ASM –

TUTORIAL NOTES

K-34, Mehrauli Badarpur Road, Saidulajaib

New Delhi – 110 030
Tel: +91-11- 43158585-87, Fax: +91-11-43158588
Email: ariedu@ariworld.com
Visit us at www.ariedu.com

Updated 1st May 2014

(AS PER NEW SYLLABUS EFFECTIVE FROM 15TH
November 2011)
 Table of Contents
S. No Topic Page No.
1 Indian Merchant Shipping Act
a Registration of ships: The certificate of registry and its legal
significance. [2 hrs]
b Engagement, discharge and management of crew. Manning scales
and certification. Contracts of employment, wages and other
remuneration, advances, allotments, payment into bank accounts.
Descriptions, deceased seamen, engagement of substitutes,
repatriation, assisting and repatriating Indian seamen distressed
abroad.[2 hrs]
c The official log book and the law relating to entries. Offences relating
to misconduct, to endangering ship and against persons on board.
Discipline and treatment of disciplinary offences. Civil liability for
certain offences. Trade disputes involving seamen. The official log
book entries and records in freeboard draft and allowances. [2 hrs]
d Crew accommodation. Hygiene of the ship and welfare of the crew.
Outline knowledge of the regulations relating to medical stores.
Inspection and reports. Fresh water and provisions. Procedures in
cases of infectious disease, illness or accidents. Maritime declarations
of health. Port health requirements. International agreements and
measures to prevent the spread of disease by shipping. [2 hrs]
e The safety of the ship, crew and passengers. Assistance of vessels in
distress and salvage. Master’s duties in the case of collision or any
other accident. Master’s role in collecting evidence after an accident.
Lodging protests etc. Inquiries and Investigation. [3 hrs]
f The law relating to the reporting of ice, derelict, tropical revolving
storms and other dangers to navigation.[1 hr]
g Outline knowledge of the rules made under the Merchant Shipping
Act.[1 hr]
2 Documentation:
Certificates and other documents required to be carried on Passenger
ships, tankers, Gas carriers, Chemical carriers, Car/Truck carriers,
Bulk carriers. Procedures to obtain the above mentioned certificates
and the period of their validity. Other Trading certificates (Suez and
Panama Canal certificate, CFR) that are required to be carried on
board.
3 Custom house procedures:
Inward and outward clearance, Immigration clearance, quarantine
clearance (FAL Convention).
4 Methods of dealing with stowaways, hijacking of ships, armed robbery
/ piracy, smuggling and other custom offences, drug and alcohol policy
and its enforcement
5 Master – Pilot relationship: Exchange of information, responsibilities.
Compulsory and optional pilotage. Bridge Team Management while
under pilotage. Legal implications if an incident occurs when under
pilotage.

2
S. No Topic Page No.
6 Economics of sea transport theory of international trade, general
structure of shipping industry relationship between ship-owner, agent,
stevedore, charterer, shipper and broker. Detailed knowledge of
voyage estimates including cargo calculations involving deadweight,
loadline zones, consumables and constants taking into account various
charges, receipts and establishing economic viability
7 AFRA, WORLDSCALE,

A general knowledge of shipping practice and documents with

particular reference to charter parties and its Main clauses, bills of
lading and its Main clauses and mates receipts for various types of
ships and trades including tanker practice, meaning of the terms used
in chartering practice such as INCOTERMS, Handling of claims and
disputes related to Charter parties,
Hague rules, Hague – Visby rules, COGSA.

Hamburg rules, Rotterdam Rules, Multimodal Transport Act.

An understanding of the main clauses in a contract of affreightment

including freight, deviation, always afloat, ice, lay days, demurrage
and dispatch including calculations involving lay days, charter party,
etc. The law relating to the carriage of cargo and ship-owners’,
liabilities and responsibilities. Protests, cargo surveys, certificates of
seaworthiness.
8 LOF 2000, LOF 2011, Scopic clause.
CLC, Fund convention.
Outline knowledge of the expressed and implied conditions and
statutory terms contained in a contract of marine insurance. Institute
clauses. An understanding of principles and practice of the terms;
particular average, general average. Procedure at a port of refuge.
Lloyd’s agents. Average adjusters. P & I clubs, Warranties, York-
Antwerp rules.
9 International institutions:
IMO, ILO, WHO, ISF, IACS, BIMCO, ICS, OCIMF, SIGTTO,
INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO, WTO, IMCA, IFSMA, WMU, IMLI
and classification societies.
10 Latest changes in national and international maritime legislation
pertaining to SOLAS, MARPOL, Load line and STCW

11 Control procedures:
Classification surveys, Flag State Control, Port State Control,
Charterer’s vetting inspections, inspections by port terminal
authorities, Condition surveys.
Port State Control: Working and targeting by various MOUs; “Clear
grounds” to conduct detailed inspection; Identification of sub standard
ships; “Detention” of ships. Common deficiencies observed as
reported by the various MOUs annually.

3
S. No Topic Page No.
12 Principles and practice of modern ship management - ISPS Code, ISM
Code, methods to prevent human errors on ship, Human Resource
Development
13 Casualty Investigation Code (Guidelines on fair treatment of seafarers
in event of a maritime accident). Criminalisation of seafarers:
Seafarers Rights under a Casualty investigation. Case Studies.
Reporting procedures for Incidents. Writing Reports.
14 Musters and drills, distress/urgency/safety messages. Avoidance of
False distress alerts and action in case of false distress alert. Search
and Rescue, steps to be taken when disabled & in distress, assisting a
ship or aircraft in distress. IAMSAR
15 Place of refuge procedures. Wreck, Salvage and their legal
implications.
16 Lighterage operations, Ocean Towing. Duties and responsibilities of
Towing & Towed vessel, Communications and exchange of information
between towing and towed vessel. Emergency Towing arrangements;
Maritime Assistance Service on Indian coast (when applicable)

17 Emergency Response Procedures:

Fire in Port & at Sea, grounding, collision, collision mats, Pollution,
Flooding, Engine failure, Listing, Beaching, Steering failure, refloating
of vessel. Man-overboard, Helicopter Rescue Operation; Leakages and
spills of dangerous cargo; Rescue of victims from enclosed spaces;
Rescue of Survivors from another vessel or sea
18 Case Studies:
(Recent casualties such as MSC Chitra and Khalijia 3, M.V.Tosa,
Hebei Spirit and Samsung crane barge, Herald of Free Enterprise,
Cosco Busan)
19 Anchoring & Berthing under the effect of tide / wind in shallow / deep
waters, use of Anchors, squat, interaction between ships / shore,
transverse Thrust & turning the ship short round, pivot point, dragging
/ dredging anchors; Different types of tugs and use/limitation of each;
Berthing with/ without tugs under various conditions of wind, current
and tide. Effectiveness of bow and stern thrusters.
20 Synchronous rolling, Parametric rolling, wind heeling criteria for high
freeboard ships;

Manoeuvering and handling of ship in all conditions; Ship’s

maneuvering characteristics; Wheelhouse poster; Emergency stopping
manoeuvres, crash stop, rudder cycling. Picking up Pilot;
Manoeuvering in and near Traffic Separation Schemes and VTS areas;
STS Operations.
21 Environmental Protection:
Marpol Annexes I to VI, SOPEP/SMPEP, Vessel Response Plan, oil
record book. Ballast Water Management, OPA 90 & NPDES.
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System of U.S.A.)

4
S. No Topic Page No.
22 Operating in ice:
Basic ship handling in ice, sighting of ice / open water, working
through ice, navigation in ice. High latitude Navigation – procedures
& precaution. Polar Code. effects of ice accretion on stability of vessel
23 Safety Management:
Case studies on Risk Assessment; Managing Risk on board; Briefings /
debriefings and toolbox meetings;
Case studies for Safety on deck in rough weather;
On-board Training;
Incidents related to Enclosed Space Entry Procedures; Hot Work
Procedures;
24 Damage Stability Criteria and Damage stability booklet
Proper assessment of damage stability condition – using ETAS
(Emergency Technical Assistance Service) provided by classification
societies. An understanding of the information required to be passed on
for assessment of Damage Stability
25 Weather Routeing and Voyage Planning; Procedures for selection of
an optimum route; Various weather routeing services available to
shipping; Vessel Performance curves, hind-cast charts;
26 Various ship plans used in Cargo Loading / discharging, dry docking,
Grounding, Dry-docking both intact and with damage; Preparation of
Repair Specifications
27 COLREGS, related case studies and Interaction with participants
28 Ship Recycling Convention: Hazardous Materials inventory, Green
Passport
29 Global Warming and climate change, Greenhouse effect, Carbon
credit, Kyoto protocol.
30 Dangerous Goods: Recent amendments to IMDG code.
31 Assessment & Feedback (including internal assessments).

5
HEAD OF INSTITUTE

Name: Mrs. Amarjeet Rewari

Address: B1, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi- 110016
Tel: +91-11-26969825, 41655123-128

COURSE INCHARGE

Name: Capt. Saujanya Sinha

Address: ARI, K – 34 Mehrauli Badarpur Road
Saidulajaib
New Delhi-110030
Tel: +91-11-43158585-87

FACULTY NAME

CAPT. SAUJANYA SINHA

CAPT. P. SARIN
CAPT. P. K. MITTAL
CAPT. P. K. SHARDA
CAPT. N. C. TIWARI
MRS. A. SARIN (HR)

6
 RECORD OF CHANGES

S. DATE CHAPTER Page No. Nature of Changes / Change Change

No. Amendments Reviewed By Authorised By
1 Aug 14 448 ISM Amendments Capt. PK Capt. P. Sarin
2010 Mittal
2 Aug 14 52 Stowaways, Custom house Capt. PK Capt. P. Sarin
2010 Procedures etc. Mittal
3 Aug 10 201 2010 Amendments to Capt. PK Capt. P. Sarin
2010 MARPOL, SOLAS and STCW Mittal
4 Sept 1 5 MSA; 1958 – Question & Capt. PK Capt. P. Sarin
2011 Answer Format Mittal
5 Sept 9 143 International Institutions – Capt. PK Capt. P. Sarin
2011 IMO Latest Budget 2010-2011 Mittal
6 Sept 11 245 Control Procedures – Art. 94 of Capt. DS Capt. P. Sarin
2011 UNCLOS – Flag State Deswal
Responsibilities
7 Nov 9 143 Added International Institutions Capt. DS Capt. P. Sarin
2011 as per new syllabus Deswal
8 Nov 10 201 2011 Amendments to Capt. DS Capt. P. Sarin
2011 MARPOL, SOLAS and STCW Deswal
2010
9 Nov 14 272, 301 Added NEW Topics as per new Capt. DS Capt. P. Sarin
2011 onwards syllabus Deswal
10 Nov NA 3 Added names Capt. R. J. Sood Capt. DS Capt. P. Sarin
2011 and Mrs. A. Sarin. Replaced Deswal
the name of Ms. Raadhika Jain
with Mrs. N. Khanna
11 Dec 2012 10 201 to Updated latest amendments to Capt. NC Capt. P. Sarin
240 SOLAS, MARPOL & Load Tewari
Line Conventions
12 Dec 2012 NA 3 Added names Capt. N. C. Capt. NC Capt. P. Sarin
Tiwari & deleted names of Tewari
Capt. S. Bhabha, Capt. R. J.
Sood, Capt. K. K. Sharma &
Mrs. N. Khanna
13 Jan 2014 10 201 Added the NEW Amendments Capt. NC Capt. P. Sarin
to SOLAS, MARPOL and LL Tewari
Conventions effective from 1st
January 2014
14 May A LL A LL Edited the ENTIRE Tutorial Capt. NC Capt. P. Sarin
2014 Notes to make it more user Tewari
friendly as per the syllabus &
past DGS Question Papers and
ADDED forthcoming
amendments to SOLAS coming
into force from 1st July 2010.

7
Chapter 1 - Merchant Shipping Act,
1958

8
Chapter 1 - Merchant Shipping Act, 1958
Its intent and purpose

India has been a seafaring nation for centuries. She has built up a glorious maritime
history and tradition much before the rise of European maritime powers. The Indian
ships used to sail across many sea sand carried on prosperous trade with Asian and
Middle East countries. Since the advent of British Rule, the development of
indigenous shipping industry was discouraged because of preferential treatment given
to British shipping. The restrictive British navigational laws not only hindered the
growth and development of Indian shipping but gradually made it disappeared from
High Seas.

The Indian Merchant Shipping Law as it existed in 19th century has never been on
sound footing. The British law was applicable to Indian ships trading in international
sea voyages as these ships were required to be registered under U.K. Merchant
Shipping Act and therefore, technically they were British Ships although registered in
India. The Indian Merchant Shipping Law was nebulous and sketchy. Between the
years 1938 to 1947, the following legislation on merchant shipping were held the field
(a) The Bombay Coasting Vessels Act, 1938 (b) The Indian Registration of Ships Act,
1841 (as amended in 1950); and (c) The Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923. The
first of the three enactments referred to above dealt with regulations of seagoing
vessels. The 1841 act embodied in it provisions relating to registration of sailing
vessels. Both these enactments had, however, been so modelled as to apply only to
small coasters and sailing vessels. The third Act, namely, the Indian Merchant
Shipping Act, 1923 was fairly comprehensive. Indian Merchant Shipping Law
consolidating the provisions of the earlier two acts was supplemented by passing of
the Seamen (Litigation) Act, 1946 and Control of Indian Shipping Act, 1947. This Act
had, however, only consolidated the laws on merchant shipping and it did not revise
the law and therefore, was found wanting in many respects. The provisions of the
International Conventions with respect to Load Lines, 1930 and SOLAS, 1948, both
of which were ratified by India were later on incorporated through Indian Merchant
Shipping Amendment Acts of 1933 and 1953.

Immediately after the independence to suit the requirements of a maritime country

like India, the Indian Parliament passed the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. This Act
had made good the main deficiency in the earlier laws that they did not provide for
registration of what may be termed as Indian Ships. Certain enabling provisions were
also incorporated in the Act to accelerate the pace of development of shipping in the
post independence period. This Act is divided into 24 parts, each part dealing with
specific aspects of merchant shipping like registration of ships, sailing vessels and
fishing vessels, National Shipping Board, manning of ships, engagement, discharge
and repatriation of seamen and apprentices, safety of passenger and cargo ships,
control of Indian ships and ships engaged in the coasting trade, collisions, prevention
and control of pollution of the sea by oil from ships, limitation of ship-owners'
liability, civil liability for oil pollution damage etc.

The different parts of the Act came into force on different dates as indicated below:
(i) Parts I & II came into force on 15.12.1958

9
(ii) Part IV came into force on 17.3.1959

(iii) Section 7, Part XIV (including Section 405-414), Section 436, (in so far as it
relates to offences mentioned against S. o. 122 to 125 (both inclusive), Sections 437,
438, 439, 440, 441, 458, 459 and 460 and so much of section 461 and of part I of
Schedule as relates to the Control of Shipping Act, 1947 came into force on 1.4.1960

(iv) The remaining provisions of the original Act (except the amendments made
subsequently) came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1961
(v) Part VIA providing for obligation of certain certificate holders to serve Govt. or in
Indian Ships was inserted by amendment Act of 1979 came into force from 4.5.1979

(vi) Part IX A dealing with nuclear ships inserted by Amendment Act of 1966 came
into force from 28.5.1966

(vii) Part X A giving provisions for limitations of liability of owners in case of certain
damages inserted by Amendment Act of 1970, came into force from 15.9.1972

(viii) Part X B giving provisions for civil liability for oil pollution damage was
inserted by Amendment Act of 1983 came into force from 18.5.1983

(ix) Part XV A giving provisions for fishing boats inserted by Amendment Act of
1983, which came into force from 18.5.1983

Layout of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (MSA 58)

The first Indian Merchant Shipping Act was enacted in 1923, the provisions of which
were in line with the U.K. Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. After independence, taking
care of new conditions and changes that have taken place in the Shipping Industry, a
comprehensive legislation passed by Indian Parliament in 1958 known as Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958. The Act has been constantly under revision and amendments to
ratify the changes approved by the International Maritime Organisation, through its
conventions and protocols, to which India is a Member.

The Merchant Shipping Act as is existed today has 24 parts. The basic provisions of
Act given in various parts are as under:

Part I deals with the preliminary giving short title of the Act and date of
commencement, application of the Act and definitions of the terms used in the Act.
The definitions have been given for 66 terms. Besides certain terms have been defined
in their appropriate part where they have occurred specifically.

Part II of the Act contains provisions relating to the establishment and composition of'
National Shipping Board, its functions and powers of the Government to make rules
in this respect for term of office of members, appointment of officers or other
allowances of Board members.

Part III deals with the General Administration, appointment of Director General,
establishment of Mercantile Marine Departments, Shipping Offices, Seaman's

10
employment offices and Seamen’s Welfare Offices. It also deals with the appointment
of Principal Officers at MMD, Mumbai, Calcutta and Madras and other officers at
other ports, appointment of surveyors, radio inspectors, Shipping Masters, Director of
Seamen's Employment Offices and Seamen's Welfare Officers.

Part IV - which dealt with the formation of Shipping Development Fund and
establishment of Shipping Development Fund Committee, has been abolished vide
M.S. (Amendment) Act of 1986 (66 of 1986)

Part V deals with the registration of Indian ships. It defines the Indian ships, contains
provisions for obligation to register, procedure for registration, Grant of certificate of
registry, endorsement for change of Master and Owner, provision far transfer of ships
shares etc., rules as to name of ship, provisions for registry of alternations registry a
new and transfer of registry, national character of the ships and flag etc.

Part VI - gives provisions relating to the certificates of officers - Masters, Mates,

Engineers, Skippers etc., and also requirements of officers on board various category
of ships. Review Committee has recommended that instead of specifying the
manning scale in the Act itself, Government should have rule making powers to
prescribe different manning scale for different types of ships and also to carry a safe
manning document on board the ship.
Part VI A contains provisions for obligation of certain certificate holders to serve
Government or in Indian ships.

Part VII deals with seamen and apprentices. It gives vide ranging provision for
classification of seamen, their engagements, discharge, payment of wages, their right
for wages dispute between seamen and employers, provisions for property of
deceased seamen and apprentices, distressed seamen, provisions for health and
accommodation, protection of seamen in case of litigation and other matters,
provision as to discipline, duties of Shipping Master, business of Seamen's
employment offices and function of National Welfare Board for seafarers, provisions
for rule making powers for imposition of the Board, term of office of members,
procedure for conduct of business, levy of fee for providing amenities to seamen and
procedure for collection and recovery of Levy fee.

Part VIII deals with passenger ships, their survey, Certificate of survey, powers of
surveyor, fee, duration of survey, etc. It provides for keeping order in passenger ships
specifying certain acts of persons as an offence under the act. This part also contains
provision for special trade passenger ships and pilgrim ships.
Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 deals with the provisions relating to
Safety.
This part gives the provisions relating to construction rules for ships, prevention of
collisions, life saving appliances and fire appliances, installation of radio telegraphy
radio telephony and direction finders, signalling lamp and provisions relating to
stability information. The part also deals with the provisions relating to Safety
Certificates, Safety equipment certificates, Safety radio telegraphy Certificates,
exemption certificates, etc., provision for determining load lines, issue of load line
certificates and special provisions as to ships other than Indian ships. This part also
provides powers to make rules as to timber cargo, carriage of dangerous goods, grain
loading plan and carriage of grain. The provisions also exists for sub-division load

11
lines, un-seaworthy Ships, detention of unsafe ships and liability for cost of detention
and powers to make rules to issue certificates under this part.

Part IX A Deals with Nuclear Ships which includes application or non application of
certain provision of this Act to Nuclear ships, issue of Nuclear passenger and Nuclear
Cargo Ship Safety Certificate and powers to make rules in this respect.

Part X - This part deals with the collision, accident at sea and liability, which includes
provision for division of loss in case of collision, damages for personal injury etc.

Part X A - gives provision for limitation of liability of owners in case of certain

damages.

Part X B – gives provision for civil liability for oil pollution damage. It embodies
provisions for limitation of liability of the owner, constitution of limitation fund,
consolidation of claims & distribution of fund amongst claimants, provision for
compulsory insurance or other financial guarantee and rule making powers.

Part XI - This part gives provision for regular method of giving helm orders, duty of
master to report danger to navigation, manner of communicating reports of danger to
navigations, obligation to render assistance to persons and ships in danger, etc. This
part is also under amendments in accordance with the recommendations given by the
review committee to include foreign flag vessels under purview, giving information
by Indian ships about position, course, speed to maritime administration and provision
for Indian ships to be fitted with prescribed navigational aids and equipments.

Part XI A – Prevention and containment of pollution of sea by Oil:

This part contains provision for prevention of pollution and gives powers to Central
Government for prohibition as to discharge of oil and oily mixtures, inspection and
control of ships to which Oil Pollution Convention applies, maintenance or Oil record
book, oil reception facilities at the ports in India and powers of the
Government to take measures for preventing or containing oil pollution, direction to
certain ships to render assistance and levy of oil pollution cess. The Government
under the provision of this part can also frame rules.

This part does not contain provision for the action to be taken when oil is escaped.
The review Committee has recommended empowering the Central Government to
take appropriate action when oil is escaped.

Part XII: This part provides the provision for investigation and inquiries in shipping
casualties. It gives powers to the Court for holding formal investigations, to arrest
witnesses or enter the ships, to commit trial, to censure masters, mates or engineer, or
to remove master. Counsellor officer can appoint a marine board if the casualty occurs
at foreign waters. Central Government can cancel or suspend certificate of Master,
Mate or Engineer. Constitution of court of survey, reference in difficult cases to
scientific persons and investigation into explosions or fire on board of ship are the
other provisions of this part.

Part XIII - This part gives provision for matters relating to wreck and salvage. India
has ratified 1989 Salvage Convention and therefore review committee has suggested

12
that provisions of this Convention may be inserted amending Section 390, 398, 402
(1) and 404.

Part XIV - of the Act gives powers to the Central Govt. for control of Indian ships and
ships engaged in coasting trade. Section 412 giving powers to fix shipping rates has
already been abolished. Some relaxation has also been given under cabotage law.

Part XV – contains the provisions for sailing vessels and part XV A for fishing boats,
their registry, name, inspection, certification etc.

Part XVI – gives the provisions for penalties for violation of the provisions of the Act
and procedure thereof.

Part XVII` contains miscellaneous provisions for appointing examiners, powers of

ship surveyor, inquiry into case of death on board the ships etc.

Indian Ships, Registration

Introduction

A ship entitled to fly the flag of a country needs to be registered in that country. The
object of registration is to ensure that persons who are entitled to the privilege and
protection of the Indian flag get them. The registration affords evidence of title off the
ship to those who deal with the property in question. It also gives protection to the
members of the crew in case of casualties involving injuries and/or loss of life to
claim compensation under the provisions of the Indian Acts in Indian courts.

Indian Merchant Shipping Act of 1958, for the first time, dealt with registration of
ships. Earlier acts had lacked this aspect totally. Part V of this Act deals with
exclusively with the registration of Indian ships, while Part XV deals with registration
of sailing vessels and Part XV A deals with the registration of fishing boats.
Ships, which qualify to be registered, are required to be registered only at ports
designated as ports of registry. At present Mumbai, Calcutta, Madras, Cochin and
Mormugao have been notified as ports of registry and principal officers of Mumbai,
Calcutta & Madras and Surveyor in charge of Cochin and Mormugao have been
notified as Registrar of Indian ships. In their capacity as registrar of Indian ships, the
principal officers are required to maintain a complete record of Ships on register
indicating status of the ship on a particular date. A central register is maintained by
the Director General of Shipping, which contains all the entries recorded in the
register books kept by the registrar at the port of registry in India. The Director
General of Shipping, at the request of owners of Indian ships, desiring to be known at
sea, allots signal letter & controls the series that may be so issued. Certain formalities
are required to be complied with before a ship is registered. Part V of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958 and Registration of ships rules, 1960 as amended from time to
time, are concerned with the Registration of Indian ships.

Status of Indian Ships

13
The conferment of status of Indian ships is restricted to:

 Ships owned by a citizen of India

 Ships owned by a company or body established by or under any central or
state Act which has its principle place of business in India
 Ships owned by a co-operative society which is registered or deemed to be
registered under the Co-operative Society Act, 1912, or any other law relating
to Co-operative Societies for the time being in force in any state

Qualification required for registration as Indian ships

Sea going ships fitted with mechanical means of propulsion of 15 tons net and above
howsoever employed and those of less than 15 tons net employed otherwise than
solely on the coasts of Indian qualify for registration under Part V of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958. Ships that are able to be registered are required to be registered
only at ports designated as ports of registry.

In their capacity as Registrar of ships, the Principal officers and concerned Surveyors
In-charge are required to maintain a complete record of ships on register indicating as
on a particular date the person/persons, either in their individual capacity or as joint
owners or as a corporate body, who have a stake in the ownership of ships. Not more
than 10 individuals are entitled to be registered as owner of a fractional part of a share
in a ship, but a maximum of 5 persons could be registered as joint owners of a ship or
of any share and shares therein. Joint owners by reason of the position as such cannot,
however, dispose off in severalty, any share or interest therein.

Formalities to be observed for registration as Indian ship

The owner of a ship wishing to have it registered at a port in India has to submit to the
concerned Register:

a) A declaration of ownership - in one or the other prescribe forms, as may be

applicable, depending upon whether he is a sole proprietor, joint owner or a company
made before a Registrar, Justice of the peace or an Indian Consular Officer.

b) A certificate signed by the builder (builder's certificate) of the ship containing a

true account of the proper denomination and of the tonnage of the ship as estimated
by him and the time, when and the place where the ship was built, (for new ship).

c) The instrument of sale under which the property of the ship was transferred to the
applicant who requires it to be registered in his name, (for second-hand ships).

d) To give a minimum of 14 days notice to the Registrar of the name proposed for the
ship. The Registrar before registering the vessel in the name of the applicant shall
obtain prior approval of the name from the Director General of Shipping who will
also allot an official number for the ship.

e) On being satisfied that the ship, on the strength of the evidence placed before him,
is entitled to be Indian ship, the Registrar arranges for survey of the ship by a

14
surveyor for the determination of her tonnage in accordance with the Merchant
Shipping (Tonnage Measurement) Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time, for the
purpose of issue of a Certificate of Survey.

After the formalities enumerated above have been gone through, the Registrar issues a
carving and marking note. This note is to be returned to the Registrar after carving
and marking have been duly carried out on the ship in the prescribed manner and
certified by a Surveyor. The carving and marking involves the carving of the name of
the ship conspicuously on each side of her bows as well as insertion permanently on
her stern the name of the intended port of registry.

On completion of the preliminaries to registry as described in the preceding

paragraphs, the Registrar enters the particulars of the ship such as:

a) Name of the ship and the port to which she belongs

b) Details contained in the Surveyors Certificate
c) Particulars respecting her origin as revealed in the declaration of ownership
d) The name and description of her registered owner and, if there are more owners
than one, the number of shares owned by each of them; and
e) Name of the Master, in the Registry Book. The Registrar issues thereafter to the
owners a certificate of registry retaining the Surveyor's certificate, builders certificate,
instrument of sale by which the ship was sold, and the declaration of ownership

Formalities connected with registration of an Indian ship when acquired abroad

When a ship is built or acquired out of India and becomes the property of a person
qualified to own an Indian ship, the owner or the Master of the ship will have to apply
to the Indian Consular Officer at the nearest port for the issue of a provisional
certificate of Indian registry and such officer, on production of satisfactory proof of
ownership, grant the same to the owner or the Master. Such a certificate has all the
force of a certificate of registry. It is, however, valid for a period of 6 months from its
date of issue or until the arrival of the ship at a port where there is a Registrar
whichever first happens and on either of these events happening would cease to have
effect. The provisional certificate so issued will have to be exchanged by the owner
for a certificate of registry from the concerned Registrar.

Quite often a ship has to set sail from a port where she is built in India to a port where
she has to be registered. The owner in such cases or where he has applied to the
Registrar for registration but delay in the issue of certificate of registry is anticipated,
the Registrar may, on the strength of the authority issued by the Director General of
Shipping, issue a temporary pass to enable the ship to ply between the ports in India.

The Certificate of Registry has to be used only for the lawful navigation of the ship
and is not to be detained by reason of any lien, mortgage of interest whatsoever
claimed by any party.

No change in the name already in the registry is permitted except in accordance with
the procedure laid down in the M.S. (Registration of Ships) Rules, as amended from
time to time. Application for the registry of alterations to a ship will have to be made
to the Registrar within one month of the alterations.

15
Where the alterations are material so as to affect the principal dimensions of a ship or
the means of propulsion, a ship will have to be registered as new and, in that event,
rules applicable for first registry will come into force.
Where a ship is registered under circumstances envisaged in paragraph immediately
above this, the original certificate of registry stands cancelled and the existing entries
in the registry remain closed. The original official number allotted to ship, is however,
retained.

Where transfer of a port of registry is desired by all the parties having a stake in the
ownership or otherwise of the ship, they shall apply to the Registrar of her port of
registry, who may, with the prior approval of the Director General of Shipping have
no objection to such transfer subject to such formalities as has been laid down in the
M.S. (Registration of Ships) Rules and on payment of the requisite fees prescribed
thereof.

Whenever there is any change in the Master of an Indian ship, in whatever the way
the change has come about, a memorandum of change has to be endorsed and signed
on the Certificate of Registry by the Presiding Officer of a Marine Board or a Court if
the change of Master is brought about as a result of the findings of the Marine Board
of Inquiry or the Registrar or any other officer authorized by the Central Government
or the Indian Consular Officer depending upon whether the change has occurred in
India or abroad.

In the event of an Indian Ship being either actually or constructively lost, taken by the
enemy, burnt or broken up or ceasing for any reason to be an Indian ship, every owner
of the ship or any share in the ship is required to give a notice thereof to the Registrar
and thereupon the Registrar will make an appropriate entry in the Register Book and
the entry of the ship in that book would then be deemed mortgage that lies unsatisfied
on that date will, continue to remain in force. The Master of such a ship, if the event
accrues in India, will immediately make over the Certificate of Registry to the
Registrar or within a period of 10 days after his arrival in India if the event occurs
elsewhere.

Transmission of an Indian ship or interest therein

Where the property in an Indian ship or share therein is transmitted to a person on the
death or insolvency of the registered owner or by any lawful means other than a
transfer described as above, it would be effected by an application made to the
Registrar of the ship's port of registry accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed
form identifying the ship and also a statement of the manner in which and the person
to whom the property has been transmitted. In the case of transmission consequent on
insolvency, a declaration of transmission has to be accompanied by proof of such
claim. In the case of transmission as a result of death, a Succession certificate, probate
or letters of Administration, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or a duly certified
copy thereof, shall accompany the declaration of transmission. The Registrar on
receipt of the declaration of transmission will make appropriate entry in the register
book to give effect to the change in the ownership.

16
Where as a result of the transmission of property in a ship or share there on death or
insolvency or otherwise a ship ceases to be an Indian ship, the Registrar of Port of her
registry will have to submit a report to the Central Government through the Director
General of Shipping setting out the circumstances in which the ship has ceased to be
an Indian ship. On receipt of such a report, Central Government can make an
application to the High Court for a direction for the sale of such Ship to any Indian
citizen or any Indian company. Such an application may have to be made to the High
Court by the Government within 60 days from the date of receipt of the report.

Importance of Signal Letters of a ship (Call Sign)

At the request of the owners of Indian ships desiring to be known at sea, the Director
General of Shipping, who will control the series that may be so issued, allots signal
letters. The allotment of such signal letters are required to be noted in the Register
Book and endorsed suitably on the Certificate of Registry. The allotment of signal
letters will form subject matter of a communication by the Director General of
Shipping to the Wireless Adviser, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi

Responsibilities of the DG Shipping of India with regard to registration of ships

Maintain a Central Register, which would contain not only the names of all ships but
also entries relating to every Indian ship that stand recorded at the various ports of
registry. Details of the Registry of a ship, as well as every subsequent entry relating to
that ship recorded in the Register Book are required to be communicated to the
Director General of Shipping as and when the events occur. On or before the 15th
January of each year, Registrars of each Port are required to submit to the Director
General of Shipping a return showing the number of ships with their tonnage
registered in the register book during the previous year.

Executive Orders: The Director General of Shipping has assigned the work of
maintaining the Central Register of Ships to the Nautical Adviser. All Principal
Officers have been directed to send their returns, including the transcript of registry,
to the Nautical Adviser so that he should be able to maintain the Central Register.

Engagement of seafarers on Indian ships

The following are the special provisions with regard to agreements with crew of
Indian ships.

The following provisions shall have effect with respect to every agreement made in
India with the crew of an Indian ship, namely:

(a) The agreement shall, subject to the provision of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958
(MSA 58) is to be signed by each seaman in the presence of a shipping master

(b) The shipping master shall cause the agreement to be read over and explained to
each seaman, in a language understood by him / her or shall otherwise ascertain that
each seaman understands the same before he signs it, and shall attest each signature

17
(c) When the crew is first engaged, the agreement shall be signed in duplicate, and
one part shall be retained by the shipping master, and the other part shall be delivered
to the master and shall contain a special place or form for the descriptions and
signatures of substitutes or persons engaged subsequently to the first departure of the
ship

(d) When a substitute is engaged in the place of a seaman who has duly signed the
agreement and whose services are within twenty-four hours of the ship's putting to sea
lost by death, desertion or other unforeseen cause, the engagement shall, if
practicable, be made before a shipping master, and if not practicable, the master shall,
before the ship puts to sea, if practicable, and, if not, as soon afterwards as possible,
cause the agreement to be read over and explained to the substitute; and the substitute
shall thereupon sign the same in the presence of a witness, who shall attest the
signature

In the case of an agreement made in India with the crew of a foreign-going Indian
ship, the following provisions shall have effect in addition to the provisions specified
above:
(a) The agreement may be made for a voyage of the ship or if the voyages of the ship
average less than six months in duration, may be made to extend over two or more
voyages, and agreements so made are in the MSA 58 referred to as running
agreements

(b) A running agreement may be made to extend over two or more voyages so that it
shall terminate either within six months from the date on which it was executed, or on
the first arrival of the ship at her port of destination in India after the expiration of that
period, or on the discharge of cargo consequent upon such arrival, whichever of these
dates shall be the latest. Provided that no such running agreement shall continue in
force, if, after the expiration of such period of six months as aforesaid, the ship
proceeds on a voyage from a port outside India to any other such port which is not on
the direct route or a customary route to her port of destination in India

(c) On every return to a port in India before the final termination of a running
agreement, the master shall discharge or engage before the shipping master at such
port any seaman whom he is required by law so to discharge or engage, and shall
upon every such return endorse on the agreement a statement (as the case may be)
either that no such discharges or engagements have been made or are intended to be
made before the ship leaves port, or that all those made have been made as required
by law

(d) The master shall deliver the running agreement so endorsed to the shipping
master, and the shipping master shall, if the provisions of MSA 58 relating to
agreements have been complied with, sign the endorsement and return the agreement
to the master.

Note of Protest

Is the ancient practice of noting of protest still worthwhile in today's world? Should
provisions be made by the companies to provide for noting of protest in their
operating procedures?

18
The answer is not straightforward but the following guidelines may be of help to
masters when considering the matter:

1). Noting of protest following an event, which has resulted in damage to the ship or
her cargo or injury to someone on board may be a requirement of the ship's flag state.

2). As a general rule, a note of protest has little, if any, evidential value in court. In
most common-law countries (including England, Canada, India, Australia, English-
speaking South-East Asian and African countries, and the USA), whatever might be
said in the note of protest will need to be established or substantiated in court by
further evidence which may include oral evidence from the master or evidence from
independent sources.

3). In those countries where the Romano-Germanic system of law is applied (this
includes most of Continental Europe, French-speaking African countries, Latin
America and Japan), the noting of protest may still be of importance. In some
countries, the protest is still regarded as an essential formal step in the defence of a
claim against the ship and subsequent evidence is introduced as an extension of the
original protest. If the master fails to note protest upon arrival, the defence of a claim
may be seriously prejudiced. In some countries, it is sufficient if the note of protest is
sworn before a local public notary or the consul representing the ship's flag state, but
in other countries, such as in France, a note of protest is usually made before the
court.

In Brazil, for instance, the noting of protest must be carried out before the local court
within twenty-four hours of the ship's arrival. If the master fails to do so, the ship-
owner is not entitled to rely on certain defences, which may otherwise have enabled
him successfully to defend a claim.

4) A note of protest can also be helpful when there is a need to pursue a claim, rather
than defending it. If stevedores have damaged the ship or cargo during loading or
discharging operations, a detailed note of protest addressed to the stevedores will
certainly be helpful when pursuing a claim against them, even more so if the note of
protest is acknowledged by the stevedore foreman. Also, if the master has noted
protest following an incident when the ship may have grounded, this will provide
useful information when during a subsequent dry-docking, bottom damage is found
and there is a need to relate the claim to a policy under the hull insurance.

The conclusion is that Masters should not be discouraged from issuing a note of
protest following an incident when they think it would be appropriate to do so. Noting
of protest is more likely to protect the owner's position than do it any harm. Masters
should also be encouraged to contact the P & I Club's local correspondent if they have
any doubt as to whether a note of protest should be issued and as to what formalities
need to be carried out.

19
Some Questions on MSA from past DG Papers

Q.1 Explain the following terms as per M.S.A.

a) Wreck
b) Certificate for STP ships
c) Certificate of Insurance for Tankers

Wreck includes the following when found in the sea or in tidal waters or on
the shores thereof:

 Goods which have been cast into the sea and then sink and remain
underwater
 Goods which have been cast or fall into the sea and remain floating on
the surface
 Goods which are sunk in the sea but are tied to a floating object for
recovery later on
 Goods which are thrown away or abandoned
 A vessel abandoned without hope or intention of recovery

A STP means a mechanically propelled vessel carrying more than 30 special

trade passengers. A ship intended to carry STP between ports or places in
India shall not commence voyage from any port or place appointed by the
Central Government unless the Master holds certificate A and B.

The owner of every Indian ship that carries 2000 tons or more oil in bulk as
cargo shall, in respect of ship, maintain an insurance or other financial security
for an amount equivalent to 133 SDR for each ton or 14 million SDR,
whichever is lower. Furthermore, such ships shall be issued by the Director-
General a certificate in such form and giving such particulars as may be
prescribed.

Q.2 An Indian Flag vessel has grounded off the coast of India and the owners
have abandoned the property. In accordance with the provisions under
the Merchant Shipping Act, what steps should be initiated and who
should initiate such steps for the safety of the marine property and the
environment.

When a ship has sustained any accident and received any material damage
affecting her seaworthiness or her efficiency either in her hull or is so altered
in any part of her machinery as not to correspond with her particulars, or have
abandoned the vessel the owner or master, within 24 hours after happening of
the incident or damage, transmit to the Central Government or the nearest
Principal Officer in writing a report of the accident or damage and of the
probable cause thereof stating the name of the ship, her official number, her
port of registry and the place where she is.

The following steps should be initiated by the Master:

 Assessment of the situation

20
  Assessment of the damage
 Taking soundings around the ship
 Checking the stress, stability and the condition of the ship
 The local conditions
 Possibility of undertaking salvage

Q.3 a) What is shipping casualty as per Merchant Shipping Act? What is

your obligation as a Master with regard to reporting of such
casualty?
b) During the process of preliminary inquiry a ship’s officer was
found to be negligent in his duties. What punitive steps can be
initiated within the meaning of M.S. Act. 1958?

For the purpose of investigations and inquiries a shipping casualty shall be

deemed to occur when:

 On or near the coasts of India, any ship is lost, abandoned, stranded or

materially damaged
 On or near the coasts of India any ship causes loss or material damage
to another ship
 Any loss of life ensues by reason of any casualty happening to or
onboard any ship on or near the coasts of India
 In any place, any such loss, abandonment, stranding, material damage
occurs to or onboard any Indian ship and any competent witness
thereof is found in India
 Any Indian ship is lost or supposed to have been lost and any evidence
is obtainable in India as to the circumstances under which she
proceeded to sea or was last heard of.

