (Annex III) - amendments with respect to whistles and bell or gong to
cater for small vessels.
•
• International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978
•
• Adoption: 7 July 1978

The 1995 amendments, which completely revised the Convention, entered into force on 1 February 1997.
• 1995 STCW, as amended

• Details of the original 1978 Convention
•
The 1995 amendments – major revision
Ensuring compliance with the Convention
Port State control
1995 amendments – chapters II, III, IV
1995 amendments - Chapter V: Special training requirements for personnel on certain types of ships
1995 amendments - Chapter VI: Emergency, occupational safety, medical care and survival functions
1995 amendments - Chapter VII: Alternative certification
1995 amendments - Chapter VIII: Watchkeeping
The STCW Code
The 1997 Amendments – training for crew on passenger ships
The 1998 Amendments – training for crew on bulk carriers
The 2006 amendments - ship security officers, fast rescue boats
The "White List"
• The 1995 amendments

Adoption: 7 July 1995
The 1995 amendments, adopted by a Conference, represented a major revision of the Convention, in response to
a recognized need to bring the Convention up to date and to respond to critics who pointed out the many vague
phrases, such as "to the satisfaction of the Administration", which resulted in different interpretations being
made.
Others complained that the Convention was never uniformly applied and did not impose any strict obligations on
Parties regarding implementation. The 1995 amendments entered into force on 1 February 1997. However, until 1
February 2002, Parties may continue to issue, recognize and endorse certificates which applied before that date
in respect of seafarers who began training or seagoing service before 1 August 1998.
One of the major features of the revision was the division of the technical annex into regulations, divided into
Chapters as before, and a new STCW Code, to which many technical regulations have been transferred. Part A of
the Code is mandatory while Part B is recommended.
Dividing the regulations up in this way makes administration easier and it also makes the task of revising and
updating them more simple: for procedural and legal reasons there is no need to call a full conference to make
changes to Codes.
Some of the most important amendments adopted by the Conference concern Chapter I - General Provisions.
They include the following:
Ensuring compliance with the Convention

Parties to the Convention are required to provide detailed information to IMO concerning administrative measures
taken to ensure compliance with the Convention. This represented the first time that IMO had been called upon to
act in relation to compliance and implementation - generally, implementation is down to the flag States, while
port State control also acts to ensure compliance. Under Chapter I, regulation I/7 of the revised Convention,
Parties are required to provide detailed information to IMO concerning administrative measures taken to ensure
compliance with the Convention, education and training courses, certification procedures and other factors
relevant to implementation.
By 1 August 1998 - the deadline for submission of information established in section A-I/7 of the STCW Code -
82 out of the 133 STCW Parties had communicated information on compliance with the requirements of the
revised Convention. The 82 Parties which met the deadline represent well over 90% of the world's ships and
seafarers.
The information is reviewed by panels of competent persons, nominated by Parties to the STCW Convention, who
report on their findings to the IMO Secretary-General, who, in turn, reports to the Maritime Safety Committee
(MSC) on the Parties which fully comply. The MSC then produces a list of Parties in compliance with the 1995
amendments.
The first list of countries was approved by the MSC at its 73rd session held from 27 November to 6 December
2000 – it included 71 countries and one Associate Member of IMO.
Port State control

The revised Chapter I includes enhanced procedures concerning the exercise of port State to allow intervention in
the case of deficiencies deemed to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment (regulation I/4). This
can take place if certificates are not in order or if the ship is involved in a collision or grounding, if there is an
illegal discharge of substances (causing pollution) or if the ship is manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner,
etc.
Other regulations in chapter I include:
Measures are introduced for watchkeeping personnel to prevent fatigue.
Parties are required to establish procedures for investigating acts by persons to whom they have issued
certificates that endanger safety or the environment. Penalties and other disciplinary measures must be
prescribed and enforced where the Convention is not complied with.
Technical innovations, such as the use of simulators for training and assessment purposes have been recognized.
Simulators are mandatory for training in the use of radar and automatic radar plotting aids (regulation I/12 and
section A-I/12 of the STCW Code).
Parties are required to ensure that training, certification and other procedures are continuously monitored by
means of a quality standards system (regulation I/8).
Every master, officer and radio operator are required at intervals not exceeding five years to meet the fitness
standards and the levels of professional competence contained in Section A-I/11 of the STCW Code. In order to
assess the need for revalidation of certificates after 1 February 2002, Parties must compare the standards of
competence previously required with those specified in the appropriate certificate in part A of the STCW Code. If
necessary, the holders of certificates may be required to undergo training or refresher courses (regulation I/11).
Chapter II: Master and deck department

The Chapter was revised and updated.
Chapter III: Engine department

Chapter IV: Radiocommunication and radio personnel

Chapter V: Special training requirements for personnel on certain types of ships

Special requirements were introduced concerning the training and qualifications of personnel on board ro-ro
passenger ships. Previously the only special requirements in the Convention concerned crews on tankers. This
change was made in response to proposals made by the Panel of Experts set up to look into ro-ro safety following
the capsize and sinking of the ferry Estonia in September 1994. Crews on ro-ro ferries have to receive training in
technical aspects and also in crowd and crisis management and human behaviour.
Chapter VI: Emergency, occupational safety, medical care and survival functions
The Chapter incorporates the previous Chapter VI: Proficiency in survival craft and includes mandatory minimum
requirements for familiarization, basic safety training and instruction for all seafarers; mandatory minimum
requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency in survival craft, rescue boats and fast rescue boats;
mandatory minimum requirements for training in advanced firefighting; and mandatory minimum requirements
relating to medical first aid and medical care.
Chapter VII: Alternative certification

Regulations regarding alternative certification (also known as the functional approach) are included in a new
Chapter VII. This involves enabling crews to gain training and certification in various departments of seafaring
rather than being confined to one branch (such as deck or engine room) for their entire career.Although it is a
relatively new concept, the 1995 Conference was anxious not to prevent its development. At the same time, the
new Chapter is intended to ensure that safety and the environment are not threatened in any way. The use of
equivalent educational and training arrangements is permitted under article IX.
Chapter VIII: Watchkeeping
Measures were introduced for watchkeeping personnel to prevent fatigue. Administrations are required to
establish and enforce rest periods for watchkeeping personnel and to ensure that watch systems are so arranged
that the efficiency of watchkeeping personnel is not impaired by fatigue.
The STCW Code

The regulations contained in the Convention are supported by sections in the STCW Code. Generally speaking,
the Convention contains basic requirements which are then enlarged upon and explained in the Code.
Part A of the Code is mandatory. The minimum standards of competence required for seagoing personnel are
given in detail in a series of tables. Chapter II of the Code, for example, deals with standards regarding the
master and deck department.
Part B of the Code contains recommended guidance which is intended to help Parties implement the Convention.
The measures suggested are not mandatory and the examples given are only intended to illustrate how certain
Convention requirements may be complied with. However, the recommendations in general represent an
approach that has been harmonized by discussions within IMO and consultation with other international
organizations.
The 1997 Amendments

Adoption: June 1997
The amendments concern training for personnel on passenger ships. The amendments include an additional
Regulation V/3 in Chapter V on Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualifications of
masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships. Related
additions are also made to the STCW Code, covering Crowd management training; Familiarization training; Safety
training for personnel providing direct service to passengers in passenger spaces; Passenger safety; and Crisis
management and human behaviour training.
The 1998 Amendments

Amendments to the STCW Code are aimed at improving minimum standards of competence of crews, in
particular relating to cargo securing, loading and unloading on bulk carriers, since these procedures have the
potential to put undue stresses on the ship's structure. The amendments concern sections A-II/1 and A-II/2
under "Cargo handling and stowage at the operational and management levels".
• The 2006 amendments
Adoption: May 2006
• The amendments add new minimum mandatory training and certification requirements for persons to be
designated as ship security officers (SSOs). The amendments to the STCW Convention and to parts A and B of
the STCW Code include Requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency for Ship Security Officers;
Specifications of minimum standards of proficiency for ship security officers; and Guidance regarding training for
Ship Security Officers.
• Further amendments to part A of the STCW Code add additional training requirements for the launching and
recovery of fast rescue boats. The amendments have been prepared in response to reports of injuries to
seafarers in numerous incidents involving the launching and recovery of fast rescue boats in adverse weather
conditions.
•
The White List

The first so-called “White List” of countries deemed to be giving “full and complete effect” to the revised STCW
Convention (STCW 95) was published by IMO following the 73rd session of the Organization’s Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC), meeting from 27 November to 6 December 2000.
It is expected that ships flying flags of countries that are not on the White List will be increasingly targeted by
Port State Control inspectors. A Flag state Party that is on the White List may, as a matter of policy, elect not to
accept seafarers with certificates issued by non White List countries for service on its ships. If it does accept such
seafarers, they will be required by 1 February 2002 also to have an endorsement, issued by the flag state, to
show that their certificate is recognized by the flag state.
By 1 February 2002, masters and officers should hold STCW 95 certificates or endorsements issued by the flag
State. Certificates issued and endorsed under the provisions of the 1978 STCW Convention will be valid until their
expiry date.
The list will be kept under review and may be added to as other countries meet the criteria for inclusion. Latest
list of confirmed Parties.
•
• The 1978 STCW Convention – Introduction
The 1978 Convention – Chapter I: General provisions
The 1978 Convention – Chapter II: Master-deck department
The 1978 Convention – Chapter III: Engine department
The 1978 Convention – Chapter IV: Radio department
The 1978 Convention – Chapter V: Special requirements for tankers
The 1978 Convention – Chapter VI: Proficiency in survival craftResolutions adopted by the 1978
ConferenceAmendment Procedure
The 1991 amendments – GMDSS
The 1994 amendments – tanker crews
• The 1978 STCW Convention – Introduction
The 1978 STCW Convention was the first to establish basic requirements on training, certification and
watchkeeping for seafarers on an international level. Previously the standards of training, certification and
watchkeeping of officers and ratings were established by individual governments, usually without reference to
practices in other countries. As a result standards and procedures varied widely, even though shipping is the most
international of all industries.
The Convention prescribes minimum standards relating to training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers
which countries are obliged to meet or exceed.
The Convention did not deal with manning levels: IMO provisions in this area are covered by a regulation in
Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, whose requirements are
backed up by resolution A.890(21) Principles of safe manning, adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1999, as
amended by Resolution A.955(23) Amendments to the Principles of Safe Manning (Resolution A.890(21)).
The Articles of the Convention include requirements relating to issues surrounding certification and port State
control.
One especially important feature of the Convention is that it applies to ships of non-party States when visiting
ports of States which are Parties to the Convention. Article X requires Parties to apply the control measures to
ships of all flags to the extent necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to ships entitled to
fly the flag of a State which is not a Party than is given to ships entitled to fly the flag of a State that is a Party.
The difficulties which could arise for ships of States which are not Parties to the Convention is one reason why the
Convention has received such wide acceptance. By December 2000, the STCW Convention had 135 Parties,
representing 97.53 percent of world shipping tonnage.
The 1978 Convention – Chapter I

The technical provisions of the 1978 Convention are contained in an Annex, divided into six Chapters:
The 1978 Convention - Chapter I:General provisions

Includes a list of definitions of terms used in the annex. Regulation I/2 deals with the content of the certificate
and endorsement form. All certificates must include a translation into English, if that is not the official language of
the issuing country.
The 1978 Convention - Chapter II: Master-deck department

The Chapter establishes basic principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch, covering such matters as
watch arrangements, fitness for duty, navigation, navigational equipment, navigational duties and responsibilities,
the duties of the look-out, navigation with a pilot on board and protection of the marine environment.
The regulations include mandatory minimum requirements for certificating masters and chief mates; for
certification of officers in charge of a navigational watch; and for certification of deck ratings forming part of a
navigational watch. The regulations also include basic principles to be observed in keeping watch in port and
mandatory minimum requirements for a watch in port on ships carrying hazardous cargo.
The 1978 Convention - Chapter III: Engine department

Includes basic principles to be observed in keeping an engineering watch; mandatory minimum requirements for
certification of chief engineer officers and second engineer officers; mandatory minimum requirements for
certification of engineer officers in charge of a watch in a traditionally manned engine room or designated duty
officers in a periodically unmanned engine room; requirements to ensure the continued proficiency and updating
of knowledge for engineer officers; mandatory minimum requirements for ratings forming part of an engine room
watch.
The 1978 Convention - Chapter IV: Radio department

Notes that mandatory provisions relating to radio watchkeeping are set forth in the ITU Radio Regulations and
safety radio watchkeeping and maintenance provisions are included in the same regulations and in SOLAS. The
Chapter in STCW includes mandatory minimum requirements for certification of radio officers; provisions
designed to ensure the continued proficiency and updating of knowledge of radio officers; and minimum
requirements for certification of radiotelephone operators.
The 1978 Convention - Chapter V: Special requirements for tankers

The Chapter was designed to ensure that officers and ratings who are to have specific duties related to the cargo
and cargo equipment of tankers shall have completed an appropriate shore-based fire-fighting course; and have
completed either an appropriate period of shipboard service or an approved familiarization course. Requirements
are more stringent for masters and senior officers. Attention is paid not only to safety aspects but also to
pollution prevention. The Chapter contains three regulations dealing with oil tankers, chemical tankers and
liquefied gas tankers, respectively.
The 1978 Convention - Chapter VI: Proficiency in survival craft

The Chapter establishes requirements governing the issuing of certificates of proficiency in survival craft. An
appendix lists the minimum knowledge required for the issue of certificates of proficiency.
Resolutions adopted by the 1978 Conference

The 1978 Conference which adopted the STCW Convention also adopted a number of resolutions designed to
back up the Convention itself. The resolutions, which are recommendatory rather than mandatory, incorporate
more details than some of the Convention regulations.
Resolution 1 - Basic principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch. An annex contains a

recommendation on operational guidance for officers in charge of a navigational watch.
Resolution 2 - Operational guidance for engineer officers in charge of an engineering watch. An annex
to the resolution deals with engineering watch underway and at an unsheltered anchorage.
Resolution 3 - Principles and operational guidance for deck officers in charge of a watch in port.
Detailed recommendations are contained in an annex.
Resolution 4 - Principles and operational guidance for engineer officers in charge of an engineering
watch in port. Recommendations are in an annex.
Resolution 5 - Basic guidelines and operational guidance relating to safety radio watchkeeping and
maintenance for radio officers. A comprehensive annex is divided into basic guidelines and safety radio
watchkeeping and maintenance.
Resolution 6 - Basic guidelines and operational guidance relating to safety radio watchkeeping for
radio telephone operators.
Resolution 7 - Radio operators. Four recommendations are annexed to this resolution dealing with (i)
minimum requirements for certification of radio officers; (ii) minimum requirements to ensure the continued
proficiency and updating of knowledge for radio operators; (iii) basic guidelines and operational guidance relating
to safety radio watchkeeping and maintenance for radio operators; and (iv) training for radio operators.
Resolution 8 - Additional training for ratings forming part of a navigational watch. Recommends that
such ratings be trained in use and operation of appropriate bridge equipment and basic requirements for the
prevention of pollution.
Resolution 9 - Minimum requirements for a rating nominated as the assistant to the engineer officer
in charge of the watch. Recognizes that suitable training arrangements are not widely available. Detailed
requirements are contained in an annex.
Resolution 10 - Training and qualifications of officers and ratings of oil tankers. Refers to resolution 8
adopted by the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1978 (TSPP), which deals
with the improvement of standards of crews on tankers. Recommendation in annex.
Resolution 11 - Training and qualifications of officers and ratings of chemical tankers.
Resolution 12 - Training and qualifications of masters, officers and ratings of liquefied gas tankers.
Resolution 13 - Training and qualifications of officers and ratings of ships carrying dangerous and
hazardous cargo other than in bulk.
Resolution 14 - Training for radio officers. Detailed recommendations in annex.
Resolution 15 - Training for radiotelephone operators
Resolution 16 - Technical assistance for the training and qualifications of masters and other
responsible personnel of oil, chemical and liquefied gas tankers. Refers to requirements in several
Convention regulations and recognizes that training facilities may be limited in some countries. Urges
Governments which can provide assistance to do so.· Back to top
Resolution 17 - Additional training for masters and chief mates of large ships and of ships with
unusual manoeuvring characteristics. Is designed to assist those moving to ships of this type from smaller
vessels, where characteristics may be quite different.
Resolution 18 - Radar simulator training. Recommends that such training be given to all masters and deck
officers.
Resolution 19 - Training of seafarers in personal survival techniques. A recommendation is annexed.
Resolution 20 - Training in the use of collision avoidance aids.
Resolution 21 - International Certificate of Competency. Invites IMO to develop a standard form and title
for this certificate.
Resolution 22 - Human relationships. Emphasizes the importance to safety of good human relationships
between seafarers on board.
Resolution 23 - Promotion of technical co-operation. Records appreciation of IMO's work in assisting

developing countries to establish maritime training facilities in conformity with global standards of training and
invites the organization to intensify its efforts with a view to promoting universal acceptance and implementation
of the STCW Convention.
Amendment Procedure
Amendments to the 1978 STCW Convention's technical Annex may be adopted by a Conference of STCW Parties
or by IMO's Maritime Safety Committee, expanded to include all Contracting Parties, some of whom may not be
members of the Organization.
Amendments to the STCW Annex will normally enter into force one and a half years after being communicated to
all Parties unless, in the meantime, they are rejected by one-third of the Parties or by Parties whose combined
fleets represent 50 per cent of world tonnage.
The 1991 amendments