If the central government has reasons to believe that there are grounds for
charging the ship’s officer with incompetence or misconduct, the central
government may transmit a statement of the case to any court having
jurisdiction which is at or nearest to the place where it may be convenient for
the parties and witnesses to attend and may direct the court to make an inquiry
into that charge. Before commencing the inquiry, the court shall cause the
officer so charged to be furnished with a copy of the statement transmitted by
the central government.

Q.4 What responsibilities have been vested on the owner of the wrecked vessel
in accordance with Part XIII (Wreck and Salvage) of the M.S. Act, 1958?
In view of the recent Wreck and Salvage Conventions. What amendment
you recommend to be incorporated into the above part of the M. S. Act?

Where any vessel is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts
of India, the receiver of wreck shall on being made acquainted with the circumstances
forthwith proceed there and upon his arrival shall take command of all persons
present and shall assign such duties to each person as he thinks fit for the preservation
of the vessel and of the lives of the persons belonging to the vessel and its cargo and

21
equipment. Provided that the receiver shall not interfere between the mater and crew
of the vessel to the management thereof unless he is requested to do so by the master.

This part gives provision for matters relating to wreck and salvage. India has ratified
1989 Salvage Convention and therefore review committee has suggested
that provisions of this Convention may be inserted amending Section 390, 398, 402
(1) and 404.

Q.5 One of the crew members of the ship dies on board due to an explosion on
board at sea. State the procedure to take as provided in MSA 1958 and
international conventions.

If any seaman dies during a voyage the Master must report the death to the next-of-
kin of the seaman, the Shipping master and the Head Office. The property and the
wages of the deceased seaman will be taken care of by the master and he will enter
full details in the official log book. If he fails to take charge then he is accountable to
the Shipping Master.

Q.6 State the Laws as per M.S. Act relating to:

i) Duties of the Master in case of a ‘Collision’.
ii) Duties of the Master on encountering ‘Dangers to navigation’.
iii) Duties of the Master on receiving ‘Distress Massage’.

Actions of a master in case of collision

In every case of collision between two vessels, it is the duty of the master if and so far
as he can do without danger to his own vessel, crew or passengers:

 To render to the other vessel and its compliment such assistance as may be
practical and necessary to save them from danger caused by the collision, and
to stay by the other vessel until he has ascertained that she has no need of
further assistance

 To give the master of the other vessel the name of his own vessel and of the
port to which she belongs, and the names of the ports from which she has
come and to which she is bound

 To make an official log book entry, which is to be signed additionally by the

Mate and one member of the crew

 The Master or the owner shall, within 24 hours after happening of the incident,
transmit to the central government or the nearest principal officer a report of
the accident and of the probable causes thereof stating the name of the ship,
her official number, her port of registry and the place where she is.

If the master fails without reasonable cause to comply with the above he is guilty of
an offence and liable to conviction on indictment to a fine and imprisonment. Further,
in the case of failure to exchange names, ports etc liable on conviction on indictment
to a fine and on summery conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,

22
and in either case if he is a certified officer, and inquiry into his conduct may be held,
and his certificate cancelled or suspended.

It is emphasized that the master’s statutory duties in case of collision must be carried
out whatever the circumstances of the collision may be. Even if one of the colliding
ships is at anchor or moored to a pier, the provisions of the Act shall apply.

The master of any Indian ship on meeting with dangerous ice, a dangerous derelict, a
TRS or any other danger to navigation shall send information accordingly by all
means of communication at his disposal and in accordance with such rules as the
central government may make in this behalf to ships in the vicinity and to such
authorities on shore as may be prescribed by those rules.

The master of an Indian ship on receiving at sea a signal of distress or information

from any source that a vessel or aircraft is in distress shall proceed with all speed to
the assistance of persons in distress unless he is unable or in the special circumstances
of the case considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to do so or unless he is released
from such obligation. He is further to make a statement in the official log book if he
considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to go to the persons in distress.

Q.7 Discuss “Seaworthiness” as defined under the M. S. Act. and under the
Hague Visby Rules. State the responsibilities of Master/ Owner as stated
under the M.S. Act regarding un-seaworthy vessel.

In every contract of service express or implied between the owner of an Indian ship
and the master or any seaman thereof an obligation on the owner that such owner and
the master charged with the loading of such ship or the preparing thereof for sea, shall
use all reasonable means to ensure the seaworthiness of such ship for the voyage at
the time when such voyage commences and to keep her in a seaworthy state during
the voyage.

For the purpose of seeing that the above condition has been complied with, the central
government may, at the request of the owner or otherwise, arrange for the survey of
the hull, equipment or machinery of any sea going ship by a surveyor.

A ship is un-seaworthy within the meaning of the Act when the materials of which
she is made, her construction, the qualification of the master, the number, description
of the crew including officers, the weight description and stowage of cargo and
ballast, the condition of her hull and equipment, boiler and machinery are not such as
to render her in every respect fit for the proposed voyage. Every person who sends or
attempts to send an Indian ship to sea from any port in India in such an un-seaworthy
state that the life of any person is likely to be endangered shall, be guilty of an offence
under the Act. Every master of an Indian ship who knowingly takes such a ship to sea
shall be guilty of an offence under the Act.

As per Hague-Visby rules, neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or
damage arising or resulting from un-seaworthiness unless caused by want of due
diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the
ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating
and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and

23
safe for their reception, carriage and preservation in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 1 of Article III. [The carrier shall be bound, before and at the beginning of
the voyage, to exercise due diligence to (a) make the ship seaworthy; (b) properly
man, equip and supply the ship; (c) make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers,
and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their
reception, carriage and preservation].

Whenever loss or damage has resulted from un-seaworthiness, the burden of proving
the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming
exemption under this article.

Q. 8 Write brief note on:

a) Civil liability of Master & Crew as per M. S. Act.

The owner shall be liable for any pollution damage caused by oil which has escaped
or been discharged from the ship as a result of the incident. No liability for pollution
damage shall attach to the owner if he proves that the pollution damage:
 resulted from an act of war, hostilities, or a natural phenomenon of an
exceptional inevitable character
 was wholly caused by an act or omission done with the intent to cause such
damage by any other person
 was wholly caused by the negligence of any government authority responsible
for maintenance of lights or other navigational aids in exercise of that
functions in that behalf

Without prejudice to any right of recourse of the owner against third parties, no claim
for compensation may be made against the servants or agents of the owner or the
members of the crew. Also, unless the incident causing such damage occurred as a
result of their personal act or omission committed or made with the intent to cause
such damage with the knowledge that such damage would probably result.

If oil or oily mixture is discharged in contravention to the Act, then:

 The Master of the tanker, or of a vessel other than a tanker, shall be liable to a
fine which may extend up to five lakh rupees
If the equipment is NOT fitted as per the Act, or willfully falsifying entries in the oil
record book then:
 The Master shall be liable to a fine of ten thousand rupees
 For NOT maintaining an oil record book – five thousand rupees

Q. 9 “The central Govt. has powers to detain Un-seaworthy and Unsafe ships”
Discuss the above statements with respect to MSA 1958. Also discuss the
procedure for subsequent release of ships detained under above
provisions.

When an Indian ship in any port is an unsafe ship, that is to say, is by reason of
defective condition of her hull, equipment or machinery or by reason of improper
loading, such ship may be provisionally detained for the purpose being surveyed. A
written statement of the grounds of such detention shall be forthwith served on the
master of such ship. Before an order for final detention is made, a copy of the report
shall be served on the master and within seven days after such service the owner or

24
master may appeal against such report, in the manner prescribed to the court of survey
for the port where the ship is detained.

Where the ship has been provisionally detained, the central government may at any
time if satisfied that the ship detained is no long unsafe order her to be released either
upon or without conditions.

Q.10 With reference to M. S. Act. Explain the following

a) Contents of A and B Certificate with respect to special trade

passenger vessels.
b) Procedure for registering an Indian ship abroad.

Content of Certificate A

 That the ship is seaworthy

 That the ship is properly equipped, fitted and ventilated
 The number of STP that the ship is certified to carry
 Other particulars that may be prescribed

The validity of the Certificate A shall be one year from the date of issue

Content of Certificate B

 The voyage that the ship is to make and the intermediate ports that she is
supposed to touch
 That she has proper compliment of officers and seamen
That the master holds:
 A certificate of survey and a Certificate A or a passenger ship safety certificate
accompanied by an exemption certificate, a STP ship safety certificate and a
STP space certificate
 Number of medical officers and attendants
 The food, fuel and pure water have been placed on board
 In case of STP ship if the ship is to make a voyage in season of foul weather
and to carry upper deck passengers that she is furnished with sufficient
bulwarks and a double awning or with other sufficient protection against the
weather
 In case of STP ship the number of cabin and STP embarked at the port of
embarkation
 Any other particulars as may be prescribed

If at any port outside India a ship becomes entitled to be registered as an Indian ship,
the Indian consular officer there may grant to her master on his application a
provisional certificate containing such particulars as may be prescribed in relation to
the ship and shall forward a copy of the certificate at the first convenient opportunity
to the Director-General. Such provisional certificate of registry shall have the effect of
a certificate of registry until the expiration of six months from its date or until the
arrival of the ship at a port where there is a registrar whichever happens first, and on
either of those events shall have cease to have effect.

25
Q.11. Discuss the important aspects of the “articles of Agreement” between
Master and crew on board a merchant ship registered under the
Merchant Shipping Act. How it is different that the “Collective
Bargaining Agreement” which is normally in practice on board ships of
“Flag of Convenience”?

The master of every Indian ship, except a home trade ship less than 200 GT, is
obliged to enter into an agreement with every seaman whom he engages in, and
carries to sea as one of his crew. Under Section 100 of the MSA, it is known as the
“Agreement with the crew” but commonly known as “Articles of Agreement”. The
Section stipulates 11 elements as to what the agreement is to contain (name, capacity,
duties, wages, scale of provisions, scale of warm clothing, regulations for conduct on
board and fines, compensation for personal injury etc.). The law makes it clear that
the agreement is made between the owner and each member of the crew and not with
crew as a collective unit. Also, the agreement is never between the Master and the
crew. Another document that can be part of the agreement document is a crew list, but
it can be separate also. On closure of the crew agreement it is to be deposited with the
shipping master.

Collective bargaining

Negotiation between organized workers and their employer or employers to determine

wages, hours, rules, and working conditions. It can also be defined as the process by
which members of the labour force, operating through authorized union
representatives, negotiate with their employers concerning wages, hours, working
conditions, and benefits.

Further definition

Collective bargaining is "a process of negotiation between management and union

representatives for the purpose of arriving at mutually acceptable wages and working
conditions for employees" (Boone and Kurtz, 1999, pp. 424-425). Various methods
may be used in the bargaining process, but the desired outcome is always mutual
acceptance by labour and management of a collective bargaining agreement or
contract.

The Bargaining Process

The collective bargaining process begins when the majority of workers of an

organization vote to be represented by a specific union. The National Labour
Relations Board (of the country) then certifies the union. At this point, the
management of the organization must recognize the union as the collective bargaining
agent for all the employees of that organization. Once this part of the process is
completed, collective bargaining can begin.

Many different negotiation styles can be used when union and labour representatives
sit down at the bargaining table. The two basic modes of bargaining are traditional
bargaining and partnership bargaining, though there are many variations of each style.

26
The traditional style of bargaining has been used since collective bargaining began
between management and the early labour unions. It is an adversarial style of
negotiating, pitting one side against the other with little or no understanding of, or
education about, the other on the part of either party. Each side places its demands
and proposals on the table, and the other side responds to them with counterproposals.
The process is negative and involves a struggle of give-and-take on most issues. Even
with its negative connotations, however, the traditional style of negotiating is still
used effectively in bargaining many union contracts.

The partnership style of bargaining is the more modern approach to negotiations. It

strives for mutual understanding and common education on the part of both labour
and management, and it focuses on goals and concerns common to both parties.
Because of its emphasis on each side's being aware of the issues concerning the other
side, partnership-style bargaining is also known as interest-based bargaining. In this
process, labour and management each list and explain their needs, and the ensuing
discussion revolves around ways to meet those needs that will be not only acceptable
but also beneficial to both parties. This style of bargaining is very positive and
imparts a much more congenial atmosphere to the negotiating process. Many modern
union-management contracts are bargained very successfully using the partnership
style.

A blending of the traditional and partnership styles is widely used in labour-

management negotiations. The combination approach is used for many reasons;
including the fact that many union and management leaders are more familiar with the
traditional style. However, with today's more participatory relationship between
labour and management in the workplace, the partnership style is becoming more
accepted and is being used more frequently. The negotiating process may also include
both styles of bargaining because of the variety of issues being negotiated. The
partnership style may be used to negotiate certain issues, while the traditional style
may be invoked when bargaining other terms.

The Settlement Process

Union contracts are usually bargained to remain in effect for two to three years but
may cover longer or shorter periods of time. The process of negotiating a union
contract, however, may take an extended period of time. Once the management and
union members of the negotiating team come to agreement on the terms of the
contract, the union members must accept or reject the agreement by a majority vote. If
the agreement is accepted, the contract is ratified and becomes a legally binding
agreement remaining in effect for the specified period of time.

Collective Bargaining Issues

S. No Issues Parameters
1 Wages Regular Compensation, Overtime Compensation,
Incentives, Insurance, Pensions
2 Hours Regular Work Hours, Overtime Work Hours, Vacations,
Holidays
3 Working Conditions Rest Periods, Grievance Procedures, Union Membership,
Dues Collection
4 Job Security Seniority, Evaluation, Promotion, Layoffs, Recalls

27
Finally…

Collective bargaining is a successful way for workers to reach their goals concerning
accept able wages, hours, and working conditions. It allows workers to bargain as a
team to satisfy their needs. Collective bargaining also allows management to negotiate
efficiently with workers by bargaining with them as a group instead of with each one
individually. Though traditional bargaining can be negative and adversarial, it does
produce collective bargaining agreements between labour and management.
Partnership bargaining can lead to increased understanding and trust between labour
and management. It is a positive, cooperative approach to collective bargaining that
also culminates in contracts between labour and management.

Q.12 You have purchased a second hand bulk carrier under Indian
flag named Orion. How will you transfer the ship under Indian flag with
name and proof Registry of your choice?

Registration of ships may differ from one country to another but by and large the
registrar of ships would require the following documents before registering a ship:

1. Declaration of ownership
2. Bill of Sale
3. Carving note
4. Certificate of survey

1. Declaration of ownership

Before an owner can register a ship he must make a declaration a prescribed form of
his qualification to own the ship as well as stating the number of shares to be held by
him and others having the requisite qualifications. The declaration must state the
name, the year and place of built of the ship, that the owner is qualified to own the
ship and that no unqualified person has a share in the ship.

2. Bill of Sale

In case of a second hand vessel, the owner who acquires the vessel must insist on a
bill of sale from the seller. The buyer will produce the bill of sale to the registrar at
her port of registry and after satisfying himself the registrar will endorse the register
with the new owner’s name.

3. Carving Note

After checking the declaration of ownership and the bill of sale, the ship is given and
official number and signal letters. These are recorded in the official register of the
country to which the ship belongs. The registrar now enters the following particulars
in the register:

 Official number, name, port and date of registry, signal letters

 Particulars of ship dimensions, tonnage, number of masts, decks and
bulkheads
 Name and address of the owner

28
  A record of any mortgages together with discharge or transfer of these
 The master’s name and his certificate number
 Any change in the ship’s name or port of registry.

After entering the above particulars in the register book, the registrar issues a carving
note. After this the ship is surveyed by the authorized government surveyors to check
the ship’s markings, equipment etc.

4. Certificate of survey

After checking the ship’s markings, the surveyor signs the carving note indicating that
the requisite markings exist on the ship for the issuing the certificate of survey. The
surveyor also checks that the LSA, FFA, radio equipment, light and sound signals and
pilot ladders are all governed by the statute. After detailed checking of the above
items the surveyor submits to the registrar the endorsed carving note and the
certificate of survey and then the registrar issues the certificate of registry.

Q.13 a) What are the entries required to be made in the official log book as
per MSA – 1958?
b) What is the legal significance of certificate of registry?

Official Log

The official log must be distinguished from all other logs. Entries once made may not
be altered or cancelled. They can only be cancelled by making another entry where
the earlier entry is referred as “inaccurate and incomplete”.

The entries to be made in the official log are governed by Section 214 of MSA and
generally include legal convictions, offence committed and disciplinary proceedings,
record of injury, birth and deaths, a variety of inspections, seamen left behind or
repatriated, distress signals, details of ship, owner and Master, record of its voyages
including drafts and freeboard on departure each port of call. In short it is a formal
record of every legally significant event on board.

Under Section 194 of MSA, a seaman is guilty of an offence against discipline if he

commits any of the following acts:

1. If he quits the ship without leave

2. If he is guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command or neglect of duty
3. If he is guilty of continued wilful disobedience to any lawful command or
continued neglect of duty
4. If he assaults the Master, any officer, apprentice or member of the crew
5. If he combines with any of the crew to disobey any lawful command or to
neglect of duty or to impede navigation or retard the progress of the voyage
6. If he wilfully damages his ship or commits criminal misappropriation or
breach of trust in respect, or wilfully damages any of, her stores or cargo

The following procedure is to be taken for a disciplinary action:

29
Warn the rating and give a specific time for improvement – make a log book entry
If the offence is committed for desertion, absence without leave, indiscipline or
misconduct for which the crew agreement awards a fine – make a log book entry
which is to be signed by the master, mate and one of the crew member. The offending
rating is to be given a copy of the log book entry and also explained to him. If he has
a reply the same too is to be recorded. If he has no reply, a statement to that effect has
to be recorded and signed in the abovementioned manner. The signature of one of the
crew is extremely important.

Certificate of Registry

Once the certificate of registry is issued it is valid until revoked by the registrar. In
case the certificate is lost the registrar at the port where the loss was discovered must
be contacted. If the ship is in foreign waters then the consul should be contacted who
after determining the facts of the loss will issue a provisional certificate of registry.

The certificate of registry is instrumental in establishing the identity of the ship

owner, it is prima facie evidence that the vessel is Indian and can claim the privileges
and be subject to resulting obligations and it is the official record to regularize the
appointment of the master. The certificate of registry should always be kept on board
at all times and under no circumstances be used as security or to support a lien or
claim. Any changes necessitated in details given in the certificate must be promptly
notified, whether it be the change of master or some alteration in the description of the
vessel itself.

The registry is closed when the vessel is no longer Indian and thus ceases to be an
Indian vessel or in case of an actual or constructive loss.

Q.14 With reference to the Indian Merchant Shipping Act and latest
exemptions describe the procedures for engagement and discharge of
crew in India.

There are two types of employment offered to Indian seamen on board Indian ships:

1. Permanent employment by a company – they are subject to and governed by:

 MSA 1958
 Articles of Agreement
 Terms of contract signed between the employees and the employers

2. Registration at the seamen’s Employment Office (SEO) – they are subject to

and governed by:

 MSA 1958
 Articles of Agreement
 SEO Rules 1954
 Decisions of the Seamen’s Employment Board
 Terms and conditions of service as agreed to at NMB, which is a bipartite
organization of ship owners and seafarers.

30
Engagement of Seamen

The master of every Indian ship, except a home trade ship less than 200 GT, is
obliged to enter into an agreement with every seaman whom he engages in, and
carries to sea as one of his crew. Under Section 100 of the MSA, it is known as the
“Agreement with the crew” but commonly known as “Articles of Agreement”. The
Section stipulates 11 elements as to what the agreement is to contain (name, capacity,
duties, wages, scale of provisions, scale of warm clothing, regulations for conduct on
board and fines, compensation for personal injury etc.). The law makes it clear that
the agreement is made between the owner and each member of the crew and not with
crew as a collective unit. Also, the agreement is never between the Master and the
crew. Another document that can be part of the agreement document is a crew list, but
it can be separate also. On closure of the crew agreement it is to be deposited with the
shipping master.

Discharge of Seaman

Section 118 of the MSA insists that on the termination of his engagement, the rating
must be discharged in the presence of the shipping master. In case in foreign waters,
he should be signed off in the presence of the Consular Officer. Under Section 119 the
master is obliged to give a certificate of his discharge in the prescribed form
specifying the period of his service and the time and place of discharge.

However, under Section 214 (d) if a seaman is to be discharged prior to his

completion of tenure, the Master is to make the relevant entry in the Official Log
Book in the presence of the Mate and one more person, preferably the head of the
department. Failure to do so can result in a claim by the seaman from the company,
which can be up to three month’s wages.

Q.15 UNCLOS 94 states, “Flag states should ensure safety on board their
vessels”. With reference to the M. S. Act discuss the authority of the flag
state in ensuring safety on Indian vessels.

When an Indian ship in any port is an unsafe ship, that is to say, is by reason of
defective condition of her hull, equipment or machinery or by reason of improper
loading, such ship may be provisionally detained for the purpose being surveyed. A
written statement of the grounds of such detention shall be forthwith served on the
master of such ship. Before an order for final detention is made, a copy of the report
shall be served on the master and within seven days after such service the owner or
master may appeal against such report, in the manner prescribed to the court of survey
for the port where the ship is detained.

Q.16 The official logbook is mandatory for all Indian flag vessels. With
reference to the M. S. Act state the official logbook requirements in the
context of procedure in dealing with entries regarding disciplinary
offence what are the legal implications of such entries?

The following procedure is to be taken for a disciplinary action:

Warn the rating and give a specific time for improvement – make a log book entry

31
If the offence is committed for desertion, absence without leave, indiscipline or
misconduct for which the crew agreement awards a fine – make a log book entry
which is to be signed by the master, mate and one of the crew member. The offending
rating is to be given a copy of the log book entry and also explained to him. If he has
a reply the same too is to be recorded. If he has no reply, a statement to that effect has
to be recorded and signed in the abovementioned manner. The signature of one of the
crew is extremely important.

Q.17 Discuss the features of DG Shipping notice M.S.19/2002 guidelines with

reference to piracy and explain.

a) Guidance on preparing a anti – piracy plan

b) Action when pirates board the vessel.
c) Action after the attack

Purpose of this Merchant Ship notice M.S.19/2002 is to bring to the attention of all
masters, crew, ship owners, managers and agents, the risk of piracy on high seas and
armed robbery against ships while at anchor, in port or while underway through the
waters of a coastal state. This notice is more importantly meant to serve as a guide in
dealing with such acts of violence.

Piracy is an offence committed on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction
of any State. As per provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Seas (UNCLOS), a pirate who has been apprehended on the high seas is to be dealt
with under the laws of the flag State of his captors.

Within territorial waters, jurisdiction over armed robbers or pirates rests solely with
the Coastal State.

GUIDANCE IN PREPARING AN ANTI-PIRACY PLAN

These guidelines are purely recommendatory in nature.

The Anti-Attack Plan

The plan should be ship specific & prepared while taking in account the level of risk
that may be encountered. Some of the factors that merit consideration would be,
number of crew available and their capabilities & training, design of the ship in the
respect to ability to establish secure areas, availability of surveillance and detection
equipment onboard etc. A typical plan would consist of following key points.

Key points:-
 Be vigilant
 Reduce opportunities for theft
 Establish secure area(s)
 Prepare and exercise anti-attack plans
 Report all incidents to the coastal and flag state authorities

32
IF ATTACKERS BOARD THE VESSEL

There is no substitute to early detection of potential attacks and this first line of
defence must be strengthened utilizing all available resources available. In an
unfortunate instance where attackers have indeed managed to board the vessel,
following should be adhered to, in as much as possible under the circumstances.

Securing the greatest level of safety for those on board the vessel;
Seeking to ensure that the crew remains in control of the navigation of the vessel;
Securing the earliest possible departure of the attackers from the vessel
Crewmembers should operate together and remain in constant communication with
the bridge and should be recalled if their line of withdrawal to a secure area is
threatened.

There will be many circumstances when compliance with the attackers' demands will
be the only safe alternative and when resistance or obstruction of any kind could be
both futile and dangerous.

It should be remembered that attackers are in fact almost always short of time.
Masters are advised to exploit this weakness.

ACTION AFTER AN ATTACK

If crew has apprehended an attacker, he should be placed in secure confinement and

well cared for. Arrangements should be made to transfer him to the custody of law
enforcement officers of a coastal State at the earliest possible opportunity. Any
evidence relating to his activities should also be handed over to the authorities who
take him into custody.

If an attack has resulted in the death of or serious injury to any person on board the
ship or serious damage to the ship itself, an immediate signal should also be sent to
the ship's maritime administration as per the statutory requirements.

Any CCTV or other recordings of the incident should be secured. If practicable, areas
that have been damaged should be secured and remain untouched by crewmembers
pending possible forensic examination by the law enforcement agencies of a coastal
State.

Crewmembers that have came in contact with the attackers should be asked to prepare
an individual report on their experience noting in particular any distinguishing
features, which could help subsequent identification of the attackers.

A full inventory of stolen goods including a description of any personal possessions

or equipment damaged/stolen should be prepared.

Reports to the RCC, coastal State and the ships maritime administration should also
be made if an attack has been unsuccessful.

33
Q.18 Discuss the provision of the M. S. Act, concerning registration of ships.

A ship is granted a certificate of registry by the registrar of ships when the ship is first
registered in the country concerned. It is an official document giving precise details of
the ship concerning tonnage and dimensions.

Registration of ships may differ from one country to another but by and large the
registrar of ships would require the following documents before registering a ship:

 Declaration of ownership
 Builder’s certificate
 Carving note
 Certificate of survey

 Declaration of ownership

Before an owner can register a ship he must make a declaration a prescribed form of
his qualification to own the ship as well as stating the number of shares to be held by
himself and others having the requisite qualifications. The declaration must state the
name, the year and place of built of the ship, that the owner is qualified to own the
ship and that no unqualified person has a share in the ship.

 Builder’s certificate

When registering a new ship the owner will have to produce to the registrar a
builder’s certificate duly signed by the builder which states when and where the ship
was built and on whose account the ship was built. In case of a second hand vessel,
the owner who acquires the vessel must insist on a bill of sale from the seller. The
buyer will produce the bill of sale to the registrar at her port of registry and after
satisfying himself the registrar will endorse the register with the new owner’s name.

 Carving Note

After checking the declaration of ownership and the builder’s certificate, the ship is
given and official number and signal letters. These are recorded in the official register
of the country to which the ship belongs. The registrar now enters the following
particulars in the register:

 Official number, name, port and date of registry, signal letters

 Particulars of ship dimensions, tonnage, number of masts, decks and
bulkheads
 Name and address of the owner
 A record of any mortgages together with discharge or transfer of these
 The first master’s name and his certificate number
 Any change in the ship’s name or port of registry.

34
After entering the above particulars in the register book, the registrar issues a carving
note. After this the ship is surveyed by the authorized government surveyors to check
the ship’s markings, equipment etc.

 Certificate of survey

After checking the ship’s markings, the surveyor signs the carving note indicating that
the requisite markings have been made on the ship for the issuing the certificate of
survey. The surveyor also checks that the LSA, FFA, radio equipment, light and
sound signals and pilot ladders are all governed by the statute. After detailed checking
of the above items the surveyor submits to the registrar the endorsed carving note and
the certificate of survey and then the registrar issues the certificate of registry.

Q.19 Why do ship owners prefer to register a ship under FOC? What is the
disadvantage of FOC Registration over a Flag State Registered ship?

A ship that is registered in a particular state flies the flag of that state and is subject to
the laws of that state. Different states have differing attitude to the question of which
ships may or must be registered in that state. Some countries are very strict and some
countries are very liberal and accept any vessel. If a state with a liberal approach to
registration can also offer tax or other business advantages to ship owners, then it may
attract large amounts of tonnage and its flag will be flown by many vessels that have
no real connection with the country at all. These are called the flags of convenience.
The phrase FOC is used to describe the registration of ships under flag of certain
states when they are in fact owned beneficially owned and controlled by national of
other countries and manned by foreign nationals. Shipping registration laws of such
“convenience” countries ignore the requirement of national ownership.

Once the certificate of registry is issued it is valid until revoked by the registrar. In
case the certificate is lost the registrar at the port where the loss was discovered must
be contacted. If the ship is in foreign waters then the consul should be contacted who
after determining the facts of the loss will issue a provisional certificate of registry.

The certificate of registry is instrumental in establishing the identity of the ship

owner, it is prima facie evidence that the vessel is Indian and can claim the privileges
and be subject to resulting obligations and it is the official record to regularize the
appointment of the master. The certificate of registry should always be kept on board
at all times and under no circumstances be used as security or to support a lien or
claim. Any changes necessitated in details given in the certificate must be promptly
notified, whether it be the change of master or some alteration in the description of the
vessel itself.

The registry is closed when the vessel is no longer Indian and thus ceases to be an
Indian vessel or in case of an actual or constructive loss.

Q.20 Briefly describe the provisions of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act
regarding “investigations and Inquiries pertaining to shipping casualties.

35
If the central government has reasons to believe that there are grounds for charging
the ship’s officer with in competency or misconduct, the central government may
transmit a statement of the case to any court having jurisdiction which is at or nearest
to the place where it may be convenient for the parties and witnesses to attend and
may direct the court to make an inquiry into that charge. Before commencing the
inquiry, the court shall cause the officer so charged to be furnished with a copy of the
statement transmitted by the central government.

For the purpose of any inquiry into any charge, the court may summon the person to
appear, and shall give him an opportunity of making a defence either in person or
otherwise.

Q. 21 a) State the National Colours to the Indian ship under Section 63 of

M. S. Act, 1958.
b) Under what circumstances, Indian ship is required to hoist proper
National Colour?

The central government may by notification in the official gazette declare what shall
be the proper national colours for all ships registered under the MSA and for all ships
which are not so registered but which are owned by the government and different
colours may be declared for the different classes of ships. Any commissioned officer
of the Indian navy or any customs collector or any consular officer may board any
ship on which colours are hoisted contrary to this Act and seize and take away the
colours which shall be fortified to the government.

 An Indian ship shall hoist the proper national colours

 On a signal being made to her by any vessel of the Indian navy
 On entering or leaving any foreign port
 If of fifty gross tons or more, on entering or leaving an Indian port

Q. 22 Under what circumstances the following Certificate of Registry are issued

under the provision of Merchant Shipping Act.
i) Provisional
ii) Duplicate
iii) Temporary

In case the certificate of registry is lost, the registrar at the port where the loss is
discovered must be contacted. If the ship is in foreign waters and the certificate is lost,
the proper authority to contact is the consul which after determining the facts
regarding the loss will issue a provisional certificate.

Where a certificate of registry is mislaid, that is it is misplaced but can be found later
on, a duplicate certificate of registry will be issued. The procedure for its issuance
remains the same.

Where it appears to the central government that by reason of any special

circumstances it is desirable that permission should be granted to any Indian ship to
pass without being previously registered from one port to another port in India, the
central government may authorise the registrar of the first mentioned port to grant a
pass (TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY) in such form as may be

36
prescribed, and that pass shall for the time and within the limits therein mentioned
have the same effect as a certificate of registry.

Q. 23 a) What are the objectives of a shipping casualty investigation?

b) State the procedure to conduct shipping casualty investigation in
accordance with Section 358 – 361
c) What are the functions of marine board and courts of survey as
specified in M.S. Act under Section 376 & 384 respectively?

The objective of a casualty investigation is to:

 Find out what went wrong
 The circumstances due to which the casualty took place
 Apportion responsibility
 Take necessary action against the defaulters
 Conclude lessons learnt
 To give warnings to others of what not to do in order to prevent a similar
incident
 To update annual statistics of incidents

If the central government has reasons to believe that there are grounds for charging
the ship’s officer with in competency or misconduct, the central government may
transmit a statement of the case to any court having jurisdiction which is at or nearest
to the place where it may be convenient for the parties and witnesses to attend and
may direct the court to make an inquiry into that charge. Before commencing the
inquiry, the court shall cause the officer so charged to be furnished with a copy of the
statement transmitted by the central government.

For the purpose of any inquiry into any charge, the court may summon the person to
appear, and shall give him an opportunity of making a defence either in person or
otherwise.

A marine board may, after investigating and hearing the case if it is of the opinion
that the safety of an Indian ship requires it, remove the master and appoint another
qualified person to act in his stead. If the marine board is of the opinion that the
master or any officer is guilty of incompetence or misconduct, suspend the certificate
of the master or that officer. In such a case, the master or the ship’s officer is required
to be furnished with a statement of the case in respect of which an investigation has
been ordered and the person concerned has been given a right to defence
.
Q. 24 Penal jurisdiction in matter of collision or any other incident of
navigation under Article 97 of United Nation Convention on Laws of Seas
1982.

Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation

1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on

the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any
other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be
instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities
either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.

37
2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master's certificate or a
certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process,
to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of
the State which issued them.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be

ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag State.

Q.25 a) The preamble of Indian M.S. Act 1958 state “an Act to foster the
development and ensure efficient maintenance of any Indian
Mercantile Marine through registration of the ships”. In view of
this define the following:
i) Indian Ship ii) Port of Registry
iii) Owner iv) Master
v) Seaman

An Indian ship means a ship registered under this Act and includes any ship
registered at any port in India.

Port of Registry in relation to a ship or a sailing vessel means the port at which she is
registered or is to be registered.

Owner means in relationship to a ship, the person to whom the ship or a share in the
ship belongs. In case of a sailing vessel, the person to whom the sailing vessel
belongs.

Master includes any person (except pilot or harbour master) having command or
charge of a ship.

Seaman means every person (except master, pilot or apprentice) employed or

engaged as a member of the crew of a ship as defined under the MSA, but includes
the master for the purpose of litigation.

Q. 26 What are the objectives of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act of 1958?
Discuss its applicability with reference to:
a) Indian Ships b) Foreign Ships.
Briefly describe its form and contents.

Immediately after independence to suit the requirements of a maritime country like

India the MSA 1958 was passed by the parliament. This Act had made good the
deficiencies in earlier laws in that they did not provide for registration of Indian ships.
Certain enabling provisions were also incorporated in the Act to accelerate the pace of
development of shipping in the post-independence period. It is an act to foster the
development and ensure the efficient maintenance of an Indian mercantile marine, in
a manner best suited to serve the national interest and for that purpose to establish a
national shipping board, to provide for the registration of Indian ships and to generally
amend and consolidate the law relating to merchant shipping.

The Act is divided into eighteen parts each dealing with specific aspects of merchant
shipping like registration, constitution of shipping, manning of ships, seaman and

38
apprentices, safety of passenger and cargo ships, control of Indian ships and ships
engaged in the coastal trade etc.

Q. 27 a) Define the term certified crew accommodation.

b) State briefly, the requirements of crew accommodation on Indian
Registered ships operating in International Waters.

Accommodation aboard ships for crews, officers, passengers, if any, includes sleeping
quarters, toilet and bath facilities, mess rooms, dining rooms, recreational areas, and
hospital and medical care spaces. All these vary with the size and class of the ship in
service. International agreements have been reached covering accommodation for
crews and officers. There are minimum requirements in the interest of the health and
safety of passengers and crew.

International agreements covering accommodation aboard ships are:

 Accommodation of crews convention (revised), International Labour

Conference conventions and recommendations 1919-1949; Geneva
 International Health Regulations 2008, WHO
 Joint ILO/WHO Committee on the hygiene of seafarers, 1961

The first convention provides that the crew sleeping quarters shall not be located
below the deepest load line and that the sleeping space per crew member shall range
from 18 to 30 square feet depending upon the size of the ship with a clear headroom
of 6 feet 3 inches as minimum and no more than four persons shall occupy one
sleeping room. The sleeping rooms and mess rooms shall be adequately ventilated and
that there shall be at least one toilet and one shower for every eight persons and one
wash basin for every six persons.

Q. 28 Under what circumstances, you as a Master would note protest. State the
procedure for noting protest in foreign port.

If any of the circumstance enumerated below it is advisable for the master to not a
protest:

 Whenever during a voyage the ship has encountered conditions of wind and
sea which may result in damage to cargo
 When from any cause the ship is damaged or there are reasons to believe that
damage may be sustained
 When through stress of weather it has not been practicable to adopt normal
precautions in the matter of ventilation of perishable cargo
 When the cargo is shipped in such a condition that it is likely to suffer
deterioration during the voyage
 When any serious breach of charter party terms is committed by the charterer
or his agent
 When consignees fail to discharge cargo to take delivery thereof, and pay
freight in accordance with charter party or bill of lading terms
 All cases of general average

39
Protests should be made as soon as possible, certainly within 24 hours of arrival in
port. The note of protest must be made before a notary public, magistrate, consular
officer, or other authority. Usually statements under oath will be taken from the
master and the other members of the crew and these statements will have to be
supported by appropriate log book entries.

40
Chapter 2 – Documentation

41
Chapter 2 – Documentation
CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE
CARRIED
ON BOARD SHIPS
(Note: All certificates to be carried on board must be originals)

Section 1: All ships

1) International Tonnage Certificate (1969)

Tonnage Convention, article 7

2) International Load Line Certificate

LL Convention, article 16; 1988 LL Protocol, article 18

3) International Load Line Exemption Certificate

LL Convention, article 6; 1988 LL Protocol, article 18

4) Intact stability booklet

SOLAS 1974, regulations II-1/22and II-1/25-8; 1988 LL Protocol, regulation
10

5) Damage control plans and booklets

SOLAS 1974, regulations II-1/23, 23-1, 25-8;

6) Minimum safe manning document

SOLAS 1974 (2000 amendments), regulation V/14.2

7) Fire safety training manual

SOLAS 1974(2000 amendments) regulation II-2/15.2.3

8) Fire Control plan/booklet

SOLAS 1974 (2000 amendments), regulation II-2/15.2.4

9) On board training and drills record

SOLAS 1974 (2000 amendments), regulation II-2/15.2.2.5

10) Fire safety operational booklet

SOLAS 1974 (2000 amendments), regulation II-2/16.2

11) Certificates for masters, officers or ratings

STCW 1978, article VI, regulation I/2; STCW Code, section A-I/2

12) International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 5

42
13) Oil Record Book
MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 20

14) Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 26

15) International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate

MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV, regulation 5;

16) Garbage Management Plan.

MARPOL 73/78, Annex V, regulation 9

17) Garbage Record Book

MARPOL 73/78, Annex V, regulation 9

18) Voyage data recorder system-certificate of compliance

SOLAS 1974, regulation V/18.8

19) Cargo Securing Manual

SOLAS 1974 (2002 amendments), regulations VI/5.6 andVII/5;

20) Document of Compliance

SOLAS 1974, regulation IX/4; ISM Code, paragraph 13

21) Safety Management Certificate

SOLAS 1974, regulation IX/4; ISM Code, paragraph 13

22) International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) or Interim International

Ship Security Certificate
SOLAS 1974 (2002 amendments), regulation XI-2/9.1.1;ISPS Code part A,
section and appendices.