Entry into force: 1 December 1992
The amendments were mostly concerned with additional requirements made necessary by the implementation of
the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
The 1994 amendments

The amendments replaced Chapter V on special training for crews on tankers.
International Convention on Load Lines, 1966


Load Lines 1966 - Annexes
Amendments 1971, 1975, 1979, 1983
Adoption of tacit amendment procedure 1988 Protocol
The 1995 amendments
The 2003 amendments - revision of technical annex

It has long been recognized that limitations on the draught to which a ship may be loaded make a significant contribution
to her safety. These limits are given in the form of freeboards, which constitute, besides external weathertight and
watertight integrity, the main objective of the Convention.
The first International Convention on Load Lines, adopted in 1930, was based on the principle of reserve buoyancy,
although it was recognized then that the freeboard should also ensure adequate stability and avoid excessive stress on the
ship's hull as a result of overloading.
In the 1966 Load Lines convention, adopted by IMO, provisions are made determining the freeboard of ships by subdivision
and damage stability calculations.
The regulations take into account the potential hazards present in different zones and different seasons. The technical
annex contains several additional safety measures concerning doors, freeing ports, hatchways and other items. The main
purpose of these measures is to ensure the watertight integrity of ships' hulls below the freeboard deck.
All assigned load lines must be marked amidships on each side of the ship, together with the deck line. Ships intended for
the carriage of timber deck cargo are assigned a smaller freeboard as the deck cargo provides protection against the
impact of waves
Load Lines 1966 - Annexes

The Convention includes Annex I, divided into four Chapters:
· Chapter I - General;
· Chapter II - Conditions of assignment of freeboard;
· Chapter III - Freeboards;
· Chapter IV - Special requirements for ships assigned timber freeboards.·
Annex II covers Zones, areas and seasonal periods.

Annex III contains certificates, including the International Load Line Certificate.
Amendments 1971, 1975, 1979, 1983

The 1966 Convention provided for amendments to be made by positive acceptance. Amendments could be considered by
the Maritime Safety Committee, the IMO Assembly or by a Conference of Governments. Amendments would then only
come into force 12 months after being accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Parties.In practice, amendments adopted
between 1971 and 1983 never received enough acceptances to enter into force. These included:
· the 1971 amendments - to make certain improvements to the text and to the chart of zones and seasonal areas;
· the 1975 amendments - to introduce the principle of 'tacit acceptance' into the Convention;
· the 1979 amendments - to make some alterations to zone boundaries off the coast of Australia; and
· the 1983 amendments - to extend the summer and tropical zones southward off the coast of Chile.
Adoption of tacit amendment procedure 1988
The 1988 Protocol

The Protocol was primarily adopted in order to harmonize the Convention's survey and certification requirement with those
contained in SOLAS and MARPOL 73/78.
All three instruments require the issuing of certificates to show that requirements have been met and this has to be done
by means of a survey which can involve the ship being out of service for several days.
The harmonized system alleviates the problems caused by survey dates and intervals between surveys which do not
coincide, so that a ship should no longer have to go into port or repair yard for a survey required by one Convention
shortly after doing the same thing in connection with another instrument.
The 1988 Load Lines Protocol revised certain regulations in the technical Annexes to the Load Lines Convention and
introduced the tacit amendment procedure (which was already applicable to the 1974 SOLAS Convention).Amendments to
the Convention may be considered either by the Maritime Safety Committee or by a Conference of Parties.
Amendments must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of Parties to the Convention present and voting. Amendments
enter into force six months after the deemed date of acceptance - which must be at least a year after the date of
communication of adoption of amendments unless they are rejected by one-third of Parties. Usually, the date from
adoption to deemed acceptance is two years.
The 1995 amendments

Adopted: 23 November 1995
Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Governments.
Status: superseded by 2003 amendments
The 2003 amendments

Adopted: June 2003
The amendments to Annex B to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol include a number of important revisions, in particular to
regulations concerning: strength and intact stability of ships; definitions; superstructure and bulkheads; doors; position of
hatchways, doorways and ventilators; hatchway coamings; hatch covers; machinery space openings; miscellaneous
openings in freeboard and superstructure decks; cargo ports and other similar openings; spurling pipes and cable lockers;
side scuttles; windows and skylights; calculation of freeing ports; protection of the crew and means of safe passage for
crew; calculation of freeboard; sheer; minimum bow height and reserve buoyancy; and others.
The amendments, which amount to a comprehensive revision of the technical regulations of the original Load Lines
Convention, do not affect the 1966 LL Convention and only apply to approximately those ships flying the flags of States
Party to the 1988 LL Protocol. (See Status of Conventions - Summary)
Historical background leading to the adoption of the Load Lines convention
The stability of ships can be seriously affected by overloading, especially if the cargo shifts during the course of the voyage
and the practice of marking ships to indicate how low they may safely rest in the water when loaded goes back several
centuries. Most merchant ships today are covered by the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as amended.
The Load Lines Convention contains detailed regulations on the assignment of the freeboard (the vertical distance between
the top of the hull and the waterline) and the specific limitations to which different types of ships may be loaded. Several
lines are painted on the ship, above and below the central freeboard line - because ships may be loaded to a greater or
lesser degree depending on the zone and season, as potential hazards vary.
Load lines - history

Lloyd's Rule
Plimsoll line
First International load lines regulations
1930 Load Line Convention
1966 Load Lines Convention
Considerations for calculating a ship's freeboard
Load lines - history

The first seafarers who set to sea in wooden canoes thousands of years ago must have already - perhaps by trial and error
- worked out the optimum freeboard for these vessels. Some too, probably discovered that overloading the vessel could
have severe consequences.
The first official loading regulations are thought to date back to maritime legislation originating with the island kingdom of
Crete in 2,500 BC when vessels were required to pass loading and maintenance inspections.
Roman sea regulations also contained similar regulations.
In the middle ages, the Venetian Republic - which controlled much of the sea trade in the Mediterranean - had laws
requiring vessels to be loaded to a maximum depth indicated by a fixed line marked on the side of the hull. Ships from
Venice were marked with a cross, while the city of Genoa used three horizontal bars.
Elsewhere, the Hanseatic League, which controlled much of the trade from the Rhine to the eastern and northern Baltic up
to the seventeenth century, issued a law in 1288 from the Scandinavian town of Visby, its commercial centre, which
required ships to load to a load line or face penalties.
Later, under standard maritime procedures developed for Baltic Sea at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1561, a captain could
be fined "for overburdening his ship".
By the seventeenth century, ships were trading on longer voyages to the Far East, India and the Americas and each
emerging maritime nation drew up its own maritime regulations. However, specific load line regulations were not passed
until the nineteenth century, which saw a huge increase in seagoing trade in raw materials and finished goods as the
Industrial Revolution got under way.
But as trade grew, so did the number of ships being lost. Moreover, changing technology -with sails turning to steam and
wood being replaced by steel - meant experience in ship design could not always keep pace and sometimes ships were
designed with inadequate freeboards.
Lloyd's Rule
The first 19th century loading recommendations were introduced by London-based Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign
Shipping in 1835, following discussions between shipowners, shippers and underwriters.
Lloyd's Register recommended freeboards as a function of the depth of the hold (three inches per foot of depth) and these
recommendations, used extensively until 1880, became known as "Lloyd's Rule".
However, the Rule only applied to ships registered with Lloyd's.
Concern in the United Kingdom about the growing number of ship losses led to the appointment of a Royal committee
which in 1836 cited bad design and improper building - but not overloading - as contributory factors to the
unseaworthiness of ships.
However, the United Kingdom Government passed a law in 1850 setting up the Marine Department of the board of Trade,
to enforce application of laws governing manning, crew competence and operation of merchant vessels.
Nonetheless, seafarers themselves had little say in the safety standards aboard what one captain described as a "coffin
ship". In fact, until 1871, it was actually illegal for seafarers to refuse to go to sea, even on the grounds that the ship they
were sailing on was unseaworthy. In 1866 four successive crews refused to serve on a ship called the Harkaway on the
understandable grounds that even at anchor in a calm sea the ship took on more than one metre of water a day. They
were sent to prison.
Plimsoll line
In the 1860s, calls for regulations to limit overloading on ships were growing in the United Kingdom.
A shipowner from northern England, James Hall, was concerned about the impact on insurance rates of the high number of
shipping casualties - losses had doubled in 30 years. Although many shipowners were portrayed as irresponsible, Hall could
see the benefits - in terms of lower insurance rates - of getting all shipowners to abide by good practices.
In particular, Hall petitioned the Board of Trade to investigate the large number of ship losses and the Board of Trade
inquiry found overloading was one of the factors to blame.
Meanwhile, a coal dealer and liberal Member of Parliament, Samuel Plimsoll, took up the load line cause. Plimsoll began a
battle to try and get merchant shipping laws reformed - against stiff opposition from a minority of shipowners.
A Royal commission on Unseaworthy Ships was set up in 1872 and finally the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act of
1876 made load lines compulsory. The load line mark included in the legislation - though the position of the line was not
fixed by law until 1894 - became known as the "Plimsoll Line": a circle with a horizontal line through the middle.
Figures on ship casualties probably helped to goad the British parliamentarians into action: in the year 1873 4, around the
coastline of the United Kingdom, 411 ships sank, with the loss of 506 lives. But this figure only covers the United Kingdom
coastline: between 1867 and 1882, loss of life in British vessels alone (and excluding fishing vessels) totalled 33,427
seafarers and 5,987 passengers. Ships lost numbered 16,393.
In 1906, laws were passed requiring foreign ships visiting British ports to be marked with a load line, while a German law
of 1903 also issued freeboard regulations, spreading the regulatory net further.
In the United States, American vessels were loaded to a formula based on "inches per foot of depth of hold" until 1917
when the U.S. Shipping Board required adherence to British Board of Trade standards based on a set of calculated
freeboard tables.
Load line legislation was introduced in the American congress in 1920 and failed, but a Load Line Act was passed in the
United States in 1929.
By that time, there was a proliferation of different freeboard rules in use by various marine administrations and
classification societies, which meant there was a lack of global standardization.
First International load lines regulations

The first international conference on load line regulations was envisaged for 1913, but the approaching war meant this
planned conference was never held.
In 1922, however, the British Chamber of Shipping sponsored a conference, which adopted recommendations derived from
studies on existing regulations elsewhere, with a view to eventually adopting them as international regulations.
Further preparatory work by the major maritime nations of the time resulted in an international conference held in London
in 1930 - which adopted the first International Load Line Convention.
The rules adopted at the conference were not based on exact scientific principles - but were essentially a compromise
between the various national rules which had been developed previously.
1930 Load Line Convention

The 1930 Load Line Convention was the first international agreement for universal application of load line regulations and
applied to seagoing ships in international trade and was based on the principle of reserve buoyancy, although it was
recognized then that the freeboard should also ensure adequate stability and avoid excessive stress on the ship's hull as a
result of overloading.
The rules covered superstructure evaluations, freeboards and strength standards.
The minimum freeboard was designed to provide a standard of "reserve buoyancy" (the volume of the watertight hull
above the load waterline), while the protection of openings in the hull and superstructures, such as hatches, ventilators,
airpipes, scuppers, overhead discharges and the access openings in the end bulkhead of superstructures were an important
consideration in the assignment of freeboard.
Another major concern was the protection for the crew by consideration of the strength of gangways, guard rails, lifelines
and the height of the working platform itself.
The calculated freeboard was the basic minimum summer freeboard in salt water. The regulations divided the world into
different geographical/seasonal zones, with different load lines for each - in recognition of the fact that sea and weather
conditions vary greatly in different sea areas and in different seasons of the year. A ship sailing in winter in the North
Atlantic Ocean had to have an increase in freeboard while for voyages in the tropical zones and in fresh water there was a
freeboard deduction.
Freeboard was measured from the top of the deck amidships to the top of the line through the centre of the load line disc.
Forward of the disc was a grid composed of lines indicating the maximum loading, for the summer a the level with the line
in the disc and others further down for winter, for winter in the north Atlantic and above for the tropical zones and for fresh
water.
Special rules were provided for tankers and for the carriage of timber deck cargo.
The 1930 load Line Convention was an important step in establishing universally applicable rules.
However, the decades following the adoption of the 1930 Convention saw developments in ship design and methods of
construction which began to make the Convention rules look outdated: ships, especially tankers, grew considerably in size;
specialized ship designs to meet different trades were becoming prevalent; machinery spaces in dry cargo ships were being
located away from the traditional midships position; metal hatchway covers were replacing wooden ones; and welding was
replacing riveting.
There was general agreement that the 1930 Convention needed revision, in particular in the sections concerning aspects
relating to ship design and construction.
As a result, maritime nations planned a conference to adopt a revised Convention.
In the meantime, the International Maritime Organization had come into being and was clearly the right Organization to
host the proposed conference.
1966 Load Lines Convention
The 1966 International Conference on Load Lines was held at IMO headquarters in London from 3 March to 5 April 1966
and was attended by delegations from 52 States and observers from 8 States. The International Convention on Load Lines,
1966, was adopted on 5 April 1966 and entered into force on 21 July 1968. The terms of the convention stated it would
enter into force 12 months after at least 15 countries, seven of which possessed not less than one million gross tons of
shipping had accepted it. These conditions were met in a remarkably short time - one reason being that the Convention
provided for a general reduction in freeboard allowance for most ships compared to the 1930 Convention.
Work of the 1966 Conference

The 1966 conference agreed that the revision of the 1930 Load Line convention required re-examination of a number of
issues, including: prevention of the entry of water into the hull; adequate reserve buoyancy; protection of the crew;
adequate structural strength of the hull; and limitation of water on the deck.
Like the 1930 Convention, the 1966 Load Lines Convention sets out rules for calculation and assignment of freeboard and
takes into account the potential hazards present in different zones and different seasons. The technical annex contains
several additional safety measures concerning doors, freeing ports, hatchways and other items. The main purpose of these
measures is to ensure the watertight integrity of ships' hulls below the freeboard deck.
All assigned load lines must be marked amidships on each side of the ship, together with the deck line. Ships intended for
the carriage of timber deck cargo are assigned a smaller freeboard as the deck cargo provides protection against the
impact of waves.
The 1966 Convention is made up of:
• Articles - cover matters of contract between governments, survey and certification.

• Annex I - Regulations for determining load lines, is divided into four chapters.
• Chapter I - General -for example, strength of hull, types of ships, definitions, markings.
• Chapter II - Conditions of assignment of freeboard;
• Chapter III - Freeboards - evaluation of freeboard in terms of geometrical and physical characteristics of any
ship.
• Chapter IV - Special requirements for ships assigned timer freeboards.
• Annex II defines zones, areas and seasonal periods appropriate to the various load line markings.
• Annex III prescribes the form and scope of certificates, including the International Load Line Certificate and the
International Load Line Exemption Certificate .
The 1966 Convention has since been amended, see International Convention on Load Lines
Considerations for calculating a ship's freeboard
Freeboard
The distance between the top of the hull and the waterline. As the ship is loaded, it sinks deeper into the water so the
freeboard is reduced. The positioning of the load line mark is aimed at ensuring the freeboard is the minimum necessary
for the safety of the ship.
Structural Strength
The deeper the draft of a ship (the amount of the ship that is underwater), the greater are the loads imposed on the ship's
structure. So a ship with a deeper draught requires a higher freeboard.
Compartmentalization and reserve buoyancy

In the event of a casualty, the amount of reserve buoyancy available will depend on how the hull is divided into separate
watertight compartments. Compartmentalization is especially critical in the design and construction of passenger ships and
special subdivision load lines are assigned for these vessels. If a ship has a greater level of reserve buoyancy, the
freeboard can be reduced.
Deck Height
Platform height (the height of the weather deck above the waterline) is a measure of how the vessel may be affected by
seas which sweep across the deck.
Transverse Stability
While freeboard does not directly determine the side to side stability of a ship, higher freeboard will allow a ship to roll
further before submerging the deck.
Hull Form
Sheer describes the curve between bow and stern. A ship with high freeboard at the bows and stern compared to midships
(where freeboard is measured) has more reserve buoyancy.
Fullness
The underwater shape of a hull. A rectangular cross section as on a tanker, is described as "full" and has less reserve
buoyancy with the same freeboard than a more rounded hull like that of
tugboat or liner.
Length
A long ship, with only a few feet of freeboard, has less reserve buoyancy than a shorter ship with the same freeboard.
Type of Vessel and Cargo

Tankers and timber carrying ships with buoyant cargoes require less freeboard than a passenger liner or containership.
Season and Zone

Weather conditions normally encountered along a ship's trade route effects its seaworthiness. Ships sailing the North
Atlantic in Winter are exposed to much more severe conditions than one sailing around the South Seas.
Further information
Load Lines from National Maritme Museum
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL)

Introduction
History of MARPOL 73/78
OILPOL Convention
Torrey Canyon
1973 Convention
1978 Conference
Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil
Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances
Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
Enforcement
Amendment Procedure
Amendments
The 1984 amendments
The 1985 (Annex II) amendments
The 1985 (Protocol I) amendments – incident reporting
The 1987 amendments - special area extension
The 1989 (March) amendments – Annex II
The October 1989 amendments – North Sea special area
The 1990 (HSSC) amendments
The 1990 (IBC Code) amendments
The 1990 (BCH) amendments
The 1990 (Annexes I and V) amendments – Antarctic as special area
The 1991 amendments – Wider Caribbean as special area
The 1992 amendments – Double hulls made mandatory
The 1994 amendments - Implementation
The 1995 amendments – Garbage records
The 1996 amendments
The 1997 amendments – North West European waters as special area
The Protocol of 1997 adoption of Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships
The 1999 amendments – Persistent oil
The 2000 amendments – Deletion of tainting
The 2001 amendments - revised 13 G (double hulls)
The 2003 amendments - Double hulls
The 2004 (April) amendments - revised Annex IV (sewage)
The 2004 (October) amendments - revised Annexes I and II
The 2005 amendments - North Sea SECA, Annex VI amendments
The 2006 amendments - oil fuel tank protection
The 2006 (October) amendments - South Africa special area, revised Annex III
The 2008 amendments - revised Annex VI
Introduction
The MARPOL Convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment
by ships from operational or accidental causes. It is a combination of two treaties adopted in 1973 and 1978 respectively
and updated by amendments through the years.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was adopted on 2 November 1973 at
IMO and covered pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The Protocol of
1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1978 MARPOL Protocol) was
adopted at a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention in February 1978 held in response to a spate of tanker
accidents in 1976-1977. (Measures relating to tanker design and operation were also incorporated into a Protocol of 1978
relating to the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974).
As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent
Convention. The combined instrument is referred to as the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution
from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), and it entered into force on 2
October 1983 (Annexes I and II).
The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships - both accidental pollution
and that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes:
Annex I Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil

Annex II Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk
Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form
Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships
Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships
Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entry into force 19 May 2005)
States Parties must accept Annexes I and II, but the other Annexes are voluntary.
History of MARPOL 73/78
Oil pollution of the seas was recognized as a problem in the first half of the 20th century and various countries introduced
national regulations to control discharges of oil within their territorial waters. In 1954, the United Kingdom organized a
conference on oil pollution which resulted in the adoption of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL), 1954. Following entry into force of the IMO Convention in 1958, the depository
and Secretariat functions in relation to the Convention were transferred from the United Kingdom Government to IMO.
OILPOL Convention
The 1954 Convention, which was amended in 1962, 1969 and 1971, primarily addressed
pollution resulting from routine tanker operations and from the discharge of oily wastes from
machinery spaces - regarded as the major causes of oil pollution from ships.
The 1954 OILPOL Convention, which entered into force on 26 July 1958, attempted to tackle the
problem of pollution of the seas by oil - defined as crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and
lubricating oil in two main ways:
- it established "prohibited zones" extending at least 50 miles from the nearest land in which the discharge
of oil or of mixtures containing more than 100 parts of oil per million was forbidden; and
- it required Contracting Parties to take all appropriate steps to promote the provision of facilities for the
reception of oily water and residues.
In 1962, IMO adopted amendments to the Convention which extended its application to ships of a lower tonnage and also
extended the "prohibited zones". Amendments adopted in 1969 contained regulations to further restrict operational
discharge of oil from oil tankers and from machinery spaces of all ships.
Although the 1954 OILPOL Convention went some way in dealing with oil pollution, growth in oil trade and developments in
industrial practices were beginning to make it clear that further action, was required. Nonetheless, pollution control was at
the time still a minor concern for IMO, and indeed the world was only beginning to wake up to the environmental
consequences of an increasingly industrialised society.
Torrey Canyon
In 1967, the tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground while entering the English Channel and spilled her entire cargo of 120,000
tons of crude oil into the sea. This resulted in the biggest oil pollution incident ever recorded up to that time. The incident
raised questions about measures then in place to prevent oil pollution from ships and also exposed deficiencies in the
existing system for providing compensation following accidents at sea.
First, IMO called an Extraordinary session of its Council, which drew up a plan of action on technical and legal aspects of
the Torrey Canyon incident. Then, the IMO Assembly decided in 1969 to convene an international conference in 1973 to
prepare a suitable international agreement for placing restraints on the contamination of the sea, land and air by ships.
In the meantime, in 1971, IMO adopted further amendments to OILPOL 1954 to afford additional protection to the Great
Barrier Reef of Australia and also to limit the size of tanks on oil tankers, thereby minimizing the amount of oil which could
escape in the event of a collision or stranding.
1973 Convention
Finally, an international Conference in 1973 adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships. While it was recognized that accidental pollution was spectacular, the Conference considered that operational
pollution was still the bigger threat. As a result, the 1973 Convention incorporated much of OILPOL 1954 and its
amendments into Annex I, covering oil.
But the Convention was also intended to address other forms of pollution from ships and therefore other annexes covered
chemicals, harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The 1973 Convention also included two
Protocols dealing with Reports on Incidents involving Harmful Substances and Arbitration.
The 1973 Convention required ratification by 15 States, with a combined merchant fleet of not less than 50 percent of
world shipping by gross tonnage, to enter into force. By 1976, it had only received three ratifications - Jordan, Kenya and
Tunisia - representing less than one percent of the world's merchant shipping fleet. This was despite the fact that States
could become Party to the Convention by only ratifying Annexes I (oil) and II (chemicals). Annexes III to V, covering
harmful goods in packaged form, sewage and garbage, were optional.
It began to look as though the 1973 Convention might never enter into force, despite its importance.
1978 Conference
In 1978, in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977, IMO held a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution
Prevention in February 1978. The conference adopted measures affecting tanker design and operation, which were
incorporated into both the Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (1978 SOLAS
Protocol) and the Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(1978 MARPOL Protocol) - adopted on 17 February 1978.
More importantly in terms of achieving the entry into force of MARPOL, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol allowed States to
become Party to the Convention by first implementing Annex I (oil), as it was decided that Annex II (chemicals) would not
become binding until three years after the Protocol entered into force.
This gave States time to overcome technical problems in Annex II, which for some had been a major obstacle in ratifying
the Convention.
As the 1973 Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The
combined instrument - the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) - finally entered into force on 2 October 1983
(for Annexes I and II).
Annex V, covering garbage, achieved sufficient ratifications to enter into force on 31 December 1988, while Annex III,
covering harmful substances carried in packaged form, entered into force on 1 July 1992. Annex IV, covering sewage,
enters into force on 27 September 2003. Annex VI, covering air pollution, was adopted in September 1997 and enters into
force on 19 May 2005.
Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil
(Revised Annex I enters into force 1 January 2007)
The 1973 Convention maintained the oil discharge criteria prescribed in the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution
Convention, without substantial changes, namely, that operational discharges of oil from tankers are allowed only when all
of the following conditions are met:
- the total quantity of oil which a tanker may discharge in any ballast voyage whilst under way must not exceed
1/15,000 of the total cargo carrying capacity of the vessel;
- the rate at which oil may be discharged must not exceed 60 litres per mile travelled by the ship; and
- no discharge of any oil whatsoever must be made from the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50 miles of the nearest
land.
An oil record book is required, in which is recorded the movement of cargo oil and its residues from loading to discharging
on a tank-to-tank basis.
In addition, in the 1973 Convention, the maximum quantity of oil permitted to be discharged on a ballast voyage of new oil
tankers was reduced from 1/15,000 of the cargo capacity to 1/30,000 of the amount of cargo carried. These criteria
applied equally both to persistent (black) and non-persistent (white) oils.
As with the 1969 OILPOL amendments, the 1973 Convention recognized the "load on top" (LOT) system which had been
developed by the oil industry in the 1960s. On a ballast voyage the tanker takes on ballast water (departure ballast) in
dirty cargo tanks. Other tanks are washed to take on clean ballast. The tank washings are pumped into a special slop tank.
After a few days, the departure ballast settles and oil flows to the top. Clean water beneath is then decanted while new
arrival ballast water is taken on. The upper layer of the departure ballast is transferred to the slop tanks. After further
settling and decanting, the next cargo is loaded on top of the remaining oil in the slop tank, hence the term load on top.
A new and important feature of the 1973 Convention was the concept of "special areas" which are considered to be so
vulnerable to pollution by oil that oil discharges within them have been completely prohibited, with minor and well-defined
exceptions. The 1973 Convention identified the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea and the
Gulfs area as special areas. All oil-carrying ships are required to be capable of operating the method of retaining oily
wastes on board through the "load on top" system or for discharge to shore reception facilities.
This involves the fitting of appropriate equipment, including an oil-discharge monitoring and control system, oily-water
separating equipment and a filtering system, slop tanks, sludge tanks, piping and pumping arrangements.
New oil tankers (i.e. those for which the building contract was placed after 31 December 1975) of 70,000 tons deadweight
and above, must be fitted with segregated ballast tanks large enough to provide adequate operating draught without the
need to carry ballast water in cargo oil tanks.
Secondly, new oil tankers are required to meet certain subdivision and damage stability requirements so that, in any
loading conditions, they can survive after damage by collision or stranding.
The Protocol of 1978 made a number of changes to Annex I of the parent convention. Segregated ballast tanks (SBT)
are required on all new tankers of 20,000 dwt and above (in the parent convention SBTs were only required on new
tankers of 70,000 dwt and above). The Protocol also required SBTs to be protectively located - that is, they must be
positioned in such a way that they will help protect the cargo tanks in the event of a collision or grounding.
Another important innovation concerned crude oil washing (COW), which had been developed by the oil industry in the
1970s and offered major benefits. Under COW, tanks are washed not with water but with crude oil - the cargo itself. COW
was accepted as an alternative to SBTs on existing tankers and is an additional requirement on new tankers.
For existing crude oil tankers (built before entry into force of the Protocol) a third alternative was permissible for a period
of two to four years after entry into force of MARPOL 73/78. The dedicated clean ballast tanks (CBT) system meant that
certain tanks are dedicated solely to the carriage of ballast water. This was cheaper than a full SBT system since it utilized
existing pumping and piping, but when the period of grace has expired other systems must be used.
Drainage and discharge arrangements were also altered in the Protocol, regulations for improved stripping systems were
introduced.
Some oil tankers operate solely in specific trades between ports which are provided with adequate reception facilities.
Some others do not use water as ballast. The TSPP Conference recognized that such ships should not be subject to all
MARPOL requirements and they were consequently exempted from the SBT, COW and CBT requirements. It is generally
recognized that the effectiveness of international conventions depends upon the degree to which they are obeyed and this
in turn depends largely upon the extent to which they are enforced. The 1978 Protocol to MARPOL therefore introduced
stricter regulations for the survey and certification of ships.
The 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls – and it brought in a phase-
in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
See also Oil Pollution
Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances

(Revised Annex II enters into force 1 January 2007)
Annex II details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in
bulk.
Some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention. The discharge of their residues
is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of
substances) are complied with.
In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land. More
stringent restrictions applied to the Baltic and Black Sea areas.
See also Chemical Pollution

Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form
The first of the convention's optional annexes. States ratifying the Convention must accept Annexes I and II but can
choose not to accept the other three - hence they have taken much longer to enter into force.
Annex III contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labelling,
documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code has, since 1991, included marine pollutants.
See also Harmful Substances in Packaged Form
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships

The second of the optional Annexes, Annex IV contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage. A revised
Annex was adopted in 2004.
See also Sewage
Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships

Entry into force: 31 December 1988
This deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be
disposed of. The requirements are much stricter in a number of "special areas" but perhaps the most important feature of
the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the dumping into the sea of all forms of plastic.
See also Garbage
Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

Adoption: September 1997
The regulations in this annex set limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit
deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances.
See 1997 amendments
See also Air Pollution
Enforcement
Any violation of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention within the jurisdiction of any Party to the Convention is punishable either
under the law of that Party or under the law of the flag State. In this respect, the term "jurisdiction" in the Convention
should be construed in the light of international law in force at the time the Convention is applied or interpreted.
With the exception of very small vessels, ships engaged on international voyages must carry on board valid international
certificates which may be accepted at foreign ports as prima facie evidence that the ship complies with the requirements of
the Convention.
If, however, there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond
substantially with the particulars of the certificate, or if the ship does not carry a valid certificate, the authority carrying out
the inspection may detain the ship until it is satisfied that the ship can proceed to sea without presenting unreasonable
threat of harm to the marine environment.
Under Article 17, the Parties to the Convention accept the obligation to promote, in consultation with other international
bodies and with the assistance of UNEP, support for those Parties which request technical assistance for various purposes,
such as training, the supply of equipment, research, and combating pollution.
Amendment Procedure
Amendments to the technical Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 can be adopted using the "tacit acceptance" procedure, whereby
the amendments enter into force on a specified date unless an agreed number of States Parties object by an agreed date.
In practice, amendments are usually adopted either by IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) or by a
Conference of Parties to MARPOL.
The 1984 amendments

Adoption: 7 September 1984
The amendments to Annex I were designed to make implementation easier and more effective. New requirements were
designed to prevent oily water being discharged in special areas, and other requirements were strengthened. But in some
cases they were eased, provided that various conditions were met: some discharges were now permitted below the
waterline, for example, which helps to cut costs by reducing the need for extra piping.
The 1985 (Annex II) amendments

The amendments to Annex II, which deals with liquid noxious substances (such as chemicals), were intended to take into
account technological developments since the Annex was drafted in 1973 and to simplify its implementation. In particular,
the aim was to reduce the need for reception facilities for chemical wastes and to improve cargo tank stripping efficiencies.
The amendments also made the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) mandatory for ships built on or after 1 July 1986. This is important because the Annex itself
is concerned only with discharge procedures: the Code contains carriage requirements. The Code itself was revised to take
into account anti-pollution requirements and therefore make the amended Annex more effective in reducing accidental
pollution
The 1985 (Protocol I) amendments
The amendments made it an explicit requirement to report incidents involving discharge into the sea of harmful substances
in packaged form.
The 1987 Amendments

The amendments extended Annex I Special Area status to the Gulf of Aden
The 1989 (March) amendments

Adoption: March 1989
The amendments affected the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), mandatory under both MARPOL 73/78 and SOLAS and applies to ships built on or after
1 July 1986 and the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH). In
both cases, the amendments included a revised list of chemicals. The BCH Code is mandatory under MARPOL 73/78 but
voluntary under SOLAS 1974.
Further amendments affected Annex II of MARPOL - updating and replacing the lists of chemicals in appendices II and
III.
The October 1989 amendments