23) Ship Security Plan and associated records

SOLAS 1974 (2002 amendments), regulation XI-2/9; ISPS Code part A,
sections 9 and 10

24) Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR)

SOLAS 1974 (2002 amendments), regulation XI-1/5

43
 Section 2: In addition to the certificates listed in section 1 above,
PASSENGER SHIPS shall carry

1) Passenger Ship Safety Certificate

SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12, as amended by the GMDSS amendments; 1988
SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12, (2000 amendments), appendix

2) Exemption Certificate2
SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12; 1988 SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12

3) Special Trade Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, Special Trade Passenger

Ship Space Certificate
Search and rescue co-operation plan
SOLAS 1974 (2000 amendments),

4) List of operational limitations

SOLAS 19742000 amendments), regulation V/30

5) Decision support system for masters

SOLAS 1974, regulation III/29

Section 3: In addition to the certificates listed in section 1 above,

CARGO SHIPS shall carry

1) Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate

SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12, as amended by the GMDSS amendments; 1988
SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12

2) Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate4

SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12,

3) Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate5

1988 SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12

4) Cargo Ship Safety Certificate

1988 SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12(2000 amendments), appendix

5) Exemption Certificate
SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12; 1988 SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12

6) Document of authorization for the carriage of grain

SOLAS 1974, regulation VI/9; International Code for the Safe Carriage of
Grain in Bulk, section 3

7) Certificate of insurance or other financial security in respect of civil

liability for oil pollution damage
CLC 1969, article VII

44
8) Certificate of insurance or other financial security in respect of civil
liability for oil pollution damage
CLC 1992, article VII

9) Enhanced survey report file

SOLAS 1974 (2002 amendments), regulation XI-1/2; resolution A.744 (18)

10) Record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for the last ballast
voyage
MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 15(3) (a)

11) Cargo Information

SOLAS 1974, regulations VI/2and XII/10;

12) Bulk Carrier Booklet

SOLAS 1974, regulations VI/7 and; XII/8; Code of Practice for the Safe
Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (BLU Code)

13) Dedicated Clean Ballast Tank Operation Manual

MARPOL 73/78.MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 13A

14) Crude Oil Washing Operation and Equipment Manual (COW Manual)
MARPOL 73/78.MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 13B

15) Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) Statement of Compliance, CAS

Final Report and Review Record
MARPOL 73/78, Annex I (2001 amendments

16) Hydrostatically Balanced Loading (HBL) Operational Manual

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I (2001 amendments (resolution MEPC.95 (46)),
regulation 13G

17) Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control (ODMC) Operational Manual

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 15(3) (c)

18) Subdivision and stability information

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, regulation 25

45
Section 4: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3
above, where appropriate, any SHIP CARRYING NOXIOUS
LIQUID CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES IN BULK shall carry

1) International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious

Liquid Substances in Bulk (NLS Certificate)
MARPOL 73/78, Annex II, regulations 11 and 12A

2) Cargo record book

MARPOL 73/78, Annex II, regulation 9

3) Procedures and Arrangements Manual (P & A Manual)

MARPOL 73/78, Annex II, regulations 5, 5A and 8

4) Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan for Noxious Liquid

Substances
MARPOL 73/78, Annex II, regulation 16

Section 5: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3

above, where applicable, any CHEMICAL TANKER shall carry

1) Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk

Note: The Code is mandatory under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for chemical
tankers constructed before 1 July 1986
or
BCH Code, section 1.6; BCH Code as modified by resolution MSC.18 (58),
section 1.6

2) International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous

Chemicals in Bulk
Note: The Code is mandatory under both Chapter VII of SOLAS 1974 and
Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for chemical tankers constructed on or after 1
July 1986. IBC Code, section 1.5; IBC Code as modified by resolutions
MSC.16 (58) and MEPC.40 (29), section 1.5

Section 6: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3

above, where applicable, any GAS CARRIER shall carry

1) Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk

GC Code, section 1.6

2) International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in

Bulk
Note : The Code is mandatory under chapter VII of SOLAS1974 for gas
carriers constructed on or after 1 July1986.IGC Code, section 1.5; IGC Code
as modified by resolution MSC.17 (58), section 1.5

46
Section 7: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1, and 2 or 3
above, where applicable, any SHIP CARRYING DANGEROUS
GOODS shall carry

1) Document of compliance with the special requirements for ships carrying

dangerous goods
SOLAS 1974, (2000 amendments), regulation II-2/19.4

Section 8: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1, and 2 or 3

above, where applicable, any SHIP CARRYING DANGEROUS
GOODS IN PACKAGED FORM shall carry

1) Dangerous goods manifest or stowage plan

SOLAS 1974, (2002 amendments), regulations VII/4.5 andVII/7-2; MARPOL
73/78, Annex III, regulation 4

Section 9: In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1, and 2 or 3

above, where applicable, any SHIP CARRYING INF CARGO shall
carry

1) International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of INF Cargo

SOLAS 1974, regulation VII/16; INF Code

Section 10: Other certificates and documents, which are NOT

MANDATORY

Special purpose ships

1) Special Purpose Ship Safety Certificate

SOLAS 1974, regulation I/12; 1988 SOLAS Protocol, regulation I/12

47
Chapter 3 – Custom House
Procedures

48
Chapter –3 Custom House Procedures
Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL), 1965

Adoption: 9 April 1965; Entry into force: 5 March 1967

Introduction
Most human activities are regulated, either by precedent, convention or regulation.
Most regulations are essential - but sometimes they come to be regarded not only as
unnecessary but also as a significant burden on the activities they are supposed to
control. Few activities have been more subject to over-regulation than international
maritime transport.
This is partly because of the international nature of shipping: countries developed
customs, immigration and other standards independently of each other and a ship
visiting several countries during the course of a voyage could expect to be presented
with numerous forms to fill in, often asking for exactly the same information but in a
slightly different way.
As shipping and trade developed and grew in the early part of the twentieth century,
so did the paperwork involved. By the 1950s it was being regarded not simply as an
inconvenience but as a threat.
What are the objectives of the FAL convention?
The Convention's main objectives are to prevent unnecessary delays in maritime
traffic, to aid co-operation between Governments, and to secure the highest
practicable degree of uniformity in formalities and other procedures. In particular, the
Convention reduces to just eight the number of declarations which can be required by
public authorities.
What are the Standards and recommended practices?
In its Annex, the Convention contains "Standards" and "Recommended Practices" on
formalities, documentary requirements and procedures which should be applied on
arrival, stay and departure to the ship itself, and to its crew, passengers, baggage and
cargo.
The Convention defines standards as internationally-agreed measures which are
"necessary and practicable in order to facilitate international maritime traffic" and
recommended practices as measures the application of which is "desirable".
The Convention provides that any Contracting Government which finds it
impracticable to comply with any international standard, or deems it necessary to
adopt differing regulations, must inform the Secretary-General of IMO of the
"differences" between its own practices and the standards in question. The same
procedure applies to new or amended standards.
In the case of recommended practices, Contracting Governments are urged to adjust
their laws accordingly but are only required to notify the Secretary-General when they
have brought their own formalities, documentary requirements and procedures into
full accord.
This flexible concept of standards and recommended practices, coupled with the other
provisions, allows continuing progress to be made towards the formulation and
adoption of uniform measures in the facilitation of international maritime traffic.
What are the IMO Standardized Forms (FAL 1-7)?
Standard 2.1 lists the documents which public authorities can demand of a ship and
recommends the maximum information and number of copies which should be
required. IMO has developed Standardized Forms for seven of these documents. They
are the:

49
 IMO General Declaration
– Cargo Declaration
– Ship's Stores Declaration
– Crew's Effects Declaration
– Crew List· Passenger List
– Dangerous Goods
Two other documents are required under the Universal Postal Convention and the
International Health Regulations. The general declaration, cargo declaration, crew list
and passenger list constitute the maximum information necessary. The ship's stores
declaration and crew's effects declaration incorporate the agreed essential minimum
information requirements.
What is the procedure for INWARD AND OUTWARD CLEARANCE OF
SHIPS?

ON ARRIVAL:

Free pratique:

Port health clearance procedures are regulated under the International health
regulation. Ships on being declared a healthy ship to can proceed to berth after getting
free pratique. The declaration of a free pratique being granted by either informing the
port by radio or by hoisting the ‘Q’ flag.

A ship is not declared to be healthy due to any of the following reasons:

 Death of persons onboard

 Illness on board
 Suffering an infectious disease
 Circumstances causing spread of disease
 Animals on board – death or sickness amongst them
 Such occurrences occurred on board last 28 days

In such a case, the ship should inform port control 12 hrs prior arrival or 4 hrs prior
E.T.A., if not possible then on arrival.

Arrival procedure (documents)

 International health regulations – WHO

 International health organisation regulates port health procedures. Most
countries implement these in national regulations.
 Health clearance is called a free pratique. It literally means permission to
disembark and commence cargo operations. Health clearance is required if
there has been on board during the previous 28 days any of the occurrences
which the master is required to report.
 If no such occurrences are there then the Port health officer will generally give
free pratique.
 Also under this regulation every ship must carry a de-ratting or de-ratting
exemption certificate as appropriate.
 These certificates are issued by the port health authority and are valid for 6
months.

50
A de-ratting certificate states that any ship must either be:

 Periodically kept free of rodents or

 Periodically de-ratted

 A de-ratting certificate is issued when de-ratting is

satisfactorily completed.
 If a ship is found free of rodents then a de-ratting exemption
certificate is issued. It will only be issued if the holds are empty
or containing only ballast or material, which is unattractive to
rodents. Also the inspector should have free access to the holds
 It may be issued to a tanker while loaded.

Furthermore, a certificate of vaccination against yellow fever is the only other

certificate now required under these regulations for international travel, especially for
African countries. Every seafarer should have this international vaccination certificate
for yellow fever.

With regard to conforming to the health regulations:

 Master to complete maritime declaration of health form.

 Master to have de-ratting or de-ratting exemption certificate.

General declaration

 Name and description of ship

 Nationality of ship
 Particulars regarding registry
 Name of master
 Name and address of ship’s agent
 Brief description of the cargo
 Number of crew
 Number of passengers
 Brief particulars of voyage
 Date and time of arrival, or date of departure
 Port of arrival or departure. Position of the ship in port

Documents required on arrival:

 5 copies of general declaration

 4 copies of cargo declaration
 4 copies of ship’s store declaration
 2 copies of crew’s effect declaration
 4 copies of the crew list
 4 copies of the passengers list
 1 copy of the maritime declaration of health
 Port clearance from Last Port
 Declaration of security measures as per ISPS requirements

51
Cargo declaration

On arrival:

 Name and nationality of the ship

 Name of the master
 Port arrived from
 Port where report is made
 Marks and numbers: number and kind of packages: quality and description of
the goods
 Bill of lading numbers for cargo to be discharged at the port in question
 Ports at which cargo remaining on board will be discharged
 Original ports of shipment in respect of goods shipped on through bills of
lading

On departure

 Name and nationality of the ship

 Name of master
 Port of destination
 In respect of goods loaded at the port in question; marks and numbers; number
and kind of packages; quantity and description of the goods
 Bill of lading numbers for cargo loaded at the port in question
 Minimum essential information is required
 To be signed by master or agent
 Cargo manifest is accepted in lieu of cargo declaration provided it contains all
the details
 Details of the cargo in transit

Ship’s store declaration

 Relate to ship’s store

 Signed by master

Crew’s effect declaration

 Each crew member to signed against his effects declaration

 To be signed by the master
 Not require on departure

Crew list:

 To know the number and composition of the crew on arrival and departure
 Name and nationality of the ship
 Family name
 Given names
 Nationality

52
  Rank or rating
 Date of place of birth
 Nature and number of identity document
 Port and date of arrival
 Arriving from.

Passengers list:

 Required to know the information of passengers on arrival and departure of a

ship
 Not required in case of short sea route or combined ship/rail service
neighbouring countries
 Normally the companies have their own list of passengers in place of
passengers list
 Not require embarkation or Disembarkation Card in addition to passengers list
provide not a danger of spread of the disease
 Name and nationality of the ship
 Family name
 Given names
 Nationality
 Date of birth
 Place of birth
 Port of embarkation
 Port of disembarkation
 Port and date of arrival of the ship

Documents required under universal postal convention for mail

 Not required by the public auth. Other than prescribed in universal postal
convention
 Maritime declaration of health
 Provides information required by port health authorities relate to the state of
health on board ship during the voyage and on arrival at a port

Documents required on departure:

 5 copies of general declaration

 4 copies of cargo declaration
 3 copies of ship’s store declaration
 2 copies of the crew list
 2 copies of the passengers list

Customs House Procedures – Various Responsibilities

Custom House Procedure

'PERSON IN CHARGE' OF A VESSEL:

He is responsible for submitting Import Manifest and Export Manifest

He is responsible to ensure that the conveyance comes through approved route and

53
 lands at approved place only.
He has to ensure that goods are unloaded after written order, at proper place.
Loading also has to be only after permission.
He has to ensure that conveyance does not leave without written order of Customs
authorities.
He can be penalised for (a) Giving false declaration and statement (b) shortages or
non-accounting of goods in conveyance

Import procedures

The person in-charge of a vessel, must submit within 24 hours after arrival at a
Customs Area an Import Manifest or Import Report in the prescribed form in
duplicate. This will give details of cargo to be unloaded, unaccompanied baggage,
goods to be transshipped, retention cargo, details such as general declaration about the
conveyance, stores on the conveyance, private property in possession of the Master of
the ship and other members of crews and Passenger Manifest. Separate declaration
has to be given in respect of goods like arms, explosives, narcotics, dangerous drugs,
gold and silver. The Import Manifest may be amended only with permission if there
was no fraudulent intention. This report is not required if the conveyance is carrying
only luggage of its occupants.

If the report / manifest could not be submitted within prescribed time, person-in-
charge or any person specified as responsible by a notification is liable to penalty up
to Rs.50,000. Such penalty will not be imposed if the excise officer is satisfied that
there was sufficient cause for the delay.

Sometimes, filing of the Import Manifest is allowed before the arrival of the vessel by
the Steamer Agents. This enables the importers to clear the imported goods quickly.

If on the face of things, everything is found to be in order and berthing

accommodation is available to the ship, the Customs Officer grants Entry Inwards.
Unloading of cargo can start only after such order is made.

The goods are then unloaded from the vessel. However, only those goods which have
been mentioned in the Import Manifest can be unloaded. Such unloading can be done
only at approved places and under supervision of the Customs Officer on a working
day during working hours. However, unloading on holidays and after working hours
may be allowed after giving notice to the prescribed authorities and after paying the
prescribed fees.

After the goods are unloaded, they shall remain in the custody of the prescribed
authority (e.g. Port Trust) approved by the Collector of Customs until they are
cleared. A tally sheet is prepared after the goods are unloaded. If less than the
reported goods are found, insurance survey is immediately carried out.

If the goods unloaded are lower than the reported quantity, the shipper is liable to pay
penalty up to twice the amount of duty payable on such shortfall in goods. The
conveyance will leave only on written order given by the Customs Officer. Such order
is given only after all formalities are completed and all duties and other payments due
are paid. Duties on stores consumed have to be paid.

54
Boat Notes - If the vessel has to unload only a small cargo, it may not spend time in
having berth in the port. If the small cargo is to be sent to shore, it may be loaded in a
small boat and sent to shore. As per section 35, such small boat must be accompanied
by a ‘Boat Note’. Boat Notes Regulations provide that such Boat Notes will be issued
by Customs Officer. It will be maintained in duplicate and should be serially
numbered. Boat Note should be in prescribed form.
In case of export, if small export cargo is to be loaded in ship through small boat, no
Boat Note is required if the cargo is accompanied by the ‘Shipping Bill’, otherwise,
Boat Note is required. Boat Note is also required for transshipment of cargo, i.e.
transfer from one ship to another or for re-shipment.

Export Procedures

Procedures by person in charge of conveyance – Any new shipping line, steamer

agent should be registered in Customs Systems for electronic processing of shipping
bills etc. The ‘person in charge of conveyance’ has to follow prescribed procedures.

Entry Outward - The vessel should be granted ‘Entry Outward’. Loading can start
only after entry outward is granted. Steamer Agents can file ‘application for entry
outwards’ 14 days in advance so that intending exporters can start submitting
‘Shipping Bills’. This ensures that formalities are completed as quickly as possible
and loading in ship starts quickly.

LOADING WITH PERMISSION - Export goods can be loaded only after Shipping
Bill or Bill of Export, duly passed by Customs Officer is handed over by Exporter to
the person-in-charge of conveyance. In case of baggage and mail bags, shipping bill is
not necessary, but permission of Customs Officer is required.

Export Manifest - Export Manifest/Export Report in prescribed form should be

submitted before departure. [The report is popularly called as ‘Export General
Manifest’ - EGM]. The details required are similar to import manifest. Such
manifest/report can be amended or supplemented with permission, if there was no
fraudulent intention. Such report should be declared as true by the person-in-charge
signing the export manifest. This report is not required if the conveyance is carrying
only luggage of occupants.

Other documents required for export - Exporter also has to prepare other documents
like (a) Four copies of Commercial Invoice (b) Four copies of Packing List (c)
Certificate of Origin or pre-shipment inspection where required (d) Insurance policy.
(e) Letter of Credit (f) Declaration of Value (g) Excise ARE-1/ARE-2 form as
applicable (h) GR / SDF form prescribed by RBI in duplicate (i) Letter showing BIN
Number.

Examination of goods before export - After shipping bill is passed by export

department, the goods are presented to shed appraiser (exports) in dock for
examination. Goods will be examined by examiner. This inspection is necessary (a) to
ensure that prohibited goods are not exported (b) goods tally with description and
invoice (c) duty drawback, where applicable, is correctly claimed.

55
Let Export Order by Customs Authorities - Customs Officer will verify the contents
and after he is satisfied that goods are not prohibited for exports and that export duty,
if applicable is paid, will permit clearance by giving ‘let ship’ or ‘let export’ order.

Processing under EDI system – Under EDI system, declarations in prescribed form
are to be filed through ‘Service Centre’ of customs. After verification, shipping bill
number is generated by the system, which is endorsed on printed checklist generated
for verification of data. Goods are inspected at docks on the basis of printed check
list. All documents are submitted to Customs Officer along with checklist. If goods
and documents are found in order, ‘let export’ order is issued.

Conveyance to leave on written order - The vessel or aircraft which has brought
imported goods or which carry export goods cannot leave that customs station unless
a written order is given by Customs Officer. Such order is given only after (a) export
manifest is submitted (b) shipping bills or bills of export, bills of transhipment etc. are
submitted (c) duties on stores consumed are paid or payment of the same is secured
(d) no penalty is leviable (e) export duty, if applicable, is paid. - - Such permission is
not required if the conveyance is carrying only luggage of occupants.

Customs Administration – Responsible for Collection of Revenue

TRADE OF COUNTRY – HOME TRADE AND FOREIGN TRADE

HOME TRADE: Trade within a country – buying and selling of goods by individual
of country.

FOREIGN TRADE: Trade between countries.

TWO ASPECTS OF FOREIGN TRADE: IMPORT AND EXPORT

IMPORT – bringing goods from abroad to home country

EXPORT – sending goods to external country

Import and export are further divided into visible and invisible items.

VISIBLE ITEMS – foodstuffs, raw material etc.

INVISIBLE ITEMS: various services like earnings from shipping, air transport
charges, banking and insurance charges, brokerage dues, royalties, interest on
investments abroad etc.

ISPS implication to Port Clearance

With the advent of ISPS Code, the responsibility on the Master has substantially
increased. As part of complying with the Code on board, the Master is to send at least
96 hrs notice ‘Notice of vessel’s arrival’ (NVA) to the ‘National vessel movement
centre’ (NVMC). The notice is to be as per the prescribed format which should have
the last 10 ports called, their arrival and departure dates, Security level on board
vessel etc. The PFSO will visit the vessel to check ISPS certificate and security level

56
prior issuance of clearance certificate. At times the port agent may be able to obtain
the clearance certificate from the PFSO on behalf of the vessel.

Interim technical advice for inspection and issuance of Ship Sanitation

Certificate (SSC)

The ship sanitation control exemption certificate/ship sanitation control certificate

(SSC): an instrument to assist countries to minimize the risk of international spread of

disease via international vessel voyages

Prior to 15 June 2007, the de-ratting/de-ratting exemption certificate was the required
sanitary document for international shipping since the entry into force of the
international sanitary regulations over 50 years ago. It was an internationally-agreed
upon means of public health control that helped reduce the international spread of
rodent-borne diseases. International vessels were required to renew the certificate
every six months, and the renewal process required that all areas of the ship be
inspected. With the entry into force of the international health regulations (2005)
(IHR or the regulations) in June 2007, including the ship sanitation control exemption
certificate/ship sanitation control certificate (hereafter referred to as ship sanitation
certificates or SSC), competent authorities now use this document, which carries a six
month period of validity, to identify and record all areas of ship-borne public health
risks (not limited to rodents), together with any required control measures to be
applied. The SSC may be required from all ships, whether seagoing or inland
navigation vessels, on an international voyage calling at the port of a state party. It
may be renewed at any port authorized to issue such renewals by a state party.

Under the IHR, the authorization of certain ports to issue the SSC (as well as the
provision of the services referred to in annexes 1 and 3) and the related extension is a
state party decision. Any such authorized ports must have the capability to inspect,
issue and implement (or supervise implementation of) necessary measures for the ship
sanitation control certificate. The state party can also authorize ports to issue ship
sanitation exemption control certificates or to grant extensions to them, if they are
unable to carry out the necessary measures at the port in question.

Application of the IHR provisions concerning SSCS will generally result in one of
three possible outcomes

Ship sanitation control exemption certificate: issued when no evidence of a public

health risk is found on board and the competent authority4 is satisfied that the ship is
free of infection and contamination, including vectors and reservoirs. This certificate
shall normally be issued only if the inspection5 has been carried out when the ship
and holds are empty or when they contain only ballast or other material, of such
nature or so disposed as to make a thorough inspection of the holds possible.

Ship sanitation control certificate: issued when evidence of a public health risk,
including sources of infection and contamination, is detected on board and after
required control measures have been satisfactorily completed; the SSC must record
the evidence found and the control measures taken.

57
When the conditions under which control measures are carried out are such that, in
the opinion of the competent authority, a satisfactory result cannot be achieved at the
port where the operation was performed, the competent authority shall make a note to
this effect on this certificate, identifying all evidence of ship-borne public health risk,
together with any required control measures to be applied at the subsequent port of
call. If the ship is allowed to depart, the competent authority shall at the time of
departure, inform the next known point of entry of the type of evidence and the
requisite control measures, particularly in those contexts where the public health risk
may spread internationally or may present a serious and direct danger to the health of
human populations.

Extension of the ship sanitation control exemption certificate: when the inspection or
control measures required cannot be carried out at a port and there is no evidence of
infection or contamination, the competent authority may extend the validity of the
certificate for a period of one month, allowing the ship to arrive at a port in which the
inspection and any necessary control measures can be carried out and the new ship
sanitation control certificate may be issued.

The necessary public health control measures should always be applied only after all
key parties (e.g. the master of the ship, the port control office) have been fully
informed of the methods to be used. Critical activities, such as the assignment of the
port areas to be used for quarantine of ships suspected of carrying a public health risk,
need to be completed well in advance in cooperation with the port control office for
ship movement. In all cases, control measures carried out shall be conducted in a
manner that avoids possible injury, and as far as possible discomfort to persons [and
with respect for their dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom] or damage to
the ship, baggage, its cargo and containers, and the public health aspects of the
environment.

Any actions regarding international ships should also be in accordance with

applicable international agreements relating to ship and port operation. Depending
upon the states and relevant circumstances, these may include international
agreements of the international maritime organization (IMO)

Role of ship owners and operators

It is important that all international vessels be maintained so that the risk of

international disease spread is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Under the
IHR, states parties must take all practicable measures consistent with these regulations
to ensure that conveyance operators keep their conveyances permanently free of
sources of infection or contamination, including vectors and reservoirs.

Under the IHR, conveyance operators shall facilitate:

A) Inspection of the cargo, containers and conveyance

B) Medical examinations of persons on board
C) Application of other health measures under IHR provisions
D) Provision of relevant public health information requested by the state party,
including the maritime declaration of health

58
Ship operators are required to provide the public health information requested by the
competent authorities and to facilitate their related public health activities. Required
control measures must be applied safely and initiated and completed without delay.
Ship operators must provide to the competent authority, if they require them, with: (i)
a valid SSC and (ii) a maritime declaration of health. Annex 4 of IHR (2005) provides
further information on conveyance operators’ responsibilities.
As part of these obligations under the IHR, when calling at port, the master of a vessel
on an international voyage may be required to report any illness that appears to be
caused by an infectious disease or other conditions on board that could represent a
public health risk. Regarding the maritime declaration of health, before arrival at its
first port of call in a state party, the master must ascertain the state of health
conditions on board, and on arrival (or in advance if possible and required), unless the
state party does not require it, deliver the completed declaration to the competent
authority (see note 1b of annex 3, and annex 8).

Role of competent authorities

Under the IHR, the competent authority may require the application of appropriate
control measures (disinfection, decontamination, disinfection, de-ratting) if evidence
of a public health risk or clinical signs/symptoms/related information is found on
board.

The competent authority may implement additional appropriate measures, including

isolation of the ship, as necessary to prevent the spread of disease.

The master must supply public health information required by the competent authority
as to health conditions on board during the international voyage. The ship operator
must facilitate inspections and sanitary measures.

If additional measures, such as isolation of the conveyance, are implemented, or if the

public health risk appears to be serious and/or indicates international spread of
disease, the IHR national focal point is to be notified.

A port that has the capacities listed in IHR annex 1b should have, regarding the
issuance of SSC, among the other capacities listed, trained personnel available to
board a vessel and identify any significant risk to public health and to order control
measures, if required. Sanitary measures may be carried out by the competent
authority or by others (e.g. the ship operator--by the crew member or under contract to
a private company) under the supervision of the competent authority.

Risks may be determined by direct observation or measurement, and the inspecting

officer should be able to quickly determine the measures necessary to remove or
lessen the risk so that the international spread of disease does not occur. The SSC
includes sections for documentation of the risks found and the control measures
required (e.g. disinfection, disinfection, de-ratting or other decontamination, repair of
equipment, modification of procedures) for application by the competent authority, a
contracted firm or by the ship’s crew members. For the purpose of facilitating
immediate adoption of adequate control measures, it is recommended that each
designated international port should maintain a list of companies or agencies that are

59
authorized and can carry out disinfection, de-ratting, disinfection and
decontamination.

It is important that the competent authority inform the ship operator of the control
measures to be applied, and of any safety considerations that should be observed.
Competent authorities are required to advise ship or other conveyance operators, as
far in advance as possible, of their intent to apply control measures to it, and shall
provide, where available, written information concerning the methods to be
employed. As noted below, there are also regulations concerning charges for services
relating to the measures, including that they be published in advance. Delaying an
international vessel is costly for ship operators, and, in every case, unnecessary time
in port should be minimized.

Examples of the types of procedures and activities that can be required of the
competent authority include:

1) Planning and adopting specific measures for both the inspection of ships and
control of public health risks, including plans for controlling contamination
and/or outbreaks of disease;

2) Developing procedures for dealing with incidents and emergencies,

establishing and maintaining communications, reporting and tracking systems,
in cooperation with other key agencies and departments;

3) Maintaining sampling equipment and supplies;

4) Identifying the port facilities required for detaining ships and the facilities and
services listed in annex 1b (i.e. facilities for entry and exit control for
travellers and assessment, transport, diagnostic, treatment, quarantine,
isolation and to apply public health measures for conveyances, baggage,
cargo, containers, goods, postal parcels and point of entry facilities used by
travellers and related potable water supplies, eating establishments, catering,
public washrooms, solid and liquid waste disposal, for conducting inspection
programmes);

5) Maintaining records of inspections;

6) Identifying training requirements;

7) Monitoring and auditing performance and compliance.

Concerning any charges for applying health measures to ships or other conveyances,
cargo, containers or goods:

1) There shall be in each state party only one tariff for such charges;
2) Every charge shall conform to this tariff;
3) The charges must not exceed the actual cost of the service rendered;

60
4) The charges must be levied without distinction as to nationality, flag, registry or
ownership of the ship, cargo, containers or goods. In particular there shall be no
distinction between national and foreign ships, cargo, containers or goods.
Similarly, the competent authorities are also required to publish the tariffs for any
charges made for applying health measures to ships or other conveyances, cargo,
containers or goods at least 10 days in advance of any levy hereunder.

Inspections and taking of samples in the context of the ship sanitation control
exemption certificate/ship sanitation ship sanitation certificate

The model SSC in IHR annex 3 contains columns for recording "sample results" as
part of the inspection and related information, but such samples may not be required
to be taken and analysed in all inspections under the IHR (2005). Whether a sample
will need to be taken and analysed will necessarily depend upon factors such as the
particular circumstances, evidence found by the inspecting personnel, the nature of
any potential public health risk, and the adequacy of inspection techniques which do
not involve samples in the particular context.

Ship operators should ask for water sample results and certificates of water safety
taken on board from suppliers at ports. The use of on board testing kits could be a
supplementary action.

In general, when clinical signs or symptoms and information based on fact or

evidence of a public health risk, including sources of infection and contamination, are
found on board, the decision is up to the competent authority regarding the
appropriate public health measures to apply to attain an adequate level of control of an
identified public health risk at the same time, where there are methods or materials
advised by who for these procedures, they should be employed, unless the competent
authority determines that other methods are as safe and reliable.

Harmful contamination other than microbial contamination, for example from

chemical or radio nuclear sources, could also be found on ships. Both national and
international agencies exist to deal with chemical and radio nuclear incidents and
emergencies.

Annex 3 of the IHR (2005) contains two parts: the model certificate that outlines the
key physical areas of the vessel to be inspected and an attachment referencing the
systems management for food, water, waste, and swimming pools/spas, medical and
other facilities that could require closer inspection according to the size and type of
ship.

Part 1 - Guidance on inspection areas for annex 3 IHR (2005)

Model ship sanitation control exemption certificate/ship sanitation control certificate

Galley: preventing food and vector-borne international disease spread

Is there a schedule for cleaning and maintenance on a routine basis, for and including
fixtures, fittings and equipment used during production and food handling?

61
Evidence: build up of dirt, dirty equipment. Use cleaning logs, crew member
interviews for information.

Does the crew assigned to galley duties understand cleaning procedures, as well as
safe food holding and preparation methods, for example minimum/maximum
temperature requirements depending of the type of food stuff and avoidance of cross-
contamination procedures?

Evidence: food holding and preparation errors, galley records. Use crew member
interviews for information.

Do galley staff display good personal hygiene and demonstrate knowledge of when
and how to wash hands.
Evidence: no hand washing, poor hand washing, or no hand washing performed after
an act of contamination or possible food cross-contamination.

Is there at least one dedicated hand washing station accessible to the galley staff and
is it properly equipped (paper towels/blow dryers, soap and waste receptacle)?

Evidence: absence of any the above.

Are utensils, pots/pans and food contact portions of equipment adequately cleaned
and sanitized/disinfected?

Evidence: presences of residual build-up (wet or dry grease, food and other residuals
from food handling).

Is there a build-up of food matter attractive to rodents or insects?

Evidence: food matter under tables, behind equipment.

Is there any galley area that could provide harbourage for rodent or insect disease
vectors/hosts?

Evidence: untidy areas that are not easily cleaned, where rodents or insects could
hide.

Is food-handling areas restricted for this purpose only?

Evidence: presence of unrelated equipment, staff, no separation from other ship

activities.

Use crew member interviews for information

Is there an adequate supply of safe hot and cold water? Is there hot and cold water
provided at all times of food preparation and service?

Evidence: lack of hot and cold water supply to galley during food preparation and
service, lack of water treatment, on-board or laboratory sample results.

62
Do any of the crew members assigned to galley duty exhibit any communicable
disease symptoms, like jaundice, diarrhoea, vomiting, fever, visibly infected skin
lesions or boils or discharge from the nose, eyes or ears?

Evidence: existence of any of the symptoms described in a crew member on board or

prior to embarkation for the voyage. Use medical log indicating treatment of illness,
interviews with crew members.

Is exhaust ventilation provided and is it adequate for the equipment and galley staff?

Evidence: visible condensation on deck heads or bulkheads, food workers perspiring

heavily from high heat and humidity, and/or food or food-contact surfaces
contaminated with condensation.

Is adequate lighting provided?

Evidence: food counters and equipment should be sufficiently illuminated to inspect
for cleanliness, identify soil, and evidence/presence of pests in open areas.

Are all food handling areas constructed of impervious material with a smooth surface
to facilitate cleaning, and not conducive to creating harbourage for rodent or insect
vectors/hosts?

Evidence: inadequate, damaged or soiled material, and/or presence of vectors-hosts.

Pantry and stores: preventing the international spread of food-borne and vector-
borne disease

Is all food storage areas constructed of impervious material with a smooth surface to
facilitate cleaning, and not conducive to creating harbouring for rodent or insect
vectors/hosts?

Evidence: inadequate, damaged or soiled material and/or presence of vectors-hosts.

Food should be kept in a safe distance (approximately 6” or 15cm) off the deck and
protected from the entry of water and other potential contamination.

Evidence: foodstuffs in contact with the deck or, if above the deck, contact standing
water or other contaminant.

Food should not be exposed to out-of-temperature conditions for any extended period.
Examples of typical recommended temperatures for perishable food storage include
the following:

Food to be held hot would typically be placed in a hot-holding apparatus already at a

temperature of at least 62.8ºc (145ºf) and maintained at that temperature until
required.

All perishable food or drink would typically be kept at or below 4ºc (40ºf) except
during preparation or when held for immediate serving after preparation. When such
foods are to be stored for extended periods, a temperature of 4ºc (40ºf) is

63
recommended. Fruits and vegetables would typically be stored in cool rooms. Ideally,
meat and fish would typically be maintained at 0 to 3ºc (32 to 37ºf), milk and milk
products at 4ºc (40ºf) and fruit and vegetables at 7-10ºc (45 to 50ºf). For more
practical purposes, if there are limited refrigerated spaces, meat and meat products,
fish and fish products, milk and milk products and eggs and egg products can be
stored at < 5ºc (41ºf) whilst fruit and vegetables can be stored at < 10ºc (50ºf).

Frozen foods would typically be kept below -12ºc (10ºf).

Evidence - Spoiled food, temperatures too high - Use crew member interviews for
information.

Is the food safe, without adulteration (chemical or other substances), and obtained
from sources that comply with applicable local, regional, or country of origin laws
and regulations?

Evidence: presence of food adulteration, contamination or spoilage and food sources

not in compliance with applicable local, regional or country of origin laws and
regulation.

Storage systems should prevent contamination of food by foreign bodies, dust,

harmful fumes, and unwanted chemicals and cross contamination between foods.

Evidence: presence of contamination, dust, harmful fumes, unwanted chemicals in

contact with food and different groups of food stored together leading to cross
contamination.

Holds: preventing international spread of contamination or infection from cargo

All holds, particularly those carrying consumable products, should be protected from
the entry of water or insect or rodent vectors and any other contamination or infection.
Cargo should be observed for evidence of contamination, or spoilage, in the case of
consumable products.

Evidence: entry of water or other contamination, entry of insects, rodents.

Holds should normally be empty for inspection or when the presence of ballast water
or other materials, is of such nature or so disposed as to make a thorough inspection
of holds possible.

Evidence: presence of cargo and other materials at holds create barriers for
inspection.

Quarters, crew members and officers: preventing person-to-person spread of

disease internationally

Crew member quarters should comply with existing conventions on crew member
accommodation contained in ILO conventions related to crew members’
accommodation and food and catering. Crew members’ quarters should not provide

64
harbourage for insects or rodents (screening of outside cabins should be considered if
local infestation of vectors and reservoirs exists), and should be clean and well lit.

Evidence: presence of insects and rodents, absence of vector protection screening

outside cabins (if needed and adequate for vector protection, due to local infestation
of vectors and reservoirs), insufficient lighting and cleaning.

Crew member illnesses should be reported in the medical log.

Evidence: presence of any illness in crew members not reported and logged. Use crew
member interviews and request maritime declaration of health if written information
required.

Potable water

All tanks, hoses, valves and equipment for handling potable water should be
exclusively for this purpose and clearly labelled “for potable water only”. Colour
coding on piping may also be used.

Evidence: tanks, hoses, valves and equipment not dedicated for handling potable
water and or not well identified for this purpose. Potable water hose fits non-potable
liquid connection.
Potable water tanks should not share a common wall with the hull of the vessel or
with tanks or piping containing non-potable water or other liquids or materials.

Evidence: presence of cross contamination or potable water tanks walls not isolated
from others tanks or piping containing non-potable water or other liquids or
materials.

Potable water tanks should be constructed of materials that do not contribute to

contaminate the water stored within.

Evidence: presence of contamination from water tanks materials or uncontrolled high

risk of contamination due to kind of material used to construct water tanks.

Potable water tanks should be located in areas of the vessel where they will not be
affected by dirt, insects, rodents or other contamination or excessive heat.

Evidence: presence of dirt, insects, rodents or other contamination or excessive heat.

Potable water tanks should have an inspection cover for easy inspection and access
for cleaning or maintenance, and should be fitted with an independent drainage
system.

Evidence: absence of inspection cover and independent drainage system, creating

difficulties to access for cleaning and maintenance. Presence of dusty and other
residual materials.

65
Potable water systems should incorporate a halogenations/chlorination system or
other means to adequately remove or kill microbes and to remove other
contamination.

Evidence: absence of operational system for remove or kill microbes and to remove
other contamination.

When bunkering water, water quality test reports from the port supply should be
requested, and shipboard water quality should be verified regularly. Onboard test kits
are acceptable if they meet standard methods for the examination of water, when a
port water quality report cannot be obtained.

Evidence: absence of regular water quality test reports or logged results from
onboard test kits.

Potable water systems should have “backflow” prevention installed.

Evidence: presence of -contamination and or absence of “backflow” prevention

installed.

Sewage: preventing international disease spread from discharge and contamination

of crew members through leaks or overflows

Sewage systems should be secure, leak-proof and isolated from other systems to
prevent cross contamination. Tanks should be of sufficient capacity, without risk of
overflow. Sewage treatment plants should be inspected regularly. There should be no
discharge in restricted areas (ports) and no discharge to bilge.

Evidence: evidence of leaks, overflow or cross-contamination. Use design and

construction drawings and crew member interviews for information.

Ballast tanks: preventing international disease spread through discharge

Ballast tanks should have valves set in “off” position and not pose an accidental
discharge risk, unless risk assessment had been made and discharge authorized
previously by competent port and health authorities, according to the provisions of
IHR and the international convention on control and management of ships ballast
water and sediments.

Evidence: valves not in “off” position, risk of unauthorized discharge. Use

information from recommended ballast water form IMO 868-20 and on board logs,
crew member interviews and visual check.

Solid and medical waste: preventing international disease spread through discharge

 Storage areas should be protected against vermin (food waste and dry refuse).
 There should be protected storage of infectious medical waste.
 Discharges of solid waste, food and medical waste should be undertaken in
compliance with international and local regulations and ordinances for
discharge.

66
Evidence: unlawful/unsafe discharge or storage of waste. Use logs and company
contracts, crew member interviews for information.

Standing water: preventing international transport of insect vectors

Standing water can hold insect larvae and should not be present. Areas like lifeboat
covers, bilges, scuppers, awnings, gutters, air treatment plants should be inspected
when not in use.

Evidence: presence of standing water.

Engine rooms: preventing international transport of vectors and hosts

Engine rooms should be free of rodents or insects. Engine casings and insulation
should be inspected for insect and rodent infestation.

Evidence: evidence of rodent or insect infestation.

Medical facilities: preventing person-to-person spread of disease

Areas designated for the examination and treatment of ill crew members should be
separate from other crew member activities, well-lit, clean and private.
Examination/treatment facilities must be clean and properly maintained, with potable
water and hand washing areas. A treatment log should be maintained, as well as
accommodation for adequate disposal of sharps and bio-medical waste.

Operational manuals should be in place, according to the complexity of the facility

and if qualified medically trained crew members are not present on board, procedures
should be in place to contact external support for emergency medical advice services,
in case of a health emergency event and/or an outbreak on board.
Evidence: space available, medical logs and equipment not properly maintained,
medicines not properly stored, bio-medical waste and sharps not properly disposed,
presence of vectors and others sources of contamination.

Part 2 - Guidance on inspection areas for annex 3 IHR (2005):

Attachment to model ship sanitation control exemption certificate / ship sanitation

control certificate.

In addition to the information for each inspection area contained in part 1 above,
officers inspecting large vessels should consider the following items from the
attachment of annex 3, where applicable:

Food

Source

All food should typically be obtained from shore sources approved or considered
satisfactory by the relevant health administration. Food needs to be clean, wholesome,

67
and free from spoilage and adulteration, and otherwise safe for human consumption.
Raw materials and ingredients should ideally not be accepted by the ship if they are
known to contain parasites, undesirable microorganisms, pesticides, veterinary drugs
or toxins, decomposed or extraneous substances which would not be reduced to an
acceptable level by normal sorting and/or processing. Where appropriate,
specifications for raw materials can be defined and applied. Stocks of raw materials
and ingredients would typically be subject to effective stock rotation.