The amendments make the North Sea a "special area" under Annex V of the convention. This greatly increases the
protection of the sea against the dumping of garbage from ships
The 1990 (HSSC) amendments

Entry into force: 3 February 2000 (coinciding with the entry into force of the 1988 SOLAS and Load Lines Protocols).
The amendments are designed to introduce the harmonized system of survey and certificates (HSSC) into MARPOL 73/78
at the same time as it enters into force for the SOLAS and Load Lines Conventions.
All three instruments require the issuing of certificates to show that requirements have been met and this has to be done
by means of a survey which can involve the ship being out of service for several days.
The harmonized system alleviates the problems caused by survey dates and intervals between surveys which do not
coincide, so that a ship should no longer have to go into port or repair yard for a survey required by one convention shortly
after doing the same thing in connection with another instrument.
The 1990 (IBC Code) amendments

Entry into force: On the same date as the March 1990 HSSC amendments i.e. 3 February 2000.
The amendments introduced the HSSC into the IBC Code
The 1990 (BCH) amendments

Entry into force: On the same date as the March 1990 HSSC amendments i.e. 3 February 2000.
The amendments introduced the HSSC into the BCH Code.
The 1990 (Annexes I and V) amendments

Adoption: November 1990
Entry into force: 17 March 1992
The amendments extended Special Area Status under Annexes I and V to the Antarctic.
The 1991 amendments

The amendments made the Wider Caribbean a Special Area under Annex V.
Other amendments added a new chapter IV to Annex I, requiring ships to carry an oil pollution emergency plan.
The 1992 amendments

The amendments to Annex I of the convention which deals with pollution by oil brought in the "double hull" requirements
for tankers, applicable to new ships (tankers ordered after 6 July 1993, whose keels were laid on or after 6 January 1994
or which are delivered on or after 6 July 1996) as well as existing ships built before that date, with a phase-in period.
New-build tankers are covered by Regulation 13F, while regulation 13G applies to existing crude oil tankers of 20,000 dwt
and product carriers of 30,000 dwt and above. Regulation 13G came into effect on 6 July 1995.
Regulation 13F requires all new tankers of 5,000 dwt and above to be fitted with double hulls separated by a space of up
to 2 metres (on tankers below 5,000 dwt the space must be at least 0.76m).
As an alternative, tankers may incorporate the "mid-deck" concept under which the pressure within the cargo tank does
not exceed the external hydrostatic water pressure. Tankers built to this design have double sides but not a double bottom.
Instead, another deck is installed inside the cargo tank with the venting arranged in such a way that there is an upward
pressure on the bottom of the hull.
Other methods of design and construction may be accepted as alternatives "provided that such methods ensure at least
the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of a collision or stranding and are approved in principle by the
Marine Environment Protection Committee based on guidelines developed by the Organization.
For oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and above new requirements were introduced concerning subdivision and stability.
The amendments also considerably reduced the amount of oil which can be discharged into the sea from ships (for
example, following the cleaning of cargo tanks or from engine room bilges). Originally oil tankers were permitted to
discharge oil or oily mixtures at the rate of 60 litres per nautical mile. The amendments reduced this to 30 litres. For
non-tankers of 400 grt and above the permitted oil content of the effluent which may be discharged into the sea is cut
from 100 parts per million to 15 parts per million.
Regulation 24(4), which deals with the limitation of size and arrangement of cargo tanks, was also modified.
Regulation 13G applies to existing crude oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and product carriers of 30,000 dwt and above.
Tankers that are 25 years old and which were not constructed according to the requirements of the 1978 Protocol to
MARPOL 73/78 have to be fitted with double sides and double bottoms. The Protocol applies to tankers ordered after 1
June 1979, which were begun after 1 January 1980 or completed after 1 June 1982. Tankers built according to the
standards of the Protocol are exempt until they reach the age of 30.
Existing tankers are subject to an enhanced programme of inspections during their periodical, intermediate and annual
surveys. Tankers that are five years old or more must carry on board a completed file of survey reports together with a
conditional evaluation report endorsed by the flag Administration.
Tankers built in the 1970s which are at or past their 25th must comply with Regulation 13F. If not, their owners must
decide whether to convert them to the standards set out in regulation 13F, or to scrap them.
Another set of tankers built according to the standards of the 1978 protocol will soon be approaching their 30th birthday -
and the same decisions must be taken.
The 1994 amendments

The amendments affect four of the Convention's five technical annexes (II III, V, and I) and are all designed to improve the
way it is implemented. They make it possible for ships to be inspected when in the ports of other Parties to the Convention
to ensure that crews are able to carry out essential shipboard procedures relating to marine pollution prevention. These
are contained in resolution A.742 (18), which was adopted by the IMO Assembly in November 1993.
The amendments are similar to those made to SOLAS in May 1994. Extending port State control to operational
requirements is seen as an important way of improving the efficiency with which international safety and anti-pollution
treaties are implemented.
The 1995 amendments

The amendments concern Annex V. They are designed to improve the way the Convention is implemented. Regulation 2
was clarified and a new regulation 9 added dealing with placards, garbage management plans and garbage record keeping.
The 1996 amendments

One set of amendments concerned Protocol I to the Convention which contains provisions for reporting incidents involving
harmful substances. The amendments included more precise requirements for the sending of such reports.
Other amendments brought requirements in MARPOL concerning the IBC and BCH Codes into line with amendments
adopted to SOLAS.
The 1997 amendments

Regulation 25A to Annex 1 specifies intact stability criteria for double hull tankers.
Another amendment made the North West European waters a "special area" under Regulation 10 of Annex 1. The waters
cover the North Sea and its approaches, the Irish Sea and its approaches, the Celtic Sea, the English Channel and its
approaches and part of the North East Atlantic immediately to the West of Ireland.
In special areas, discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture from any oil tanker and ship over 400 gt is prohibited. Other
special areas already designated under Annex I of MARPOL include: the Mediterranean Sea area, the Baltic Sea area, the
Red Sea area, the Gulf of Aden area and the Antarctic area.
The Protocol of 1997 (Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships)
The Protocol was adopted at a Conference held from 15 to 26 September 1997 and adds a new Annex VI on Regulations
for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships to the Convention.
The rules set limits on sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate
emissions of ozone depleting substances.
The new Annex VI includes a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the sulphur content of fuel oil and calls on IMO to monitor the
worldwide average sulphur content of fuel once the Protocol comes into force.
Annex VI contains provisions allowing for special "SOx Emission Control Areas" to be established with more stringent
control on sulphur emissions. In these areas, the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships must not exceed
1.5% m/m. Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use any other technological method to limit
SOx emissions.
The Baltic Sea is designated as a SOx Emission Control area in the Protocol.
Annex VI prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, which include halons and chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). New installations containing ozone-depleting substances are prohibited on all ships. But new installations
containing hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are permitted until 1 January 2020.
The requirements of the IMO Protocol are in accordance with the Montreal Protocol of 1987, as amended in London in
1990. The Montreal Protocol is an international environmental treaty, drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations,
under which nations agreed to cut CFC consumption and production in order to protect the ozone layer.
Annex VI sets limits on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel engines. A mandatory NOx Technical Code,
developed by IMO, defines how this is to be done.
The Annex also prohibits the incineration on board ship of certain products, such as contaminated packaging materials and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Format of Annex VI
Annex VI consists of three Chapters and a number of Appendices:
• Chapter 1 - General
• Chapter II - Survey, Certification and Means of Control
• Chapter III - Requirements for Control of Emissions from Ships
• Appendices, including the form of the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate; criteria and procedures for
designation of SOx emission control areas; information for inclusion in the bunker delivery note; approval and
operating limits for shipboard incinerators; test cycles and weighting factors for verification of compliance of marine
diesel engines with the NOx limits; and details of surveys and inspections to be carried out.
The 1999 amendments

Entry into force: 1 January 2001 (under tacit acceptance)
Amendments to Regulation 13G of Annex I (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil) make existing oil tankers
between 20,000 and 30,000 tons deadweight carrying persistent product oil, including heavy diesel oil and fuel oil, subject
to the same construction requirements as crude oil tankers.
Regulation 13G requires, in principle, existing tankers to comply with requirements for new tankers in Regulation 13F,
including double hull requirements for new tankers or alternative arrangements, not later than 25 years after date of
delivery.
The amendments extend the application from applying to crude oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above and
product carriers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above, to also apply to tankers between 20,000 and 30,000 tons
deadweight which carry heavy diesel oil or fuel oil.
The aim of the amendments is to address concerns that oil pollution incidents involving persistent oils are as severe as
those involving crude oil, so regulations applicable to crude oil tankers should also apply to tankers carrying persistent oils.
Related amendments to the Supplement of the IOPP (International Oil Pollution Prevention) Certificate, covering in
particular oil separating/filtering equipment and retention and disposal of oil residues were also adopted.
A third MARPOL 73/78 amendment adopted relates to Annex II of MARPOL Regulations for the Control of Pollution by
Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk. The amendment adds a new regulation 16 requiring a Shipboard marine pollution
emergency plan for noxious liquid substances.
Amendments were also made to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) and the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in
Bulk (BCH Code). The amendments address the maintenance of venting systems,
The 2000 amendments

Entry into force: 1 January 2002 (under tacit acceptance)
The amendment to Annex III (Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form) deletes
tainting as a criterion for marine pollutants from the Guidelines for the identification of harmful substances in packaged
form. Tainting refers to the ability of a product to be taken up by an organism and thereby affect the taste or smell of
seafood making it unpalatable. A substance is defined as tainting when it has been found to taint seafood.
The amendment means that products identified as being marine pollutants solely on the basis of their tainting properties
will no longer be classified as marine pollutants.
The 2001 amendments

The amendment to Annex I brought in a new new global timetable for accelerating the phase-out of single-hull oil tankers
which was subsequently revised again by the 2003 amendments.
The flag state administration may allow for some newer single hull ships registered in its country that conform to certain
technical specifications to continue trading until the 25th anniversary of their delivery.
However, under the provisions of paragraph 8(b), any Port State can deny entry of those single hull tankers which are
allowed to operate until their 25th anniversary to ports or offshore terminals. They must communicate their intention to do
this to IMO.
As an additional precautionary measure, a Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) will have to be applied to all Category 1
vessels continuing to trade after 2005 and all Category 2 vessels after 2010.
Although the CAS does not specify structural standards in excess of the provisions of other IMO conventions, codes and
recommendations, its requirements stipulate more stringent and transparent verification of the reported structural
condition of the ship and that documentary and survey procedures have been properly carried out and completed.
The requirements of the CAS include enhanced and transparent verification of the reported structural condition and of the
ship and verification that the documentary and survey procedures have been properly carried out and completed. The
Scheme requires that compliance with the CAS is assessed during the Enhanced Survey Programme of Inspections
concurrent with intermediate or renewal surveys currently required by resolution A.744(18), as amended.
The 2003 Amendments

Entry into force: April 2005
Under a revised regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL, the final phasing-out date for Category 1 tankers (pre-MARPOL
tankers) is brought forward to 2005, from 2007. The final phasing-out date for category 2 and 3 tankers (MARPOL tankers
and smaller tankers) is brought forward to 2010, from 2015.
The full timetable for the phasing out of single-hull tankers is as follows:
Category of oil tanker Date or year

Category 1 5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1982 or earlier
2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1982
Category 2 and 5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1977 or earlier
Category 3 2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1977 but before 1 January 1978
2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979
2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981
2008 for ships delivered in 1982
2009 for ships delivered in 1983
2010 for ships delivered in 1984 or later
Under the revised regulation, the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) is to be made applicable to all single-hull tankers of
15 years, or older. Previously it was applicable to all Category 1 vessels continuing to trade after 2005 and all Category 2
vessels after 2010. Consequential enhancements to the CAS scheme were also adopted.
The revised regulation allows the Administration (flag State) to permit continued operation of category 2 or 3 tankers
beyond 2010 subject to satisfactory results from the CAS, but the continued operation must not go beyond the anniversary
of the date of delivery of the ship in 2015 or the date on which the ship reaches 25 years of age after the date of its
delivery, whichever is earlier.
In the case of certain Category 2 or 3 oil tankers fitted with only double bottoms or double sides not used for the carriage
of oil and extending to the entire cargo tank length or double hull spaces, not meeting the minimum distance protection
requirements, which are not used for the carriage of oil and extend to the entire cargo tank length, the Administration may
allow continued operation beyond 2010, provided that the ship was in service on 1 July 2001, the Administration is
satisfied by verification of the official records that the ship complied with the conditions specified and that those conditions
remain unchanged. Again, such continued operation must not go beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years of
age after the date of its delivery.
Carriage of heavy grade oil

A new MARPOL regulation 13H on the prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers when carrying heavy grade oil (HGO) bans
the carriage of HGO in single-hull tankers of 5,000 tons dwt and above after the date of entry into force of the regulation
(5 April 2005), and in single-hull oil tankers of 600 tons dwt and above but less than 5,000 tons dwt, not later than the
anniversary of their delivery date in 2008.
Under the new regulation, HGO means any of the following:
- crude oils having a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/m3;
- fuel oils having either a density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/ m3 or a kinematic viscosity at 50ºC higher than
180 mm2/s; and
- bitumen, tar and their emulsions.
In the case of certain Category 2 or 3 tankers carrying heavy grade oil as cargo, fitted only with double bottoms or double
sides, not used for the carriage of oil and extending to the entire cargo tank length, or double hull spaces not meeting the
minimum distance protection requirements which are not used for the carriage of oil and extend to the entire cargo tank
length, the Administration may allow continued operation of such ships beyond 5 April 2005 until the date on which the
ship reaches 25 years of age after the date of its delivery.
Regulation 13(H) also allows for continued operation of oil tankers of 5,000 tons dwt and above, carrying crude oil with a
density at 15ºC higher than 900 kg/ m3 but lower than 945 kg/ m3, if satisfactory results of the Condition Assessment
Scheme warrant that, in the opinion of the Administration, the ship is fit to continue such operation, having regard to the
size, age, operational area and structural conditions of the ship and provided that the continued operation shall not go
beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery.
The Administration may allow continued operation of a single hull oil tanker of 600 tons deadweight and above but less
than 5,000 tons deadweight, carrying heavy grade oil as cargo, if, in the opinion of the Administration, the ship is fit to
continue such operation, having regard to the size, age, operational area and structural conditions of the ship, provided
that the operation shall not go beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years after the date of its delivery.
The Administration of a Party to the present Convention may exempt an oil tanker of 600 tons deadweight and above
carrying heavy grade oil as cargo if the ship is either engaged in voyages exclusively within an area under the Party's
jurisdiction, or is engaged in voyages exclusively within an area under the jurisdiction of another Party, provided the Party
within whose jurisdiction the ship will be operating agrees. The same applies to vessels operating as floating storage units
of heavy grade oil.
A Party to MARPOL 73/78 shall be entitled to deny entry of single hull tankers carrying heavy grade oil which have been
allowed to continue operation under the exemptions mentioned above, into the ports or offshore terminals under its
jurisdiction, or deny ship-to-ship transfer of heavy grade oil in areas under its jurisdiction except when this is necessary for
the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea.
Resolutions adopted
The amendments to MARPOL regulation 13G, the addition of a new regulation 13H, consequential amendments to the IOPP
Certificate and the amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme were adopted by the Committee as MEPC
Resolutions
Among other resolutions adopted by the Committee, another on early implementation urged Parties to MARPOL 73/78
seriously to consider the application of the amendments as soon as possible to ships entitled to fly their flag, without
waiting for the amendments to enter into force and to communicate this action to the Organization. It also invited the
maritime industry to implement the aforesaid amendments to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 effectively as soon as possible.
The 2004 (April) Amendments

Entry into force: 1 August 2005
The revised Annex will apply to new ships engaged in international voyages, of 400 gross tonnage and above or which are
certified to carry more than 15 persons. Existing ships will be required to comply with the provisions of the revised Annex
IV five years after the date of its entry into force. The Annex requires ships to be equipped with either a sewage treatment
plant or a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system or a sewage holding tank.
The discharge of sewage into the sea will be prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an approved sewage
treatment plant or is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of more
than three nautical miles from the nearest land; or is discharging sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected at a
distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
Also, amendments to the Appendix to MARPOL Annex V on Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships which relate to
the recording of the disposal of cargo residues in the Garbage Record Book.
The 2004 (October) Amendments

Revised MARPOL Annex I (oil)

The revised MARPOL Annex I Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil incorporates the various amendments
adopted since MARPOL entered into force in 1983, including the amended regulation 13G (regulation 20 in the revised
annex) and regulation 13H (regulation 21 in the revised annex) on the phasing-in of double hull requirements for oil
tankers. It also separates, in different chapters, the construction and equipment provisions from the operational
requirements and makes clear the distinctions between the requirements for new ships and those for existing ships. The
revision provides a more user-friendly, simplified Annex I.
New requirements in the revised Annex I include the following:
• Regulation 22 Pump-room bottom protection: on oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above constructed
on or after 1 January 2007, the pump-room shall be provided with a double bottom.
• Regulation 23 Accidental oil outflow performance - applicable to oil tankers delivered on or after [date of entry into
force of revised Annex I plus 36 months] 1 January 2010; construction requirements to provide adequate
protection against oil pollution in the event of stranding or collision.
Oman Sea - new special area under MARPOL Annex I

The Oman Sea area of the Arabian Seas is designated as a special area in the revised Annex I.The other special areas in
Annex I are: Mediterranean Sea area; Baltic Sea area; Black Sea area; Red Sea area; "Gulfs" area; Gulf of Aden area;
Antarctic area; and North West European Waters. In the special areas, there are stricter controls on discharge of oily
wastes.
Revised MARPOL Annex II (noxious liquid substances carried in bulk)

The revised Annex II Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk includes a new four-
category categorization system for noxious and liquid substances. The revised annex is expected to enter into force on 1
January 2007.
The new categories are:
• Category X: Noxious Liquid Substances which, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting
operations, are deemed to present a major hazard to either marine resources or human health and, therefore,
justify the prohibition of the discharge into the marine environment;
• Category Y: Noxious Liquid Substances which, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting
operations, are deemed to present a hazard to either marine resources or human health or cause harm to
amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea and therefore justify a limitation on the quality and quantity of the
discharge into the marine environment;
• Category Z: Noxious Liquid Substances which, if discharged into the sea from tank cleaning or deballasting
operations, are deemed to present a minor hazard to either marine resources or human health and therefore justify
less stringent restrictions on the quality and quantity of the discharge into the marine environment; and
• Other Substances: substances which have been evaluated and found to fall outside Category X, Y or Z because
they are considered to present no harm to marine resources, human health, amenities or other legitimate uses of
the sea when discharged into the sea from tank cleaning of deballasting operations. The discharge of bilge or
ballast water or other residues or mixtures containing these substances are not subject to any requirements of
MARPOL Annex II.
The revised annex includes a number of other significant changes. Improvements in ship technology, such as efficient
stripping techniques, has made possible significantly lower permitted discharge levels of certain products which have been
incorporated into Annex II. For ships constructed on or after 1 January 2007 the maximum permitted residue in the tank
and its associated piping left after discharge will be set at a maximum of 75 litres for products in categories X, Y and Z -
compared with previous limits which set a maximum of 100 or 300 litres, depending on the product category.
Alongside the revision of Annex II, the marine pollution hazards of thousands of chemicals have been evaluated by the
Evaluation of Hazardous Substances Working Group, giving a resultant GESAMP2 Hazard Profile which indexes the
substance according to its bio-accumulation; bio-degradation; acute toxicity; chronic toxicity; long-term health effects; and
effects on marine wildlife and on benthic habitats.
As a result of the hazard evaluation process and the new categorization system, vegetable oils which were previously
categorized as being unrestricted will now be required to be carried in chemical tankers. The revised Annex includes, under
regulation 4 Exemptions, provision for the Administration to exempt ships certified to carry individually identified vegetable
oils, subject to certain provisions relating to the location of the cargo tanks carrying the identified vegetable oil.
Transport of vegetable oils

An MEPC resolution on Guidelines for the transport of vegetable oils in deep tanks or in independent tanks specially
designed for the carriage of such vegetable oils on board dry cargo ships allows general dry cargo ships that are currently
certified to carry vegetable oil in bulk to continue to carry these vegetable oils on specific trades. The guidelines also take
effect on 1 January 2007.
Consequential amendments to the IBC Code

Consequential amendments to the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code) were also adopted at the session,
reflecting the changes to MARPOL Annex II. The amendments incorporate revisions to the categorization of certain
products relating to their properties as potential marine pollutants as well as revisions to ship type and carriage
requirements following their evaluation by the Evaluation of Hazardous Substances Working Group.
Ships constructed after 1986 carrying substances identified in chapter 17 of the IBC Code must follow the requirements for
design, construction, equipment and operation of ships contained in the Code.
The 2005 Amendments

The amendments to the Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships in Annex VI include the establishment of
the North Sea SOx Emission Control Area (SECA).
The NOx Technical Code was also updated.
The 2006 Amendments

Entry into force: 1 August 2007
MARPOL regulation on oil fuel tank protection

The amendment to the revised MARPOL Annex I (which was adopted in October 2004 with entry into force set for 1
January 2007) includes a new regulation 12A on oil fuel tank protection. The regulation is intended to apply to all ships
delivered on or after 1 August 2010 with an aggregate oil fuel capacity of 600m3 and above. It includes requirements for
the protected location of the fuel tanks and performance standards for accidental oil fuel outflow. A maximum capacity
limit of 2,500m3 per oil fuel tank is included in the regulation, which also requires Administrations to consider general
safety aspects, including the need for maintenance and inspection of wing and double-bottom tanks or spaces, when
approving the design and construction of ships in accordance with the regulation. Consequential amendments to the IOPP
Certificate were also adopted.
The MEPC also agreed to include appropriate text referring to the new regulation in the amendments to the Guidelines for
the application of the revised MARPOL Annex I requirements to FPSOs and FSUs and approved a Unified Interpretation on
the application of the regulation to column-stabilized MODUs.
Definition of heavy grade oil

A further amendment to the revised MARPOL Annex I relates to the definition of "heavy grade oil" in regulation 21 on
Prevention of oil pollution from oil tankers carrying heavy grade oil as cargo, replacing the words "fuel oils" with "oils, other
than crude oils", thereby broadening the scope of the regulation.
MARPOL Annex IV amendments

The amendment to MARPOL Annex IV Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships adds a new regulation 13 on Port State
control on operational requirements. The regulation states that a ship, when in a port or an offshore terminal of another
Party, is subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by such Party concerning operational requirements under the
Annex, where there are clear grounds for believing that the master or crew are not familiar with essential shipboard
procedures relating to the prevention of pollution by sewage.
Amendments to BCH Code

Amendments to the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code)
were adopted as a consequence of the revised Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 and the amended International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), which are expected to enter into
force on 1 January 2007. The MEPC also adopted a resolution on Early and Effective Application of the 2006 amendments
to the BCH Code to invite MARPOL Parties to consider the application of the amendments to the BCH Code, as soon as
practically possible, to ships entitled to fly their flag. Also adopted were the revised Guidelines for the provisional
assessment of liquids transported in bulk. In this context the Committee urged industry, in particular the chemical industry,
to provide information on the revision of List 2 of the MEPC circular which contains pollutant-only mixtures based on
section 5 of the revised Guidelines.
The 2006 Amendments

Adoption: October 2006
Entry into force: 1 March 2008/1 January 2010

The designation of the Southern South Africa waters as a Special Area under Annex I (Regulations for the prevention of
pollution by oil from ships) , will provide measures to protect wildlife and the marine environment in an ecologically
important region used intensively by shipping.

The revised MARPOL Annex III Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in
packaged form. The Annex has been revised to harmonize the regulations with the criteria for defining marine pollutants
which have been adopted by the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Sub-Committee, based on the United Nations
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
The 2008 amendments
Revised Anned VI adopted October 2008: MEPC.176(58) Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating
thereto (Revised MARPOL Annex VI)
October 2008 MARPOL amendments - revised Annex VI
Amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce harmful emissions from ships even further.
The main changes to MARPOL Annex VI will see a progressive reduction in sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships, with
the global sulphur cap reduced initially to 3.50% (from the current 4.50%), effective from 1 January 2012; then
progressively to 0.50 %, effective from 1 January 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.
The limits applicable in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) will be reduced to 1.00%, beginning on 1 July 2010 (from
the current 1.50 %); being further reduced to 0.10 %, effective from 1 January 2015.
Progressive reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines were also agreed, with the most stringent
controls on so-called "Tier III" engines, i.e. those installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016, operating in
Emission Control Areas.
The revised Annex VI will allow for an Emission Control Area to be designated for SOx and particulate matter, or NOx, or all
three types of emissions from ships, subject to a proposal from a Party or Parties to the Annex, which would be considered
for adoption by the Organization, if supported by a demonstrated need to prevent, reduce and control one or all three of
those emissions from ships.
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships
The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships will prohibit the use of harmful
organotins in anti-fouling paints used on ships and will establish a mechanism to prevent the potential future use of other
harmful substances in anti-fouling systems.
Under the terms of the new Convention, Parties to the Convention are required to prohibit and/or restrict the use of
harmful anti-fouling systems on ships flying their flag, as well as ships not entitled to fly their flag but which operate under
their authority and all ships that enter a port, shipyard or offshore terminal of a Party.
Ships of above 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs
and FPSOs) will be required to undergo an initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the International Anti-
fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time; and a survey when the anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced.
Ships of 24 metres or more in length but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or
floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the owner or
authorized agent. The Declaration will have to be accompanied by appropriate documentation such as a paint receipt or
contractor invoice.
Anti-fouling systems to be prohibited or controlled will be listed in an annex (Annex 1) to the Convention, which will be
updated as and when necessary.
The harmful environmental effects of organotin compounds were recognized by IMO in 1989. In 1990 IMO’s Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a resolution which recommended that Governments adopt measures to
eliminate the use of anti-fouling paint containing TBT on non-aluminium hulled vessels of less than 25 metres in length and
eliminate the use of anti-fouling paints with a leaching rate of more than four microgrammes of TBT per day.
In November 1999, IMO adopted an Assembly resolution that called on the MEPC to develop an instrument, legally binding
throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships. The resolution called for a
global prohibition on the application of organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1
January 2003, and a complete prohibition by 1 January 2008.
Annex I attached to the Convention and adopted by the Conference states that by an effective date of 1 January 2003, all
ships shall not apply or re-apply organotins compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems.
Given that this date has already passed, IMO has been urging States to ratify the convention as soon as possible in order
to achieve entry into force conditions. In November 2001, the IMO Assembly adopted Resolution A.928(22) Resolution on
early and effective application of the international convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships.
In the case of the reference to a requirement being effective on 1 January 2003, if the convention comes into force at a
later date, then the legal effect is the requirements are moved forward to that date. In other words, the legal effect of the
1 January 2003 date is suspended until the entry into force date. During such time before the entry into force of the
convention, port States cannot apply any requirements of the convention to foreign ships calling into your ports. HOwever,
flag States may apply the requirements of the convention to their national fleet, depending on their national legal system
and decisions of that country, but they may not expect the International Certificates to be recognized as effective until the
date of entry into force.
By 1 January 2008 (effective date), ships either:
(a) shall not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or
(b) shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying non-
compliant anti-fouling systems.
This applies to all ships (except fixed and floating platforms, floating storage units (FSUs), and floating production storage
and off-loading units (FPSOs) that have been constructed prior to 1 January 2003 and that have not been in dry-dock on or
after 1 January 2003.
The Convention includes a clause in Article 12 which states that a ship shall be entitled to compensation if it is unduly
detained or delayed while undergoing inspection for possible violations of the Convention.
The Convention provides for the establishment of a “technical group”, to include people with relevant expertise, to review
proposals for other substances used in anti-fouling systems to be prohibited or restricted. Article 6 on Process for
Proposing Amendments to controls on Anti-fouling systems sets out how the evaluation of an anti-fouling system should be
carried out.
Resolutions adopted by the Conference
The Conference adopted four resolutions:
Resolution 1 Early and Effective Application of the Convention – The resolution invites Member States of the
Organization to do its utmost to prepare for implementing the Convention as a matter of urgency. It also urges the
relevant industries to refrain from marketing, sale and application of the substances controlled by the Convention.
Resolution 2 Future work of the Organization pertaining to the Convention – The resolution invites IMO to develop
guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems; guidelines for inspection of ships; and guidelines for surveys of ships.
The guidelines are needed in order to ensure global and uniform application of the articles of the Convention which require
sampling, inspection and surveys.
The following have been developed and adopted:
• Guidelines for survey and certification of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.102(48);
• Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.104(49); and
• Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.105(49).
Resolution 3 Approval and Test Methodologies for Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships – This resolution invites States
to approve, register or license anti-fouling systems applied in their territories. It also urges States to continue the work, in
appropriate international fora, for the harmonization of test methods and performance standards for anti-fouling systems
containing biocides.
Resolution 4 Promotion of Technical Co-operation – The resolution requests IMO Member States, in co-operation with
IMO, other interested States, competent international or regional organizations and industry programmes, to promote and
provide directly, or through IMO, support to States in particular developing States that request technical assistance for:
(a) the assessment of the implications of ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to and complying with the
Convention;
(b) the development of national legislation to give effect to the Convention; and
(c) the introduction of other measures, including the training of personnel, for the effective implementation and
enforcement of the Convention.
It also requests Member States, in co-operation with IMO, other interested States, competent international and regional
organisation and industry programmes, to promote co-operation for scientific and technical research on the effects of anti-
fouling systems as well as monitoring these effects.
Background
Anti-fouling paints are used to coat the bottoms of ships to prevent sealife such as algae and molluscs attaching
themselves to the hull – thereby slowing down the ship and increasing fuel consumption.
The new Convention defines “anti-fouling systems” as “a coating, paint, surface treatment, surface or device that is used
on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted organisms”.
In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenic were used to coat ships' hulls, until the modern chemicals industry
developed effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds.
These compounds slowly "leach" into the sea water, killing barnacles and other marine life that have attached to the ship.
But the studies have shown that these compounds persist in the water, killing sealife, harming the environment and
possibly entering the food chain. One of the most effective anti-fouling paints, developed in the 1960s, contains the
organotin tributylin (TBT), which has been proven to cause deformations in oysters and sex changes in whelks.
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water
and Sediments
Adoption: 13 February 2004

Entry into force: 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage.
See Status of Conventions
The Convention is divided into Articles; and an Annex which includes technical standards and requirements in the
Regulations for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments.
The main features of the Convention are outlined below.
Entry into force

The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant
shipping tonnage (Article 18 Entry into force).
General Obligations
Under Article 2 General Obligations Parties undertake to give full and complete effect to the provisions of the Convention
and the Annex in order to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments.
Parties are given the right to take, individually or jointly with other Parties, more stringent measures with respect to the
prevention, reduction or elimination of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and
management of ships' ballast water and sediments, consistent with international law. Parties should ensure that ballast
water management practices do not cause greater harm than they prevent to their environment, human health, property
or resources, or those of other States.
Reception facilities
Under Article 5 Sediment Reception Facilities Parties undertake to ensure that ports and terminals where cleaning or repair
of ballast tanks occurs, have adequate reception facilities for the reception of sediments.
Research and monitoring

Article 6 Scientific and Technical Research and Monitoring calls for Parties individually or jointly to promote and facilitate
scientific and technical research on ballast water management; and monitor the effects of ballast water management in
waters under their jurisdiction.
Survey, certification and inspection

Ships are required to be surveyed and certified (Article 7 Survey and certification) and may be inspected by port State
control officers (Article 9 Inspection of Ships) who can verify that the ship has a valid certificate; inspect the Ballast Water
Record Book; and/or sample the ballast water. If there are concerns, then a detailed inspection may be carried out and
"the Party carrying out the inspection shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not discharge Ballast Water
until it can do so without presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health, property or resources."
All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed (Article 12 Undue Delay to Ships).
Technical assistance
Under Article 13 Technical Assistance, Co-operation and Regional Co-operation, Parties undertake, directly or through the
Organization and other international bodies, as appropriate, in respect of the control and management of ships' ballast
water and sediments, to provide support for those Parties which request technical assistance to train personnel; to ensure
the availability of relevant technology, equipment and facilities; to initiate joint research and development programmes;
and to undertake other action aimed at the effective implementation of this Convention and of guidance developed by the
Organization related thereto.
Annex - Section A General Provisions