Storage

 Refrigerated compartments should maintain chilled foods and frozen foods at

appropriate temperatures and records should be kept.
 Chemicals or toxic items should be stored in separate and secure facilities and
never with or above foodstuffs.
 Food shall be stored in a designated secured space, protected from
contamination and infestation.
 Food shall be stored in a clean, dry location, not exposed to splashes, dust or
other contamination, and approximately 15 cm/6 in. Above the deck.

Preparations

 Written cleaning and maintenance policies and procedures should be in place

for each critical area in the galley that can contribute to infection or
contamination of food on board.
 Staff assigned to galleys should have competency qualifications obtained by
completing a training course in food handling and preparation. This training
should be up-to-date and records of training should be kept.
 Logs of food holding temperatures should be kept.
 All surfaces, equipment and fixtures should be appropriate for their assigned
use – e.g. non-absorbent, easily cleaned, properly sealed or protected from the
entry of insects or rodents.
 Foods should be purchased from safe sources and be properly stored, prepared
and served.
 All galleys and food preparation or handling areas shall have conveniently
located and ready access to dedicated hand wash stations, and the stations
should be supplied with soap, a disposable paper towel, and a waste
receptacle.
 The hand wash station should be for this use only and remain accessible at all
times.

Services

 Food openly on display at buffet counters -- whether packaged, on the counter,

in a service-line, or under salad bar food guards --, should be protected by
appropriate display cases or by other effective ways to prevent crew or guest
contamination.
 Self-service buffet or salad bar operations with unpackaged ready-to-eat foods
should be provided with serving utensils and dispensing methods that prevent
food/drink contamination.

68
  Foods should be protected from contamination in storage or transport from
sources such as seawater, bilge water, wastewater, hydraulic or fuel lines.
 Hot foods should be kept hot and cold foods should be kept cold on display
and service areas and buffets.

Water - Sources

 The quality of drinking water taken from a shore supply should be assessed
before being taken on board. Port and local competent authorities should
investigate the level of water safety. This investigation should be a routine part
of the on board water management procedures. Water quality should be
verified at minimum by water quality reports from the port from which the
water is taken, or by onboard water quality kits which meet standard methods
for the examination of water.
 For ships that produce water with onboard evaporators or reverse osmosis
systems, these systems should not be operated in polluted areas, harbours, or
at anchor.
 Ships should not take water from suspect shore supplies such as multi-use tank
trucks or multi-use barges, but should ensure the trucks and barges are
approved or considered satisfactory by the relevant health administration and
used for potable water only. The ship water management procedures should
ensure that the reception, handling, storage and delivery to ship water systems
be carried out under completely sanitary conditions to protect water safety.
 Potable water filling hoses should be constructed and used for this purpose
only.

Storage

 Potable water needs to be stored in tanks that are constructed, located and
protected as to be safe against any contamination from outside the tank.
 Treatment used should be suitable for the water to be purified from water tank
filling by shore or onboard production plant and capable of ensuring efficient
operation with the production of potable water that conforms to the guidelines
for drinking-water quality 2004 (who 2004) or any relevant competent
authority’s requirements. If chlorination is being used, it should have effective
contact time and provide a measurable free chlorine residual in the tanks being
filled.
 If potable water from tanks is piped to technical system endpoints, approved
backflow prevention devices should be installed to protect the potable water
system.
 Potable water tanks should not share a common wall with the hull or other
non-potable water tanks.
 Piping systems carrying non-potable liquids should not pass inside potable
water tanks.

Distribution

 Potable water distribution systems should have appropriate backflow

prevention devices wherever there are cross-connections with non-potable

69
 water, industrial fluids or gas which may enter the potable water distribution
system.
 Backflow preventers should be inspected and maintained in good condition.
 Potable water in distribution should be further treated if necessary to ensure it
remains in a potable condition (who) for end users.

Waste

 All solid food and medical waste material should be held in a clearly marked
space that is identified for this purpose only.
 All holding and discharge of waste should be included in written company
policies and procedures in a waste management plan. This plan should take
into account the local regulations or protocols in place for waste management
at the ports visited.
 Wastes should be discharged under contract to approved waste management
firms or agencies.

Swimming pools and spas

 Swimming pools and whirlpools should meet the WHO guidelines for safe
recreational water environments, vol. 2 swimming pools, spas and similar
recreational water environments - 2004.
 Swimming pools and whirlpool spas must be supplied with seawater or a
potable water supply that passes through an air gap or approved backflow
prevention device.
 No bather should be allowed to use a pool before it goes through a disinfection
process where pathogenic microorganisms are removed or inactivated by
chemical (e.g. chlorination) or physical (e.g. filtration, UV radiation) means,
unless pool is in flow-through, seawater mode, such that they represent no
significant risk of infection.
 Written or electronic records of operations, disinfection processes and
maintenance should be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations.

Medical facilities - equipment and medical devices

Adequate medical equipment and devices should be in good operational and hygiene
conditions, operated and maintained according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

Operations

 Credentialed medical staff (physician/nurse) or other crew members

designated to work in these facilities should be trained for his/her duty in basic
medical first aid.
 A well organized, legible and up to date medical log should be in place in
these facilities. The log should list cases of illness, passengers/crew concerned
and any medication dispensed. Log entries should list: 1) first date of clinic
visit, name, age, and gender of patient; 2) passenger or crew member
designation; 3) crew member position or job; 4) cabin number; 6) date/time of

70
 illness onset; 7) illness symptoms; and 8) note regarding specimen collection
or other action taken, if applicable.
 The medical log should be available during inspections.
 There should be adequate hand washing facilities within the
examination/treatment areas.

Medicines

 Medications should only be dispensed to passengers or crew by trained and

authorized personnel; and adequate records of consumption must be kept.

Confidentiality of personal medical and health information

 Personal medical and other health information concerning passengers, crew or

others, maintained in the above records or otherwise, must be processed and
maintained confidentially in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Other areas

 Sanitary control measures should be in place for all animals and their waste
products.
 Faecal accident procedures should be considered for passenger vessels.
 Passengers’ quarters: all practicable measures should be in place, consistent
with the IHR (2005), to permanently keep all passenger accommodation free
of sources of infection or contamination, including vectors and reservoirs (i.e.
insects or rodent vectors).

71
Annex 8 - Model of maritime declaration of health

To be completed and submitted to the competent authorities by the masters of ships

arriving from foreign ports.

Submitted at the port of………………………………… date…………

Name of ship or inland navigation vessel……........……....…

Registration/IMO no..............arriving from ……..sailing to…….

(Nationality)(Flag of vessel)…………………………………….

Master’s name ..............................................................................................

Gross tonnage (ship)…………tonnage (inland navigation vessel)…

Valid sanitation control exemption/control certificate carried on board? Yes............

No….........

Issued at….....…..…… date……..........…..

Re-inspection required? Yes……. No…….

Has ship/vessel visited an affected area identified by the world health organization?
Yes..... No…..

Port and date of visit …………………….…….........................

List ports of call from commencement of voyage with dates of departure, or within
past thirty days, whichever is shorter:
…………………………………………………………………..

Upon request of the competent authority at the port of arrival, list crew members,
passengers or other persons who have joined ship/vessel since international voyage
began or within past thirty days, whichever is shorter, including all ports/countries
visited in this period (add additional names to the attached schedule):
(1) name …………………………………joined from:
(1)…………..……....…..(2)…....…..……………....(3)..........................................
(2) name …………………………………joined from:
(1)…………………........(2)……………….........….(3)..........................................
(3) Name………………………………….joined from:
(1)……………….....…...(2)……..….....…...………(3)..........................................
Number of crew members on board…………number of passengers on
board…………….

Health questions

72
(1) Has any person died on board during the voyage otherwise than as a result of
accident? Yes.... No…..
If yes, state particulars in attached schedule. Total no. Of deaths ..........
(2) Is there on board or has there been during the international voyage any case of
disease which you suspect to be of an infectious nature? Yes........ No….....
If yes, state particulars in attached schedule.
(3) Has the total number of ill passengers during the voyage been greater than normal
/expected? Yes.... No…..
How many ill persons? ..........
(4) Is there any ill person on board now? Yes........ No….....
If yes, state particulars in attached schedule.
(5) Was a medical practitioner consulted? Yes....... No…...
If yes, state particulars of medical treatment or advice provided in attached schedule.
(6) Are you aware of any condition on board which may lead to infection or spread of
disease? Yes........ No….....
If yes, state particulars in attached schedule.
(7) Has any sanitary measure (e.g. quarantine, isolation, disinfection or
decontamination) been applied on board?
Yes ....... No…...
If yes, specify type, place and date…………………………………….
(8) Have any stowaways been found on board? Yes ....... No…...
If yes, where did they join the ship (if known)? ............................
(9) Is there a sick animal or pet on board? Yes ......... No........
Note: in the absence of a surgeon, the master should regard the following symptoms
as grounds for suspecting the existence of a disease of an infectious nature:
(a) fever, persisting for several days or accompanied by (i) prostration; (ii) decreased
consciousness; (iii) glandular swelling; (iv) jaundice; (v) cough or shortness of breath;
(vi) unusual bleeding; or (vii) paralysis.
(b) With or without fever: (i) any acute skin rash or eruption; (ii) severe vomiting
(other than sea sickness); (iii) severe diarrhoea; or (iv) recurrent convulsions.

I hereby declare that the particulars and answers to the questions given in this
declaration of health (including the schedule) are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Signed ……………………………………….
Master
Countersigned ……………………………………….
Ship’s surgeon (if carried)
Date………………………………………

73
Chapter 4 – Stowaways, Piracy,
Smuggling and other Custom
Offences

74
 Chapter 4 – Stowaways, Piracy, Smuggling and other Custom
Offences
Definition: A person who, at any port or place secretes himself in a ship without the
consent of the ship owner or master or any other person in charge of ship and who is
onboard after that ship has left that port or place.

Piracy and armed robbery against ships

Introduction
Acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships are of tremendous concern to IMO
and to shipping in general. The fight to prevent and suppress these acts is linked to the
measures to improve security on ships and in port facilities, adopted in December
2002.
The following definition of piracy is contained in Article 101 of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
“Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for
private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and
directed:

- on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on
board such ship or aircraft;
- against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any
State;

b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with

knowledge of facts
making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

c) any act inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph (a)

or (b).”

Initiatives to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea

IMO is implementing an anti-piracy project, a long-term project which began in 1998.
Phase one consisted of a number of regional seminars and workshops attended by
Government representatives from countries in piracy-infested areas of the world;
while phase two consisted of a number of evaluation and assessment missions to
different regions. IMO's aim has been to foster the development of regional
agreements on implementation of counter piracy measures.
Regional cooperation among States has an important role to play in solving the
problem of piracy and armed robbery against ships, as evidenced by the success of the
regional anti-piracy operation in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. The Regional
Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in
Asia (RECAAP), which was concluded in November 2004 by 16 countries in Asia,
and includes the RECAAP Information Sharing Centre (ISC) for facilitating the
sharing of piracy-related information, is a good example of successful regional
cooperation which IMO seeks to replicate elsewhere.
Today, the deteriorating security situation in the seas off war-torn Somalia and the
Gulf of Aden (and in the increasingly volatile Gulf of Guinea) are at the heart of the
problem.

75
In January 2009, an important regional agreement was adopted in Djibouti by States
in the region, at a high-level meeting convened by IMO. The Code of Conduct
concerning the Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in the Western
Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden recognizes the extent of the problem of piracy and
armed robbery against ships in the region and, in it, the signatories declare their
intention to co operate to the fullest possible extent, and in a manner consistent with
international law, in the repression of piracy and armed robbery against ships.
The signatories commit themselves towards sharing and reporting relevant
information through a system of national focal points and information centres;
interdicting ships suspected of engaging in acts of piracy or armed robbery against
ships; ensuring that persons committing or attempting to commit acts of piracy or
armed robbery against ships are apprehended and prosecuted; and facilitating proper
care, treatment, and repatriation for seafarers, fishermen, other shipboard personnel
and passengers subject to acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships, particularly
those who have been subjected to violence.
To assist in anti-piracy measures, IMO issues reports on piracy and armed robbery
against shipssubmitted by Member Governments and international organizations. The
reports, which include names and descriptions of ships attacked, position and time of
attack, consequences to the crew, ship or cargo and actions taken by the crew and
coastal authorities, are now circulated monthly, with quarterly and annual summaries.
IMO has issued the following circulars:
 MSC.1/Circ.1333 Recommendations to Governments for preventing and
suppressing piracy and armed robbery against ship ssuggests possible
counter-measures that could be employed by Rescue Co-ordination Centres
and security forces. Now also includes draft Regional agreement on co-
operation in preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery
against ships.
 MSC.1/Circ.1334Guidance to ship owners and ship operators, shipmasters
and crews on preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed
robbery against ships contains comprehensive advice on measures that can
be taken onboard to prevent attacks or, when they occur, to minimize the
danger to the crew and ship.
Directives for Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres (MRCCs) on Acts of Violence
against Ships (MSC/Circ.1073).

In November 2001, the IMO Assembly adopted the Code of Practice for the
Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against
Ships(resolution A.922(22)) as well as Measures to prevent the registration of
phantom ships (resolution A.923(22)).
Piracy and armed robbery against ships is dealt with by the Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC)as well as by the Facilitation Committee.

Methods OF Dealing with Stowaways

IMO GUIDELINES ON THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO SEEK

THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF STOWAWAY CASES, ADOPTED BY
IMO ON 27 NOVEMBER 1997

 Masters, shipowners (including any persons or party acting on behalf of the

owner of the vessel), port authorities, national administrations, and other

76
 bodies including security operators all have a responsibility to cooperate to
prevent illegal access to the vessel while it is in port. However, no matter how
effective routine port and ship security is, there will still be occasions when
stowaways gain access to vessels, either secreted in the cargo or by
surreptitious boarding.
 For the purposes of the Guidelines a stowaway is defined as a person who is
secreted on a ship, or in cargo which is subsequently loaded on the ship,
without the consent of the shipowner or the master or any other responsible
person and who is detected on board after the ship has departed from a port,
and is reported as a stowaway by the master to the appropriate authorities.
 The resolution of stowaway cases is difficult because of different national
legislation in each of the potentially several countries involved: the country of
embarkation, the country of disembarkation, the flag state of the vessel, the
country of apparent, claimed or actual nationality/citizenship of the stowaway,
and countries of transit during repatriation.
 There are, however, some basic principles which can be applied generally.
These are as follows:

a) A recognition that stowaways arriving at or entering a country without the

required documents are, in general, illegal entrants. Decisions on dealing with
such situations are the prerogative of the countries where such arrival or entry
occurs.
b) Stowaway asylum-seekers should be treated in compliance with international
protection principles as set out in international instruments (the UN
Convention relating to the Status of
c) Refugees of 28 July 1951 and the UN Protocol relating to the Status of
Refugees of 31 January 1967) and relevant national legislation.
d) The shipowner, and his representative on the spot, the master, as well as port
authorities
e) and national administrations should co-operate as far as possible in dealing
with stowaway cases.
f) Shipowners, and their representatives on the spot, the masters, as well as port
authorities and national administrations should have security arrangements in
place which, as far as practicable, will prevent intending stowaways from
getting aboard a ship or, if this fails, will detect them before a ship arrives in
port. Where national legislation permits, national authorities should consider
prosecution of stowaways for trespassing upon or damaging the property of
the shipping company, or the cargo.
g) Countries should admit returned stowaways with full nationality/ citizenship
status of that country or a right of residence.
h) The country of the original port of embarkation of a stowaway should
normally accept the return of such a stowaway for examination pending final
case disposition.
i) Every effort should be made to avoid situations where a stowaway has to be
detained on
j) board a ship indefinitely. In this regard countries should co-operate with the
shipowner in
k) arranging the return of a stowaway to an appropriate country.

77
 l) Stowaway incidents should be dealt with humanely by all parties involved.
Due consideration must always be given to the operational safety of the ship
and the well-being of the stowaway.

As a first step in addressing the issue, a framework of the various responsibilities,

rights and liabilities of the parties involved needs to be identified and agreed. The
following allocation of responsibility is suggested:

The Master

 to make every effort to determine immediately the port of embarkation of the

stowaway
 to make every effort to establish the identity, including the nationality/
citizenship of the stowaway
 to prepare a statement containing all information relevant to the stowaway, in
accordance with information specified in the standard document annexed to
these Guidelines, for presentation to the appropriate authorities
 to notify the existence of a stowaway and any relevant details to his shipowner
and appropriate authorities at the port of embarkation, the next port of call and
the flag state
 not to depart from his planned voyage to seek the disembarkation of a
stowaway to any country unless repatriation has been arranged with sufficient
documentation and permission for disembarkation, or unless there are
extenuating security or compassionate reasons
 to ensure that the stowaway is presented to appropriate authorities at the next
port of call in accordance with their requirements
 to take appropriate measures to ensure the security, general health, welfare and
safety of the stowaway until disembarkation.

The shipowner or Operator

 to ensure that the existence of, and any relevant information on, the stowaway
has been notified to the appropriate authorities at the port of embarkation, the
next port of call and the flag state
 to comply with any removal directions made by the competent national
authorities at the port of disembarkation.

Country of First Scheduled Port of Call after Discovery of the Stowaway (Port of
Disembarkation)
 to accept the stowaway for examination in accordance with the national laws
of that country and, where the competent national authority considers that it
would facilitate matters, to allow the shipowner and his named representative
and the competent or appointed P&I Club correspondent to have access to the
stowaway
 to consider allowing disembarkation and provide, as necessary and in
accordance with national law, secure accommodation which may be at the
expense of the shipowner or agents where:

a) a case under 5.3.1 is unresolved at the time of sailing, or

78
 b) national authorities are satisfied that arrangements have been made and will be
effected for the early return or repatriation of the stowaway by other means
(which may be at the expense of the shipowner or agents) or
c) presence on board would endanger the safe operation of the vessel.

 to assist, as necessary, in the identification of the stowaway and the

establishment of his or her nationality/citizenship
 to assist, as necessary, in establishing the validity and authenticity of a
stowaway's documents
 to give directions for the removal of the stowaway to port of embarkation,
country of nationality/citizenship or to some other country to which lawful
directions may be made, in co-operation with the shipowner and his nominated
representative
 in co-operation with the shipowner and his nominated representative to discuss
repatriation or removal arrangements or directions with the master/shipowner
or their appointed representatives, keeping them informed, as far as
practicable, of the level of detention costs while keeping these to a minimum
 to consider mitigation of charges that might otherwise be applicable when
shipowners have co-operated with the control authorities to the satisfaction of
those authorities in measures designed to prevent the transportation of
stowaways
 to issue, if necessary, in the event that the stowaway has no identification
and/or travel documents, a document attesting to the circumstances of
embarkation and arrival to enable the return of the stowaway either to his
country of origin, to the country of the port of embarkation, or to any other
country to which lawful directions can be made, by any means of transport
 to hand over the letter to the transport operator effecting the removal of the
stowaway
 to take proper account of the interests of, and implications for, the shipowner
or agent when directing detention and setting removal directions, so far as is
consistent with the maintenance of control, its duties or obligations to the
stowaway under the law and the cost to public funds.

The Country of the Original Port of Embarkation of the Stowaway (i.e. the Country
where the stowaway first boarded the ship)

 to accept any returned stowaway having nationality/citizenship or right of

residence
 to accept, in normal circumstances, a stowaway back for examination where
the port of embarkation is identified to the satisfaction of the authorities of the
receiving country
 to apprehend and detain the stowaway, where permitted by national
legislation, if the stowaway is discovered before sailing, either on the vessel or
in cargo due to be loaded; to refer the intended stowaway to local authorities
for prosecution, and/or, where applicable, to the immigration authorities for
examination and possible removal; no charge to be imposed on the shipowner
in respect of detention or removal costs and no penalty to be imposed
 to apprehend and detain the stowaway, where permitted by national
legislation, if the stowaway is discovered while the vessel is still in the
territorial waters of the country of embarkation, or in another port in the same

79
 country, (not having called at a port in another country in the meantime) no
charge to be imposed on the shipowner in respect of detention or removal
costs and no penalty to be imposed.

The Apparent or Claimed Country of Nationality/Citizenship of the Stowaway

 to make every effort to assist in determining the identity and

nationality/citizenship of the stowaway and to document the stowaway
accordingly once satisfied that the stowaway does hold the nationality/
citizenship claimed
 to accept the stowaway where nationality/citizenship is established.

The Flag State of the Vessel

 to be willing, if practicable, to assist the master/shipowner or the appropriate

authority at the port of disembarkation in identifying the stowaway and
determining his or her nationality
 to be prepared to make representations to the relevant authority to assist in the
removal of the stowaway from the vessel at the first available opportunity
 to be prepared to assist the master/shipowner or the authority at the port of
disembarkation in making arrangements for the removal or repatriation of the
stowaway.

Any Countries of Transit during Repatriation

to allow, subject to normal visa requirements, the transit through their ports and
airports of stowaways travelling under the removal instructions or directions of the
country of the port of disembarkation.

IMO Stowaway Focal Point

The Committee agreed to continue the operation of a trial IMO Stowaway Focal Point
within the Secretariat for a further year, to provide assistance for the successful
resolution of stowaway cases, when parties concerned have been unable to resolve
such issues within the means available to them.
Since the establishment of the focal point by FAL 34 in March 2007, the assistance of
the Secretariat has been requested in only three cases of stowaways on board ship,
with a view to the effective disembarkation of such stowaways at the next port. The
majority of stowaway incidents are handled at the local level and, as a result, little or
no feedback has been received. Consequently, the success or otherwise of IMO's
intervention cannot be quantified. Nevertheless, the establishment of the IMO
Stowaway Focal Point did focus attention on the ongoing problem of stowaways and
led to better liaison with relevant bodies, including P & I Clubs, which, in turn, has
been reflected in greater accuracy with the statistics on stowaways.

The Committee noted the annual report on stowaway incidents reported to the
Organization, which recorded 252 stowaway cases in 2007, involving 889 stowaways.
This compared with 244 stowaway cases reported in 2006, involving 657 stowaways.

Meanwhile, the Committee urged Member States, as provided in the terms of

80
reference for the IMO Stowaway Focal Point, to communicate to the Organization a
single national point of contact (name, title, address, office telephone, facsimile and e-
mail address and after hours telephone number) through whom all communications
relating to stowaways are to be routed; and to provide information to the Organization
in relation to their national laws, policies, practices and procedures relating to
stowaways.

Stowaways: A View from the Bridge

The problem of stowaways is an ancient one. During more recent times stowaways
have been regarded as an expensive nuisance primarily encountered by ships
operating in the third world. Due to rapidly changing economic and political
conditions stowaways have become a problem to ships in all the world's trades,
especially Europe's. Traditionally perceived as a shipboard responsibility, stowaways
are now seen as a problem requiring the combined efforts of the terminals, company
management, and the ship.

Companies must set up procedures and guidelines for dealing with stowaways. Also,
in each foreign port, security guards should be hired with at least one guard being
fluent in English. Companies should also arrange to have all empty containers
checked and sealed, or opened and visually checked just prior to loading.

The ship's captain must ensure a proper gangway watch is maintained at all times.
Prior to port entry all spaces not to be used during cargo operations should be locked
and sealed. The crew should be instructed to be aware of anyone suspicious and to
report it to the mate or the crewman on watch. As an added precaution, the ship's
master should conduct a complete stowaway search at the completion of cargo
operations and prior to letting go.

Terminal cooperation and awareness is essential. First and foremost the terminal must
insure that adequate port security measures are in place. One of the most helpful
measures a terminal can institute is to require passes for both crew and all shore side
workers entering or leaving the terminal. In addition to controlling entry to the port,
terminal personnel must minimize persons wandering, particularly in the vicinity of
empty containers and other cargo in which potential stowaways could conceal
themselves. The terminal should also inform the entering ships of recent and present
stowaway problems.

Despite the best coordinated efforts of the ship, terminal, and steamship company
management, determined individuals will occasionally succeed in stowing away. If
upon departure form a port, you have reason to believe you have stowaways on board;
caution must be used in locating the stowaways. As the stowaways are rounded up,
take them to a central location and isolate them and interrogate them. Once the initial
information has been gathered you will want to call your company and agent. The
agent, working with the company, should make every effort to expedite the removal
of the stowaways from the vessel.

Stowaways present numerous headaches, delays, and are very expensive. The
company must bear all expenses of repatriation. Ship's officers may face termination
if it is felt they have failed to exercise due diligence. Lest anyone regard this as a

81
trivial matter, one American flag liner company estimated the cost of handling five
European stowaways to be in the neighbourhood of $100,000 US dollars.

The Prevention and Care of Stowaways

Recent media coverage of the trials of seamen accused of brutal treatment and murder
of stowaways has brought their plight to the world's attention, but the problem has
been growing steadily for many years. The proliferation of satellite dishes in
impoverished countries showing the good life in America, combined with population
pressure, collapsing economies, and political repression, has sparked a dramatic
increase in stowaway activity, and some panicky responses from shipmaster and crew.

Few people in America realize that income received from relatives in the United
States constitutes the single largest contribution to the national income of several
nations, including Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

One alarming trend has been the increase in the number of stowaways on a given
vessel. Traditionally the stowaway was a lonely, desperate man, but now groups--
including women and children-- are being found. This trend reflects the fact that
stowing away on a merchant vessel is usually a group effort resulting from shared
know-how, bribery, collusion, and hard work. The advance guards of the stowaways
are the prostitutes, stevedores, guards, chandlers, customs official and fake-jewellery
salesmen who flock onboard.

The master of a vessel trading in high-risk countries, such as Haiti, The Dominican
Republic (the worst), Colombia, or Nicaragua must hold training sessions for the
officers and crew regarding non-crew members in unauthorized areas, the securing of
hatches, the maintenance of effective look-outs, the use of disinformation to
discourage stowaways, and proper stowaway search procedures before departure.

Other techniques for preventing or flushing out stowaways include wireless alarms
sounding in the master's stateroom when certain hatches or doors are opened, the use
of Spanish-language placards warning that certain compartments contain poisonous
gases, and the use of tear gas to flush out stowaways.

One aspect of the stowaway problem that has eluded the media is the reality that
many stowaways are criminals in their countries, fleeing legitimate prosecution, and
many others exhibit the violence of desperation. The vessel trading high-risk countries
should maintain a brig onboard to hold stowaways, and the handling of apprehended
stowaways should be rigidly supervised and recorded.

The greatest threat from stowaways is not their physical presence, but the grievous
consequences of their presence. Fines, delays, emotional stress, and even criminal
charges against the crew for mistreating stowaways face ship owners who do not
implement an effective plan to prevent stowaways from coming onboard and to care
for the ones that do.

Preparedness to Deal with Stowaways: Security Contingency Plans

82
The principle of 'building block' will be used, covering subjects individually, which
when taken as a whole, will produce a complete plan.

Specific Subject Areas:

1. INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT - The stages and thinking involved in the conduct
of an initial detailed risk assessment

2. THE LEGAL SITUATION - Covering in outline the requirement to consider the

impact of any security measures on the local laws and the legal implications.

3. SECURITY SURVEY - The next stage is a detailed survey using the findings of
the Risk Assessment as its baseline. This will include the conduct of a survey, the
subject areas covered and the preparation of a report, including conclusions and
recommendations.

4. THE PRINCIPLE OF LAYERED PROTECTIVE MEASURES - Why the

principle of building layers of protection is the fundamental feature of a totally
integrated system and that this principle can equally be applied to cargo and passenger
handling facilities.

5. PERIMETER PROTECTION INCLUDING DESIGNATED RESTRICTED

AREAS - Detailing the absolute requirements for the use of visible perimeter fences,
boundaries and the correct designation of the areas to be protected, using control of
access and designated Restricted Areas.

6. CONTROL OF ACCESS - Covering the need for the control of access to facilities
and specific areas and how these controls can be efficiently and sensibly
implemented, without disrupting the commercial function of the vessel.

7. TECHNICAL MEASURES - The use of technical measures in support of the

protection of the vessel.

8. SECURITY PERSONNEL - The selection, recruitment, training and utilization of

personnel.

9. IDENTIFICATION - The identification of employees and visitors covering cargo

and non-cargo facilities.

10. THE VESSEL SECURITY AND CONTINGENCY PLAN - A description of the

contents of a comprehensive plan covering the aspects mentioned above and incident
response.

How to prevent:

 Tighter port security and greater vigilance by ship.

 By port authorities:
 Restrict to few people who have access to ships
 Steps to prevent stowaway hiding inside container.

83
  Some port uses sniffer dogs and human occupancy detector (inside container),
so no need to break container seal.

Human occupancy detector:

Is an infrared detector, which measures level of co 2 in an air sample, drawn from

container, level of co 2 increases with occupancy?

On board:

a) Minimum or only one access to ship and effective gangway watch maintained
all the times
b) Person with identity should always be checked and unauthorized persons
refused access
c) Gangway to be raised during period of non use
d) All store rooms, mast houses, entrance to accommodation (except only one
entrance to accommodation) should be locked in accordance with fire and
safety regulations
e) Cargo work if not 24 hrs, access to hold should be checked at end of each
working periods, hatches closed, all accesses to cargo holds locked
f) Maintained deck watch all the times in port and anchorage especially
stowaway is a problem
g) At port/anchorage in night:
h) Well lit deck and over-side area
i) Check mooring ropes and anchor cable regularly to deter stowaway to gain
access
j) With reduced manning difficult to maintain 24 hrs watch, master to employ
shore watchmen
k) Shore watchmen from reputed company and arranged by ship’s agent and P&
I correspondent
l) Master to display incorrect information on sailing board

Additional expenses for shore watchmen and human occupancy detector are not
covered by P & I club.

Charterer responsibility:

To exercise due care and diligence in preventing stowaway gaining access to v/l by
means of secreting himself in goods or container shipped by charterer.

If stowaway is found thru container or goods, this will constitute a breach of charter,
for which he shall be liable and holds s/o harmless and indemnify against all claims,
which may arise and made against them.

Stowaway searches:

1. To carry out immediately prior departure

2. As per company instructions

84
3. Subdivide v/l into several area e.g. accommodation, engine room, main deck
and Cargo compartments and delegate responsibility for searching area to
specified crew members
4. Each area should be searched systematically and simultaneously, (cargo holds,
Containers, store rooms, funnel casings, chain lockers, cabins, crane cab, mast
houses, e/r bilges etc.)
5. Checklist to be used for such searches
If stowaway found, immigration authorities to be advised in order to remove
from ship
6. River passage area prior disembarking pilot or if waiting for port clearance at
anchorage carry out second search
7. Make necessary arrangements to get rid of stowaway after discovered

Log book entries:

 Details of watch security arrangements at port

 Time, date and outcome of stowaway searches conducted by crew as per
company

Discovered stowaway on board:

 Follow company guidelines

 Establish where more stowaway onboard
 Notify ship-owner and agent at next port of call
 Establish identity of each stowaway
 Establish documents stowaway has in his/her possession
 Humanitarian obligation to provide maintenance e.g. food, water, sleeping
accommodation, washing and toilet facility
 Not an easy situation onboard, as a physical danger to crew or infectious
disease
 No matter whatever the situation to be treated humanely
 A case study shows that three stowaway found onboard and been thrown
overboard, two of them swim ashore safety and one drowned
 After legal proceeding master and chief officer were given life sentences and
other crew were jailed up to 20 years

If more than one stowaway - keep them separate.

Also establish following:

o Full name
o Nationality
o Postal and residential permanent or last address
o Date and place of birth
o Name, date and place of birth of either or both parents or other next of kin
including their postal and residential address
o Details of any document found in stowaway’s possession, such as passport,
CDC or identity card
o Stowaway not be socialize and become friendly with crew

85
 o Never allow stowaway to escape in port as ship's officer(s) may be fined by
immigration
o Do not allow stowaway on work
o Proper logbook entries made for the period of stay of stowaway

IMO guidelines on Stowaways

An international convention relating to stowaways was adopted in Brussels in 1957,

but it has not yet entered into force and is unlikely to do so.

In recent years, however, the problem of stowaways has increased and it is generally
recognized that there is an urgent need for international agreement on the allocation
of responsibilities to enable the successful resolution of cases involving stowaways.

In 2000, IMO Facilitation Committee agreed at its 28th session (30 October – 3
November 2000) to include formalities for dealing with stowaways in the Convention
on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention), and these were
adopted in January 2002, with entry into force expected to be on 1 May 2003.

The FAL Convention - which was adopted in 1965 to prevent unnecessary delays in
maritime traffic, to aid co-operation between Governments, and to secure the highest
practicable degree of uniformity in formalities and other procedures.

Amendments to the FAL Convention to incorporate standards and recommended

practices on dealing with stowaways were adopted in January 2002, with expected
entry into force in 2003.

In the FAL Convention, standards are internationally agreed measures, which are
"necessary and practicable in order to facilitate international maritime traffic" and
recommended practices as measures the application of which is "desirable".

The standards and recommended practices for stowaways reflect the Guidelines on
the Allocation of Responsibilities to Seek the Successful Resolution of Stowaway
Cases (Resolution A.871 (20)), adopted in 1997, which established basic principles to
be applied in dealing with stowaways.
The guidelines in the resolution state that the resolution of stowaway cases is difficult
because of different national legislation in the various countries involved.
Nevertheless, some basic principles can be applied generally.

Stowaways entering a country without the required documents are, in general, illegal
immigrants, and decisions on how to deal with such situations are the prerogative of
the countries concerned. Stowaway asylum seekers should be treated in compliance
with international protection principles set out in relevant treaties.

The guidelines advocate close co-operation between ship-owners and port authorities.
Where national legislation permits, national authorities should consider prosecuting
stowaways concerning any damage caused. Countries should permit the return of
stowaways who are identified as being their citizens or who have a right of residence,
while the country where a stowaway originally embarked should normally accept his
or her return pending final case disposition.

86
The guidelines say that every effort should be made to avoid situations where a
stowaway has to be detained on board a ship indefinitely.

The guidelines then go on to establish in greater detail the responsibilities of the

master, of the ship-owner or operator, of the country of the first scheduled port of call
after the discovery of the stowaway (the port of disembarkation), of the country where
the stowaway first boarded the ship, of the stowaway's apparent or claimed country of
nationality, of the flag State of the vessel, and of any countries of transit during
repatriation.

The Assembly resolution refers to the difficulties encountered by masters and owners
in disembarking stowaways from ships. It emphasizes the need for co-operation and
states that "in normal circumstances, through such co-operation stowaways should,
as soon as practicable, be removed from the ship and returned to the country of
nationality-citizenship or to the port of embarkation, or to any other country which
would accept the stowaway."

The resolution also requested the Facilitation Committee to monitor the effectiveness
of the Guidelines; to keep them under review; and to take such further action,
including the development of a binding instrument, as may be considered necessary.

In 1998, the Facilitation Committee issued a Circular (FAL.2/Circ.50, revised in

1999 by FAL.2/Circ.50.Rev.1) inviting IMO Member Governments and international
organizations in consultative status to provide the Organization with information on
stowaway incidents. IMO now issues quarterly reports on stowaway incidents.

Maritime Crime: Who is affected?

There are no simple solutions to dealing with any form of crime and maritime crime is
no exception. There are however a number of things that can be done to make
responses more effective. The commercial sector has for too long been prepared to
either play-down the scale of maritime crime or to insist that it is primarily a policing
issue. If, however, maritime crime is to be tackled effectively then it needs to be
tackled not only by the police but by those with a vested interest in protecting their
own assets.

But as a starting point it is necessary to document the scale of maritime crime,

precisely who is affected and in what circumstances remains a largely un-researched
problem. Yet, without understanding the problem how can it be possible to produce
effective solutions?

Research findings in the past suggest that not all ship owners are at equal risk and that
different types of security measures are appropriate for different types of problems.
But a striking finding has been that all too often security is viewed negatively, and
many security ideas, which are applied, to vessels have failed to take account or have
misunderstood altogether the culture of the maritime community.

87
Maritime crime must be researched, analysed, solutions identified, packaged,
implemented and evaluated if a response is to be effective. What is required is an
approach that combines both research and application.

Maritime Security - A Joint Responsibility

Threats to Shipping from Illicit Boarding

 Terrorism and Hijacking for political reasons

 Piracy / Armed Robbery
 Drug Trafficking and other smuggling offences
 Petty theft and opportunity crime
 Stowaways and Illegal Immigrants

Common Solution

Restrict / control access to the port / cargo / vessel

How?

Maritime carriers on their own can only do so much. Port authorities are involved.
Governments are involved.
What can Maritime Carriers Do?

 Contingency planning
 Allocation of security responsibility - operator / vessel
 Awareness of threats
 Give guidance - (e.g.: industry guides on drugs and piracy - company
guidance)

What can Ports Do?

 Increase port security and not rely solely on the vessel protecting its perimeter

What can Governments Do?

 Terrorism and Hijacking for political reasons - Acknowledgement and

promulgation of threat, increase port security where there is a threat
 Piracy / Armed robbery - increase port security, reporting and response
arrangements, determined action to eradicate the problem nationally,
acknowledgement of the problem through IMO, awareness of the issue in
fighting navies, cooperative arrangements with littoral states when navy
vessels transit high threat areas in either international or territorial waters
 Drug Trafficking and other smuggling offences - enter into cooperative
arrangements with port users, including shipping companies, through the
Memoranda of Understanding arrangements promulgated by the World
Customs Organization, improve reporting arrangements, issue guidance and
contact points for ship masters

88
  Petty Theft and other opportunity crime - acknowledgement of the threat,
increased port security afloat, encourage reporting, provide guidance and
information
 Stowaways and Illegal Immigrants - in respect of stowaways - reference to
IMO Guidelines, reporting systems

National/Regional/International Action from Governments

Identification of common concerns

Cooperative actions through bilateral, multilateral actions and/or International
Conventions on issues where appropriate. Flag state information and guidance
provision

Other Threats

Embargo operations - need for information and realistic requirements, seek

cooperation
Attacks from armed forces on innocent merchant vessels

Conclusions
Governments could do a lot more to assist the maritime industry in combating
maritime crime and threats to vessels from various sources.

89
Chapter 5 – Master - Pilot
Relationship

90
Chapter- 5 Master-Pilot Relationship

PILOTAGE

Why are pilot engaged?

The command working group of the Nautical Institute identified the following as
some of the reasons why pilots are engaged and observed that the order of priority
depends upon circumstances. They may be divided into pure Pilotage, liaison, ship
handling, and bridge support.

 For their ability to anticipate accurately the effects of currents and tidal
influences
 For their expertise in navigating in close proximity to land and in narrow
channels
 For their understanding of local traffic
 For their ability to work effectively with the local VTS
 For their language ability when dealing with shore services
 For their expertise in handling tugs and linesmen
 To support the master and to relieve fatigue
 To provide an extra person or persons on the bridge to assist with navigating
the ship

The question as to whether or not a pilot’s primary role is to Improve safety is

difficult to answer since there are no a shipmaster may be more cautious. Without a
pilot the shipmaster may be more prone to make an error of judgement at a critical
point of approach. The feeling of the group was that the influence of a pilot on board
improves both the safety and efficiency of the operation.

Duty of the Master and Crew during Pilotage

The master of a ship must amongst other thing ensure the safety of the ship, of all on
board and of all who are threatened in any way by the proximity or operations of other
ships. In the execution of his duties, he is entitled to the full co-operation and
assistance from his officers and other members of his crew. All on board must go
about their tasks in accordance with those ordinary practices of seamen that have been
tried and tested over a long period of time i.e. the well understood standards of
seamanship that safeguard against accident or error. It is the master’s responsibility to
ensure that the crew support the pilot in his duties and the master may delegate the
authority for this to the officer of the watch or other appropriate officers.