This includes definitions, application and exemptions. Under Regulation A-2 General Applicability: "Except where expressly
provided otherwise, the discharge of Ballast Water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water Management, in
accordance with the provisions of this Annex."
Annex - Section B Management and Control Requirements for Ships

Ships are required to have on board and implement a Ballast Water Management Plan approved by the Administration
(Regulation B-1). The Ballast Water Management Plan is specific to each ship and includes a detailed description of the
actions to be taken to implement the Ballast Water Management requirements and supplemental Ballast Water
Management practices.
Ships must have a Ballast Water Record Book (Regulation B-2) to record when ballast water is taken on board; circulated
or treated for Ballast Water Management purposes; and discharged into the sea. It should also record when Ballast Water
is discharged to a reception facility and accidental or other exceptional discharges of Ballast Water
The specific requirements for ballast water management are contained in regulation B-3 Ballast Water Management for
Ships:
• Ships constructed before 2009 with a ballast water capacity of between 1500 and 5000 cubic metres must
conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water exchange standards or the ballast water
performance standards until 2014, after which time it shall at least meet the ballast water performance standard.
• Ships constructed before 2009 with a ballast water capacity of less than 1500 or greater than 5000 cubic metres
must conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water exchange standards or the ballast
water performance standards until 2016, after which time it shall at least meet the ballast water performance
standard.
• Ships constructed in or after 2009 with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 cubic metres must conduct
ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water performance standard.
• Ships constructed in or after 2009 but before 2012, with a ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic metres or more
shall conduct ballast water management that at least meets the standard described in regulation D-1 or D-2 until
2016 and at least the ballast water performance standard after 2016.
• Ships constructed in or after 2012, with a ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic metres or more shall conduct
ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water performance standard.
Other methods of ballast water management may also be accepted as alternatives to the ballast water exchange standard
and ballast water performance standard, provided that such methods ensure at least the same level of protection to the
environment, human health, property or resources, and are approved in principle by IMO's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC).
Under Regulation B-4 Ballast Water Exchange, all ships using ballast water exchange should:
• whenever possible, conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water
at least 200 metres in depth, taking into account Guidelines developed by IMO;
• in cases where the ship is unable to conduct ballast water exchange as above, this should be as far from the
nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least
200 metres in depth.
When these requirements cannot be met areas may be designated where ships can conduct ballast water exchange. All
ships shall remove and dispose of sediments from spaces designated to carry ballast water in accordance with the
provisions of the ships' ballast water management plan (Regulation B-4).
Annex - Section C Additional measures

A Party, individually or jointly with other Parties, may impose on ships additional measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate
the transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens through ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.
In these cases, the Party or Parties should consult with adjoining or nearby States that may be affected by such standards
or requirements and should communicate their intention to establish additional measure(s) to the Organization at least 6
months, except in emergency or epidemic situations, prior to the projected date of implementation of the measure(s).
When appropriate, Parties will have to obtain the approval of IMO.
Annex - Section D Standards for Ballast Water Management

There is a ballast water exchange standard and a ballast water performance standard. Ballast water exchange could be
used to meet the performance standard:
Regulation D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard - Ships performing Ballast Water exchange shall do so with an
efficiency of 95 per cent volumetric exchange of Ballast Water. For ships exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through
method, pumping through three times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to meet the standard
described. Pumping through less than three times the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at
least 95 percent volumetric exchange is met.
Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard - Ships conducting ballast water management shall discharge
less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and less
than 10 viable organisms per milliliter less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10
micrometres in minimum dimension; and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations.
The indicator microbes, as a human health standard, include, but are not be limited to:
a. Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu
per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples ;
b. Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters;
c. Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters.
Ballast Water Management systems must be approved by the Administration in accordance with IMO Guidelines
(Regulation D-3 Approval requirements for Ballast Water Management systems). These include systems which make use of
chemicals or biocides; make use of organisms or biological mechanisms; or which alter the chemical or physical
characteristics of the Ballast Water.
Prototype technologies
Regulation D-4 covers Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies. It allows for ships participating in a programme
approved by the Administration to test and evaluate promising Ballast Water treatment technologies to have a leeway of
five years before having to comply with the requirements.
Review of standards
Under regulation D-5 Review of Standards by the Organization, IMO is required to review the Ballast Water Performance
Standard, taking into account a number of criteria including safety considerations; environmental acceptability, i.e., not
causing more or greater environmental impacts than it solves; practicability, i.e., compatibility with ship design and
operations; cost effectiveness; and biological effectiveness in terms of removing, or otherwise rendering inactive harmful
aquatic organisms and pathogens in ballast water. The review should include a determination of whether appropriate
technologies are available to achieve the standard, an assessment of the above mentioned criteria, and an assessment of
the socio-economic effect(s) specifically in relation to the developmental needs of developing countries, particularly small
island developing States.
Annex- Section E Survey and Certification Requirements for Ballast Water Management
Gives requirements for initial renewal, annual, intermediate and renewal surveys and certification requirements.
Appendices give form of Ballast Water Management Certificate and Form of Ballast Water Record Book.
Resolutions adopted by the Conference

The Conference also adopted four resolutions:
• Conference resolution 1: Future work by the Organization pertaining to the International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments
• Conference resolution 2: The use of decision-making tools when reviewing the standards pursuant to Regulation
D-5
• Conference resolution 3: Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance
• Conference resolution 4: Review of the Annex to the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments
Background
The problem of invasive species is largely due to the expanded trade and traffic volume over the last few decades. The
effects in many areas of the world have been devastating. Quantitative data show the rate of bio-invasions is continuing to
increase at an alarming rate, in many cases exponentially, and new areas are being invaded all the time. Volumes of
seaborne trade continue overall to increase and the problem may not yet have reached its peak.
Specific examples include the introduction of the European zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes
between Canada and the United States, resulting in expenses of billions of dollars for pollution control and cleaning of
fouled underwater structures and waterpipes; and the introduction of the American comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi) to the
Black and Azov Seas, causing the near extinction of anchovy and sprat fisheries.
The problem of harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water was first raised at IMO in 1988 and since then IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), together with the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and technical sub-
committees, have been dealing with the issue, focusing in the past decade first on guidelines and then on developing the
new convention.
Going further into history, scientists first recognized the signs of an alien species introduction after a mass occurrence of
the Asian phytoplankton algae Odontella (Biddulphia sinensis) in the North Sea in 1903.
But it was not until the 1970s that the scientific community began reviewing the problem in detail. In the late 1980s,
Canada and Australia were among countries experiencing particular problems with unwanted species, and they brought
their concerns to the attention of IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).
In 1991 the MEPC adopted MEPC resolution 50(31) - Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms
and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges; while the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, recognized the issue as a major international concern.
In November 1993, the IMO Assembly adopted resolution A.774(18) - Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of
Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges, based on the Guidelines adopted
in 1991. The resolution requested the MEPC and the MSC to keep the Guidelines under review with a view to developing
internationally applicable, legally-binding provisions.
The 20th Assembly of IMO in November 1997 adopted resolution A.868(20) - Guidelines for the control and management
of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
The development of the draft mandatory instrument has been continuing since then until this week's adoption of the new
instrument.
Some examples of aquatic bio-invasions causing major impact are listed in the table, but there are hundreds of other
serious invasions which have been recorded around the world:
IMO adopts comprehensive maritime security measures
Conference of Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974: 9 -
13 December 2002
The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

The Company and the Ship
The Port Facility
Responsibilities of Contracting Governments
Amendments to SOLAS
Resolutions adopted by the conference
Officers of the Conference
A new, comprehensive security regime for international shipping is set to enter into force in July 2004 following the
adoption by a week-long Diplomatic Conference of a series of measures to strengthen maritime security and prevent and
suppress acts of terrorism against shipping. The Conference, held at the London headquarters of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) from 9 to 13 December 2002, was of crucial significance not only to the international maritime
community but the world community as a whole, given the pivotal role shipping plays in the conduct of world trade. The
measures represent the culmination of just over a year's intense work by IMO's Maritime Safety Committee and its
Intersessional Working Group since the terrorist atrocities in the United States in September 2001.
The Conference was attended by 108 Contracting Governments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention, observers from two IMO
Member States and observers from the two IMO Associate Members. United Nations specialized agencies,
intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental international organizations also sent observers to the Conference.
The Conference adopted a number of amendments to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), the most far-
reaching of which enshrines the new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code). The Code contains
detailed security-related requirements for Governments, port authorities and shipping companies in a mandatory section
(Part A), together with a series of guidelines about how to meet these requirements in a second, non-mandatory section
(Part B). The Conference also adopted a series of resolutions designed to add weight to the amendments, encourage the
application of the measures to ships and port facilities not covered by the Code and pave the way for future work on the
subject.
Speaking at the end of the conference, IMO Secretary-General William O'Neil strongly urged all parties concerned to start
putting in place all the necessary legislative, administrative and operational provisions needed to give effect to the
decisions of the Conference as soon as possible. In a call for continued vigilance, he added, "In the meantime, all involved
in the operation of ships and ports should continue to be aware of the potential dangers to shipping through acts of
terrorism and the need to be extremely vigilant and alert to any security threat they might encounter in port, at offshore
terminals or when underway at sea."
The Conference has been referred to in the United Nations General Assembly. At its current session, the General Assembly
adopted a resolution on "Oceans and the law of the sea", which specifically welcomed initiatives at the International
Maritime Organization to counter the threat to maritime security from terrorism and encouraged States fully to support this
endeavour.

The Port Facility
Amendments to SOLAS
Officers of the Conference
In essence, the Code takes the approach that ensuring the security of ships and port facilities is basically a risk
management activity and that to determine what security measures are appropriate, an assessment of the risks must be
made in each particular case.
The purpose of the Code is to provide a standardized, consistent framework for evaluating risk, enabling governments to
offset changes in threat with changes in vulnerability for ships and port facilities.
To begin the process, each Contracting Government will conduct port facility security assessments. Security assessments
will have three essential components. First, they must identify and evaluate important assets and infrastructures that are
critical to the port facility as well as those areas or structures that, if damaged, could cause significant loss of life or
damage to the port facility's economy or environment. Then, the assessment must identify the actual threats to those
critical assets and infrastructure in order to prioritise security measures. Finally, the assessment must address vulnerability
of the port facility by identifying its weaknesses in physical security, structural integrity, protection systems, procedural
policies, communications systems, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and other areas within a port facility that may be
a likely target. Once this assessment has been completed, Contracting Government can accurately evaluate risk.
This risk management concept will be embodied in the Code through a number of minimum functional security
requirements for ships and port facilities. For ships, these requirements will include:
· ship security plans

· ship security officers
· company security officers
· certain onboard equipment
For port facilities, the requirements will include:

· port facility security plans
· port facility security officers
· certain security equipment
In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities include:
· monitoring and controlling access
· monitoring the activities of people and cargo
· ensuring security communications are readily available
Because each ship (or class of ship) and each port facility present different risks, the method in which they will meet the
specific requirements of this Code will be determined and eventually be approved by the Administration or Contracting
Government, as the case may be.
In order to communicate the threat at a port facility or for a ship, the Contracting Government will set the appropriate
security level. Security levels 1, 2, and 3 correspond to normal, medium, and high threat situations, respectively. The
security level creates a link between the ship and the port facility, since it triggers the implementation of appropriate
security measures for the ship and for the port facility.
The preamble to the Code states that, as threat increases, the only logical counteraction is to reduce vulnerability. The
Code provides several ways to reduce vulnerabilities. Ships will be subject to a system of survey, verification, certification,
and control to ensure that their security measures are implemented. This system will be based on a considerably expanded
control system as stipulated in the 1974 Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Port facilities will also be required to
report certain security related information to the Contracting Government concerned, which in turn will submit a list of
approved port facility security plans, including location and contact details to IMO.

Under the terms of the Code, shipping companies will be required to designate a Company Security Officer for the
Company and a Ship Security Officer for each of its ships. The Company Security Officer's responsibilities include ensuring
that a Ship Security Assessment is properly carried out, that Ship Security Plans are prepared and submitted for approval
by (or on behalf of) the Administration and thereafter is placed on board each ship.
The Ship Security Plan should indicate the operational and physical security measures the ship itself should take to ensure
it always operates at security level 1. The plan should also indicate the additional, or intensified, security measures the
ship itself can take to move to and operate at security level 2 when instructed to do so. Furthermore, the plan should
indicate the possible preparatory actions the ship could take to allow prompt response to instructions that may be issued to
the ship at security level 3.
Ships will have to carry an International Ship Security Certificate indicating that they comply with the requirements of
SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code. When a ship is at a port or is proceeding to a port of Contracting
Government, the Contracting Government has the right, under the provisions of regulation XI-2/9, to exercise various
control and compliance measures with respect to that ship. The ship is subject to port State control inspections but such
inspections will not normally extend to examination of the Ship Security Plan itself except in specific circumstances.
The ship may, also, be subject to additional control measures if the Contracting Government exercising the control and
compliance measures has reason to believe that the security of the ship has, or the port facilities it has served have, been
compromised.
The Port Facility

Each Contracting Government has to ensure completion of a Port Facility Security Assessment for each port facility within
its territory that serves ships engaged on international voyages. The Port Facility Security Assessment is fundamentally a
risk analysis of all aspects of a port facility's operation in order to determine which parts of it are more susceptible, and/or
more likely, to be the subject of attack. Security risk is seen a function of the threat of an attack coupled with the
vulnerability of the target and the consequences of an attack.
On completion of the analysis, it will be possible to produce an overall assessment of the level of risk. The Port Facility
Security Assessment will help determine which port facilities are required to appoint a Port Facility Security Officer and
prepare a Port Facility Security Plan. This plan should indicate the operational and physical security measures the port
facility should take to ensure that it always operates at security level 1. The plan should also indicate the additional, or
intensified, security measures the port facility can take to move to and operate at security level 2 when instructed to do so.
It should also indicate the possible preparatory actions the port facility could take to allow prompt response to the
instructions that may be issued at security level 3.
Ships using port facilities may be subject to port State control inspections and additional control measures. The relevant
authorities may request the provision of information regarding the ship, its cargo, passengers and ship's personnel prior to
the ship's entry into port. There may be circumstances in which entry into port could be denied.

Contracting Governments have various responsibilities, including setting the applicable security level, approving the Ship
Security Plan and relevant amendments to a previously approved plan, verifying the compliance of ships with the
provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code and issuing the International Ship Security Certificate,
determining which port facilities located within their territory are required to designate a Port Facility Security Officer,
ensuring completion and approval of the Port Facility Security Assessment and the Port Facility Security Plan and any
subsequent amendments; and exercising control and compliance measures. It is also responsible for communicating
information to the International Maritime Organization and to the shipping and port industries.
Contracting Governments can designate, or establish, Designated Authorities within Government to undertake their
security duties and allow Recognised Security Organisations to carry out certain work with respect to port facilities, but the
final decision on the acceptance and approval of this work should be given by the Contracting Government or the
Designated Authority.
Amendments to SOLAS
The Conference adopted a series of Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention, aimed at enhancing maritime security on
board ships and at ship/port interface areas. Among other things, these amendments create a new SOLAS chapter dealing
specifically with maritime security, which in turn contains the mandatory requirement for ships to comply with the ISPS
Code.
Modifications to Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) contain a new timetable for the fitting of Automatic Information Systems
(AIS). Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000 gross
tonnage, will be required to fit AIS not later than the first safety equipment survey after 1 July 2004 or by 31 December
2004, whichever occurs earlier. Ships fitted with AIS shall maintain AIS in operation at all times except where international
agreements, rules or standards provide for the protection of navigational information."
The existing SOLAS Chapter XI (Special measures to enhance maritime safety) has been re-numbered as Chapter XI-1.
Regulation XI-1/3 is modified to require ships' identification numbers to be permanently marked in a visible place either on
the ship's hull or superstructure. Passenger ships should carry the marking on a horizontal surface visible from the air.
Ships should also be marked with their ID numbers internally.
And a new regulation XI-1/5 requires ships to be issued with a Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) which is intended to
provide an on-board record of the history of the ship. The CSR shall be issued by the Administration and shall contain
information such as the name of the ship and of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship
was registered with that State, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of
the registered owner(s) and their registered address. Any changes shall be recorded in the CSR so as to provide updated
and current information together with the history of the changes.