It is the responsibility of the master, officers and other members of the crew to pass
on all relevant information, including defects and peculiarities, to the pilot and to keep
a proper lookout. The duty has been interpreted by the courts to include the duty to
report all material circumstances and facts which might influence the pilot’s actions,
even if the pilot is in a position where he ought to be able to see things clearly for
himself.
Where, in the master’s opinion, the situation developing is obviously dangerous, it is
his duty to draw the pilot’s attention to the risk and, if necessary in his judgment, take
over the conduct of the vessel. The master is not justified in doing nothing.

91
The duty in of the pilot is to direct the navigation of the ship, and to conduct it so far
as the course of the ship is concerned. He has no other power on board. The common
law relationship between master and pilot is such that, when the latter is legally
responsible for his own actions and the is restricted to circumstances where there is
clear evidence of the pilot’s incurring his own liability, is restricted to circumstances
where incurring his own liability, is restricted to circumstances where there is clear
evidence of the pilot’s inability or incompetence.

The legal position of the pilot on board a vessel is aptly summarised by the Canadian
Royal Commission on Pilotage, Ottawa 1968, as follow:

“To conduct a ship” must not be confused with being in command of a ship’.

The first expression refers to action, to a personal service being performed; the second
to power. The question whether a pilot has control of navigation is a question of fact
and not of law. The fact that a pilot has been given control of the ship for navigational
purposes does not mean that the pilot has superseded the master. The master is, and
remains, in command; he is the authority to subordinates and to outside, delegate part
of his authority to subordinates and to outside assistants whom he employs to navigate
his ship i.e. pilots. A delegation of power is not an abandonment of authority, but one
way of exercising authority.

However, laws of most foreign countries provide that a pilot whose employment is
compulsory is not regarded as having control of navigation of ship, but has his duties
restricted to advising the master of local conditions affecting safe navigation.
Voluntary and Compulsory Pilots

The pilot must, of course, possess many of the mariner’s skills including knowledge
of the Rules of the Road, navigation, and the use of all forms of navigation
equipment. A clear distinction must be made between voluntary and compulsory
pilots.

A voluntary pilot is one engaged for the convenience of the vessel. A North Sea pilot
employed to take a ship between the Rotterdam and Bremerhaven sea buys would be
one example of a voluntary pilot. No statue requires a ship to have a pilot aboard but
the master or owner hires the pilot to aid in making the passage expeditiously.

The owner, through the master, has great control over the voluntary pilot. The pilot
need not be hired in the first place, or the pilot’s services can be rejected during the
passage and the vessel continues to her destination. The voluntary pilot is in a
significantly different position aboard ship than the compulsory pilot, practically
speaking the master can feel much freer to advise or relieve a voluntary pilot the
voluntary pilot is in much the same position as the ship’s mates.
A compulsory pilot, on the other hand, is one that is required by law to be aboard
while the ship is navigating certain specified areas. Penalties such as fines or
imprisonment, or both, are the hallmarks of compulsory Pilotage laws. If a ship is
allowed by hallmarks of compulsory services of a pilot provided she pays a portion of
the Pilotage fee and the Pilotage is not compulsory.

92
The relationship between master and compulsory pilot is in many ways unique in that
it is usually defined by custom, practice, and statute rather than contract. While the
pilot is generally neither an employee of the ship nor a member of her crew, he is
ultimately subordinate to the member of her crew, he is ultimately subordinate to the
master, although the degree of subordination is less than popularly perceived. The
public and the industry benefit equally from this working arrangement and from the
degree of overlapping responsibility that compels both pilot and master to be
concerned about a vessel’s safety.

The compulsory pilot is not aboard in a purely advisory capacity. That pilot is in
charge of the navigation of the ship while aboard and the ship’s crew is required to
obey the compulsory pilot’s orders relating to navigation unless the master determines
it is necessary to intercede for reasons yet to be discussed. A compulsory pilot is
responsible for his own actions and receives a significant fee because of this
responsibility. In the presence of the compulsory pilot, a master’s responsibility is not
total and forever. Both master and pilot have a job to do and bear an unusual degree of
responsibility not only to the vessel, cargo, and crew, but also the public.

An exception is found to the traditional master/ pilot relationship at the Panama

Canal. The Panama Canal Commission accepts a greater degree of liability in
exchange for greater control of ship’s navigation in that strategic waterway. Inside the
locks of the Panama Canal, Commission is liable for payment for injuries to the
vessel, cargo, crew, or passengers arising out of a passage through unless the
Commission shows that the injury was caused by a negligent act of the vessel.
Outside the locks the Commission passengers when such injuries are proximately
caused by the negligence or fault of a Canal Commission employee… provided that in
the case of a ship required to have a Panama Canal pilot on duty on duty. Damages
are only payable if at the time of injury the navigation was under the control of the
Panama Canal pilot.

Shipmasters should be aware of the manner in which the traditional master/ pilot
relationship is distorted in the special circumstance.

THE MASTER/PILOT RELATIONSHIP

...Perhaps attitudes must change. Things have come a long way in this industry, but
cooperation is still lacking between bridge officers, masters and pilots. --- A master

Some masters just want to be masters, smirk at advice, and treat you as an intruder. --
-A
Pilot

In compulsory Pilotage waters, pilots provide local knowledge of the navigation

conditions prevailing in the area. The pilot is responsible to the master solely for the
safe navigation of the vessel. The master retains overall responsibility for the safety of
the vessel but relies on the pilot's local knowledge and ability to handle the vessel in a
safe and efficient manner. Cooperation between pilot and master is essential.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), in a recommendation describes a

navigational watch with a pilot on board as follows:

93
Despite the duties and obligations of a pilot, his presence on board does not relieve
the master or officer in charge of the watch from their duties and obligations for the
safety of the ship. The master and the pilot shall exchange information regarding
navigation procedures, local conditions and the ship's characteristics. The master and
officer of the watch shall co-operate closely with the pilot and maintain an accurate
check of the ship's position and movement.

Navigating a vessel safely requires teamwork and interpersonal communications and

this is particularly true in compulsory Pilotage waters when a pilot is on board. There
are about three particular elements of the operational relationship between pilots and
bridge officers, namely:

 The sharing of information such as passage plans and the vessel's condition,
and the factors affecting communication
 The monitoring of the vessel's movements by the master and/or OOW while
she is under
 The conduct of a pilot; and
 The attitudes and behaviour on the bridge relating to teamwork

The Nautical Institute of the UK, in its guide to Bridge Team Management, states
that:

Ideally, the Master and his team will be aware of the pilot's intentions and be in a
position to be able to query his actions at any stage of the passage. This can only be
brought about by:

 The bridge team being aware of the difficulties and constraints of the Pilotage
area
 The pilot being aware of the characteristics and peculiarities of the ship
 The pilot being made familiar with the equipment at his disposal and aware of
the degree of support he can expect from the ship's personnel.

The International Chamber of Shipping, in its publication Bridge Procedures Guide,

recommends the following checklist to ensure an information exchange between
master and pilot:

 Has a completed pilot card been handed to the pilot?

 Has the pilot been informed of the location of lifesaving appliances provided
for his use?
 Have the proposed passage plan, weather conditions, berthing arrangements,
use of tugs and other external facilities been explained by the pilot and agreed
with the master?
 Are the progress of the ship and the execution of orders being monitored by
the master and the officer of the watch?

One Canadian pilot has summed up the requirement for an exchange of technical
information as follows:

94
Pilots should be informed of each significant factor, which may affect his proposed
manoeuvring plan. Vessel manoeuvring characteristics should be shown to the pilot
and he should ensure he understands any special conditions, which may affect him.
He should always know who the senior officer of the bridge party is, including the
master and be aware of watch changes, quartermaster changes etc. Similarly the pilot
must inform the master of his intended manoeuvring plan and update this as
necessary with any change in conditions. Local regulations and communications
requirements should be relayed to the master and officer of the watch.

The Master’s Responsibilities in Pilotage Waters

The master retains overall responsibility for the vessel and her operation, for having a
competent watch on duty and seeing that they perform their work efficiently, for
being sure a proper lookout is maintained, and for compliance with all regulations and
statues including the Rule of the Road (COLREGS). The master’s authority is never
completely in abeyance even while a pilot (compulsory or not) has immediate charge
of the ship’s navigation. The master is also responsible for his own professional
competency, including having sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to
judge the pilot’ s performance and recognize significant pilot error, and to have
studied and the local waters and be able to recognize known and published dangers.

The master has a duty to advise or relieve a pilot in cases of:

 Intoxication
 Gross incompetence to perform the task at hand
 When the vessel is standing into danger that is not obvious to the pilot
 When the pilot’s actions are in error due to a lack of appreciation of particular
circumstances, including the limitations of the particular ship being handled

In carrying out these responsibility the master may either advise or relieve the pilot, at
the master’s discretion, in practice, there is a real burden upon the master to justify
relieving the pilot should some casualty result so the action of relieving must not be
arbitrary, there are several ways to do a job and, while admittedly some are more
expeditious than others, the master must not relieve the pilot simply should only be
relieved when the master feels, based upon professional experience and training, that
the vessel, crew, or cargo is being placed in real and imminent danger because of that
pilot’ s present course of action. On the other hand, the master is negligent if action is
not taken when required. The master first objects to an action, then recommends an
alternative and only in the rare case when the pilot refuses to accept a
recommendation does the master relieve a pilot in a timely manner – while it is still
possible to avoid an accident.

The decision about when to become involved is more difficult than the absolute
problem of whether it is necessary to do so. There is a natural reluctance to act
because of the ramifications in case of a casualty, yet the question of the timing is
most critical, Relief usually occurs when it is too late- when the situation has
deteriorated so far that even the most competent ship handler could not correct
matters and the master’s efforts then only complicate an already bad situation. There
is no equipment that a ship be in extremis before the pilot is relieved, only that the
master foresees danger should a present course of action continue.

95
It is imperative that the master be sufficiently skilled in ship handling to recognize a
problem early, and have sufficient confidence in those skills to take prompt and
decisive action if it is necessary to relieve a pilot. The correctness of action taken
reflects the training and experience that a master has had and it is too late to
compensate for years of neglect in this area at such a time. The decision to relieve a
pilot is not an easy one, but a master who instead stands by as the vessel heads for
certain catastrophe remains a responsibility party ad must take action. It is a judgment
that can only be made based on professional experience and is but one example of
why the title “shipmaster” bears a connotation of unusual responsibility.

Release from liability forms

Occasionally a master is presented with a form to be signed releasing the pilot from
liability. These forms may be based on local practice or special circumstances such as
a tugboat strike. The validity of these forms in a particular case is questionable and
depends on local laws and regulations of which the master cannot reasonably be
expected to have knowledge.

In as much as the master may be under pressure not to delay the vessel, and may not
be able to consult with anyone about the advisability of signature that the release is
“Signed under protest so that the vessel may proceed.” An entry to that effect should
be made in the ship’s log. Forward a copy of the release to the owners so they can
advise you about signing such documents in the future.

In any case, the form will have no immediate practical effect since the master has
ultimate responsibility for the ship in any case, and the document in no way alters the
master’s conduct during the docking or other working at hand.

What are the elements of an effective Master – Pilot relationship?

Communication

Most foreign ships that I go on board totally rely on the pilot for the safe passage of
the vessel and also the docking and do not question what is taking place either
relating to speed or steering. --- A pilot

Most marine organizations around the world recognize the importance of

communications among members of the bridge team, including those times when a
pilot is on board.

The importance of establishing positive communication when a pilot comes on board

is recognized by most pilots, masters and OOW. It is a practice on ships to have a
well established routine to welcome the pilot on board. A ship officer is assigned to
meet the pilot at the gangway and to escort him to the navigation bridge where he is
introduced to the master. Unfortunately, on some ships, the exchange between the
pilot and the master is limited to a handshake. It can be dangerous to the safety of the
ship for a master to consider the arrival of a pilot on board as a relief, a way to
discharge some of their responsibilities, a chance to get some rest. Unfortunately,
masters having such an attitude will come back to the bridge only to sign the pilot's
card on his departure.

96
Case study

On 12 May 1991, the loaded Yugoslavian bulk carrier "MALINSKA" departed

Hamilton,
Ontario, bound for the intermediate port of Sorel, Quebec. At about 0033 on 13 May,
the vessel ran aground approximately 20 miles south-south-west (SSW) of Kingston,
Ontario, after altering course south of Main Duck Island. The inquiry determined that
the "MALINSKA" ran aground because the vessel did not establish with certainty the
position and track, prior to, upon or after altering course off Main Duck Island. The
inquiry stated that "a general lack of interaction, coordination, and cooperation among
the master, the officer of the watch and the pilot was evidenced in this occurrence."
The inquiry also found that there was a lack of communication between the pilot and
the OOW regarding the charted midnight position. Both the pilot and the second mate
did their own calculations of the vessel's position, but they did not exchange
information.

One pilot summed up the requirement for an exchange of technical information as

follows:

Pilots should be informed of each significant factor, which may affect his proposed
manoeuvring plan. Vessel manoeuvring characteristics should be shown to the pilot
and he should ensure he understands any special conditions, which may affect him.
He should always know who the senior officer of the bridge party is, including the
master and be aware of watch changes, quartermaster changes etc. Similarly the pilot
must inform the master of his intended manoeuvring plan and update this as
necessary with any change in conditions. Local regulations and communications
requirements should be relayed to the master and officer of the watch.

Manoeuvring Characteristics of the Vessel

Information between the pilot and master

Most of the time, the pilot has to question the master or OOW to obtain essential
information regarding the speed and manoeuvrability of the vessel. However, some
pilots are reportedly reluctant in their willingness to offer information to ship masters;
some masters and OOW claim that the pilot, once on the bridge, seldom has time to
refer to charts and provide details to the OOW, as he is occupied in conducting the
vessel.

Some masters have stressed that it is typical of pilots anywhere in the world to
provide little information to the bridge officers and to act as if taking over the vessel.
It seems that few masters have at hand a specific table of their ship's characteristics to
give to the pilot, as recommended by the International Chamber of Shipping. They
claim that the pilot may not have time to read the card that he will have to leave the
bridge at night to peruse it in order to find the particular information needed. They
indicate that verbal communication is much more effective and tends to establish
contact between the bridge personnel. Masters claim that, as a safety measure before
berthing the vessel, they always provide the pilot with ship handling data, and that, if
the pilot neglects to brief them on his intended manoeuvres, they will ask for details.

97
Local Conditions

Masters should insist that the pilots brief them about the Pilotage waters. The attitude
should not be that unless there has been a change in the aids to navigation system or
special berthing manoeuvres have to be attempted, there is no need for the master to
be briefed on the details of the transit.

Masters on their intended manoeuvres

In addition, master should be informed, by the pilot, of the Harbour Master's docking
instructions. This perception that the masters and OOW know well the local
conditions and routines can lead both pilots and ship officers to take a lot for granted.
Both groups can assume that they share a common mental model of the area and the
plan, without having to review it together. This situation can lead to the bridge
personnel and the pilot surprising each other. In a dynamic situation, this can easily
get out of hand. One person assuming that other shares the same assessment of a
situation can take action, which the other does not expect. This places both of them in
a difficult situation. Misunderstandings can build on each other, destroying mutual
support or teamwork, and even leading to conflict. Prior discussion and agreement on
the plan and mutual acceptance of duties and responsibilities, however, will usually
foster teamwork.

Manoeuvring and Passage Plans

Case study

On 08 May 1991, while down-bound in the St. Lawrence River with a cargo of oil,
the Canadian tanker "IRVING NORDIC" struck bottom to the north of the ship
channel, downstream of the Grondines wharf. The inquiry determined that the
"IRVING NORDIC" struck bottom because the vessel left the navigation channel as a
result of a premature alteration of course. The alteration of course was ordered by the
pilot who believed that the "IRVING NORDIC" was farther downstream than the
vessel really was. The helmsman did not advise the pilot that he was experiencing
difficulty in holding the vessel on course. The pilot did not question the helmsman
about the position of the wheel relative to the rudder angle indicator. The OOW
method of monitoring the vessel's progress was not sufficiently precise to prevent the
occurrence. The inquiry further stated that a general lack of interaction and
coordination between bridge personnel and the pilot contributed to the accident.

In its report, the inquiry, discussing the errors that resulted in the vessel striking
bottom, stated:

In confined compulsory Pilotage waters, a pilot's passage plan containing all key
navigational elements such as course alteration points, wheel-over positions, and
points where the accuracy of position fixing is critical, etc. could reduce the risk of
such errors.

98
There can be a discrepancy in a pilot’s view, who can claim that they do a good job of
establishing effective relationships by sharing information on local conditions and
plans. The masters and bridge officers, however, may not endorse the pilots'
assessment of their own efforts because there can be a tendency, on part of the pilot,
to provide complete information when it is needed or requested. Masters should be
aware of such an assumption because both parties can assume that the other party
knows the necessary information; otherwise, they expect that the other party will take
the initiative to ask for the information. The implication is that, much of the time,
pilots believe that it is not needed or requested. In fact, some pilots complain that, as
soon as they take the con, masters often take advantage of their presence to leave the
bridge to get some sleep. It needs be reiterated that at no time should a Master have
such an attitude in the presence of a pilot.

Hand-over Briefings

Masters are often unaware of the local conditions and pilots are often unaware of the
manoeuvring characteristics of the vessel. Therefore, hand-over briefings are essential
so that both the master, having responsibility for the safety of the vessel, and the pilot,
having responsibility for the conduct of the vessel, will be aware of all relevant
factors which might affect the safe navigation of the vessel.

Case study

On 05 August 1990, after un-berthing in the Port of Montreal and attempting to turn
the vessel to head downstream, the chemical tanker "LAKE ANINA" grounded
outside the channel over a pipeline buried in the river bed. The inquiry determined
that, while in a compulsory Pilotage area with a pilot on board, the master retained the
conduct of the vessel. The master believed that he was better suited to carry out the
manoeuvre because of his familiarity with the vessel, and he was counting on the
pilot's advice during the manoeuvre. However, the master and the pilot had different
ideas as to the helm and engine actions required to effect the turn. In this case, the
master's ideas prevailed. The type and degree of support and advice to be given by the
pilot were not determined in advance.

An exchange of all relevant information and the intended transfer of the conduct of
the vessel should also be established and agreed upon as soon as possible. Hand-over
briefings are an essential component of teamwork and cooperation. However, here
again, there is a different perception between pilots and master / bridge officers on the
conduct of hand-over briefings.

Radio Communications

It is the responsibility of the Master to ensure that all communications relating to the
navigation and safety of the ship are conveyed to the master / OOW.

Language

The only practical way to improve operation relationship is to improve

communication between pilots-masters-officers of the watch. This can be by one

99
common language internationally.... As standards of crewing have yet to see a real
positive improvement, this problem will be ongoing until the shipping world exhausts
the search of nation’s forever cheaper crews. With the introduction of a new
nation/language, the communication problem exists with these new conscripts for
three to five years until they have attained a reasonable level of language expertise,
they then become more expensive and so the cycle continues. --- A pilot

An increasing number of foreign vessels plying Canadian waters are reported by

pilots as having no one on board who can speak English or French. In fact, since
1975, there have been at least 24 marine occurrences involving foreign-flag vessels in
Canadian waters where an inadequate knowledge of the operating language was
identified as a contributing factor.

In a study conducted by Transport Canada, when pilots were asked whether language
barriers make it difficult to communicate orders to the helmsman on foreign-
registered vessels, some 60% replied that language barriers "sometimes" affect
communication with the helmsman while 20% reported that it "often" resulted in
difficulty in communicating.

An IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) memorandum on the "Role of the

Human Element in Maritime Casualties", submitted by the government of the
Bahamas, states:

It should be noted that in the Act, if the crew have insufficient knowledge of English
and do not have a common language, the ship shall be deemed un-seaworthy and
shall not proceed to sea.

Teamwork

On foreign-registered ships... I have had several incidents when the Captain gave the
helmsman different orders than I gave him. I can tell by the rudder indicator. (In
other words he is second-guessing my judgement.) Over the last 23 years, this has
nearly caused some collisions and grounding. Also with a variable pitch propeller I
have had different orders relayed for engine movement while manoeuvring the ship.
Again second-guessing my judgement/ability - a very dangerous action - creating
confusion on the bridge. On several occasions the master has said it was "Pilot error"
- not so in my case - now I carry a tape-recorder to protect myself. --- A pilot

Ineffective communications on the bridge, interrupted procedures, lack of situational

awareness, lack of teamwork between pilots and ship officers, etc. have been
contributory factors in several similar occurrences in recent years. For instance, the
following extracts from Transport Canada reports are representative of occurrences in
which there were serious lapses in teamwork among the bridge officers:

…A general lack of interaction, coordination, and cooperation among the master, the
officer of the watch and the pilot was evidenced.... There was no effective exchange of
navigational and operational information among the different crewmembers and the
pilot when they came onto the bridge around midnight. Both the pilot and the second
mate did their own calculations of the vessel's position, but they did not exchange

100
information.... Because he did not know what the pilot's intentions were, the second
mate did not question him…

It should be noted that teamwork is as important as technical proficiency for safe

navigation.

Master / Pilot Information Exchange

 Pilot supplied by Master with relevant ship-handling information (draught,

trim, turning circles, peculiar manoeuvring characteristics in restricted water
depth/ channel width and other data). This information may be displayed at the
conning position

 Proposed track, plan, alternative plan, and available anchor berths along route
explained by pilot’s charts. With Master, Charts compared with the pilot’s
charts

 If required, appropriate Master/ Pilot information exchange from may be used

 Safe progress of the ship in relation to agreed track and plan monitored by
Master and Officer of the Watch and the execution of orders checked

 Berthing/ un-berthing plan, including the availability and use of tugs and other
external facilities agreed by pilot and Master

 Tide, set, wind force and direction, visibility expected along route
 Pilot informed of position of life-saving appliances provided for his use

Check List of Items to be agreed between the Master and the Pilot

1. Navigation Advice to Pilot

 Vessel’s heading, speed, RPM. (speed increasing/ decreasing)

 Distance off/ bearing of nearest appropriate navigating/ aid or landmark
 ETA at next course change position, next course/ heading
 Point out converging and close – by traffic
 Depth of water under the keel
 Any other items

2. Reach Agreement on Underway Procedures

 Manoeuvres for narrows, bends, turns, etc

 Courses/ headings, distance off danger areas, maximum speed
 Restrictions: day versus night movement/ berthing
 Tide and current conditions not acceptable
 Minimum acceptable visibility at any point
 Use of anchor (planned, emergency)
 Manoeuvres not requiring tugs
 Manoeuvres requiring tugs
 Number of tugs required (and when)
 Source of tug securing lines: ship or tug

101
  Push/ pull power of required tugs
 Communications procedure between vessel and tugs
 Placement of tugs alongside
 Crew standby requirement – number available and stations
 Expected time vessel has to arrive at berth/ turning basin at high / low / slack
water- average speed to his positions
 Any other items

3. Reach Agreement on Mooring / Unmooring Procedures

 Maximum acceptable wind force and direction

 Unmooring procedures without tugs in event of emergency
 Sequence of running out/retrieving-mooring lines / Wires
 Mooring lines to be run out by launch and time to run lines
 Provision for dock line handlers
 Determine which side to
 Fire wires required
 Any other items

An Example of Master / Pilot Information Exchange Form

(Information to be provided by Master)

Master ____________________ Date ____________

Please provide the following Information about your vessel:

VESSEL PARTICULARS
Vessel
Displacement
Draft Fwd Aft Amidships
SS/MV
L.O.A.
Breadth
Distance
Tankers Distance
To manifold only
Manifold to bridge
Main Engine
Turbine Diesel
Bridge control of Engines Yes No

Manoeuvring Speed/ Revolutions Critical RPM ___________

Full speed Half Speed Slow Dead

Slow
Knots knots knots knots
Revolutions Revolutions Revolutions
Revolutions
Maximum astern revolutions ____________________________ minutes.

102
It necessary to exceed manoeuvring full ahead allow _________________

Minutes for slowing down

Sea speed loaded: __________ Sea speed Ballast: ___________________

Present state of M.E/ Telegraphs: __________________________________

Ship Handling information and peculiarities of ship.

Navigation Aids
______ cms Radar on ________ Range Display Mode _________________

______ cms Radar on ________ Range Display Mode _________________

Other Navigational Aid Available: -

VHF on channel ______________ Gyro error ________________________

Equipment Defects/ Limitations Which may affect Pilotage navigational Advice: -

(1) Vessel’s heading speed, R.P.M.

(2) Point out converging & close by traffic.

GENERAL INFORMATION TO PILOT e.g. L.S.A for pilot’s use.

INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY PILOT

Pilot Mr. _______________ Date ________

Please provide following information to the Master:

 Intended navigation plan for the passage.

 Speed(s) required at different stages of the passage.
 Any navigation restrictions: - Dry versus night navigation etc.
 Status of navigational aids in Pilot age waters.
 Tides, currents, weather anticipated.
 Expected traffic conditions.
 Any other information critical to the safe passage.
 Contingency plans, alternative routes (if available).
 Minimum visibility acceptable at any time.
 Use of critical /anchors (planned or emergency).
 E.T.A at critical points of navigation.
 Any special local regulations.
 Latest charts for Pilotage area.
 Number of tugs required for berthing and which side alongside.
 Communication system between tugs and the ship.
 Any special requirements? If so, describe:

103
Common errors found in the Master – Pilot relationship

The details delineated below are from a study conducted by the Transportation Safety
Board of Canada. This has been included here to guide the student as what not to do
and how to formulate an effective master – pilot relationship that should be within the
framework of the bridge team management.

 In the 273 occurrences examined, misunderstanding between the pilot and

master, inattention by the pilot or the OOW, or lack of communication
between the pilot and the OOW were frequently present.

 The vast majority of responding masters, bridge officers and pilots believe that
teamwork is as important as technical proficiency for safe navigation.

 Recent occurrences indicate continuing problems with respect to the adequacy

of bridge teamwork; e.g. lack of a mutually agreed passage plan, lack of
interaction, coordination and cooperation among the bridge team, lack of
precise progress-monitoring by the OOW, etc.

 Fundamental differences in the corporate perspectives of ship officers and

pilots on such issues as the need for compulsory Pilotage and limited pilots'
legal liability are not conducive to promoting harmony in bridge teamwork.

 Although most pilots, masters and OOW agree that improving

communications among bridge personnel is key to safe marine operations, a
significant proportion of masters and bridge officers reported reluctance to
question a pilot's decisions.

 Often, there are differences in perceptions between masters / OOW and pilots
regarding the need for the exchange of information and the adequacy of the
information being exchanged.

 Most masters and bridge officers who responded state that they always inform
the pilot of the manoeuvring characteristics of the vessel, but few pilots state
that they are always provided with the information.

 The majority of masters and bridge officers feel that pilots do not always
provide adequate timely information on local conditions.

 Many masters and bridge officers reported that pilots do not always provide
information to the master or the OOW regarding the passage plan.

 Pilots and masters also disagree over the adequacy of hand-over briefings;
most masters / OOW say that they are informative and most pilots say that
they are not.

 Many masters and OOW believe that pilots do not always convey information
essential to safe navigation which is received by radio communications.

104
 With respect to the overall exchange of information between pilots and
masters and OOW, apparently each party is under the assumption that the
other knows the necessary information and, if they do not, they will request it.

 Misperceptions that the other party knows about the manoeuvring

characteristics of the vessel, or the local conditions and the intended passage
plan can lead to significant misunderstandings and surprises for the bridge
team.
 A majority of pilots reported that language barriers "sometimes" prevent
effective communication with the master and the OOW; several reported that
language barriers "often" prevented it.

 Pilots and bridge officers disagree on the extent to which OOW monitor the
vessel's progress, the pilots expressing some dissatisfaction with respect to
how well they are being supported or monitored by bridge personnel.
However, both groups agree that the pilots seldom assist the OOW in
monitoring the vessel movements.

 Most of the foregoing findings are indicative of serious barriers in the

relationship among pilots, masters and OOW, thereby compromising their
effectiveness as a coherent team.

105
 IMO Guidelines on Master-Pilot Relationship –
Ref IMO Resolution 960 dated 5th March 04

Despite the duties and obligations of a pilot, the pilot’s presence on board does
not relieve the master or officer in charge of the navigational watch from their
duties and obligations for the safety of the ship. It is important that, upon the
pilot boarding the ship and before the Pilotage commences, the pilot, the master
and the bridge personnel are aware of their respective roles in the safe passage
of the ship.

The master, bridge officers and pilot share a responsibility for good
communications and understanding of each other’s role for the safe conduct of
the vessel in Pilotage waters. Masters and bridge officers have a duty to support
the pilot and to ensure that his/her actions are monitored at all times.

Pilot boarding point

The appropriate competent Pilotage authority should establish and promulgate

the location of safe pilot embarkation and disembarkation points. The pilot
boarding point should be at a sufficient distance from the commencement of the
act of Pilotage to allow safe boarding conditions. The pilot boarding point
should also be situated at a place allowing for sufficient time and sea room to
meet the requirements of the master-pilot information exchange.

Master - pilot information exchange

 The master and the pilot should exchange information regarding navigational
procedures, local conditions and rules and the ship’s characteristics. This
information exchange should be a continuous process that generally continues
for the duration of the Pilotage

 Each Pilotage assignment should begin with an information exchange between

the pilot and the master. The amount and subject matter of the information to be
exchanged should be determined by the specific navigation demands of the
Pilotage operation. Additional information can be exchanged as the operation
proceeds

 Each competent Pilotage authority should develop a standard exchange of

information

 practice, taking into account regulatory requirements and best practices in the
Pilotage area

 Pilots should consider using an information card, form, checklist or other

memory aid to ensure that essential exchange items are covered. If an
information card or standard form is used by pilots locally regarding the
anticipated passage, the layout of such a card or form should be easy to
understand. The card or form should supplement and assist, not substitute for,
the verbal information exchange

106
 This exchange of information should include at least:

 Presentation of a completed standard Pilot Card. In addition, information

should be provided on rate of turn at different speeds, turning circles, stopping
distances and, if available, other appropriate data

 General agreement on plans and procedures, including contingency plans, for

the anticipated passage

 Discussion of any special conditions such as weather, depth of water, tidal

currents and marine traffic that may be expected during the passage; discussion
of any unusual ship-handling characteristics, machinery difficulties,
navigational equipment problems or crew limitations that could affect the
operation, handling or safe manoeuvring of the ship

 Information on berthing arrangements; use, characteristics and number of tugs;

mooring boats and other external facilities

 Information on mooring arrangements; and confirmation of the language to be

used on the bridge and with external parties .It should be clearly understood that
any passage plan is a basic indication of preferred intention and both the pilot
and the master should be prepared to depart from it when circumstances so
dictate

 Pilots and competent Pilotage authorities should be aware of the voyage

planning responsibilities of masters under applicable IMO instruments

Communications language

Pilots should be familiar with the IMO Standard Marine Communication

Phrases and use
them in appropriate situations during radio communications as well as during
verbal exchanges on the bridge. This will enable the master and officer in
charge of the navigational watch to better understand the communications and
their intent.

Communications on board between the pilot and bridge watch keeping

personnel should
be conducted in the English language or in a language other than English that is
common to all those involved in the operation.

When a pilot is communicating to parties external to the ship, such as vessel

traffic services, tugs or linesmen and the pilot is unable to communicate in the
English language or a language that can be understood on the bridge, the pilot
should, as soon as practicable, explain what was said to enable the bridge
personnel to monitor any subsequent actions taken by those external parties.

Reporting of incidents and accidents

When performing Pilotage duties, the pilot should report or cause to be reported
to the appropriate authority, anything observed that may affect safety of
navigation or pollution
prevention. In particular, the pilot should report, as soon as practicable, any
accident that may have occurred to the piloted ship and any irregularities with

107
 navigational lights, shapes and signals to the appropriate authority for action as
appropriate.

Additional Information

Master of vessels should not actively con the ship during Pilotage unless they
are free and familiar with the local conditions

Mater to ensure that the Bridge orders are given in the language understood by
the Pilots

Effective Bridge Resource Management

Master role during Pilotage to have a overhaul view if passage and to be in a

position to intervene early if the things do not go as planned .By maintaining the
actual conduct of the vessel he shall not be able to perform his role effectively

Important aspect of Master/Pilot relationship is interpersonal relationship

Bridge Team to be aware of the difficulties encountered during Pilotage area

Pilot to be made aware of the characteristics and peculiarities of the ship

Pilot to be made aware of the fault with the equipment at his disposal

Well-planned passage continues from sea to berth and vice versa

The area where the Pilot actually has the con will be required to be planned by the
Navigator

Abort Point , Contingency Anchorage to be marked.

108
Chapter 6 – Economics of Sea
Transport

109
CHAPTER –6 ECONOMICS OF SEA TRANSPORT

INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING – CARRIER OF WORLD TRADE

Globalisation and theory of international trade

It may seem obvious to say that, today, we live in a global world, and it is certainly
true that international trade among all the nations and regions of the world is nothing
new. From the Phoenicians, through the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Carthaginians,
the Chinese, the Vikings, the Omanis, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Italians, the
British, the French, the Dutch, the Polynesians and Celts, the history of the world is a
history of exploration, conquest and trade by sea.

But there is no doubt that we have now entered a new era of global interdependence
from which there can be no turning back. In today’s world, national boundaries offer
little impediment to multi-national corporations: automobiles with far-eastern brands
are not only sold but also assembled in Europe, while European brands are assembled
and sold in North America; “western” energy companies invest millions of dollars in
Asia and the far-east and the strategy and investment decisions they make can affect
millions of people all over the world.

The high-flyers of the business world can cross oceans in just hours, communicating
by email and telephone as they go. In the financial markets, brokers and traders have
thrown off the constraints of time zones and distance and now access the markets all
over the world via their computers. In the 21st century, emerging industries such as
computer software, media and fashion have no obvious geographical dimension and
recognise no physical boundaries. In today’s consumer world, the same brands are
recognised, understood and valued all over the world.

As the world became more developed, proximity to raw materials and to markets
became
the factors that, above all others, shaped the world’s economy and, in particular, the
major trade patterns and shipping routes.

Eventually, the great sea-borne trades became established - coal from Australia,
Southern Africa and North America to Europe and the Far East; grain from North and
South America to Asia, Africa and the Far East; iron ore from South America and
Australia to Europe and the Far East; oil from the Middle East, West Africa, South
America and the Caribbean to Europe, North America and Asia; and now we must
add to this list containerised manufactures from China, Japan and South-east Asia to
the consumer markets of the western world. Global trade has effectively permitted an
enormous variety of resources to be more widely accessible and has thus facilitated
the widespread distribution of our planet’s common wealth.

Today, international trade has evolved to the point where almost no nation can be
fully self-sufficient. Every country is involved, at one level or another, in the process
of selling what it produces and acquiring what it lacks: none can be dependent only on
its domestic resources.

110
Shipping has always provided the only really cost-effective method of bulk transport
over
any great distance, and the development of shipping and the establishment of a global
system of trade have moved forward together, hand-in-hand. Those with access to
natural resources; those with the ability to convert those resources into useful products
for the good of mankind; and those with a requirement and the wherewithal to utilize
and consume those end products are all joined by the common thread of shipping. The
eternal triangle of producers, manufacturers and markets are brought together through
shipping. This has always been the case and will remain more so for the foreseeable
future.

Shipping and the global economy

More than 90 per cent of global trade is carried by sea. It is almost impossible to
quantify the value of volume of world sea-borne trade in monetary terms: however,
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that
the operation of merchant ships contributes about US$380 billion in freight rates
within the global economy, equivalent to about 5% of total world trade.

Shipping trade estimates are usually calculated in tonne-miles – a measurement of

tonnes carried, multiplied by the distance travelled. In 2003, for example, the industry
shipped around 6.1 thousand million tonnes over a distance of about 4 million miles,
resulting in a staggering total of over 25 thousand billion tonne-miles of trade.

Throughout the last century the shipping industry has seen a general trend of increases
in total trade volume. Increasing industrialization and the liberalization of national
economies have fuelled free trade and a growing demand for consumer products.
Advances in technology have also made shipping an increasingly efficient and swift
method of transport. Over the last four decades, total sea-borne trade estimates have
more than quadrupled, from less than 6 thousand billion tonne-miles in 1965 to the
latest full-year figure of 25 thousand billion tonne-miles in 2003.

As with all industrial sectors, however, shipping is not immune to occasional

economic downturns – a notable fall in trade occurred, for example, during the
worldwide economic recession of the early 1980s. However, although the growth in
sea-borne trade was tempered by the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, there has
generally been healthy growth in maritime trade since 1993. Overall, between 1980
and 1999, the value of world trade grew at 12% per year, while total freight costs,
during the same period, increased by only 7%, demonstrating the falling unit costs of
marine transportation.

The transport cost element in the shelf price of consumer goods varies from product to
product, but is ultimately marginal. For example, transport costs account for only
around 2% of the shelf price of a television set and only around 1.2% of a kilo of
coffee.

Shipping is truly the lynchpin of the global economy. Without shipping,

intercontinental trade, the bulk transport of raw materials and the import/export of
affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not be possible. Today’s world

111
fleet is registered in over 150 nations and is manned by over a million seafarers of
virtually every nationality.

In the context of a global economy, the contribution made by shipping as a major

industry in its own right is very significant, and increasingly so for the developing
world. Maritime activity already provides an important source of income to many
developing countries. Indeed, developing countries now lead the world in some of
shipping’s most important ancillary businesses, including the registration of ships, the
supply of sea-going manpower and ship recycling. They also play a significant part in
ship-owning and operating, shipbuilding and repair and port services, among others.

General structure of shipping industry

The history of shipping is a glorious and proud one. There is no doubt, for example,
that the magnificent square riggers of the era of sail or the early 20 th century’s
prestigious ocean liners could stir the hearts of all those that beheld them. But the
ships of today are just as worthy of our admiration, for shipping today is in another
truly golden age. Ships have never been so technically advanced, never been so
sophisticated, never been more immense, never carried so much cargo, never been
safer and never been so environmentally-friendly as they are today.

Mammoth containerships nudging the 10,000 TEU barrier yet still capable of 25 knot
operating speeds; huge oil tankers and bulk carriers that carry vast quantities of fuel,
minerals, and grain and other commodities around our planet economically, safely
and cleanly; the complex and highly specialized workhorses of the offshore industry;
and the wonderful giants of the passenger ship world are all worthy of our greatest
admiration.

In shipping today we can see many marvels of state-of-the-art engineering and

technology that deserve to be ranked alongside the very finest achievements of our
global infrastructure. We all marvel at the wonders of the modern world –
skyscrapers, bridges, dams, ship canals, tunnels and so on. Although they all deserve
our admiration, there should be no question that today’s finest ships are also worthy
of the sort of recognition usually reserved for the great icons of land-based civil
engineering – with one substantial difference in favour of the former: while
skyscrapers, bridges, dams et al are static structures designed to withstand the
elements coming to them, the very essence of marine vehicles sends them out to sea to
face the elements at full force, alone in the vastness of the ocean. They should,
therefore, be robust when built and maintained as such throughout their entire
lifetime.

Ships are high value assets, with the larger of them costing over US $100 million to
build. They are also technically sophisticated: you are more likely to find one of
today’s modern vessels being controlled by a single joystick and a mouse-ball in the
arm of the helmsman’s seat than by a horny-handed bosun grappling with a spiked
wheel; the chief engineer will probably have clean hands and the calluses on his or
her fingers will be from tapping a keyboard rather than wielding a spanner. The crew
accommodation will be clean, light and airy with modern recreation facilities; the
food will be good; and you may well find the first officer exchanging emails with his
family at home via the satellite communication system. Ships today are modern,

112
technologically advanced workplaces and the work of IMO has played, and continues
to play, an important part in shaping that environment.
Number of ships (by total and trade)
As of 31st October 2010, the world fleet was made up of 50,054 ships. Figures in
brackets are numbers of ships, by sector.