A brand-new Chapter XI-2 (Special measures to enhance maritime security) is added after the renumbered Chapter XI-1.
This chapter applies to passenger ships and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, including high speed craft,
mobile offshore drilling units and port facilities serving such ships engaged on international voyages.
Regulation XI-2/2 of the new chapter enshrines the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code). Part A
of this Code is mandatory and part B contains guidance as to how best to comply with the mandatory requirements.
The regulation requires Administrations to set security levels and ensure the provision of security level information to ships
entitled to fly their flag. Prior to entering a port, or whilst in a port, within the territory of a Contracting Government, a ship
shall comply with the requirements for the security level set by that Contracting Government, if that security level is higher
than the security level set by the Administration for that ship.
this respect.
port), and the s

The conference adopted 11 resolutions, the main points of which are outlined below. The full text of each is available on
request.
Conference resolution 1 (Adoption of amendments to the annex to the international convention for the safety
of life at sea, 1974, as amended), determines that the amendments shall be deemed to have been accepted on 1
January 2004 (unless, prior to that date, more than one third of the Contracting Governments to the Convention or
Contracting Governments the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50% of the gross tonnage of the
world's merchant fleet, have notified their objections to the amendments) and that the amendments would then enter into
force on 1 July 2004.
Conference resolution 2 (Adoption of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code) adopts the
International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, and invites Contracting Governments to the Convention to note
that the ISPS Code will take effect on 1 July 2004 upon entry into force of the new chapter XI-2 of the Convention;
Conference resolution 3 (Further work by the international maritime organization pertaining to the
enhancement of maritime security) invites the International Maritime Organization to develop, as a matter of urgency,
training guidance such as model courses for ship security officers, company security officers and port facility security
officers; performance standards for ship security alarms; performance standards and guidelines for long-range ship
identification and tracking systems; guidelines on control of ships; and guidelines on "Recognized security organizations",
and to adopt them in time before the entry into force of the amendments to the Convention adopted by the Conference.
Conference resolution 4 (Future amendments to Chapters XI-1 and XI-2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention on
special measures to enhance maritime safety and security) recommends that future amendments to the provisions
of chapters XI-1 and XI-2 of the Convention should be adopted by either the Maritime Safety Committee of the
International Maritime Organization or by a Conference of Contracting Governments to the Convention.
Conference resolution 5 (Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance) strongly urges Contracting
Governments to the Convention and Member States of the Organization to provide, in co-operation with the Organization,
assistance to those States which have difficulty in meeting the requirements of the adopted amendments; and to use the
Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme of the Organization as one of the main instruments to obtain assistance in
advancing effective implementation of, and compliance with, the adopted amendments.
It also requests the Secretary-General of the Organization to make adequate provision, within the Integrated Technical Co-
operation Programme, to strengthen further the assistance that is already being provided and to ensure that the
Organization is able to address the future needs of developing countries for continued education and training and the
improvement of their maritime and port security infrastructure and measures; and invites donors, international
organizations and the shipping and port industry to contribute financial, human and/or in-kind resources to the Integrated
Technical Co-operation Programme of the Organization for its maritime and port security activities.
It also invites the Secretary General to give early consideration to establishing a Maritime Security Trust Fund for the
purpose of providing a dedicated source of financial support for maritime security technical-co-operation activities and, in
particular, for providing support for national initiatives in developing countries to strengthen their maritime security
infrastructure and measures.
Conference resolution 6 (Early implementation of the special measures to enhance maritime security) refers to
the difficulties experienced during implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and draws the
attention of Contracting Governments and the industry to the fact that chapter XI-2 of the Convention does not provide for
any extension of the implementation dates for the introduction of the special measures concerned to enhance maritime
security. It urges Contracting Governments to take, as a matter of high priority, any action needed to finalize as soon as
possible any legislative or administrative arrangements, which are required at the national level, to give effect to the
requirements of the adopted amendments to the Convention relating to the certification of ships entitled to fly their flag or
port facilities situated in their territory. It also recommends that Contracting Governments and Administrations concerned
designate dates, in advance of the application date of 1 July 2004 by which requests for certification should be submitted
in order to allow for completion of the certification process and for companies and port facilities to rectify any non-
compliance. It also recommends that Contracting Governments and the industry should take early appropriate action to
ensure that all necessary infrastructure is in place in time for the effective implementation of the adopted measures to
enhance maritime security on board ships and ashore.
Conference resolution 7 (Establishment of appropriate measures to enhance the security of ships, port
facilities, mobile offshore drilling units on location and fixed and floating platforms not covered by chapter XI-
2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention) invites Contracting Governments to establish, as they might consider necessary,
appropriate measures to enhance the security of ships and of port facilities other than those covered by chapter XI-2 of the
Convention; it also encourages Contracting Governments to establish and disseminate, in an appropriate manner,
information to facilitate contact and liaison between company and ship security officers and the authorities responsible for
the security of port facilities not covered by Chapter XI-2, prior to a ship entering, or anchoring off, such a port;
Conference resolution 8 (Enhancement of security in co-operation with the International Labour Organization)
invites the ILO to continue the development of a Seafarers' Identity Document as a matter of urgency, which should cover,
among other things, a document for professional purposes; a verifiable security document; and a certification information
document, and invites IMO and the ILO to establish a joint ILO/IMO Working Group to undertake more detailed work on
comprehensive port security requirements.
Conference resolution 9 (Enhancement of security in co-operation with the World Customs Organization)
invites the WCO to consider urgently measures to enhance security throughout international closed CTU movements and
requests the Secretary-General of IMO to contribute expertise relating to maritime traffic to the discussions at the WCO.
Conference resolution 10 (Early implementation of long-range ships' identification and tracking) recalls that
long-range identification and tracking of ships at sea is a measure that fully contributes to the enhancement of the
maritime and coastal States security and notes that Inmarsat C polling is currently an appropriate system for long-range
identification and tracking of ships. It urges Governments to take, as a matter of high priority, any action needed at
national level to give effect to implementing and beginning the long-range identification and tracking of ships and invites
Contracting Governments to encourage ships entitled to fly the flag of their State to take the necessary measures so that
they are prepared to respond automatically to Inmarsat C polling, or to other available systems. It also requests
Governments to consider all aspects related to the introduction of long-range identification and tracking of ships, including
its potential for misuse as an aid to ship targeting and the need for confidentiality in respect of the information so
gathered.
Conference resolution 11 (Human element-related aspects and shore leave for seafarers) urges Governments to
take the human element, the need to afford special protection to seafarers and the critical importance of shore leave into
account when implementing the provisions of chapter XI-2 of the Convention and the International Ship and Port Facility
(ISPS) Code. It also encourages Governments, Member States of IMO and non-governmental organizations with
consultative status at the Organization to report to the Organization any instances where the human element has been
adversely impacted by the implementation of the provisions of chapter XI-2 of the Convention or the Code. It also requests
the IMO Secretary-General to bring to the attention of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Facilitation Committee of
the Organization, any human element related problems, which have been communicated to the Organization as a result of
the implementation of chapter XI-2 of the Convention or the Code.
Conventions
Introduction
Entry into force
Accession
Amendment
Enforcement
IMO conventions
Introduction
The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge in international commerce which
followed resulted in the adoption of a number of international treaties related to shipping, including safety. The subjects
covered included tonnage measurement, the prevention of collisions, signalling and others.
By the end of the nineteenth century suggestions had even been made for the creation of a permanent international
maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was not put into effect, but international co-operation
continued in the twentieth century, with the adoption of still more internationally-developed treaties.
By the time IMO came into existence in 1958, several important international conventions had already been developed,
including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties dealing with load lines and the prevention of collisions at sea.
IMO was made responsible for ensuring that the majority of these conventions were kept up to date. It was also given the
task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.
The creation of IMO coincided with a period of tremendous change in world shipping and the Organization was kept busy
from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing instruments kept pace with changes in shipping
technology. It is now responsible for nearly 50 international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous
protocols and amendments.
This is the part of the process with which IMO as an Organization is most closely involved. IMO has six main bodies
concerned with the adoption or implementation of conventions. The Assembly and Council are the main organs, and the
committees involved are the Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Legal Committee and
the Facilitation Committee. Developments in shipping and other related industries are discussed by Member States in
these bodies, and the need for a new convention or amendments to existing conventions can be raised in any of them.
Normally the suggestion is first made in one of the committees, since these meet more frequently than the main organs.
If agreement is reached in the committee, the proposal goes to the Council and, as necessary, to the Assembly.
If the Assembly or the Council, as the case may be, gives the authorization to proceed with the work, the committee
concerned considers the matter in greater detail and ultimately draws up a draft instrument. In some cases the subject
may be referred to a specialized sub-committee for detailed consideration.
Work in the committees and sub-committees is undertaken by the representatives of Member States of the Organization.
The views and advice of intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations which have a working
relationship with IMO are also welcomed in these bodies. Many of these organizations have direct experience in the
various matters under consideration, and are therefore able to assist the work of IMO in practical ways.
The draft convention which is agreed upon is reported to the Council and Assembly with a recommendation that a
conference be convened to consider the draft for formal adoption.
Invitations to attend such a conference are sent to all Member States of IMO and also to all States which are members of
the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies. These conferences are therefore truly global conferences open to all
Governments who would normally participate in a United Nations conference. All Governments participate on an equal
footing. In addition, organizations of the United Nations system and organizations in official relationship with IMO are
invited to send observers to the conference to give the benefit of their expert advice to the representatives of
Governments.
Before the conference opens, the draft convention is circulated to the invited Governments and organizations for their
comments. The draft convention, together with the comments thereon from Governments and interested organizations is
then closely examined by the conference and necessary changes are made in order to produce a draft acceptable to all or
the majority of the Governments present. The convention thus agreed upon is then adopted by the conference and
deposited with the Secretary-General who sends copies to Governments. The convention is opened for signature by
States, usually for a period of 12 months. Signatories may ratify or accept the convention while non-signatories may
accede.
The drafting and adoption of a convention in IMO can take several years to complete although in some cases, where a
quick response is required to deal with an emergency situation, Governments have been willing to accelerate this process
considerably.
Entry into force

The adoption of a convention marks the conclusion of only the first stage of a long process. Before the convention comes
into force - that is, before it becomes binding upon Governments which have ratified it - it has to be accepted formally by
individual Governments.
Each convention includes appropriate provisions stipulating conditions which have to be met before it enters into force.
These conditions vary but generally speaking, the more important and more complex the document, and the more
stringent are the conditions for its entry into force. For example, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974, provided that entry into force requires acceptance by 25 States whose merchant fleets comprise not less than 50 per
cent of the world's gross tonnage; for the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, the
requirement was acceptance by 25 States whose combined merchant fleets represent not less than 65 per cent of world
tonnage.
When the appropriate conditions have been fulfilled, the convention enters into force for the States which have accepted -
generally after a period of grace intended to enable all the States to take the necessary measures for implementation.
In the case of some conventions which affect a few States or deal with less complex matters, the entry into force
requirements may not be so stringent. For example, the Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime
Carriage of Nuclear Material, 1971, came into force 90 days after being accepted by five States; the Special Trade
Passenger Ships Agreement, 1971, came into force six months after three States (including two with ships or nationals
involved in special trades) had accepted it.
For the important technical conventions, it is necessary that they be accepted and applied by a large section of the
shipping community. It is therefore essential that these should, upon entry into force, be applicable to as many of the
maritime states as possible. Otherwise they would tend to confuse, rather than clarify, shipping practice.
Accepting a convention does not merely involve the deposit of a formal instrument. A Government's acceptance of a
convention necessarily places on it the obligation to take the measures required by the convention. Often national law has
to be enacted or changed to enforce the provisions of the convention; in some cases, special facilities may have to be
provided; an inspectorate may have to be appointed or trained to carry out functions under the convention; and adequate
notice must be given to shipowners, shipbuilders and other interested parties so they make take account of the provisions
of the convention in their future acts and plans.
At present IMO conventions enter into force within an average of five years after adoption. The majority of these
instruments are now in force or are on the verge of fulfilling requirements for entry into force.

The terms signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession refer to some of the methods by which a State can
express its consent to be bound by a treaty.
Signature
Consent may be expressed by signature where:
• the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
• it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature
should have that effect;
• the intention of the State to give that effect to signature appears from the full powers
of its representatives or was expressed during the negotiations (Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 12.1).
A State may also sign a treaty "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval". In such a situation, signature does not
signify the consent of a State to be bound by the treaty, although it does oblige the State to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it has made its intention clear not to become a party to the
treaty (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18(a))

Most multilateral treaties contain a clause providing that a State may express its consent to be bound by the instrument by
signature subject to ratification.
In such a situation, signature alone will not suffice to bind the State, but must be followed up by the deposit of an
instrument of ratification with the depositary of the treaty.
This option of expressing consent to be bound by signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval originated in an
era when international communications were not instantaneous, as they are today.
It was a means of ensuring that a State representative did not exceed their powers or instructions with regard to the
making of a particular treaty. The words "acceptance" and "approval" basically mean the same as ratification, but they are
less formal and non-technical and might be preferred by some States which might have constitutional difficulties with the
term ratification.
Many States nowadays choose this option, especially in relation to multinational treaties, as it provides them with an
opportunity to ensure that any necessary legislation is enacted and other constitutional requirements fulfilled before
entering into treaty commitments.
The terms for consent to be expressed by signature subject to acceptance or approval are very similar to ratification in
their effect. This is borne out by Article 14.2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which provides that "the
consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions similar to those which
apply to ratification."
Accession
Most multinational treaties are open for signature for a specified period of time. Accession is the method used by a State to
become a party to a treaty which it did not sign whilst the treaty was open for signature.
Technically, accession requires the State in question to deposit an instrument of accession with the depositary. Article 15 of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that consent by accession is possible where the treaty so provides,
or where it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed or subsequently agreed that consent by
accession could occur.
Amendment
Technology and techniques in the shipping industry change very rapidly these days. As a result, not only are new
conventions required but existing ones need to be kept up to date. For example, the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1960 was amended six times after it entered into force in 1965 - in 1966, 1967, 1968,
1969, 1971 and 1973. In 1974 a completely new convention was adopted incorporating all these amendments (and other
minor changes) and has itself been modified on numerous occasions.
In early conventions, amendments came into force only after a percentage of Contracting States, usually two thirds, had
accepted them. This normally meant that more acceptances were required to amend a convention than were originally
required to bring it into force in the first place, especially where the number of States which are Parties to a convention is
very large.
This percentage requirement in practice led to long delays in bringing amendments into force. To remedy the situation a
new amendment procedure was devised in IMO. This procedure has been used in the case of conventions such as the
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and SOLAS 1974, all of which incorporate a procedure involving the "tacit
acceptance" of amendments by States.
Parties, the “tacit acceptance” procedure provides that an amendment shall enter into force at a particular time unless
before that date, objections to the amendment are received from a specified number of Parties.
In the case of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, an amendment to most of the Annexes (which constitute the technical parts of
the Convention) is `deemed to have been accepted at the end of two years from the date on which it is communicated to
Contracting Governments...' unless the amendment is objected to by more than one third of Contracting Governments, or
Contracting Governments owning not less than 50 per cent of the world's gross merchant tonnage. This period may be
varied by the Maritime Safety Committee with a minimum limit of one year.
As was expected the "tacit acceptance" procedure has greatly speeded up the amendment process. The 1981
amendments to SOLAS 1974, for example, entered into force on 1 September 1984. Compared to this, none of the
amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS Convention between 1966 and 1973 received sufficient acceptances to satisfy the
requirements for entry into force.
Enforcement
The enforcement of IMO conventions depends upon the Governments of Member Parties.
Contracting Governments enforce the provisions of IMO conventions as far as their own ships are concerned and also set
the penalties for infringements, where these are applicable.
They may also have certain limited powers in respect of the ships of other Governments.
In some conventions, certificates are required to be carried on board ship to show that they have been inspected and have
met the required standards. These certificates are normally accepted as proof by authorities from other States that the
vessel concerned has reached the required standard, but in some cases further action can be taken.
The 1974 SOLAS Convention, for example, states that "the officer carrying out the control shall take such steps as will
ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers or the crew".
This can be done if "there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship and its equipment does not
correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate".
An inspection of this nature would, of course, take place within the jurisdiction of the port State. But when an offence
occurs in international waters the responsibility for imposing a penalty rests with the flag State.
Should an offence occur within the jurisdiction of another State, however, that State can either cause proceedings to be
taken in accordance with its own law or give details of the offence to the flag State so that the latter can take appropriate
action.
Under the terms of the 1969 Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas, Contracting States are empowered to
act against ships of other countries which have been involved in an accident or have been damaged on the high seas if
there is a grave risk of oil pollution occurring as a result.
The way in which these powers may be used are very carefully defined, and in most conventions the flag State is primarily
responsible for enforcing conventions as far as its own ships and their personnel are concerned.
The Organization itself has no powers to enforce conventions.
However, IMO has been given the authority to vet the training, examination and certification procedures of Contracting
Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),
1978. This was one of the most important changes made in the 1995 amendments to the Convention which entered into
force on 1 February 1997. Governments will have to provide relevant information to IMO's Maritime Safety Committee
which will judge whether or not the country concerned meets the requirements of the Convention.
Relationship between Conventions and interpretation

Some subjects are covered by more than one Treaty. The question then arises which one prevails. The Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties provides in Article 30 for rules regarding the relationship between successive treaties relating to the
same subject-matter. Answers to questions regarding the interpretation of Treaties can be found in Articles 31, 32 and 33
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A Treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. When a Treaty
has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty
provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.
Uniform law and conflict of law rules

A substantive part of maritime law has been made uniform in international Treaties. However, not every State is Party to all
Conventions and the existing Conventions do not always cover all questions regarding a specific subject. In those cases
conflict of law rules are necessary to decide which national law applies. These conflict of law rules can either be found in a
Treaty or, in most cases, in national law.
IMO conventions
The majority of conventions adopted under the auspices of IMO or for which the Organization is otherwise responsible, fall
into three main categories.
The first group is concerned with maritime safety; the second with the prevention of marine pollution; and the third with
liability and compensation, especially in relation to damage caused by pollution. Outside these major groupings are a
number of other conventions dealing with facilitation, tonnage measurement, unlawful acts against shipping and salvage,
etc.