General Cargo Ships (16,224); Tankers (13,175); Bulk Carriers (8,687); Passenger
ships (6,597); Container ships (4,831); TOTAL (50,054)

Although general cargo ships are still the largest single category, the trend among new
ships is more and more in favour of specialization (although it could be argued that
handy-sized, geared bulk carriers and versatile medium-sized containerships, of which
some have the ability to accommodate several different box sizes as well as palletised
cargo are the natural successors of the old general cargo vessels); indeed, it is
interesting to note that, in the most recent edition of the annual “Significant Ships”
publication from the United Kingdom’s Royal Institution of Naval Architects, not a
single one of the 50 selected for 2004 was a general cargo vessel. Tankers make up
the second largest category. There are many different types of tanker, ranging from
those carrying crude oil, through those built to transport various refined hydrocarbon
products, to highly specialized ships that carry liquefied petroleum gas and natural
gas. There are even tankers designed to carry cargoes such as fresh water, wine or
orange juice. In size terms, the heyday of the tanker was the early 1970s, when the so-
called Ultra-Large Crude Carriers (ULCC), capable of lifting more than half a million
tonnes of cargo, bestrode the oceans. After the oil crisis of the 70s, tanker owners
became a little more modest in their ambitions and, since then, most large modern
tankers are in the 200-300,000 tonnage range. These are still massive vessels and
enormously expensive to build, but today’s high price of oil means they can pay for
themselves in a relatively short period of time.

The world’s largest ship today is a 564,765 DWT tanker with an interesting and
varied history. She was built in 1976 and having undergone some work to increase her
load-carrying capacity, was finally floated two years later and named Seawise Giant.
At first, she operated in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, but was then used
for exporting oil from Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1986, she was attacked but not
sunk in the Strait of Hormuz and at the end of the war in 1989 she was repaired and
renamed Happy Giant. In 1991, she was renamed again, this time to Jahre Viking.

In March 2004, the ship was sold and sent by its new owner to be refitted as a floating
storage and offloading unit. There, she was given her current name, Knock Nevis, and
plans have been made to operate her in the Al Shaheen oilfield in the waters of Qatar.
Perhaps more typical of the kind of large crude oil carrier being built today is the
Irene SL, also built in Japan in 2004. Selected as one of the Naval Architect’s 50
“Significant Ships” of 2004, Irene SL has a design deadweight of just under 300,000
DWT, a double-hull construction and is capable of handling three different grades of
oil simultaneously in her 15 cargo tanks. Her cargo and ballast control systems,
including the operation of pumps, valves and ullage measurement are all
computerized. For safety, inert gas is pumped into the cargo tanks when they are
empty and, to comply with the most recent requirements on emissions, the ship is
fitted with a scrubber system to clean the exhaust gas.

113
Bulk carriers are often called the workhorses of the international shipping fleet. They
can be thought of as simple, relatively unsophisticated but nevertheless highly
efficient vessels that typically transport commodities such as grain, coal and mineral
ores. If tankers provide the fuel that powers the modern economy, bulk carriers are
responsible for moving the raw materials that are its lifeblood.

In terms of size, the world’s bulk carrier fleet has three categories; ships of up to
50,000 DWT are known as “handy-sized”; ships of 50,000 to 80,000 DWT are known
as “Panamax” (being the largest ships able to transit the Panama Canal) and ships of
more than 80,000 DWT are known as “capesize”. Bulk carriers embrace a number of
variations – single or double hull, with or without their own cargo-handling
equipment – but all are characterized by the huge hatch covers that can be rolled or
lifted away to reveal to cavernous holds beneath.

Because of the nature of the cargoes they carry – often heavy, high-density
commodities – accidents involving bulk carriers have sometimes resulted in
considerable loss of life. For this reason IMO has, over a long period of time,
undertaken a great deal of work to improve the safety of this type of vessel. There is,
for example, a special chapter on bulk carrier safety in the Safety of Life at Sea
Convention, covering such topics as damage stability, structural strength, surveys and
loading. In a casualty analysis undertaken recently by the International Association of
Dry Cargo Ship-owners – INTERCARGO – for bulk carriers for the ten years to 2001
it revealed that the number of ships, lives and tonnage being lost in this sector are all
decreasing. Moreover, the report has specifically identified that IMO measures such
as the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys and SOLAS chapter XII
on bulk carrier safety, have reduced the risk of fatality on new and existing ships by
50 % and 25 % respectively.

Passenger ships come next in the world fleet league table. There are two basic
categories – which can be summed up as “fun” or “function”. In the latter category are
those which are designed to move people and, often, vehicles on regular itineraries
from one place to another as quickly and cheaply as possible (i.e. ferries) and, in the
former, those which the passengers see as a leisure destination in their own right (i.e.
cruise ships). In both categories, the size, sophistication and the sheer number of
passengers that can be carried have reached mind-boggling proportions. Because of
their individuality, as well as their resonance with the great ocean liners of a bygone
era, these ships tend to be the best known and most recognized among the general
public at large. One of the finest modern examples is the Queen Mary II, built in
France for Carnival Corp’s Cunard in 2004. QM2 is the largest, longest, tallest, widest
ocean liner ever and has cost an estimated $800 million dollars. She incorporates all
the very latest international standards with regard to safety, security and
environmental protection, offering her passengers an unparalleled opportunity to
experience the wonders of ocean travel in the finest style.

With ships such as this, it is little wonder that, over the past ten or fifteen years, the
cruise
and passenger sector has become one of the industry’s most vibrant sectors and is now
a major force within shipping, both in terms of technological development and
commercial success. But the one sector which can be said to have transformed the
face of shipping, certainly in the latter half of the 20 th century, is that of container

114
shipping. Unheard of before the 1960s, the container is now ubiquitous and is the
standard unit of cargo for just about every form of manufactured item on the planet
(there are exceptions: automobiles, for example, are transported in special ships
designed solely for the purpose).

Today’s giant containerships can carry more than 8,000 “boxes” and typically operate
between purpose-built ports served by massive cranes that can load and unload
containers at astonishing rates. Containership operators can offer fixed sailing
schedules with tight delivery margins and these ships are now an integral part of the
modern, multi-modal transport and logistics industry.

With this background on the economics of international sea-borne trade, we now

move to specific commercial aspects of voyage calculations.

Voyage estimates and cargo calculations

Definitions:

Lay Days: This refers to range or spread of days between which the owners must
present the vessel for loading.

Lay Time: Time allowed to the charterers for loading and or discharging by the
owners without payment additional to freight. In this period the owner is to make the
keep the vessel available for loading or discharging.

Cancelling date: Is a date beyond which if the vessel is not presented for loading, the
charterers may reject her. This is found in the cancelling clause in C/P agreement.

Lay Can: It is period of lay days plus cancelling date. During this period vessel must
arrive and be presented at the agent port/ place. If the vessel arrives before that date
the charterer need not accept her until the commencement of the agreed lay days. If
she arrives after the last day of the period, the charter can reject the vessel and cancel
the charter.

Lay-time Definitions 1980

The following definitions are widely accepted by the trade, in the absence of
overriding conditions to the contrary. They may be adopted by the parties to a charter
party in order to avoid differences in interpretation. For example, in the present state
of the law, judgements of the Court do not equate with the traditional understanding
in the market. The agreement of the parties, during Charter-party negotiations, to
adopt those two definitions of interpretation would override any common law
judgement.

Definitions

Port: Means an area within which ships are loaded with and /or discharged of cargo
and includes the usual places where ships wait for their turn or are ordered or obliged
to wait for their turn no matter the distance from that area. If the work “Port” is not

115
used, but the port is (or is to be ) identified by its name, this definition shall still
apply.

Safe port: Means a port which, during the relevant period of time, the ship can reach,
enter, remain at and depart from without, in the absence of some abnormal
occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and
seamanship.

Berth: Means the specific place where the ship is to load and/or discharge. If the
word “Berth” is not used, but the specific place is (or is to be) identified by its name,
this definition shall still apply.

Safe berth: Means a berth which, during the relevant period of time, the ship can
reach, remain at the depart from without, in the absence of some abnormal
occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and
seamanship.

Reachable on arrival or always accessible: Mean that the charterer undertakes that
when the ship arrives at the port there will be a loading/ discharging berth for her to
which she can proceed without delay.

Lay-time: Means the period of time agreed between the parties during which the
owner will make and keep the ship available for loading/ discharging without
payment additional to the freight.

Customary despatch: Means that the charterer must load and/or discharge as fast as
is possible in the circumstances prevailing at the time of loading or discharging.

Per hatch per day: Means that lay-time is to be calculated by multiplying the agreed
daily rate per hatch of loading/discharging the cargo by the resulting sum. Thus:

Laytime  Quantity of c arg oes

Daily Rate x Number of Hatches
= Days
A hatch that is capable of being worked by two gangs simultaneously shall be counted
as two hatches.

Per working hatch per day or per workable hatch per day- means that lay-time is to
be calculated by dividing the quantity of cargo in the hold with the largest quantity by
the result of multiplying the agreed daily rate per working or workable hatch by the
number of hatches serving that hold.

Thus:
Laytime  L arg est quantity in one hold =
Day
Daily Rate per hatch x Number ofHatches serving that hold s

116
A hatch that is capable of being worked by two gangs simultaneously shall be counted
as two hatches.

As fast as the vessel can receive/deliver – Means that the lay-time is a period of time
to be calculated by reference to the maximum rate at which the ship in full working
order is capable of loading/discharging the cargo.

– Means a continuous period of 24 hours which, unless the context otherwise

requires, runs from midnight to midnight.

Clear day or Clear days: Means that the day on which the notice is given ad the day
on which the notice expires is not included in the notice period.

Holiday: Means a day of the week or part (S) thereof on which cargo work on the
ship would normally take place but is suspended t the place of loading/discharging by
reason of: The local law, or the local practice

Working days: Means days or part(S) thereof which are not expressly excluded from
lay-time by the Charter-party and which are not holidays.

Running day or Consecutive days: Means days which follow one immediately after
the other.

Weather working day: Means a working day or part of a working day during which
it is or, if the vessel is still waiting for her turn, it would be possible to load/discharge
the cargo without interference due to the weather. If such interference occurs (or
would have occurred if work had been in progress), there shall be excluded from the
lay-time a period calculated by reference to the ratio which the duration of the
interference bears to the time which would have or could have been worked but for
the interference.

Weather working day of 24 consecutive hours: Means a working day or part of a

working day of 24 hours during which it is or, if the ship is still waiting for her turn, it
would be possible to load/discharge the cargo would have occurred if work had been
in progress) there shall be excluded from the lay-time the period during which the
weather interfered or would have interfered with the work.

Weather permitting: Means that time during which weather prevents working shall
not count as lay-time.

Excepted: Means that the specified days do not count as lay-time even if the actual
hours of work only count as lay-time.

Unless used: Means that if work is carried out during the excluded days the actual
hours of work only count as lay-time.

To average: Means that separate calculations are to be made for loading and
discharging and any time saved in one operation is to be set against any excess time
used in the other.

117
Reversible: Means an option given to the charterer to add together the time allowed
for loading and discharging. Where the option is exercised the effect is the same as a
total time being specified to cover both operations.

Notice of readiness: Means notice to the charterer, shipper, receiver or other person
as required by the charter that the ship has arrived at the port or berths as the case may
be and is ready to load/discharge.

In writing: Means, in relation to a notice of readiness, a notice visibly expressed in

any mode of reproducing words and includes cables, telegram and telex.

“Time lost waiting for berth to count as loading/discharge time” or “as lay-
time”: Means that if the main reason why a notice of readiness cannot be given is that
there is no loading/discharging berth available to the ship the lay-time will commence
to run when the ship starts to wait for a berth and will continue to run, unless
previously exhausted, until the ship stops waiting. The lay-time exceptions apply to
the waiting time as if the ship was at the loading/discharging berth provided the ship
is not already on demurrage. When the waiting time ends time ceases to count and
restarts when the ship reaches the loading/ discharging berth subject to the giving of a
notice time if provided for in the Charter-party, unless the ship is by then on
demurrage.

“Whether in berth or not” or “berth no berth”: Means that if the location named
for loading/discharging is a berth and if the berth is not immediately accessible to the
ship a notice of readiness can be given when the ship has arrived at the port in which
the berth is situated.

Demurrage: Means the money payable to the owner for delay for which the owner is
not responsible in loading and/or discharging after the lay-time has expired.

On demurrage: Means that the lay-time has expired. Unless the Charter-party
expressly provides to the contrary the time on demurrage will not be subjected to the
lay time exceptions.

“Despatch money” or “Despatch”: Means the money payable by the owner if the
ship completes loading or discharging before the lay-time has expired.

All time saved: Means the time saved to the ship from the completion of
loading/discharging to the expiry of the lay-time including periods excepted from the
lay time.

“All working time saved” or “all lay-time saved”: Means the time saved to the ship
from the completion of loading/discharging to the expiry of the lay-time excluding
any notice time and periods excepted from the lay-time.

118
Chapter 7: Shipping Practice and
Documents

119
CHAPTER 7 - SHIPPING PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS

The Two Forms of Contract

The Charter-Party

There are two forms of contract that are embodied in charter-parties and bills of
lading respectively. What is the difference between the two?

To put it broadly, a charter-party is a contract between the charterer and the ship-
owner, by which the former hires from the latter the use of the ship:

 Either for a certain length of time - say, twelve months - when it is called a
time charter

 For a certain voyage, when it is called a voyage charter; this latter may be out
and home,' usually called a 'round voyage'.

The charter may be an ordinary hire just as the hire of any moveable thing, for
instance, a motor car for an excursion, or it may be in the nature of a lease by
which the owner grants or demises the entire control and possession of the
ship to the charterer (charter by demise). This type of charter-party is
appropriate when a ship-owner is desirous of augmenting his fleet, or where a
person wishes to obtain full temporary possession of a ship, as when fitting out
an expedition for exploration. The demise charterer is in a position similar to
the lease holder of land, that is to say, he is for all practical purposes, except
registration, the temporary owner of the ship. Accordingly the duties and
rights of the owner are performed and exercised, respectively, by him. He is
also bound by a salvage award, and it is on his behalf that the master signs
bills of lading, The master and crew are his, and not the owner's servants.
During the duration of a charter by demise the owner's right is to be paid the
hire or, as it is sometimes confusingly called, the chartered freight. He is not
allowed to interfere in any way with the management of the ship, except in so
far as the terms of the charter-party itself permit. If the ship earns a salvage
award the charterer by demise is entitled to it. The common form of charter-
party is that used between the shipper of goods and the ship-owner.

Form of Charter-Party

The word 'charter-party' is derived from carta partita (divided document) which refers
to the ancient practice of writing out the terms of the contract in duplicate on one
piece of parchment and then dividing it down the middle, thus providing each party
with a copy. It is therefore not surprising to observe that to this day, despite the
absence of a rule requiring the written form, most negotiations by telephone or telex
will eventually lead to the formal drawing up of a written charter-party, with standard
terms and riders attached. Whether or not the parties can be said to be contractually
bound before they sign the charter-party will depend in large part on the intentions of
the parties and the circumstances of the case.

120
If a ship is owned by several owners, a part-owner who has not consented is not
bound by the charter-party. He cannot prevent the ship from sailing, but he may sue
the other owners for a bond securing his share. He then has no part in profit or loss of
the chartered voyage.

The actual terms of the contract contained in a charter-party are very varied and
complicated, and some of them, though naturally couched in different language, are
common to most charter-parties. Others depend very much on the type of trade on
which the vessel is engaged. Some big shipping companies have their own form of
charter-party. Similarly, some very large shippers will only charter on the terms of
their own standard form. Again the ship-owners engaged in a particular trade,
such as the Baltic wood goods trade, may agree to use a standard form of charter-
party. These standard forms are more frequently than not amended and added to
by what have come to be called 'rider-clauses', which themselves give rise to
numerous problems of interpretation.

Bill of Lading

The charter-party evidences the hire of an entire ship, or at any rate a large part
of her such as a hold. It is clearly not a suitable form of contract for a person who
wishes to send a small parcel of goods. Such a person must look out for a ship,
which is carrying general cargo to the port to which he wishes to send his goods.
A vessel of this kind may be sailing regularly along a certain line of ports at
advertised times, when she is called a liner, or from port to port looking for
cargo, when she is called a tramp. Such ships are still called by lawyers 'general
ships' and the owner is a 'common carrier'. The contract of affreightment is in
this case made (or more strictly, evidenced) by a bill of lading, which is usually
issued after the loading of the goods. However, even in the case of chartered
ships a bill of lading is invariably issued; it is then not used as evidence of the
terms of a contract but as evidence of the shipment of goods, i.e. as a receipt.
Moreover, unless it is a 'straight' bill of lading intended for use exclusively
between the shipper and the consignee, the bill of lading has by mercantile usage
come to represent the goods in such a way that the transfer of it to a third party
may transfer to the latter the property in the goods and the right to receive
delivery of them from the ship at her port of discharge.

(A) Functions of Bill of Lading

Thus a bill of lading performs three separate functions:

(a) It is evidence of the terms of a contract of affreightment

(b) It is evidence of the shipment of goods
(c) It is evidence that its holder has the right to claim possession of the goods
it represents and that he might, in certain circumstances, have the property
therein; that is, it is a document of title.

(B) Bills of Lading in Sets

The bills of lading are issued to the shipper in sets of three or four; if three copies
are issued, one is retained by the master or broker; two copies are dispatched, one

121
usually by express mail, to the buyer, or to any other addressee of the cargo, i.e.
the consignee. If the shipper and the consignee have agreed to use a letter of
credit as a method of payment, the copies would be tendered to the shipper's bank
together with the other shipping documents in return for the price for the goods
shipped. By the endorsement and delivery of the bills of lading to any sub-buyer,
the latter as assignees steps into the consignee's shoes and, on arrival of the ship at
the port of destination, the sub-buyer can take immediate delivery on presenting
the bills of lading representing the lot he has purchased from the importer, who
will usually be the consignee.

Relationship between Charter-Party and Bill of Lading

The relationship between the two contracts maybe puzzling, especially when
both documents are in use at once. The co-existence of two apparently equally
contractual documents has given rise to many technical difficulties. The principal
question is always: Wh6 is liable and who is entitled under the contract of
carriage?

In other words, whom, ship-owner or charterer, do shipper and consignee hold

responsible for the safe arrival of the goods? Who, owner or charterer, is entitled
to the freight? In order to answer these questions it may be useful to set out the
various possibilities. There are normally four and they follow naturally from
what we have just said about the operation of the entire contract.

(i) The contract of carriage may be between the owner of a general ship and the
shipper. A charter-party is not then used and the contract is evidenced in the bill
of lading. This happens in almost all cases where goods are shipped by a liner.

(ii) The contract of carriage may be between ship-owner and charterer under an
ordinary form of charter-party. Here a bill of lading will be issued when the
cargo is loaded, but it will generally take effect as a receipt, not as a contract.

(iii) The contract may be between charterer by demise and shipper. Here there is
a contract in the nature of a lease, not a contract of carriage, unless and until one
be entered into between the charterer and some other shipper, when it will fall
under (i) or (ii) above, depending on whether the charterer puts up the ship as a
general ship or not. The contract of carriage is then, of course, between charterer
and shipper.

(iv) Where the charterer under an ordinary charter-party does not ship goods
himself but transfers his right to do so to somebody else, there will normally be
both a charter-party and a bill of lading issued by the ship-owner or by the
charterer, or by agents for either to the shipper, and it is when that happens that
the chief difficulties arise. The most fruitful cause of trouble lies in the
differences between the terms of the two documents.

(v) Finally, it may even happen in exceptional cases that in respect of the same
voyage the contract of carriage in respect of one parcel of goods is made between
shipper and ship-owner, and in respect of another parcel between shipper and
charterer. Thus one bill of lading might be issued by the owner and one by the

122
chatterer, the master signing them being the agent once of the owner and once of the
charterer.

Difficulties may be experienced in cases (iv) and (v), for it may be uncertain whether
the shipper contracted with the owner or with the charterer. This is a question of fact
to be decided by looking at all the circumstances of the case. A common instance of
such difficulties is, for example, where a charterer is only a broker who guarantees
cargo for vessels, which he undertakes to load.

Cesser Clause

Normally a charterer who transfers his space to a shipper is only too anxious to drop
out of the transaction provided his profit is assured. This means that he is content to
leave the work of carrying to the ship-owner, and the bill of lading will accordingly be
issued on the latter's behalf and will constitute the contract of carriage except in so far
as it may expressly incorporate the terms of the charter-party. This result is usually
brought about by inserting what is called a 'cesser clause' in the charter-party.

It is provided by such a clause that the ship-owner shall have a lien on the cargo for
freight, dead freight and demurrage, and that the charterer's obligation to pay freight is
accordingly to cease as soon as a full cargo is shipped. At that moment, of course, the
right of lien will come into existence. A cesser clause takes, as a rule, some such form
as:

“This charter being entered into on behalf of others, all liability of the parties signing
to cease after shipment of cargo, in consideration of which it is agreed that for the
payment of all freight, dead freight, and demurrage, the said owner shall have an
absolute lien and charge on the said cargo”.

Having examined the methods by which contracts of affreightment are entered into
we must come to the kernel of the matter, the rights and obligations of the parties in
connection with the actual transport of the goods, including loading and discharge.
We shall attempt to make this matter clear in the light of the general principles of law
relating to the distinctions between express and implied terms.

The most important of these implied terms are the following:

Seaworthiness

By entering into a contract to carry goods in his ship whether under a charter-
party or as a common carrier, a ship-owner undertakes that his ship is
seaworthy. Yet charter-parties also contain the express term that the ship is 'tight
staunch and strong and in every way fitted for the voyage', and it may well be
asked why, in view of these clear words, the courts should have found it
necessary to imply a warranty of seaworthiness. The answer is that the express
undertaking, as the context shows, can only refer to the condition of the ship at
the time when the charter contract is concluded; the 'voyage' for which the ship
is to be 'in every way fitted' can therefore only be the preliminary voyage from
where the ship happens to be to the port where the cargo is taken on board. The

123
charter is silent on the condition of the ship when it sails with cargo from the
loading port, and the implied term as to seaworthiness applies to this cargo-
carrying voyage, actually, to its beginning.

Due Dispatch

It is also an implied term of every contract of affreightment that the ship will
commence and carry out her voyage with reasonable diligence.

Effect of Breach of the Seaworthiness Obligation

The effect of a breach of the seaworthiness term can be summarized thus: where the
effect of the breach is not such as to deprive the cargo owner of substantially the
whole benefit of the contract, or where despite such effect, the cargo-owner chooses
not to terminate the contract, the cargo-owner can sue the carrier for damages in
accordance with the contract. Thus the plaintiff’s damages will be restricted by
clauses limiting or excluding the carrier's liability for losses caused by un-
seaworthiness or any other course.

Proof of Un-seaworthiness

Before leaving this subject, a word must be said about the proof of un-seaworthiness.
In the ordinary way the person relying on un-seaworthiness, that is to say the charterer
or shipper, must prove it. Rigid adherence to this rule would often exempt the owner
from responsibility since the facts are almost entirely within the latter's knowledge.
The Hague-Visby Rules have gone some way towards redressing the balance by
imposing upon the owner the burden of proving that the un-seaworthiness of the
vessel was not caused by want of due diligence on the owner's part. This, however,
still leaves the prior problem of proof of un-seaworthiness, a problem which is harder
on a charterer who, not covered by the Hague-Visby Rules, has to prove also that the
un-seaworthiness was caused by the carrier's want of due diligence where the charter-
party makes the owner liable only for such failure. On the other hand, it must be said
that the judges are free to draw their own inferences from a relatively skeletal
framework of facts brought forward by the cargo-owner.

The Bill of Lading as a Receipt

The original function of the bill of lading was that of a receipt. It commences with the
words 'shipped' or 'received', and then proceeds to enumerate the goods according to
quantity, description and shipping marks. The bill of lading was originally issued by
the master at the time when the goods were shipped. In modern times, however, when
the goods are put on board the mate usually issues an informal receipt, which is later
exchanged for the bill of lading. Until the issue of the latter the ship-owner will
usually hold the goods on the terms of his usual bill of lading, and this is sometimes
expressly provided for in the mate's receipt.

Evidentiary Value of the Receipt

Disputes between ship-owner and cargo-owner arise perhaps most frequently over
the question whether goods have been delivered short, or have been damaged

124
during carriage. It is here that the statements about the goods appearing in the bill
of lading become very important. The obligation on the carrier is obviously to
deliver what he received as he received it, but just as obviously the next question
is - and this presents the real difficulty - on whom does the law place the burden
of proof? Since the goods' owner claims that the goods were not delivered as
received it is for him to prove this contention, and he can do so most easily by
referring to the carrier's receipt for the goods, namely, the bill of lading.

Now a receipt is prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements, which it
contains. If the person who issued it claims that it is wrong, it is for him to prove
the error. The carrier, therefore, who delivers to the cargo-owner a smaller
number of packages, or a less weight of goods than was acknowledged in the bill
of lading, or goods torn and dirty when he had issued a bill of lading which had
made no mention of such defect on receipt, will find it very difficult to resist a
claim for damages. In order to do so successfully he must prove affirmatively that
the bill of lading was wrong - that he delivered all he received, or that the goods
were torn and dirty when received on board the ship. Such proof may be very
difficult and expensive, involving perhaps the taking of evidence in a foreign port;
it may indeed be unobtainable, in which case liability is effectively established
and the carrier can only escape if he can find protection in one of the exceptions
applicable to his contract.

Now that we have looked at the basis upon which and the contexts within which
the bill of lading is considered to be a binding receipt, we shall turn our attention
to a number of special related aspects.

Statements as to Quantity

Non-Shipped and Partially Shipped Goods

The student by now would appreciate that the reason why a cargo-owner can sue
the ship-owner on the basis of bill of lading statements as to quantity is that the
bill is considered to be a binding receipt or acknowledgement as to shipment on
board the carrier's ship. The bill becomes the carrier's receipt as a result of the
master's signature: the assumption throughout is that the master acts within the
scope of his authority in signing the bill and that therefore the master's bill is the
owner's bill.

'Weight and Quantity Unknown' Clauses

We have seen that the binding force, which gives value to the receipt function of the
bill of lading has been a feature of the document for a very long period. Consequently,
carriers have for many years made a practice of inserting in the bill of lading some
such term as 'weight and quantity unknown', indicating that the statement as to
quantity appearing on the face of the bill is not to be relied upon and thus taking the
teeth out of the binding force of the document.

125
The result at common law is clear: the inclusion of these words in the bill of lading
very largely destroys its value as a receipt, except in so far as it remains evidence that
some goods have been shipped, goods said by the shipper to amount to the figure
mentioned in the bill of lading, but in respect of which the carrier makes no admission
as to quantity or weight. The result is that the burden of proving what actually was
shipped is shifted back to the shipper.

Apparent Order and Condition Clean Bills of Lading

Bills of lading normally start with the admission that the goods they cover have been
shipped in 'apparent good order and condition'. The effect of this representation,
where unqualified, is to raise a prima facie presumption that the goods were so
shipped where the shipper sues the carrier for delivery of damaged goods, and to raise
an irrebuttable presumption to that effect where endorsees who have acted to their
detriment on the faith of the statement sue the carrier for delivery of damaged goods.
Where a carrier issues a clean bill in circumstances properly calling for a claused bill,
any indemnity extracted from the shipper in consideration for the issue of a clean bill
is unenforceable. The admission can, of course, apply only to the outward appearance
of the goods, since the carrier has no means of judging their internal condition and
quality; and the courts have held this to be the correct view of the matter.

Moreover, it is also possible for the carrier to qualify his admission by entering a note
of anything appearing to be wrong with the goods at the time when they are shipped,
e.g. 'two packages torn and dirty'. When a bill of lading contains a qualification of this
kind it is said to be 'claused'; without such a statement it is said to be clean.!'

Although it is possible for carriers so to clause their bills as to qualify their statement
about the apparent good order and condition of the cargo, such a qualification needs
to be very specific in terms if it is to achieve the result desired by the carrier.

The Bill of Lading as Evidence of Contract with the Carrier

We have seen above that the original function of the bill of lading was that of a
receipt. The bill of lading then became the document in which the terms of the
contract were set out. It should be noticed that the bill of lading is only evidence
of the, contract between ship-owner and shipper, not the contract itself.

Moreover, terms actually contained in the bill of lading may be varied orally, and
such variations are enforceable. All this, however, applies only between the
immediate parties to the contract, carrier and shipper. Third parties, such as
consignees or their assignees, who acquire rights by way of endorsement of the
bills of lading, are entitled and required" to assume that it contains within its four
corners either all the terms of the contract or at any rate references to other
documents where such terms may be found.

It is, of course, obvious that once the bill is issued the terms of the bill of lading
operate. But the question arises whether it should not also have retrospective effect.
The contract of affreightment, which the bill evidence is concluded long before its
issue. Scarce shipping space must be booked long in advance, and pressure of work at
the shipping office may delay the issue of the bill of lading until after the ship has

126
sailed. During that interval shipper and ship-owner have to perform many operations
under the contract, which give rise to rights and liabilities. Under the contract cargo is
provided in time for loading, the cargo is taken on board and stowed - but on what
terms?

Example

In one case goods were damaged while being hoisted on board from the quay, and the
ship-owner invoked a limitation of liability clause applicable under the Hague Rules
to the bill of lading. The owner of the goods strongly objected because the bill had not
yet been issued, but the judge held that its terms nevertheless applied.

'When parties enter into a contract of carriage in the expectation that a bill of lading
will be issued to cover it they enter into it upon the terms which they know or expect
the bill of lading to contain. Those terms must be in force from the inception of the
contract; if it were otherwise the bill of lading would not evidence the contract but
would be a variation of it.'

The Bill of Lading as a Document of Title

It was early found convenient to use a copy of the bill of lading as a document
ordering delivery of the goods at the port of discharge. This came about in the
following way. Originally, merchants travelled with their goods on board the same
vessel, but when they ceased to do so it became necessary to devise some means by
which the carrier could be enabled to deliver the goods to the proper person. The
simplest thing was to send a copy of the bill of lading under separate cover so to
speak, and even by a different ship if there was a faster one going, to the shipper's
agent at the port of delivery. Eventually, when goods were shipped direct to buyers,
the bill of lading was sent to them and the buyers were made consignees of the goods.

In the bill of lading, therefore, the carrier began to agree to carry the goods, say to
Antwerp, and there deliver them not only (a) to the shipper but, alternatively (b)
to the shipper's order, so that the shipper could, by endorsing on the document
an order that the goods should be delivered to the buyer, enable the latter to get
the goods himself; or (c) to a named consignee. These three options shared the
common feature that the bill operated as a document entitling delivery only in
favour of the shipper or the shipper's buyer.

Practical Guidance

Signing bills of lading

One of the most important functions of a bill of lading is that it provides information
as to the description of the goods, the condition of the goods, the quantity of the
goods, the loading port and date of shipment, the discharge port, the name of the ship,
whether freight has been paid and the terms of carriage. As these functions are
essential to trade it is important that information given in a bill of lading is accurate.
Failure to ensure accuracy can give rise to liability of the ship owner.

127
The essential rule is that in no circumstances, other than those described at paragraph
11(a), should the master sign a document which he knows to be untrue, or which he
believes may be untrue, or where he has not given careful thought to the facts
contained it

The following matters are important. If the master cannot contact the ship-owner or
obtain guidance from it, the following general principles should be applied.

The master must ensure that the information on the bill of lading agrees with that on
the mate’s receipt(s).

The master must check the facts about the cargo. It would be unusual for the master or
the ship’s agent to prepare the bills of lading. The bill of lading is usually prepared by
the shipper or the shipper’s agent. It is accordingly essential for the master to check
the information about the cargo in the bill of lading. The master will not know all of
the facts about the cargo that appear on the bill of lading which he is being asked to
sign. This problem is dealt with specially in the section entitled ‘Information in the
bill of lading “ (paragraph4).

The master must check the facts about the voyage. If the place or date of loading is
incorrect, or if the discharge port is outside the Charter party range, the master should
refuse to sign.

It is recognized that refusal to sign is not always safe or practical. Where in this
practical guidance section of the book the master is advised to refuse to sign, he
should refer to paragraph 11 for guidance.

Information in the bill of lading

This section deals with ways of describing the cargo and the voyage. It is intended to
give the master guidance where he is unable to obtain guidance from the ship-owners.
It may also assist the master in identifying what is a usual and what is an unusual
situation.
Some of the information in the bill of lading is within the mater’s knowledge, for
example the port of shipment, the date of completion of loading of the parcel
described in the bill of lading or the date of issue of the bill of lading. If these facts are
not correct the master should refuse to sign the bill of lading.

Some information in the bill of lading may not be within the precise knowledge of the
master, for example the quantity or weight or the actual condition of the goods loaded.
The following rules may assist.

Quantity

The master should if possible add the words ‘Shipper’s figures’ or ‘shore figures’ to
any statement as to quantity or weight on the bill of lading.

If the master does not know the weight or quantity loaded (because there has been no
opportunity for a tally or an accurate draught survey) then the words ‘weight and
quantity unknown’ should be written alongside the figure.

128
If the ship has its own figures and these differ from those in the ;bill of lading, then
the ship’s figures should be written alongside the shipper’s figures and/or the words
‘weight and quantity unknown’ added.

If in situation (iii) the master is not permitted to add the ship’s figures and if the
difference between the shipper’s figures and the ship’s figures is more than could
reasonably be explained by the practical imprecision of draught surveys or tallying
then the master should refuse to sign the bill of lading. If the difference is small he
should follow (ii) above.

Condition

Usually the master only knows the apparent condition of the cargo. Accordingly if he
can see no apparent problem with the goods when loaded he should mark the bill of
lading ‘received in apparent good order and condition’.
If the master can see that the goods are damaged in some way then he should say so.
A more difficult question is where the master thinks that the goods may be defective
or substandard, for example because they appear dirty, mixed with foreign particles or
debris, or are discoloured or odorous. If such comments are appropriate he should do
his best to explain in ordinary language in writing on the face of the bill of lading
what he believes is wrong with the condition of the cargo. If he requires to add an
additional sheet of paper then he should state (in writing on the bill of lading) how
many sheets of paper are attached to each bill of lading. He should seek guidance
from the P &I club or its local correspondent or agent or from a surveyor as to the
precise wording to be used.

It is always useful to describe the nature of the packaging of goods, for example ‘in
paper bags’ or in polythene sacks’. If these are torn or damaged the bill of lading
should say so, such as ‘about 457 bags torn’. If only a rough estimate can be made of
the quantity damaged, however, this should be started, for example ‘about 10% torn’
or about 5000 bags damaged’. Whether it ;is on the basis of a tally or estimate, the
master must have evidence to support his remarks.

Special clauses are often used, for example for timber or steel cargoes, and if possible
the ship-owner or the P & I club correspondent should be consulted.

Quantity and condition

The words ‘weight, measure, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown’ are
useful and desirable words to add to a bill of lading if they are not already part of the
printed form.

Quality

The master need not describe the quality of the cargo.

For the avoidance of doubt the master should place his signature and/or the ship’s
stamp at the foot of the bill of lading only.

129
Specific situations

Freight / hire / demurrage / liens

The master may be worried that a bill of lading presented to him does not give the
ship-owner sufficient protection in terms of freight, hire or demurrage, or liens for any
of those, or he may be worried about other terms of carriage. These are all matters for
the ship-owner or its P &I club to consider. The master should always check with the
ship owner’s managers as to whether they requires protective terms to be added, but
leave the decision to them.

Deck cargo

Except in purpose-built container ships or in special trades where cargo is customarily

carried on deck, carriage of cargo on deck should always be checked with the ship-
owner. Where cargo is carried on deck it is essential to state on the face of the bill of
lading that cargo is being carried on deck. It is for the master to check with the ship-
owner to ensure that such carriage is permissible.

How many bills of lading to be signed?

The master should check with the shipper and with the Charter-party. He should also
check the terms of the bills of adding themselves as they may show the number to be
issued. There is no general rule as to what number should or must be issued for a
parcel of cargo.

Blending / co-mingling of oil cargoes

Oil cargoes are unusual in that charterers and traders may wish to co-mingle cargoes
shipped from different ports on different dates, and often with different specifications.

If cargoes shipped from separate ports, on separate dates and/or of separate origins are
co-mingled, then complications arise as to the accurate description of the port of
shipment date of shipment and type of cargo in the bills of lading. Further problem
may arise at the discharge port if the cargo mixed in the tanks no longer resembles the
cargo described in one more of the original bills of lading.

Wherever there is co-mingling of cargo shipped on different dates from different ports
and of different types, it is essential that the ship owner’s instructions are obtained
before bills of lading are issued. If the ship owner’s instructions cannot be obtained
the master should refuse to sign and should explain his reasons for doing so by
reference to (b) above.

Letter of indemnity

It is not for a master to agree to sign a bill of lading in return for a letter of indemnity.
That is for the ship-owner to decide. If it better for the master to follow the steps at
paragraph 11 than to accept a letter of indemnity without the ship owner’s authority.

130
Refusal to sign

In circumstances where the master feels that he should refuse to sign a bill of lading
he should seek guidance from the ship-owner or from the P & I club or its
correspondent. If no guidance can be obtained, the following general principles
should be applied.

If the refusal of the master to sign a document is met with physical threats or coercion
against the ship or her master or crew, then the master should sign the document.
When the vessel has sailed and upon reaching a position of safety, the master (or the
ship-owner, if it is now the contact with the master) may give notice of protest to all
parties and authorities concerned to the effect that the document has been signed
under duress and the ship-owner and the master consider themselves not bound by the
master’s signature. Of course thought must be given as to whether the ship, master or
any sister ship is likely to return to this dangerous regime).

Sometimes legal pressure will be exerted on the master to sign. The most common
example will be where the ship is operating under a Charter-party. The Charter-party
may list the master’s obligations with regard to signing bills of lading. For example he
may have to sign bills of lading ‘as presented. This and similar expressions do not
mean that the master must sign any bills of lading whatever its terms. The master ca
refuse to sign a bill of lading ‘as presented if it.

However, if the master is required by the Charter-party to sign bills of lading ‘as
presented’ he should not refuse to sign a bill of lading simply because it is marked, for
example ‘liner out’, or because it contains some foreign jurisdiction clause. These are
not facts but terms of the shipper or charterer’s trade. They are matters for the ship-
owner to argue about with the charterer if necessary. It the master is requested to sign
‘freight pre-paid bills of lading his position is slightly less clear.

Sometimes commercial pressure will be exerted on the master to sign in

circumstances where he should, as advised above, refuse to sign. It is for the ship-
owner to make commercial decisions in response to such pressure. The ship-owner
may wish to negotiate, take the commercial risk or accept a letter of indemnity. The
master, however does not have these options. He should maintain his refusal to sign.
Delay to the vessel or other consequences of threats made by the shipper or charterer
may then perhaps be avoided by the following steps.

The mater should sign the document in the form that he is prepared to give. For
example, in the case of a bill of lading where the quantity or description of the cargo
is in dispute, the master should sign a bill of lading showing the quantity or
description which he considers being accurate. The bill of lading should be left with
the ship’s agent (and a protecting agent appointed for this purpose if possible). Notice
can then be given that a bill of lading for the cargo has been signed and issued and is
available for collection.

Alternatively, the master should give notice that he has given authority to the ship’s
protecting agent to sign bills of lading on his behalf subject to instructions and
approval from the ship-owner when available.

131
The master should not sign bills of lading in blank.

Where any person coming on board insists that the mater takes delivery of a document
from them he should mark it for receipt only.

P & I club cover

It is important to understand that signing a document, and in particular a bill of lading,

which contains incorrect information can expose the ship to liabilities which it would
not otherwise face. In addition to facing those liabilities, the ship-owner may lose the
protection of its P & I insurance if inaccurate bills of lading are signed and expose.

Delivering the cargo at discharge port

The master can deliver the cargo to the holder of a ‘bearer’ bill of lading. If a bill of
lading shows a named consignee or named endorsee the person demanding delivery
of the cargo must provide some evidence that it is the person identified in the bill of
lading. As the bill of lading would usually be presented through the ship owner’s or
time charterers’ agents which are local to and familiar with the discharge port, the
master probably need only be worried about identification of the person demanding
delivery if the master has actual reasons for believing there has been fraud, that the
bill of lading may have been stolen that the person is not entitled to claim the goods or
if he has been notified of a competing claim for the goods.

The problems which usually arise are where:

 No bill of lading is available at the discharge port

 Delivery of cargo is requested at a port, which is not the named discharge port

In the absence of clear guidance from the ship-owners or the local P & I
correspondent, the master should take of the following points:

 The unavailability of a bill of lading at the discharge port is not the master’s
problem. It is the problem of the buyers and sellers of the cargo.
 The master should not agree to discharge the cargo against a letter of
indemnity (unless the ship-owner has expressly agreed to this).
 Delay to the vessel while waiting for the bill of lading will usually be paid for
under the Charter-party in the form of hire or demurrage (or as part of the
Laytime which has been paid for in the freight payment). Even if the vessel is
threatened with the cost of the delay, that threat should nor justify delivery of
the cargo without production of the bill of lading or at the wrong port.
 Delivery without production of the bill of lading or at the wrong port, will be a
breach of the terms of the ship owner’s P & I insurance and there will be no
insurance if in consequence a claim is subsequently brought by the ‘true’
cargo owner.
 In some jurisdictions ;the cargo can be discharged (At the named discharge
port) into the custody of the port or a private warehouse where it will remain
under the legal control of the mater until the bill of lading has been produced.

132
 The master should investigate this, if possible through the P & I
correspondent.

Specific issues

Letter of indemnity

The giving of letters of indemnity in return for delivery of cargo at the wrong
discharge port or without production of the original bill of lading is not wrong nor is it
unusual. It is however, a matter for the ship-owner to decide upon. It is a commercial
decision for it to make and one which it will make taking into consideration the fact
that it may have no P & I cover as a consequence of doing so.
Recommended standard letters of indemnity are included in the appendices, to sign an
indemnity for unquantified amounts. Frequently therefore the letter is accepted
without a bank’s counter-signature. Alternatively a limit (e.g. 150% of the value of
the cargo)n is placed on the bank’s liability under the letter. Again, these are
commercial decisions for the ship-owner to take.

Photocopy or faxed bills of lading

Sometimes the master is asked to deliver against a copy or faced bill of lading the
original being unavailable. Unless special arrangements have been in writing by the
ship-owner to accept such a bill of lading, delivery should be refused. The usual rule
is that delivery shall be given against presentation of at least one original bill of
lading.

Multiple originals

Bills of lading are often issued in sets of three or four originals. The bill of lading will
usually provide on its face that production of any one of those originals will be
acceptable. At the same time, the other original are considered to be void and
cancelled.

Retention of the original bill of lading

The master should retain the original bill of lading against which cargo has been
delivered. However originals are sometimes required by local officials or customs and
in those circumstances the master should ensure that he (or his agent) is allowed to
see the original bill of lading and that he is allowed to retain a photocopy of the front
and reverse side of the original. This should if possible be certified by the receiver or
his agent as follows. “This is certified to be a true copy of the original bill of lading
which is now accomplished”.

More than one person demanding delivery of the cargo

This situation may arise where:

 No bills of lading are available at the discharge port

133
  More than one set of bills of lading has been placed in circulation, all or some
of which are unauthorized.
 The original shipper has parted with the bills of lading and is asserting that the
holder has not complied with its obligations under the sale contract for
example it has somehow acquired the bills of lading without making payment.

Each of the situation places the mater (and the ship-owner) in a very difficult position
and can give rise to complex legal issues and may involve complex commercial and
legal solutions. The best advice that can be given to the master, if he cannot obtain
guidance from the ship-owner is as set out in paragraph 17.

Change of destination during voyage

Sometimes the master may be asked to change destination during the voyage and to
proceed to a discharge port other than that named in the bill of lading. That is a matter
for the ship-owner to give instructions upon. In the absence of clear guidance from the
ship-owner or the local P & I correspondent, the master should take note of the
following.
Even if the governing Charter-party gives a range of discharge ports, once a bill of
lading has been issued naming a discharge port, that destination should be treated as
if written into the Charter-party.

So far as the bill of lading holder is concerned, the diversion of the vessel to a
different discharge port will be a deviation the consequences of which can be serious
for the carrier.

Promises by a party seeking to change the destination (be it charterer, shipper or

receiver) that it holds all the original bills of lading or that the parties holding the bills
of lading have agreed to the change, may at best be meaningless and at worst untrue.
If such parties are genuinely in a position to make proper arrangements for the change
of destination then they should be in a position to provide a letter of indemnity (see
(D) below) including an undertaking for the return of all the original bills of lading.

As stated at paragraphs 18 and 19 the provision of letter of indemnity in return for

delivery of cargo at a different destination is not unusual. However the standard
wording for a change of destination letter of indemnity (See appendix iv) expressly
provides for the return of all of the original bills of lading and any letter of indemnity
which omits this fundamental provision should be regarded as inadequate and
rejected.

Atypical bill of lading – the BIMCO Congenbill

The standard BIMCO congenbill has been selected because of its widespread use.
Each item in he bill of lading has been marked with an orange number which refers to
the relevant paragraph number in the text below. Although many of the terms and
conditions shown on the reverse of the bill of lading are relatively short and simple
compared with those of a more detailed liner or combined transport bill, the essential
information contained in the congenbill is typical of all bills of lading.

134
‘Shipper’

The shipper will frequently be the party which prepares the bill of lading and supplies
much of the information to go in it. This information must be checked carefully.
Where the Hague, Hague-Visby or Hamburg Rules apply compulsorily the shipper is
entitled to have a bill of lading giving certain information issued to it upon shipment
of the cargo. The shipper is under an obligation to provide accurate information and if
any of that information is inaccurate and leads to liability of the carrier, then in certain
circumstances the shipper can be liable to indemnity the carrier.

‘Consignee’

The information contained in this section is not primarily the concern of the master. It
is a matter between the seller of the goods (often the shipper) and the intended buyer
or buyers. Depending upon the nature ;of the underlying sales transaction, typical
entries in the consignee box may be the words ‘bearer’ or ‘holder’ it may name a
consignee; it may show the words to order with or without the name of the consignee
or the box may simply be left blank. Each of these affects the transferability of the bill
of lading and with it, control over the delivery of the goods. They are not matters
which should trouble the master at the time of issue of the bill of lading.

Movement of the bill of lading under the sale contract

The goods are on board and the bill of lading has been signed. What happens next in
the sales transaction, and in particular, what happens to the bill of lading?

What happens to the bill of lading?

The answer in that now the goods are on the move, it is time for the documents to
move.

The bill of lading will go with other documents to form a complete set of shipping
documents. The shipping documents will usually comprise:

 The bill of lading issued by the master or his agent as discussed earlier
 The marine insurance policy insuring the goods against loss of damage on the
voyage.
 The commercial invoice.

There are the main documents. Others may include:

 A certificate of quality/quantity
 A certificate of origin

To explain the letter of credit system very briefly where the contract of sale provides
for payment ;by letter of credit the buyer will arrange for its bank to open a credit (a
promise to pay) in favour of the seller for the price of the goods. The bank is called
the issuing bank. The issuing bank will then contract its correspondent bank in the
country where the seller is based and this bank will either ‘advise’ the seller that the
letter of credit has been opened and that the issuing bank will pay upon receipt of the

135
shipping documents, or it will ‘confirm’ first instance acting as an ‘advising bank’ and
in the second instance as a ‘confirming bank’ in which case it is confirming to the
seller that it the confirming bank will pay upon receipt from the buyer instructions
which show the documents required by the sale contract. When the shipping
document are delivered to the advising or confirming bank, they will be examined to
make sure that they comply with the instructions under the sale contract, and the seller
will be paid either directly by the confirming bank or in due course by the issuing
bank (via the advising bank).

As the bill of lading passes through the hands of these banks it represents security for
any money they may have advanced on the goods and can be held by them until the
buyer has satisfied his obligations to the issuing bank.

When the bill of lading is in the hands of the buyer he will contact the ship owner or
charterer’s agent at the discharge port and demand delivery of the goods to him.
Alternatively he may wish to sell the cargo to another party in which case the bill of
lading will again be used in this next transaction as a receipt (showing what the new
buyer is buying) as a document of title (giving control to the new buyer in return for
payment) and as a contract of carriage with the new buyer who will acquire legal
rights against the ship-owner.

The master must deliver the cargo to the person holding the bill of lading at the named
discharge port. The carrier can deliver the cargo to the holder of a ‘bearer’ bill of
lading

The person demanding delivery of the cargo must provide some evidence that it is the
person identified in the bill of lading. As the bill of lading would usually be presented
through the ship-owner or time charterer’s agents who are local to and familiar with
the discharge port the master probably need only be worried about identification of
the person demanding delivery if the master has actual reasons for believing there is
some reasonably ground for suspecting that the person is not entitled to claim the
goods, or if the master has been notified of a competing claim for the goods.

By way of background information it may be useful briefly to explain the legal and
commercial mechanism by which the bill of lading, and therefore the right to receive
or control receipt of the goods, passes from person to person.

Explanation

If the bill of lading shows

Shipper : X
consignee: to order

Then the shipper has the power to endorse the bill of lading and give orders as to
whom the cargo should be delivered. An endorsement is simply the signature of the
shipper on the back of the bill of lading. An endorsement in blank is the signature of
the shipper alone. This means that any person to whom the bill of lading is
intentionally passed can claim to be the proper holder of the bill of lading. A special
endorsement is where the shipper wishes to direct the ship-owner to deliver to a

136
particular person. In that case, the shipper puts his signature and the name of the
intended recipient on the bill of lading.

If the bill of lading shows

Shipper : X
Consignee: Y

Then the bill of lading can be consigned (that is physically passed) to Y who then
becomes the proper holder of the bill of lading. However because the bill of lading
gives no expressed power to ‘order’ delivery, neither X or Y can endorse the bill of
lading to any other party either by blank endorsement or by special endorsement. This
kind of bill is sometimes called a ‘straight’ or ‘non-negotiable’ bill of lading and in
many respects is similar to a sea waybill.

If the bill of lading shows

Sipper : X
Consignee: Y or to order

Then the bill of lading can be consigned to Y as in (b) above. However if Y wishes he
can then endorse it, in blank or by special endorsement, to any other party who will
then become the proper holder. That party cannot hen endorse in further.

If in situation (c) above a special endorsement on the bill of lading shows ‘Z’ or
order’, then that endorsee can further endorse the bill of lading.

If the bill of lading shows

Shipper : X
Consignee: bearer (or left blank)

Then the holder of this bill of lading is the person to whom cargo is to be delivered.
The bill of lading can move from person to person by simple consignment (that is by
being physically passed from person to person).

All of the above are genera rules and are determined by what is written in the
consignee box in the bill of lading. These general rules may be varied by express
terms on the bill of lading stipulating how it is to be transferred.

The voyage delivery loss and damage to cargo

The ship has been loaded and bills of lading issued. The shipping documents should
now be working their way through the sale and accompanying finance transactions.
The master is now under a duty to carry the cargo safely to destination by the usual
geographical route, to care for the cargo en route, and to deliver the cargo in the same
condition as when loaded to the person rightfully entitled to receive the cargo.

These obligations are essentially contractual in nature – the master by receiving the
shipper’s goods on board agrees to carry them safely to their destination. This basic
promise is usually embodied in the bill of lading and may be modified by one or more
of the various sources of obligations. To be precise the bill of lading is not the
contract of carriage. The agreement to carry the goods has usually been made before

137
the goods have been taken on board. However it is usually been made before the
goods have been taken on board. However it is usually the document which provides
the best evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Furthermore as against a
consignee or endorsee, the bill of lading as drawn will be treated as the complete
contract in any dispute with the ship-owner.

The duty to carry

The master is expected to proceed from the load port to the discharge port without
delay and without departure from the usual geographical route. If he fails to do so
then this may amount to a deviation from the contractual voyage. The word deviation
is a legal expression which requires further explanation.

Deviation

Deviation in its legal sense is an unjustified departure from the contractual voyage.
The general rule is that the contractual voyage will follow the usual geographical
route. This general rule may not apply if it can be shown that

 There is a universal custom to follow another route

 That the circumstances surrounding the voyage made it clear that the intention
of the parties was that some other route should be taken
 If the bill of lading expressly describes what route is to be taken or gives the
ship owner liberty to select alternative routes even if this means departing
from the usual geographical route
 If it is necessary for the ship to leave the contractual route for reasons of the
safety of the venture
 If one of the sources of obligation listed in paragraph 58 permits diversion, for
example the Hague-Visby Rules permit deviation to save life or property or
any reasonable deviation

Where the ship departs from the contractual voyage without justification the
consequences of this deviation in legal terms are very drastic. In very broad terms, the
ship owner will be deprived of its contractual rights (for example, to receive freight
and to enjoy defences expressly given to it by the contract) and in addition may
prejudice its insurance cover.

It is therefore important to realize that instructions to take the cargo to any destination
other than that named in the bill of loading, even when those instructions are given by
characters or shippers who may appear to have very good reason for giving those
instructions, should be related with the utmost caution. In every circumstances where
such instructions is given, the ship owner of the P & I association should consult.

Change in destination

Some times a change of destination can be agreed. The essential ingredient of such
agreement is that the party giving the order for change of destination must be in a
position to return the complete set of original bills of lading at the discharge port. This
is essential because if one or more of those originals is now in the hands of another
holder then that person may call upon the ship owner changes destination and

138
discharges the cargo at a new destination without collecting in all of the bills, then at
some time in the future any uncollected bill may form the basis of a claim by its
holder for mis-delivery. This is why in the standard recommended wording for the
letter of indemnity to be given by a charterer or the bill of lading holder for change of
destination, there is an absolute undertaking to return all sets of the original bills of
lading.

Some bills of lading for example, the congenbill, provide that the vessel shall proceed
to a port or so near thereto as she may safely get. This may ultimately give the master
the right to carry the cargo to another discharge port if the vessel is prevented from
reaching the named discharge port. However the master is bound to wait a reasonable
time before he is entitled to proceed to an alternative place of discharge and that
reasonable time will depend upon the nature of the voyage. It is a matter to be decided
between the ship owner and the charterer or shipper after careful consultation.

Delay

Delay in proceeding to the discharge port may cause loss to the buyer of the goods.
Delay may also amount to a deviation in the legal sense. However simple failure to
commence the loaded voyage and proceed as quickly as possible is not a deviation in
the legal sense. To amount to a deviation in the legal sense delay which makes the
voyage performed entirely different from that which the parties envisaged would be
performed would have to occur.

It is not the function of this guide to set out a detailed analysis on the complex law of
deviation. The purpose of this short section is to emphasise the importance of
proceeding directly from the load port to the discharge port as named in the bill of
lading unless there is very good reason by reason of contract, custom safety or
agreement, to do otherwise.

One final note on delay. The Hamburg Rules if applicable have express provisions
dealing with delay (see paragraph 83 and appendix VII, Article 5 of the rules).

Caring for the cargo

At common law the ship owner is under an absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy
ship. A seaworthy ship is one is which her hull and machinery, equipment and crew
are fit to take the cargo to sea and come safely through the kind of weather that she
should expect to meet. If the ship owner fails in this obligation and the failure causes
damage to the cargo, then the cargo. Under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules this
absolute obligation is reduced to an obligation to exercise due diligence to make the
vessel seaworthy. Due diligence means taking care to ensure a proper, efficient and
effective system to maintain, equip and repair the ship, hull and equipment and to
ensure the proper training and competence of her master and crew. If a proper and
careful check reveals a defect which a normal careful ship owner would repair, but the
defect is not repaired then there has been a failure by that ship owner to exercise due
diligence to make its ship seaworthy.

139
In addition to the seaworthiness obligations, the ship owner must care for the cargo
from the time of its receipt into the ship owner’s care until the time of its delivery at
the discharge port. Essentially this means taking care to ensure that what has been put
on board the vessel at the load port can be delivered at the load port can be delivered
at the discharge port. It is a duty to ensure that the cargo is not lost, damaged,
contaminated or changed in character in any way.

As between the ship owner and the cargo owner the bill of lading may set out a period
for which the ship owner is responsible for caring for the cargo and identify who is to
be responsible and pay for loading and discharge operations. These are of course
matters of great concern to the ship owner and cargo owner alike. They are often dealt
with by phrases such as FIOST (Free in and out stowed and trimmed) FIOS and FIO
(shorter versions of FIOST and of diminishing scope) and by expressions such as liner
in liner out or ‘free in free out’. All of these expressions. It is important however for
the master to be aware of expressions or abbreviations such as these. If any such
abbreviation is used which clearly goes to the allocation of loading and discharging
responsibility (or indeed any abbreviation which is unknown to the master) then these
are matters which he should report and discuss with the ship owner as soon as
possible.

Cargo claims

The law recognizes that goods, wherever and however they are handled, stored or
transported can come to harm. Where the goods have been physically lost or damaged
during the voyage the contract of carriage, and the laws and conventions within which
it operates, allocate risk and liability between the ship owner and the cargo owner.
(the ship owner’s risk and liability may also have been allocated between it and its
charterer, but that is not a matter for this guide).

The ship owner’s defences

Where there is proof of loss or damage on the ship, then at common law the ship
owner has a limited number of defences. It will not be excused from liability if it
failed to make the ship seaworthy. It will be excused from liability at common law if
damage to the cargo was directly caused by act of God act of Queen’s enemies,
inherent vice of the goods themselves negligence of the cargo owner or general
average sacrifice.

Evidence of damage or loss the bill of lading

One very difficult question when cargo claims arise is whether the loss or damage
complained of by the cargo owner happened on the ship, if it happened at all. For
example, shortage claims can arise simply because of differences between recorded
measurements at he load and discharge ports, damage claims can arise where the
cargo discharged is the same as that loaded, but the description of the cargo in the bill
of lading failed to draw the buyer’s attention to existing defects in the cargo.

Both of these examples, shortage and damage claims, can de directly affected by the
care which has been taken when issuing the bill of lading. Care in measuring and

140
observing the cargo, and care in describing its quantity and condition on the bill of
lading can avoid or reduce the size of these claims.

The bill of lading contains important evidence of these facts and figures. If a bill of
lading is issued which contains inaccurate information there is little opportunity for
the carrier to say the information is not true. As a matter of law all of the descriptions
stated in the bill of lading will be evidence in the hands of any cargo owner who says
his goods have been damaged. In particular note the following.

Under the Hauge Rules, and probably as a matter of common law, the bill of lading
represents ‘prima facie evidence’ of the facts stated in the bill of lading. The cargo
owner can use this evidence to prove his claim against the carrier. The Hague- Visby
Rules add more weighty to this evidence by adding that in the hands of a transferee or
endorsee of the bill of lading (usually the buyer of the cargo) it is ‘conclusive
evidence’ of the fact that shipment has taken place the time and place of that
shipment, and the number, quantity, weight, marks and apparent order and condition
of the goods.

A third category of loss is where the cargo has been safely carried to its destination
but then delivered to the wrong person. This question of delivery is a separate and
important issue and is dealt with the next section of this guide.

Delivery of the cargo

The bill of lading is often referred to as a document of title. In fact the movement of
title (the right of ownership of the cargo) is decided by the sale contract. However, if
the parties to the sale contract require a bill of lading to be issued they are using it as a
movable (or negotiable) and tangible symbol of title to the cargo or, more accurately,
the right to control receipt of the cargo at its destination.

The master must deliver the cargo to the person holding the bill of lading at the named
discharge port. The carrier can deliver the cargo to the holder of a ‘bearer’ bill of
lading (see paragraph 185 (e). if a bill of lading shows a consignee or named endorsee
(see paragraphs 185(a)- (d) the person demanding delivery of the cargo must provide
some evidence to the carrier that he is the person identified in the bill of lading. As the
bill of lading would usually be presented through the ship owner’s or time charterer’s
agents who are local to and familiar with the discharge port, the master probably need
only be worried about identification ;of the person fraud, that the bill of lading may
have been stolen that the person is not entitled to claim the goods, or if he has been
notified of a competing claim for the goods,

The problems which usually arise are where no bill of lading is available at the
discharge port. Delivery of cargo is requested at a port which is not the named
discharge port.

Delivery of cargo without production of the bill of lading

Delivery of the cargo to a person who does not hold a bill of lading is a breach of the
bill of lading contract itself and the holder of the bill of lading can bring a claim
against the ship-owner. Such delivery is also an infringing those rights. (the cargo

141
owner can also of course, bring a claim against the party who has wrongfully
demanded delivery of the cargo). Similarly delivery at the wrong port is not only a
deviation under the contract of carriage but is also an infringement of the true cargo
owner’s rights if this is done in circumstances where the agreement to change
destination has not been accompanied by the return of all of the original bills of
lading.

Some of the comments that follow appear in the practical guidance section of this
guide. Those comments are here augmented by further explanation and legal notes.

In the absence of clear guidance from the owner or the P & I club correspondent the
master should take care note of the following points:

 The unavailability of a bill of lading at the discharge port is not the master’s
problem. It is the problem of the buyers and sellers of the cargo
 The master should not agree to discharge the cargo against a letter of
indemnity (unless the ship-owner has expressly agreed to this). The master
does not have authority on behalf of the ship-owner to vary the bill of lading
contract in this way
 Delay to the vessel while waiting for the bill of lading will usually be paid for
under the Charter-party in the form of hire or demurrage (or as part of the
Laytime which has been paid for in the freight payment). Even if the vessel is
threatened with the cost of the delay, that threat should not justify delivery of
the cargo without production of the bill of lading or at the wrong port
 Delivery without production of the bill of lading, or at the wrong port, will be
a breach of the terms of the ship owner’s P & I insurance and there may be no
brought by the ‘true’ cargo owner
 In some jurisdictions the cargo can be discharged (at the named discharge
port) into the custody of the port or a private warehouse where it will remain
under the legal control of the master until the bill of lading has been produced.
The master should investigate this, if possible through the P & I club
correspondent

Specific issues

Letters of indemnity

Unlike letters of indemnity given in return for issuing clean bills of lading (which are
unenforceable as the bill of lading will deceive its holders), the giving of letters of
indemnity in return for delivery of cargo at the wrong discharge port or without
production of the original bill of lading is not wrong nor is it unusual. It is however a
matter for the ship-owner to decide upon. It is a commercial decision for it to make.
The desire to satisfy a charterer or receiver, and to free the vessel, must be balanced
against the loss of P & I cover and the risk that the cargo may have been sold twice.

Standard letters of indemnity for these situations appear at appendices and III. These
standard forms show counter-signature by a bank. Banks are rarely prepared to sign
an indemnity for unquantified amounts. Frequently, therefore, the letter is accepted
without a bank’s counter-signature. Alternatively a limit (e.g. 150% of the value of

142
the cargo) is placed on the bank’s liability under the letter. Again, these are
commercial decisions for the ship-owner to take.

Photocopy or faxed bills of lading

Sometimes the master is asked to deliver against a copy or faxed bill of lading, the
original being unavailable. Unless special arrangements have been made in writing by
the ship-owner to accept such a bill of lading, delivery should be refused. The usual
rule is that delivery shall be given against presentation of at least one original bill of
lading.

Multiple originals

Bills of lading are often issued in sets of three or four originals. The bill of lading will
usually provide on its face that production of any one of those originals, will be
acceptable. At the same time the other originals are considered to be void and
cancelled.

Retention of the original bill of lading

The master should retain the original bill of lading against which cargo has been
delivered. The receiver should have no need to retain it as a contract of carriage it is
merely evidence and a copy will suffice, as a document of control its function is now
complete as a receipt for the good it makes sense that it should be returned to the
master when the goods are delivered.

However originals are sometimes required by local officials or customs and in those
circumstances the master should ensure that he (or his agent) is allowed to see the
original bill of lading and that he is allowed to retain a photocopy of the receiver or
his agent as follows: this is certified to be a true copy of this original bill of lading
which is now accomplished.

More than one person demanding delivery of the cargo this situation may arise where
no bills of lading are available at the discharge port more than one set of bills of
lading has been placed in circulation, all or some of which are unauthorized. The
originals from a single set have found their way in to the hands of a number of
holders. The original shipper (seller) has parted with the bills of lading and is
asserting that the holder has not complied with its obligations under the sale contract
“(e.g. it has somehow acquired the bills of lading without making payment).

Each of the situations places the master (and the ship-owner) in a very difficult
position. The master is now on notice that one or more of the bills of lading may not
be valid, and that one or more of the holders may have acquired possession of the bills
of lading in circumstances where the transfer of the bills of lading into their
possession was not intended to transfer the right to demand delivery.

The situations can give rise to complex legal issues and may involve complex
commercial solutions and legal solutions.

143
Change of destination during voyage

Sometimes the master may be asked to change destination during the voyage and to
proceed to a discharge port other than that named in the bill of lading. The master has
no authority on the owner’s behalf to vary the contract of carriage in this way. The
ship-owner may choose to accept a letter of indemnity in return for such a variation.
These are matters for the ship-owner to decide.

Other matters

Co-mingling of oil cargoes

There appears to be an increasing practice for oil traders to co-mingle cargoes from
different ports shipped on different dates and often with different specifications. This
can create difficulties in the context of issuing bills of lading. These difficulties derive
from three points.

When goods which essentially are of the same specification are shipped by more than
one shipper, and the goods are co-mingled on board the carrying ship, then the
shippers share ownership in the whole of the mixed goods.
Where the goods are of different specification then not only do questions of shared
ownership arise, but also all the goods shipped may be reason of co-mingling have
changed in nature or specification.

If the goods have been shipped on different dates from different ports, then each bill
of lading must accurately show the ports of shipment and the dates of shipment for the
reasons given at paragraphs 156 and 157. a single bill of lading for the co-mingled
cargo could not accurately describe these details.

To the oil trader none of these points may be of great significance because it will be
his intention to control ownership of the cargo at some stage and then to sell it in
different parcels and with its newly acquired specification. None of this is within the
ship owner’s knowledge, however and so it must fall back on basic principles so that
it can ensure that in respect of each parcel shipped a bill of lading is issued showing
the time and place of that shipment, and the number quantity, weight, marks and
apparent condition of the goods. The master must proceed on the basis that each
shipper will require in individual bill of lading for each parcel. Practical guidance is
given at paragraph.

Whether the master can properly be instructed to co-mingle one cargo with another is
a matter of contract between the owner and usually the charterer (often the oil trader).
Often there is provision in charter parties for co-mingling to take place. If the bill of
lading records the receipt onboard in apparent good order and condition of a parcel of
cargo which is subsequently mixed with a cargo of different specification then there is
no basis for clausing the bills of lading but there is a possibility of a claim or claims at
the discharge port from disappointed consignees.

The problems which will undoubtedly arise with the issue of bills of lading in
circumstances where cargoes are co-mingled and the problems arising from the owner
making a contractual commitment to co-mingle cargoes received on board, can all be

144
resolved by proper negotiation of the governing charter party return of original bills of
lading and letters of indemnity. These are matters for the ship owner to decide. It is
important when faced with these situations for the master to adhere carefully to the
principles set out above.

Mixing of dry cargoes

In practical terms the mixing of dry cargoes will usually involve goods of one
description loaded at one port and so many of the difficulties in issuing an accurate
bill of lading will not arise. The point at paragraph 224(a) does arise but will not be of
practical importance. The individual buyers will draw their share of the cargo from
the bulk cargo. If separate bills for each parcel loaded were not issued delivery may
be given against presentation of the original bill together with ship’s delivery orders
or non-negotiable bills for the separate parcels, sometimes known as ‘split’ bills.

Charter parties and charterer’s bills

The ship will often be operating under a charter party. The question then arises
whether the bill of lading is a contract between the charterer and the shipper or
between the ship owner and the shipper. Although this is a complex issue under
English law, it is probably correct to say that in most instances a bill of lading will
represent a contract between the ship owner and the shipper (and, of course, any other
holder in due course of the bill of lading). The exception to the rule is where the ship
is operating under a demise or bareboat charter party so that the master is the
employee of the charterer and not of the ship owner and any bill of lading signed by
the master is done so by him as the charterer’s agent. More complex and unusual
examples of a charterer’s bill may be where the master has been given express
authority by the ship-owner and charterer to sign on the charterer’s behalf or where
the charterer has signed the bill of lading in his own name. The master will not
necessarily be aware of all of these arrangements.

The significance of the distinction between an owner’s bill and a charter’s bill is of
course that if the contract is between the charterer and the shipper (and subsequent
holders of the bill of lading) then any promises made in that bill of lading (e.g. to
carry to the destination, and to care for the goods) and any representations made in the
bill of lading (e.g. as to condition on quality of cargo), are matters between the
charterer and the cargo owner. The said, the ship-owner may of course, continue to
have duties of care because the cargo is in its physical possession.

The ability of a charterer to bind a ship-owner to a bill of lading which has been
issued without authority being given to the charterer or his agent, is a complex legal
question and lot will depend upon unusual or unique factual situations. However
because the problem of charterers or their agents issuing bills of lading without
authority or not in accordance with mate’s receipts has been identified as a problem
area for ship owners, a brief summary of the guiding principles may be useful.

In many charter party where the master is obliged to follow the orders of the charterer
as to the employment of the vessel then, unless there is an express prohibition the
charterer or its agent will have actual authority to issue and sign bills of lading on the
owner’s behalf.

145
If the charterer or its agent issues bills of lading in breach of charter party terms they
will still have ostensible authority to issue and sign and sign bills of lading on the ship
owner’s behalf unless the ship-owner has been able to advise cargo interests of the
lack of actual authority before the bills have been signed or unless the bills contain
extraordinary terms, or unless the cargo interests had reasons to know of the lack of
authority.

The master and ship-owner may be entitled to refuse to issue clean bills clean bills of
lading for unsound cargo and this will cause problems for the shipper and charterer.
But in practice, if the charterer or its agent decide that it will without notifying the
master abuse the authority identified at (a) and (b) above so as to issue clean bills for
unsound cargo itself, there is considerable likelihood that the ship-owner will be
found to be bound by these bills of lading. The ship owner’s remedy is against is
against the charterer or its agent.

What dates should be inserted in a bill of lading which refers to a charter party?

If the head-charter party is a voyage charter party then the date of this charter party
should be inserted. The position is less clear if the head-charter party is a time charter
party but in the absence of guidance or instruction from any other source the master
should insert the date of the head charter party. This is the contract with which the
ship-owner is familiar. Also the time charter party will usually contain express
provision as to certain terms which are to be included in any bill of lading which is
issued. Reference to this charter party in the bill of lading may incorporate these
clauses into the bill of lading. There may be a number of charter parties and therefore
the master should if possible check with the ship-owner to see what date is to be
inserted in the bill of lading. The ship-owner is in the best position to advise on this.

Freight

Freight terms on a bill of lading are of great importance to the shipper and consignee
of the cargo as they will show either that the ship-owner has received the freight (e.g.
‘freight prepaid) and therefore that the ship-owner will not be exercising a lien over
the goods at the discharge port or that all or some of the freight remains payable (e.g.
payable at destination). If there is no charter party involved then any freight terms
recorded on the face of the bill of lading for example that freight has been prepaid or
that a certain amount has been paid in advance will operate as a receipt issued by the
master on behalf of the ship-owner confirming that the money has been paid to the
ship-owner. If the vessel if operating under a charter party the charterer will usually
receive the freight for the shipment (e.g. where he is a time charterer receiving freight
from a voyage charterer or a CIF seller receiving freight from the buyer within the
sale price of the goods). In those circumstances it would not seem to be sensible for
the ship-owner to issue a receipt for something which it has not received.

Despite this it can be dangerous for a master to refuse to sign a bill of lading which
includes terms as to payment of freight particularly if those terms are standard within
the charterer’s trade. So for example when its ship if operating under a time charter
party and the obligation on the master is to sign bills of lading ‘as presented’, the
master should not generally refuse to issue bills of lading simply because they are

146
marked ‘freight prepaid’ and a ship-owner should be very careful to take detailed
legal advice before it instructs the mater not to sign such a bill. Voyage charterer
parties usually contain terms that are more precise about the issue and release of bills
of lading marked ‘freight pre-paid or will expressly state the freight terms that are to
be included in any bills of lading issued under the charter party for example that
freight is payable at destination. If no provision has been made in the voyage charter
party for the issue of freight pre-paid bills of lading the master should seek clear
instructions from the ship-owner. If he cannot obtain instructions then he should
advise his shippers and charterer that he is awaiting clear instructions from the ship-
owner that the bills of lading in the hands of the owner’s agent to be released only
with ship owner’s consent.

THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ACT, 1993

(NO. 28 OF 1993) (2ND April, 1993)

As Act to provide for the regulation of the multimodal transportation of goods, from
any place in India to a place outside India, on the basis of a multimodal transport
contract and for matters connected therewith or incidental there to.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the forth – fourth year of the Republic of India as

follows:

CHAPTER 1
PRELIMINARY

Short title, extent and commencement

1. (i) This Act may be called the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act,
1993.

(ii) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and
Kashmir
(iii) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of October
1992.

Definitions
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

(a) “Carrier” means a person who is engaged in the business of

transporting for hire goods by road, rail, inland waterways or sea; (air)
(b) “Competent Authority” means any person or at thority authorised by
the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to
perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act;
(c) Consignee means the person named as consignee in the multimodal
transport contract;
(d) Consignment means the goods entrusted to a multimodal transport
operator for multimodal transportation;
(e) “Consignor” means the person, named in the multimodal transport
contract as consignor, by whom or on whose behalf the goods covered

147
 by such contract are entrusted to a multimodal transport operator for
multimodal transportation;
(f) “Delivery” means

(i) In the case of a negotiable multimodal transport document,

delivering of the consignment to, or placing the consignment at
the disposal of, the consignee or any other person entitled to
receive it;
(ii) In the case of a non – negotiable multimodal transport
document, delivering of the consignment to, or placing the
consignment at the disposal of, the consignee or any person
authorised by the consignee to accept delivery of the
consignment on his behalf;
(g) “Endorsee” means the person in whose favour an endorsement is
made, and in the case of successive endorsements, the person in whose
favour the last endorsement is made;
(h) “Endorsement” means the signing by the consignee or the endorsee
after adding a direction on a negotiable multimodal transport document
to pass the property in the goods mentioned in such document to a
specified person;
(i) “Goods” includes

(i) containers pallets or similar articles of transport used to

consolidate goods; and
(ii) animals

(j) “Mode of transport means carriage of goods by road, rail inland

waterway or sea;

Carriage of Goods by Sea and Multimodal Transport

(k) “Multimodal transportation” means carriage of goods by two or more

modes of transport from the place of acceptance of the goods in India
to a place of delivery of the good outside India;
(l) “Multimodal transport contract” means a contract entered into by the
consignor and the multimodal transport operator for multimodal
transportation;
(m) “Multimodal transport operator” means any person who:-

(i) Concludes a multimodal transport contract on his own behalf of

through another person acting on his behalf;
(ii) Acts as principle and not as an agent either of the consignor or
of the carrier participating in the multimodal transportation, and
who assumes responsibility for the performance of the said
contract; and
(iii) Is registered under sub- section (3) of section 4;

(n) “Negotiable multimodal transport document” means a multimodal

transport document which is-

148
 (i) made out to order or to bearer; or
(ii) made out to order and is transferable by endorsement; or
(iii) made out to bearer and is transferable without endorsement;

(O) “Non – negotiable multimodal transport document” means a

multimodal transport document, which indicates only one
named consignee;

(P) “Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

(q) “Registration” means registration of multimodal transport operator

under sub – section (3) of 4 section 4.

Chapter 2

REGULATION OF MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION

No person to carry on business without registration.

3. No person shall carry on or commence the business of multimodal

transportation unless he is registered under this Act.

Provided that a person carrying on the business of multimodal

transportation immediately before the commencement of this Act, may
continue to do so for a period of three months from such
commencement; and if he has made an application for registration
within the said period, till the disposal of such application.

Registration for multimodal transportation

4. (1) Any person may apply for registration to the competent

authority to carry on or commence the business of multimodal
transportation.

(2) An application under sub- section (1) shall be made in such a

form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee
of ten thousand rupees.

(3) On receipt of the application, the competent authority shall

satisfy that the applicant fulfils the following conditions,
namely;-

(a) (i) In that the applicant is a shipping company or a

company engaged in the business of freight
forwarding in India or aboard with a minimum
annual turnover of fifty lakh rupees during the S
immediate preceding financial year or an average
annual turnover of fifty lakh rupees during the
preceding three financial years as certified by a

149
 chartered accountant within the meaning of the
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

(ii) that if the applicant is a company other than a

company specified in sub – clause (i), the
subscribed share capital of such company is not
less than fifty lakh rupees;
(b) that the applicant has offices or agents or
representatives in not less than two other
countries;
and on being so satisfied, register the applicant
as a multimodal transport operator and grant a
certificate to it to carry on or commence the
business of multimodal transportation;

Provided that the competent authority may, for

reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant
registration if it is satisfied that the applicant
does not fulfil the said conditions.

(4) A certificate granted under sub- section (3) shall be

valid for a period of 03 year and may be renewed from
time to time for a further period of one year at a time.
(5) An application for renewal shall be made in such form
as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee
of 1 ok – 20k rupees.

Cancellation of registration

5. The competent authority may, if it is satisfied at any time after

registration, that: -

(a) any statement in, or in relation to, any application under sub-
section (2) of section 4 or its renewal under sub – section (5) of
that section, is incorrect or false in any material particular; or
(b) any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under
has been contravened by the multimodal transport operator;
(c) the multimodal transport operator has not entered into any
multimodal transport contract during the preceding two years
after his registration,

cancel by order the certificate of registration;

Provided that no such registration shall be cancelled unless the multimodal

transport operator has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against proposed action.

150
Appeal

6. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the competent

authority under section 5 may prefer an appeal to the Central
Government without such period as may be prescribed.

(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of

the prescribed period;

Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the

prescribed of the appellant satisfies the Central Government
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within
the prescribed period.

(3) Every appeal made under this section shall be made in such
form and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed and
shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against.
(4) On receipt of any such appeal, the Central Government shall
after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard
and after making such inquiry as it deems proper, make such
order as it thinks fit.

CHAPTER III

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT DOCUMENT

Issue of multimodal transport document

7. (1) Where the consignor and the multimodal transport operator have
entered into a contract for the multimodal transportation and the
multimodal transport operator has taken charge of the goods, he
shall, at the option of the consignor, issue a negotiable or nor-
negotiable multimodal transport document.

(2) The multimodal transport document shall be signed by the

multimodal transport operator or by a person duly authorised
by him.
Multimodal transport document to be regarded as document of title.

8. (1) Every consignee named in the negotiable or non – negotiable

multimodal transport document and every endorsee of such
document, as the case may be, to whom the property in the
goods mentioned therein shall pass upon or by reason of such
consignment or endorsement, shall have all the rights and
liabilities of the consignor.
(2) Nothing contained in sub – section (1) shall prejudice or affect
the right of the multimodal transport operator to claim freight

151
 from the consignor or enforce any liability of the consignee or
endorsee by reason of his being such consignee or endorsee.

Contents of multimodal transport document

9. The multimodal transport document shall contain the following particulars

namely:-

(a) The general nature of the goods, the leading marks necessary
for identification of the goods, the character of the goods
(including dangerous goods), number of package or units and
the gross weight and quantity of the goods;
(b) Apparent condition of the goods;
(c) The name and principal place of business of the multimodal
transport operator;
(d) The name of the consignor;
(e) The name of the consignee, if specified by the consignor;
(f) The place and date of taking charge of the goods by the
multimodal transport operator;
(g) The place of delivery of the goods;
(h) The date or the period of delivery of the goods at the place of
delivery;
(i) Whether it is negotiable or non- negotiable;
(j) The place and date of its issue;
(k) Freight payable by the consignor or the consignee, as the case
may be;
(l) The signature of the multimodal transport operator or of a
person duly authorised by him;
(m) The intended journey route, modes of transport and places of
trans-shipment, if known at the time of its issue;
(n) Terms of shipment and a statement that the document has been
issued subject to and in accordance with this Act; and
(o) Any other particular which the parties may agree to insert in the
document, if any such particular is not inconsistent with any
other law for the time being in force.