The amendment procedures contained in the first Conventions to be developed under the auspices of IMO were so slow
that some amendments adopted have never entered into force. This changed with the introduction of the "tacit
acceptance" procedure.
Tacit acceptance is now incorporated into most of IMO's technical Conventions. It facilitates the quick and simple
modification of Conventions to keep pace with the rapidly-evolving technology in the shipping world. Without tacit
acceptance, it would have proved impossible to keep Conventions up to date and IMO's role as the international forum for
technical issues involving shipping would have been placed in jeopardy.
In the spring of 1968, IMO - then still called IMCO, the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organization - celebrated the 20th
anniversary of the adoption of the IMO Convention. It should have been an occasion for some congratulations. But all was
not well. Many of the Organization's Member States were not happy with the progress that had been made so far.
Many were concerned about the Organization's structure and its ability to respond to the changes taking place in shipping.
In March, 1967, the oil tanker Torrey Canyon had gone aground off the coast of England, resulting in what was then the
world's biggest oil spill. IMO was called upon to take action to combat oil pollution and to deal with the legal issues that
arose. But would it be able to do so?
The general disquiet was summed up by Canada in a paper submitted to the 20th session of the IMO Council in May 1968.
It stated that "the anticipations of twenty years ago have not been fulfilled" and went on to complain of the effort required
by Member States in attending meetings and dealing with the technical problems raised by IMO. The paper was discussed
by the Council which agreed to establish a working group to prepare a draft statement of the objectives of IMO and an
inventory of further objectives which the Organization could usefully fulfil in the field of international maritime transport.
In November 1968 the working group reported back to the Council. It outlined a list of activities, far broader than the
programmes undertaken by IMO so far. This was approved by the Council, which also agreed that IMO needed to improve
its working methods.
The working group was asked to report to the Council again at its 22nd session in May 1969.This time it put forward a
number of proposals for improving IMO's working methods, the most important of which concerned the procedures for
amending the various Conventions that had been adopted under IMO's auspices.
The problem facing IMO was that most of its Conventions could only be updated by means of the "classical" amendment
procedure. Amendments to the 1960 SOLAS Convention, for example, would enter into force "twelve months after the date
on which the amendment is accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Governments including two-thirds of the
Governments represented on the Maritime Safety Committee. This did not seem to be a difficult target when the
Convention was adopted, because to enter into force the Convention had to be accepted by only 15 countries, seven of
which had fleets consisting of at least 1 million gross tons of merchant shipping.
But by the late 1960s the number of Parties to SOLAS had reached 80 and the total was rising all the time as new
countries emerged and began to develop their shipping activities. As the number of Parties rose, so did the total required
to amend the Convention. It was like trying to climb a mountain that was always growing higher and the problem was
made worse by the fact that Governments took far longer to accept amendments than they did to ratify the parent
Convention.
The Council approved the working group's proposal that "it would be a useful first step to undertake a comparative study of
the conventions for which IMO is depositary and similar instruments for which other Members of the United Nations family
are responsible." This proposal was endorsed by the 6th regular session of the IMO Assembly in October 1969 and the
study itself was completed in time to be considered by the Assembly at its 7th session in 1971.
It examined the procedures of four other UN agencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Health
Organization (WHO).
It showed that all of these organizations were able to amend technical and other regulations. These amendments became
binding on Member States without a further act of ratification or acceptance being required.
On the other hand, IMO had no authority to adopt, let alone amend conventions. Its mandate allowed it only to "provide
for the drafting of conventions, agreements or other instruments and to recommend these to Governments and to
intergovernmental organizations and to convene such conferences as may be necessary." Article 2 of the IMO Convention
specifically stated that IMO's functions were to be "consultative and advisory".
The Organization could arrange a conference - but it was up to the conference to decide whether the Convention under
discussion should or should not be adopted and to decide how it should be amended. The study concluded that "any
attempt to bring IMO procedure and practice into line with the other organizations would, therefore, entail a change either
in the constitutional and institutional structure of the Organization itself or in the procedure and practice of the diplomatic
conferences which adopt the conventions of IMO.
The first might involve an amendment to the IMO Convention itself. The second might require that diplomatic conferences
convened by IMO should grant greater power to the organs of IMO in regard to the review and revision of the instruments.
The study was discussed at length by the Assembly. Canada pointed out that the amendments adopted to the 1960 SOLAS
Convention in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 had failed to enter into force and this "sufficed to show that IMO would
henceforth have to tackle serious institutional problems." A note submitted to the conference by Canada stated that
"unless the international maritime community is sufficiently responsive to these changed circumstances, States will once
again revert to the practice of unilaterally deciding what standards to apply to their own shipping and to foreign flag
shipping visiting their ports."
The result was the adoption of resolution A.249(VII) which referred to the need for an amendment procedure "which is
more in keeping with the development of technological advances and social needs and which will expedite the adoption of
amendments." It called for the Legal Committee and Maritime Safety Committee to prepare draft proposals for
consideration by the 8th Assembly.
A growing urgency was added by the fact that IMO was preparing a number of new conventions for adoption during the
next few years. Conferences to consider a new Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
and an International Convention for Safe Containers were both scheduled for 1972, a major Convention dealing with the
Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships for 1973 and a conference to revise SOLAS was scheduled for 1976. All of these
treaties required a new, easier amendment procedure than the traditional method.
The MSC discussed the amendment question at its 25th session in March 1972. A working group was formed to discuss the
matter in detail and concluded that at current rates of acceptance the requisite "two-thirds" target needed to amend
SOLAS 1960 "will not be achieved...for many years, possibly never." Moreover, any future amendments would almost
certainly suffer the same fate. This would include any amendments intended to improve the amendment procedure itself.
The working group reported: "It follows that the only realistic way of bringing an improved amending procedure into effect
within a reasonable period of time is to incorporate it into new or revised technical conventions.
A few weeks later, the Legal Committee held its 12th session. Among the documents prepared for the meeting was a report
on discussions that had taken place at the MSC and a detailed paper prepared by the Secretariat. The paper analysed the
entry into force and amendment processes of various IMO Conventions and referred to two possible methods that had
been considered by the Assembly, for speeding up the amendment procedure. Alternative I was to revise each Convention
so that greater authority for adopting amendments might be delegated to the appropriate IMO organs. Alternative II was
to amend the IMO Convention itself and give IMO the power to amend Conventions.
The study then considered Alternative I in greater detail. The main reason why amendments took so long to enter into
force was the time taken to gain acceptance by two-thirds of Contracting Governments. One way of reducing this period
would be by "specifying a date ...of entry into force after adoption by the Assembly, unless that date of amendment is
explicitly rejected by a certain number or percentage of Contracting Governments." The paper said that this procedure
"has the advantage that all Contracting Governments would be able to advance the preparatory work for implementing the
amended regulations and the industry would be in a position to plan accordingly."
The Committee established a working group to consider the subject and prepared a preliminary study based on its report,
which again referred to the disadvantages of the classical amendment system. The study continued: "The remedy for this,
which has proved to be workable in practice, in relation to a number of conventions, is what is known as the 'tacit' or
'passive' acceptance procedure. This means that the body which adopts the amendment at the same time fixes a time
period within which contracting parties will have the opportunity to notify either their acceptance or their rejection of the
amendment, or to remain silent on the subject. In case of silence, the amendment is considered to have been accepted by
the party...".
The tacit acceptance idea immediately proved popular. The Council, at its meeting in May, decided that the next meeting of
the Legal Committee should consist of technical as well as legal experts so that priority could be given to the amendment
issue. The Committee was asked to give particular attention to tacit acceptance.
The idea was given non-governmental support by the International Chamber of Shipping, which had consultative status
with IMO and submitted a paper stating that the lack of an effective amendment procedure created uncertainties and was
detrimental to effective planning by the industry. The classical procedure had also encouraged some governments to
introduce unilateral legislation that, however well intentioned, was "seriously disruptive to international shipping services."
The paper said that if other Governments did the same " the disruption to international shipping and the world trade which
it serves would become increasingly severe. Such unilateral action strikes at the purpose of IMO."
By the time the Legal Committee met for its 14th session in September 1972, there was general agreement that tacit
acceptance offered the best way forward. Other ideas, such as amending the IMO Convention itself, had too many
disadvantages and would take too long to introduce. There was some concern about what would happen if a large number
of countries did reject an amendment and the Committee members agreed that tacit acceptance should apply only to the
technical content of Conventions, which was often contained in annexes. The non-technical articles should continue to be
subject to the classical (or "positive") acceptance procedure.
The Committee also generally agreed that alternative procedures for amending the technical provisions should be retained
but it did not reach consensus on another issue: should amendments be prepared and adopted by an appropriate IMO
body, such as the Maritime Safety Committee - or by Contracting Parties to the Convention concerned? This was an
important point at the time, since many Contracting Parties to IMO Conventions were not yet Members of IMO itself and
might object to treaties they had ratified being amended without them even being consulted.
This issue was still unsettled when the Conference on Revision of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea opened in October 1972. The purpose of the conference was to update the Collision Regulations and to separate them
from the SOLAS Convention (the existing regulations were annexed to SOLAS 1960).
The amendment procedure is contained in Article VI. Amendments to the Collision Regulations adopted by the MSC (by a
two-thirds majority) have to be communicated to Contracting Parties and IMO Member States at least six months before
being considered by the Assembly. If adopted by the Assembly (again by a two-thirds majority), the amendments enter
into force on a date determined by the Assembly unless more than one third of Contracting Parties notify IMO of their
objection. On entry into force, any amendment shall "for all Contracting Parties which have not objected to the
amendment, replace and supersede any previous provision to which the amendment refers."
Less than two months later, on 2 December 1972 a conference held in Geneva adopted the International Convention for
Safe Containers, Article X of which contains procedures for amending any part or parts of the Convention. The procedure is
the traditional "positive" acceptance system, under which amendments enter into force twelve months after being adopted
by two-thirds of Contracting Parties. However, Article XI contains a special procedure for amending the technical annexes
which also incorporates tacit acceptance. The procedure is slightly different from that used in the Collision Regulations, one
difference being that the amendments can be adopted by the MSC "to which all Contracting Parties shall have been invited
to participate and vote." This answered the question of how to take into account the interests of Parties to Conventions
that were not Member States of IMO.
The next Convention to be considered was the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), which was successfully adopted in May 1973. It, too, incorporated tacit acceptance procedures for amending
the technical annexes. In the meantime, IMO was preparing for a new SOLAS convention. This was considered necessary
because none of the amendments adopted to the 1960 version had entered into force and did not appear likely to do so in
the near future. The 1966 Load Lines Convention also contained a classical amendment procedure and the intention was to
combine the two instruments in a new Convention, which was scheduled to be considered in 1976.
The MSC discussed this proposal at its 26th session in October-November, but it was clear that this would be a daunting
and time-consuming task. The combined instrument might be a good idea for the future - but the real priority was to get
the amendments to SOLAS 1960 into force as quickly as possible and to make sure that future amendments would not be
delayed. A working group was set up to consider the various alternatives, but opinion began to move in favour of a
proposal by the United Kingdom that IMO should concentrate on an interim Convention designed to bring into force the
amendments adopted since 1960. The new Convention, it was suggested, would consist of the 1960 text with the addition
of a tacit acceptance amendment procedure and the addition of amendments that had already been adopted.
Another advantage, the United Kingdom pointed out, was that the conference called to adopt the revised Convention
"might be held considerably earlier than 1976 since comparatively little preparation would be needed." The subject was
discussed again at the MSC's 27th session in the spring of 1973 and, although some delegations wanted a more
comprehensive revision, others felt that the workload would be so great that the conference would be seriously delayed. By
a vote of 12 in favour and four abstentions, the Committee decided to call a conference with limited scope, as proposed by
the United Kingdom.
On 21 October, 1974, the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea opened in London and on 1 November a new
SOLAS Convention was adopted, which incorporated the tacit acceptance procedure.
The tacit acceptance amendment procedure has now been incorporated into the majority of IMO's technical Conventions
and has been extended to some other instruments as well. Its effectiveness can be seen most clearly in the case of SOLAS
1974, which has been amended on many occasions since then. In the process, the Convention's technical content has been
almost completely re-written.

IMO

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IMO

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SOLAS

Adoption: 1 November 1974

Introduction and history

Amendments year by year

Introduction and history

After consideration within IMO

Chapter I - General Provisions

Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction

Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements

Chapter V - Safety of navigation

Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes

Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods

Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships

Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships

Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft

Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety

Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security

Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers

Amendments year by year

The Protocol of 1978 - Tanker safety and pollution prevention

The Protocol of 1978

The 1981 amendments

Chapters II-1 and II-2 were re-written and updated.

The 1983 amendments

The 1988 (April) amendments

The 1988 (October) amendments

The 1988 Protocol (HSSC)

The 1988 (GMDSS) amendments

The 1989 amendments

The 1990 amendments

The 1991 amendments

The April 1992 amendments

The December 1992 amendments

The May 1994 amendments (Conference)

Accelerated amendment procedure

Chapter IX: Management for the Safe Operation of Ships

The Code establishes safety management objectives which are:

- to establish safeguards against all identified risks;

- to continuously improve safety management skills of personnel, including preparing for

Chapter X: Safety Measures for High Speed Craft

Chapter XI: Special Measures to Enhance Safety:

The May 1994 amendments

Three new regulations were added to Chapter V:

Regulation 22 was aimed at improving navigation bridge visibility.

The December 1994 amendments

The May 1995 amendments

The November 1995 amendments (Conference)

The June 1996 amendments

Other SOLAS Chapters were also amended.

In Chapter XI, an amendment was made regarding authorization of recognized organizations.

The December 1996 amendments

The November 1997 amendments (Conference)

The May 1998 amendments

In Chapter IV, the amendments included:

The May 1999 amendments

The May 2000 amendment

The December 2000 amendments

A number of amendments were adopted.

- passenger ships constructed on or after 1 July 2002;

- passenger ships, not later than 1 July 2003;

The June 2001 Amendments

The May 2002 amendments

- chapter 1.3 (Training);