Reservations in the multimodal transport document.

10 (1) where the multimodal transport operator or a person acting on his

behalf known, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, that the
particulars furnished by the consignor in the multimodal transport
document do not accurately represent the goods actually taken in
charge; or if he has no reasonable means of checking such
particulars, the multimodal transport operator or a person acting on
his behalf shall insert in the multimodal transport document a
reservation specifying the inaccuracies, if any, or the grounds of
suspicion or the absence of reasonable means of checking the
particulars.
(2) where the multimodal transport operator or a person acting on
his behalf fails to insert the reservation in the multimodal

152
 transport document relating to the apparent condition of the
goods, he shall be deemed to have accepted the goods in
apparent good condition.

Evidentiary effect of the multimodal transport document.

11. Save as provided in section 10:-

(a) The multimodal transport document shall be prima facie

evidence of the fact that the multimodal transport operator has
taken charge of the goods as described in the document; and
(b) No proof to the contrary by the multimodal transport operator
shall be admissible if the multimodal transport document is
issued in negotiable form and has been transmitted to the
consignee or transferred by the consignee to a third party, if the
consignee or the third party has acted in good faith relying on
the description of the goods in the document.

Responsibility of the consignor

12 (1) The consignor shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the

multimodal transport operator the adequacy and accuracy, at the
time the multimodal transport operator takes charge of the goods,
of the particulars referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of section 9 as
furnished by the consignor for insertion in the multimodal
transport document.
(2) The consignor shall indemnify the multimodal transport
operator against loss resulting from inadequacy or inaccuracy
of the particulars referred to in sub – clause (1).
(3) The right of the multimodal transport operator under sub-
section (2) shall in no way limit his liability under the
multimodal transport contract to any person other than the
consignor.

CHAPTER IV

RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES OF THE MULTIMODAL

TRANSPORT OPERATOR

13 (1) the multimodal transport operator shall be liable for loss resulting
from: -

(a) any loss of or damage to, the consignment;

(b) delay in delivery of the consignment and any consequential loss
or damage arising from such delay.

Where such loss, damage or delay in livery took place while the consignment was
in his charge;

153
 Provided that the multimodal transport operator shall not be liable if he
proves that no fault or neglect on his part or that of his servants or
agents had caused or contributed to such loss, damage or delay in
delivery.

Provided further that the multimodal transport operator shall not be

liable for loss or damage arising out of delay in delivery unless the
consignor has made a declaration of interest in timely delivery which
has been accepted by the multimodal transport operator.

Explanation: For the purposes of this sub- section, “delay in delivery:

shall be deemed to occur when the consignment has not been delivered
within the time expressly agreed upon or, in the absence of such
agreement, within a reasonable time required by a diligent multimodal
transport operator, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to
effect the delivery of the consignment.

(2) If the consignment has not been delivered within ninety consecutive
days following the date of delivery expressly agreed upon or the
reasonable time referred to in the Explanation to sub – section (1), the
claimant may treat the consignment as lost.
Limits of liability when the nature and value of the consignment have
not been declared and stage of transport where loss or damage
occurred is not known

14 (1) Where a multimodal transport operator becomes liable for any loss of
or damage to any consignment, the nature and value whereof have not
been declared by the consignor before such consignment has been
taken in charge by the multimodal transport operator and the stage of transport at
which such loss or damage occurred is not known, then the liability of the multimodal
transport operator to pay compensation shall not exceed two Special Drawing Rights
per kilogram of the gross weight of the consignment lost or damaged or 666.67
Special Drawing Rights per package or unit lost or damaged, whichever is higher.

Explanation: For the purposes of this sub – section, where a container, pallet or
similar article of transport is loaded with more than one package or unit, the packages
or units enumerated in the multimodal transport document, as packed in such
container, pallet or similar article of transport shall be deemed as packages or units
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub – section (1), if the
multimodal transportation does not, according to the multimodal
transport contract, include carriage of goods by sea or by inland
waterways, the liability of the multimodal transport operator shall be
limited to an amount not exceeding 8.33 Special Drawing Rights per
Kilogram of the gross weight of the goods lost or damaged.

Limits of liability when the nature and value of the consignment have not been
declared and stage or transport where loss or damage occurred is known.

154
15 Where a multimodal transport operator becomes liable for any loss of , or damage
to, any consignment, the nature and value whereof have not been declared by the
consignor before such consignment has been taken in charge by the multimodal
transport operator and the stage of transport at which such loss or damage
occurred is known, then the limit of the liability of the multimodal transport
operator for such loss or damage shall be determined in accordance with the
provisions of the relevant law applicable in relation to the mode of transport
during the course of which the loss or damage occurred and any stipulation in the
multimodal transport contract to the contrary shall be void and unenforceable.

Liability of the multimodal operator is case of delay in delivery of goods under certain
circumstances.

16. Where delay in delivery of the consignment occurs under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the Explanation to sub – section (1) of section 13,
or any consequential loss or damage arises from such delay, then the liability
of the multimodal transport operator shall be limited to the freight payable for
the consignment so delayed.

Assessment of compensation

17. (1) Assessment of compensation for loss of, or damage to the consignment
shall be made with reference to the value of such consignment as the
place where, and the time at which, such consignment is delivered to
the consignee or at the place and time a when, in accordance with the
multimodal transport contract, it should have been delivered.

(2) The value of the consignment shall be determined according to the

current commodity exchange price, or, if there is no such prince,
according to the current market price, or if the current market price is
not ascertainable, with reference to the normal value of a consignment
of the same kind and quantity.

Loss of right of multimodal transport operator to limit liability.

18. The multimodal transport operator shall not be entitled to the benefit of
limitation of liability under any of the provisions of this Chapter if it is proved
that the loss, damage or delay in delivery of consignment resulted from and act
or omission of the multimodal transport operator with intent to cause such loss
damage or delay; or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss, damage or
delay would probably result.

Limit of liability of multimodal transport operator for total lose of goods.

19. The multimodal transport operator shall not in any case be liable for an
amount greater than the liability for total loss of goods for which a person will
be entitled to make a claim against him under the provisions of this Act.
Notice of loss of or damage to goods.

155
20. (1) The delivery of the consignment to the consignee by the multimodal
transport operator shall be treated as prima facie evidence of
delivery of the goods as described in the multimodal transport
document unless notice of the general nature of loss of, or damage to
the goods is given, in writing, by the consignee to the multimodal
transport operator at the time of handing over of the goods to the
consignee.
(2) Where the loss or damage is not apparent the provisions of sub –
section (1) shall apply unless notice in writing is given by the
consignee of loss of or damage to, the goods within 6 days after
delivery

INCOTERMS 2000

1. EXW=EX WORKS:

In this term the seller delivers the goods by keeping it ready in deliverable state at the
seller’s place or another named place. This named place can be factory / godown or
manufacturing unit. In this term seller does not clear the goods for exports nor goods
are loaded on vehicle. The obligation under this term on seller is very less and on
buyer it is maximum.

Buyer bears all costs and risks in taking the goods from seller’s premises. Under this
term the seller’s obligation will be to provide the goods of agreed quality along with
necessary invoice and documents. The seller must keep the goods ready at the name
placed duly packed. The seller will be responsible for loss of or damage to the goods
until they have been delivered to buyer or his representative. The buyer must pay the
price as agreed in the sales contract. He should also, if required, arrange for necessary
export licence or permit. The buyer must bear all risks of loss of or damage to the
goods from the moment the goods have been delivered. In case the delivery date or
any period is fixed and the seller has appropriated clearly goods in identified
condition as the contract goods, then upon the expiry of the said date the risks get
transferred to the buyer.

2. FCA = FREE CARRIER (……named place):

This term refers to seller’s responsibility to deliver the goods, cleared for export, to
the carrier appointed by the buyer at the named place. In this term the place of
delivery is very important. If the delivery is at seller’s places then he is responsible for
loading. If the delivery occurred at any other place, the seller is not responsible for
unloading. This term can be used for all modes of transport as well as multi-modal.
The seller considers to have completed his obligation to deliver the goods when they
are delivered to the carrier, which is nominated by the buyer. Under this term the

156
seller’s obligation will be to provide the goods of agreed quality along with necessary
invoice and documents. The seller must arrange at his own risk and cost necessary
export permit or licence required for export of goods. The delivery is regarded as
completed if the named place is seller’s premises, when the goods have been loaded
on the vehicle provided by the nominated carrier. In other cases when the goods are
placed or handed over at the disposal of the said carrier.

The buyer must pay the price as agreed in the sales contract. He should also, if
required, arrange for necessary import licence or permit. The buyer will have to bear
the expenses of carriage from the named place. The buyer must take the delivery of
the goods when they have been delivered by the seller.

3. FAS = FREE ALONGSIDE SHIP (…..named port of shipment)

In this term when the goods are placed alongside the vessel at the named port of
shipment it will be considered that the seller has completed the delivery. The buyer
has to bear all risks of loss or damage to the goods and all costs from this point of
time. However, the seller must clear the goods for the purpose of export. In the
earlier INCO-terms it was buyer to arrange for export clearance. This term can be
used only for inland waterway transport or shipment by sea. It is not used when it is
air shipment. The seller must give the goods commercial invoice in conformity with
the contract of sale. The seller must obtain at his own risks and expenses any export
licence or other official authorization and carry out, where applicable, all customs
formalities necessary for the export of the goods. The seller must place the goods
alongside the vessel selected by the buyer at the loading place. The seller must do so
on the date or within the agreed period in the normal manner in which it is done at the
said port. Till such time the risk is on account of seller and subsequently it is on
buyer. The buyer obligations includes payment of the price, obtaining import licence,
all custom facilities for the import of the goods, contract of the carriage and insurance.
The buyer must take delivery when they have been given. The risk commences when
the goods are delivered. The seller must pay the cost of checking quality, measuring,
weighing and counting which are necessary for the purpose of delivery of the goods.
Seller should mark the packaging appropriately.

4. FOB = FREE ON BOARD (…..named port of shipment)

This is the most popular term and is widely in use. FOB means that the seller delivers
when the goods pass the ship’s rail at the named port of shipment. Under this term the
buyer has to bear all costs and risk of loss of damage to the goods from that point.
This term requires the seller to clear the goods for exports. This term is used only for
sea or inland waterway transport. It is not suitable for shipment by air. The seller must
provide the goods and the commercial invoice, or it’s equivalent electronic message,
in conformity with the contract of sale and any other evidence of conformity which
may be required by the contract. The seller must obtain at his own risk and expense

157
any export licence or other official authorization and carry out, where applicable, all
custom formalities; the seller will have no obligation for carriage of insurance. He
must deliver the goods on the date or within the agreed period at the named port of the
shipment until that time the risk is with him.

5. CFR = COST AND FRIEGHT (….named port of destination)

Earlier this term was popularly known as C& F or CNF. CFR means the seller must
pay the cost and the freight necessary for the goods to reach at the named destination.
However the risks of loss or damage to the goods after the time of the delivery is on
buyer account. The seller is required to clear the goods for exports. This term can be
used only for sea and inland waterway transport of goods. The seller has no
obligation for insurance the seller must deliver the goods on the data of shipment or
within agreed period on the board of the vessel at the port of shipment.
The buyer will arrange for necessary import licence at his own cost and risk. The
buyer will arrange to receive the goods and make necessary arrangement for clearance
of the goods by following necessary customer formalities.

6. CIF= COST INSURANCE AND FREIGHT (named port of destination)

“Cost insurance and Freight” means that the seller delivers when the goods pass the
ship’s rail in the port of shipment. The CIF price refer that it covers the cost of the
goods, freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination and also
marine insurance. Compared to the previous term CFR the seller contracts for the
insurance premium. It will be essential for the buyer to know that under the CIF term
the seller is required to obtain the insurance premium. It will be essential for the buyer
to know that under the CIF term the seller is required to obtain the insurance only on
minimum cover. If the buyer wishes to have more protection then he should make his
own insurance arrangement extra or should specify to the seller at the time of
contract.

In this term the seller must clear the goods for exports and the buyer must arrange
necessary clearance for import. This term can be used only for sea and inland water
transport.

Under this term seller’s obligation is to provide goods in conformity with the contract.
He has to arrange for necessary export licence, if required. All customs formalities
necessary for exports of goods should be completed by the exporter. The exporter
must contract for carriage and insurance on usual terms and bear the cost thereof. If
subsequent carriers are used for the carriage of the agreed destination the risk passes
when the goods have been delivered to the first carrier. This term is used for any
mode of transport including multimode transport.

Under this term the seller must provide the goods and the commercial invoice, arrange
for export licence, arrange for contract of carriage and also arrange for clearance of
the goods for the export.

The buyer’s obligation includes payment of the price, arranging import licence,
necessary formalities for clearance of goods and take delivery of goods.

158
7. CPT=CARRIAGE PAID TO (named place destination)

“Carriage Paid To” means the seller delivers the goods to the carrier nominated by
him but the seller must in addition pay the cost of carriage necessary to bring the
goods to the named destination. This refers to the fact that all the risks and any other
cost occurring after the goods have been delivered will be on buyer’s account. This
term is used for all modes of transport including multi-modal transport.

“Carrier” means any person who, in a contract of carriage, undertakes to perform or to

procure the performance of transport, by rail, road, air, sea, inland waterway or by a
combination of such modes. If subsequent carriers are used for the carriage to the
agreed destination, the risk passes when the goods have been delivered to the first
carrier. The seller’s obligation under this term refers to providing goods and
commercial invoice. Arrange for necessary export licence or authorization, complete
the export formalities, enter the contract of carriage. However contract of insurance is
not covered under this term as seller obligation.

The buyer on the other hand must pay for the price and also arrange for import licence
and customs clearance for import. The buyer should also arrange for taking necessary
delivery.

8. CIP = CARRIAGE AND INSURANCE PAID TO (…..named place of

destination)

“Carriage and Insurance Paid To” means that the seller delivers the goods to the
carrier nominated by him, but the seller must in addition pay the cost of carriage
necessary to bring the goods to the named destination. This means that the buyer
bears all risks and any additional costs occurring after the goods have been so
delivered. However, in CIP the seller also has to procure insurance against the buyer’s
risks of loss of or damage to the goods during the carriage.

Consequently, the seller contracts for insurance premium. However the seller is
required to obtain insurance only on minimum cover. If the buyer desires to have
greater protection then he should go for additional insurance or expressly make
necessary arrangement and bear the cost for the same. This term is used in all types of
transport including multi-modal.

The carrier is defined as a person who, in a contract of carriage, undertakes to perform

or to procure the performance of transport, or in combination of more than one mode
of transport.

The seller’s obligation under this term refers to providing the goods and commercial
invoice, arrange for necessary export licence and to provide for carriage & insurance.
The seller must deliver the goods to the carrier contracted. The buyer must pay the
price and arrange for import licence. He should comply with customs formalities for
the import of the goods. He must take the delivery. There is no responsibility for
contract of carriage or insurance.

9. DAF = DELIVERED AT FRONTIER (…..named place)

159
This term is used when goods are to be delivered at land frontier, irrespective of the
mode of transport. “Delivered At Frontier” means when the goods are placed at the
disposal of the buyer on the arriving means of transport not unloaded, cleared for
import at the named point and place at the frontier, but before the customs border of
the adjoining country.

When delivery is to take place in the port of destination, on board a vessel or on the
quay (wharf), the DES or DEQ term should be used.

Under this term the seller’s obligation includes providing the goods and the
commercial invoice, take necessary exports licence so that he can place the goods at
buyer’s disposal. He should also arrange customs formalities necessary for the export
of the goods to the named place of the delivery at the frontier and for their transit
through any country. The seller must contract at his own expenses for the named
point. However he will not enter into contract of insurance. The buyer must take the
delivery when given properly and arrange for necessary import licence, custom
clearance for import and also pay for the goods.

10. DES = DELIVERED EX SHIP ( …..named port of destination)

“ Delivered Ex Ship” means that the seller delivers when goods are place at the
disposal of the buyer on board ship not cleared for import at the named port of
destination. In this term all the cost and risk in bringing the goods to the named port
of destination before discharge is on seller. This term can be used only when the
shipment is by sea or inland waterway or multi-modal transport in the vessel at the
port of destination.

Under this term the seller’s obligation is to provide the goods, arrange for the licence,
enter into contract of carriage. However the seller is not expected to cover the
insurance. The seller must place the goods at the disposal of the buyer on board the
vessel at the unloading point which is the named port of destination on the date or
within the agreed period in such a way as to unable them to be removed from the
vessel by unloading.

On the other hand the buyer must pay the price, arrange for import licence, customs
clearance for import and take the delivery. In this case the buyer must bear all risk of
loss of or damage to the goods from the time they have been delivered.

11. DEQ = DELIVERED EX QUAY (…..named port of destination)

“Delivered Ex Quay” means that the seller delivers when the goods are placed at the
disposal of the buyer not cleared for import on the quay (wharf) at the named port of
destination. The seller has to bear costs and risks involved in bringing the goods to the
named port of destination and discharging the goods on the quay (wharf). The DEQ
term requires the buyer to clear the goods for import and to pay for all formalities,
duties, taxes and other charges upon import.

This is a reversal from previous INCO-terms versions, which required the seller to
arrange for import clearance. If the parties wish to include in the seller’s obligations
all or part of the costs payable upon import of the goods, this should be made clear by

160
adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used
only when the goods are to be delivered by sea or inland waterway or multi-modal
transport on discharging from a vessel onto the quay (wharf) in the port of destination.
However if the parties wish to include in the seller’s obligations the risks & costs of
the handling of the goods from the quay to another place (warehouse, terminal,
transport station, etc) in or outside the port, the DDU or DDP terms should be used.
The seller’s obligation includes providing goods and commercial invoice, arrange for
necessary licence for export if any, and enter into contract of the carriage of the goods
to the named quay (wharf) at the named port of destination. Under this term the seller
must place the goods at the disposal of buyer on the quay (wharf) on the date or
within agreed period.

The buyer’s obligation refers to the payment of price arranging for import clearance
by completing customs formalities and also imports licence if any. The buyer must
take the delivery of the goods as per the terms.

12. DDU = DELIVERED DUTY UNPAID ( named place of destination)

“Delivered Duty Unpaid” means that the seller delivers the goods to the buyer, not
cleared for import, and not unloaded from any arriving means of transport at the
named place of destination. The seller has to bear the costs and risks involved in
bringing the goods thereto other than where applicable any duty for import in the
country of destination. Such duty has to be borne by the buyer as well as any costs
and risks caused by his failure to clear the goods for import in time.

The word “duty” includes all or any customs duties, taxes and other similar charges to
be borne. This term may be used irrespective of the mode of transport but when
delivery is to take place in the port of destination on board the vessel or on the quay
(wharf), the DES or DEQ terms should be used.

The seller’s obligation in this case is to provide the goods and commercial invoice,
arrange for export licence and arrange for export formalities. He should undertake
contract of carriage.

The seller must place the goods at the disposal of the buyer or at that of another
person named by the buyer, on any arranging means of transport not unloaded, at the
named place of destination on the date or within the period agreed for delivery. The
buyer’s obligation is to pay the price for the goods, arrange for import licence, custom
clearance for import and take the delivery.

13. DDP = DELIVERED DUTY PAID (…..named place of destination)

“Delivered Duty Paid” means that the seller delivers the goods to the buyer, cleared
for import, and not unloaded from any arriving means of transport at the named place
of destination. The seller has to bear all the costs and risks involved in bringing the
goods thereto including, where applicable, any duty for import in the country of
destination.

161
As EXW represent the least obligation for the seller, DDP represent the least
obligation for the seller. The seller should not enter into DDP term if he is unable to
procure necessary import licence. Under this term the import clearance is seller’s
responsibility and it’s need to arrange for customs clearance for import as well as
exports. This term may be used irrespective of the mode of transport but when
delivery is to take place in the port of destination on board the vessel or on the quay
(wharf) the DES or DEQ terms should be used.

Seller’s obligation includes providing the goods and the commercial invoice arranging
for exports authorization, customs formalities for export contract for carriage. The
seller must place the goods at the disposal of the buyer, or at that of another person
named by the buyer, on any arriving means of transport not unloaded at the named
place of destination on the date or within the period agreed for delivery. The buyer’s
obligation is to pay the price and take the delivery of the goods.

Average freight rate assessment (AFRA)

Introduction

AFRA and its Terms of Reference was originally laid down and sponsored by Shell
and subsequently BP for their internal use.

In 1982, shell and BP stopped sponsoring it.

It is now compiled by the London Tanker Brokers Panel and is based on information
relating to transport agreements supplied by various oil companies and also from all
known fixtures concluded on the open market.

Recognized by tax authorities in many countries for pricing of intra-company oil

movements.

Principle

To establish an average transportation cost per ton in a given month for vessel in
different size categories.

To represents the cost of all chartered tonnage actually operating in the month being
assessed, irrespective of when the vessel was fixed.

Fixtures concluded during the period of assessment will not affect the result unless
such vessel is actually performing a voyage during the assessment month.

Who uses AFRA and why?

It removes the variable factors in shipping costs so that the rate paid by the affiliate
reflects the cost of chartered tonnage operating in the month being calculated.

It takes into account transport costs on a worldwide basis including spot market factor
for that month.

162
It is also used for transactions between oil traders and also by government bodies.

AFRA rate DWT categories

General purpose – 16,500/24,000

Medium range – 25,000/44,999

Large range 1 – 45,000/79,999

Large range 2 – 80,000/159,999

VLCC – 160,000/319,999

ULCC – 320,000/549,999

Vessels not included in the assessment

Government-owned vessels except when on commercial charter

Vessels employed in specialized trades such as the carriage of clean oils,

petrochemicals, lube oils, bitumen, etc.

Vessels employed in protected trades such as the U.S. Jones Act trade.

Components in each size category

Company vessels.

Vessels on long term charter (>18 months)

Vessels on short term charter (<18 months)

Vessels on single voyage charter

The mechanics of AFRA

The calculations are made for the period from the 16 th of a month to the 15th of the
next month, both dates inclusive. It is the weighted average of commercially chartered
tonnage as employed in the international transport of oil during the period considered.

Vessels fixtures for each of the above four vessel categories are supplied by member
companies who use AFRA and from report of fixtures concluded on the market for
loading in the period under assessment.

AFRA Assessment steps

The carrying capacity of each vessel operating during the assessment period is
calculated using a standard voyage.

163
The weighted average rate in US dollars per ton for carrying a ton of oil on that
standard voyage is estimated for each of the four vessel oil on that standard voyage is
estimated for each of the four vessel types. For vessels that are on time charter, the
TCH/DWT /month is converted into cost per ton of cargo for the standard voyage.

An overall weighted average is calculated for each size group as follows:

(Total carrying capacity of each size category) x (Weighted average rate for that size
category).

The values arrived under 2 & 3 are in US dollars per ton and are converted into WS
index on the basis of the standard voyage used and are published as a WS Index
Figure for each size category.

WORLD SCALE

The WORLDSCALE Associations of London and New York jointly publish a book,
listed over 60,000 voyage rates and distances.

The book is revised yearly to take account of changes in bunker prices and port dues,
amendments are also published from time to time throughout the year.

These “base” rates are given in US$ per tonne of cargo and take into account bunker
prices, canal transit times and port charges.

The rate is based on a standard vessel of 75,000 tonnes cargo capacity costing $
12,000 per day fixed hire and performing a round voyage load/discharge and back to
load port at 14.5 knots on 55 tonnes of fuel oil per day. It must be emphasized that
these rates are nominal rates, in practice the ship-owner and charter will negotiate a
rate for the particular voyage is question as a percentage of the nominal rate.

Thus if the voyage was fixed at WORLDSCALE 100 (WS 100) then the rate would
be as published. If the voyage was fixed at WS 170 then it would be 170% of the
published rate.

This has proven to be a remarkably successful compromise between the charterer’s

desire for flexible discharge options and the owners need for a fair predictable income
for his vessel, however there are problems. WORLDSCALE is based upon an average
vessel earning an average rate with average rate with average costs. The further your
vessel is away from the WORLDSCALE average and the further away the market is
from WS 100 then the greater the potential for distortions.
This is why when looking at fixture reports you may see a VLCC fixing at WS 60
whilst a product tanker is fixed at WS 200, the cost per tonne of cargo moved on a
VLCC is much lower than the cost per tonne of cargo moved on a product tanker, thus
the product tanker will attract a higher WORLDSCALE percentage. Prudent owners
will be aware of any distortions their particular vessel specifications and the state of
the market may cause and will adjust their figures accordingly.

164
The new worldwide tanker nominal freight scale (WORLDSCALE) is intended
merely as a standard of reference to assist subscribers to conduct business.

The responsibility of the associations is limited to providing subscribers with rates for
voyages calculated in accordance with the basis of a calculation and to revising
WORLDSCALE from time to time.

The nominal rate for a voyage does not in itself have any significance as representing
a fair or reasonable rate for the standard vessel or any other size and/or type of vessel
at any particular time.

Market levels of freight are to be expressed in terms of a percentage of the nominal

freight rate. Thus WORLDSCALE 100 would mean the rate for the voyage in
question as calculated and issued by the associations, while WORLDSCALE 175
would mean 175 per cent of that rate and WORLDSCALE 75 would mean 75 per cent
of that rate.

Rates are calculated and quoted only in USD per tonne. However, freight may of
course by payable in any currency and the contracting parties should specify clearly
the currency of payment and the method to be used to determine the rate of exchange
to apply if the currency of payment is to be other than USD.

Basis of calculation

All rate calculations, which are made in USD, are per tonne for a full cargo for the
standard vessel based upon a round voyage from loading port or ports to discharging
port or ports and return to first loading port using the under-mentioned factors.

All of the factors shown are purely nominal and for rate calculation purposes only. In
particular, the fixed hire element of USD 12,000 per day is not intended to represent
an actual level of operating costs, nor to produce rates providing a certain level of
income or margin of profit, either for the standard vessel or for any other vessel under
any flag.

Standard vessel

Total capacity 75,000 tonnes

(i.e. the vessel’s capacity for cargo plus stores, water, and bunkers, both voyage and
reserve; also see section 5 (2) of part A of the preamble).

Average service speed 14.5 knots

Bunker consumption steaming 55 tonnes per day

Purposes other than steaming 100 tonnes per round voyage

In port 5 tonnes for each port

Involved in the voyage

Grade of fuel oil 380 cst

165
(b) Port time 4 days for a voyage from one
loading port to one discharging port; an
additional 12 hours being
allowed for each extra port
involved on a voyage

(c) Fixed hire element USD 12,000 per day

(d) Bunker price USD 149,75 per tonne

This price represents the average worldwide bunker price for fuel oil (380 cst) during
the period 1st October 1999 to 30th September 2000 as assessed by Cockett marine oil
limited (of London)

(e) Port costs

Port costs used are those assessed by the associations in the light of information
available to them up to the end of September 2000, the rate of exchange used for
converting costs in a local currency to USD being the average applicable during
September 2000.

(f) Canal transit time

24 hours is allowed for each transit of the Panama canal.

30 hours is allowed for each transit of the Suez Canal.

Mileage is not taken into account in either case.

Notes on calculations

It is assumed that the standard vessel is able to navigate the selected route to reach
and load or discharge at the ports concerned. See section 6 of part A of the Preamble
for a description of the route policy.

The port time is deemed to include the Laytime of 72 hours.

Rates are calculated for voyages with loading and discharging ports in whatever order
is requested, irrespective of whether that order is consistent with the principle of
geographical rotation.

No allowance is made for any Tax on Freight or Income Tax, nor is there any
provision as to whether such Taxes are for owners’ or for Charters’ Account.
No allowance is made for any additional Marine Insurance on hull or machinery,
including War Risk insurance, which may be incurred when trading to or from certain
areas.

No allowance is made for deviation for any purpose whatsoever.

166
No allowance is made for any de-ballasting expenses, nor is there any provision as to
whether such costs are for Owners’ or Charters’ Account.

An unfortunate fact that the concept of WORLDSCALE points can not be

carried over by dry cargo operators for the following reasons:

Dry cargo carriers have multiplicity of trades and cargoes whereas the tankers carry
oil only.

Dry cargo ships are of several types and have variety of cargo handling gear. tankers
on the other hand have practically the same type of construction and all of them are
fitted with cargo handling pumps.

Vast variation exists in stowage factors of dry cargoes whereas the oil does not have
much different stowage factors therefore needing practically same sized (cubic
capacity wise) vessels for same weights of cargo.

Carriage of dry goods has several modes i.e. Bulk, Bags, Pallets, Drums, Bales and
containers whereas tankers carry oil in bulk only.

Dry cargo vessel have large variation in “operational port stay” (from few hours to
several weeks) whereas the tankers irrespective of their size require practically the
same ‘operational port stay’ ranged between 18 to 36 hours usually.

Tankers have fewer loading and discharging locations the world over as specialised
arrangements have to be put in place before a tanker can discharge and on the other
hand a dry cargo vessel needs very little in the name of infrastructure and can
discharge her cargo just about anywhere.

167
 Chapter 8: LOF 2000, LOF 2011,
CLC, FUND Convention & Marine
Insurance

168
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage (CLC), 1969

Adoption of the Convention: 29 November 1969

Entry into force: 19 June 1975
Note: The 1969 Convention is replaced by its 1992 Protocol as amended in 2000

Introduction

The Civil Liability Convention was adopted to ensure that adequate compensation is
available to persons who suffer oil pollution damage resulting from maritime
casualties involving oil-carrying ships.

The Convention places the liability for such damage on the owner of the ship from
which the polluting oil escaped or was discharged.

 Meaning of strict liability

The owner of a tanker has strict liability (i.e. he is liable also in the absence of fault)
for pollution damage caused by oil spilled from his tanker as a result of an incident.
He is exempt from liability under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention only if he
proves that:

(a) The damage resulted from an act of war or a grave natural disaster, or
(b) The damage was wholly caused by sabotage by a third party, or
(c) The damage was wholly caused by the negligence of public authorities in
maintaining lights or other navigational aids.

Subject to a number of specific exceptions, this liability is strict; it is the duty of the
owner to prove in each case that any of the exceptions should in fact
operate. However, except where the owner has been guilty of actual fault, they may
limit liability in respect of any one incident 1. The Convention requires ships covered
by it to maintain insurance or other financial security in sums equivalent to the
owner's total liability for one incident. The Convention applies to all seagoing vessels
actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo, but only ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of
oil are required to maintain insurance in respect of oil pollution damage. The
Convention covers pollution damage resulting from spills of persistent oils suffered in
the territory (including the territorial sea) of a State Party to the Convention. It is
applicable to ships, which actually carry oil in bulk as cargo, i.e. generally laden
tankers. Spills from tankers in ballast or bunker spills from ships other than other than
tankers are not covered, nor is it possible to recover costs when preventive measures

1
The details of the amounts that the ship owner was able to limit his liability are deliberately not being
mentioned here since the amounts have been changed by later amendments. The final amounts as it
stands today have been mentioned later under the relevant section. Mention of the old and new
amounts, at different places would have resulted in confusion.

169
are so successful that no actual spill occurs 2. The ship owner cannot limit liability if
the incident occurred as a result of the owner's personal fault.
Channelling of liability

Claims for pollution damage under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention can be made
only against the registered owner of the tanker concerned.

The Protocol of 1976

Adoption: 9 November 1976
Entry into force: 8 April 1981

It brought in the use of Special Drawing Rights (SDR)3 as governed by the

International Monetary Fund and did away with the gold base (Poincaré franc) for
determining compensation.

The Protocol of 1984

Adoption: 25 May 1984
Entry into force: 12 months after being accepted by 10 States, including six with
tanker fleets of at least 1 million gross tons.
Status: Superseded by 1992 Protocol

While the compensation system established by the 1969 CLC and 1971 Fund
Convention had proved very useful, by the mid-1980s it was generally agreed that the
limits of liability were too low to provide adequate compensation in the event of a
major pollution incident.

The 1984 Protocol set increased limits of liability, but it gradually became clear that
the Protocol would never secure the acceptance required for entry into force and it
was superseded by the 1992 version.

A major factor in the 1984 Protocol not entering into force was the reluctance of the
United States, a major oil importer, to accept the Protocol. The United States
preferred a system of unlimited liability, introduced in its Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
As a result, the 1992 Protocol was drawn up in such a way that the ratification of the
United States was not needed in order to secure entry into force conditions.

The Protocol of 1992

Adoption: 27 November 1992
Entry into force: 30 May 1996

The Protocol changed the entry into force requirements by reducing from six to four
the number of large tanker-owning countries that are needed. The compensation limits
are those originally agreed in 1984.

The 1992 protocol also widened the scope of the Convention to cover pollution
damage caused in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)4 or equivalent area of a State
Party. The Protocol covers pollution damage as before but environmental damage
2
This aspect was changed under the 1992 Protocol
3
1 SDR = US$ 1.569 (this exchange rate is as of May 2014)
4
EEZ extends to 200 nautical miles from the base line of a country as defined under UNCLOS.

170
compensation is limited to costs incurred for reasonable measures to reinstate the
contaminated environment. It also allows expenses incurred for preventive measures
to be recovered even when no spill of oil occurs, provided there was grave and
imminent threat of pollution damage.
The Protocol also extended the Convention to cover spills from sea-going vessels
constructed or adapted to carry oil in bulk as cargo so that it applies to both laden and
un-laden tankers, including spills of bunker oil from such ships.

Under the 1992 Protocol, a ship owner cannot limit liability if it is proved that the
pollution damage resulted from the ship owner's personal act or omission, committed
with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such
damage would probably result.

From 16 May 1998, Parties to the 1992 Protocol ceased to be Parties to the 1969 CLC
due to a mechanism for compulsory denunciation of the "old" regime established in
the 1992 Protocol. However, for the time being, the two regimes co-exist, since there
are a number of States, which are Party to the 1969 CLC and have not yet ratified the
1992 regime - which is intended to eventually replace the 1969 CLC.

The 1992 Protocol allows for States Party to the 1992 Protocol to issue certificates to
ships registered in States which are not Party to the 1992 Protocol, so that a ship
owner can obtain certificates to both the 1969 and 1992 CLC, even when the ship is
registered in a country which has not yet ratified the 1992 Protocol. This is important
because a ship, which has only a 1969 CLC, may find it difficult to trade to a country,
which has ratified the 1992 Protocol, since it establishes higher limits of liability.

The 2000 Amendments

Adoption: 18 October 2000
Entry into force: 1 November 2003 (under tacit acceptance)

The amendments raised the compensation limits (increasing ship owner’s liability) by
50 percent compared to the limits set in the 1992 Protocol, as follows:

The liability of the ship owner as it stands today:

For a ship not exceeding 5,000 gross tonnage, liability is limited to 4.51 million
SDR
(US$ 6.5 million)
(Under the 1992 Protocol, the limit was 3 million SDR (US$ 4.33 million)

For a ship 5,000 to 140,000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 4.51 million SDR
(US$ 6.5 million) plus 631 SDR (US$ 911) for each additional gross tonne over
5,000 (Under the 1992 Protocol, the limit was 3 million SDR (US$ 4.33 million) plus
420 SDR (US$606) for each additional gross tonne)

For a ship over 140,000 gross tonnage: liability is limited to 89.77 million SDR
(US$ 129.5 million)
(Under the 1992 Protocol, the limit was 59.7 million SDR (US$ 86.2 million)

171
 International Convention on the Establishment of an
International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution
Damage (FUND), 1971

Adoption of the Convention: 18 December 1971

Entry into force: 16 October 1978
Note: The 1992 protocol replaces the 1971 Convention

Introduction and history

Although the 1969 Civil Liability Convention provided a useful mechanism for
ensuring the payment of compensation for oil pollution damage, it did not deal
satisfactorily with all the legal, financial and other questions raised during the
Conference adopting the CLC Convention.

Some States objected to the regime established, since it was based on the strict
liability of the ship owner for damage, which they could not foresee and, therefore,
represented a dramatic departure from traditional maritime law, which based liability
on fault. On the other hand, some States felt that the limitation figures adopted were
likely to be inadequate in cases of oil pollution damage involving large tankers. They
therefore wanted an unlimited level of compensation or a very high limitation figure.

In the light of these reservations, the 1969 Brussels Conference considered a

compromise proposal to establish an international fund, to be subscribed to by the
cargo interests, which would be available for the dual purpose of, on the one hand,
relieving the ship owner of the burden by the requirements of the new convention and,
on the other hand, providing additional compensation to the victims of pollution
damage in cases where compensation under the 1969 Civil Liability Convention was
either inadequate or unobtainable.

The Conference recommended that IMO should prepare such a scheme. The Legal
Committee accordingly prepared draft articles and the International Convention on the
Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage
was adopted at a Conference held in Brussels in 1971. It is supplementary to the 1969
Civil Liability Convention.

The purposes of the Fund Convention are:

 To provide compensation for pollution damage to the extent that the protection
afforded by the 1969 Civil Liability Convention is inadequate.
 To give relief to ship owners in respect of the additional financial burden
imposed on them by the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, such relief being
subject to conditions designed to ensure compliance with safety at sea and
other conventions.
 To give effect to the related purposes set out in the Convention.

172
Under the first of its purposes, the Fund is under an obligation to pay compensation to
States and persons who suffer pollution damage, if such persons are unable to obtain
compensation from the owner of the ship from which the oil escaped or if the
compensation due from such owner is not sufficient to cover the damage suffered.
Under the Fund Convention, victims of oil pollution damage may be compensated
beyond the level of the ship owner's liability. However, the Fund's obligations are
also limited to an amount set by the Fund Convention (the limits were raised under
the 1992 Protocol). Where, however, there is no ship owner liable or the ship owner
liable is unable to meet his liability, the Fund will be required to pay the whole
amount of compensation due. Under certain circumstances, the Fund's maximum
liability may be increased. With the exception of a few cases, the Fund is obliged to
pay compensation to the victims of oil pollution damage who are unable to obtain
adequate or any compensation from the ship owner or his guarantor under the 1969
Convention. The Fund's obligation to pay compensation is confined to pollution
damage suffered in the territories including the territorial sea of Contracting States.
The Fund is also obliged to pay compensation in respect of measures taken by a
Contracting State outside its territory.

The Fund can also provide assistance to Contracting States, which are threatened or
affected by pollution and wish to take measures against it. This may take the form of
personnel, material, credit facilities or other aid.

In connection with its second main function, the Fund is obliged to indemnify the ship
owner or his insurer for a portion of the ship owner's liability under the Liability
Convention. This portion is equivalent to 100 SDR (about US$ 144) per ton or 8.3
million SDR (about US$12 million), whichever is the lesser. The Fund is not obliged
to indemnify the owner if damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or if the
accident was caused, even partially, because the ship did not comply with certain
international conventions. The Convention contains provisions on the procedure for
claims, rights and obligations, and jurisdiction.

All persons who receive oil by sea in Contracting States should make contributions to
the Fund. The Fund's Organization consists of an Assembly of States, a Secretariat
headed by a director appointed by the Assembly and an Executive Committee.

The Protocol of 1992

Adoption: 27 November 1992
Entry into force: 30 May 1996

As was the case with the 1992 Protocol to the CLC Convention, the main purpose of
the Protocol was to modify the entry into force requirements and increase
compensation amounts. The scope of coverage was extended in line with the 1992
CLC Protocol.

The 1992 Protocol established a separate, 1992 International Oil Pollution

Compensation Fund, known as the 1992 Fund, which is managed in London by a
Secretariat, as with the 1971 Fund. In practice, the Director of the 1971 Fund is
currently also the Director of the 1992 Fund.

173
Under the 1992 Protocol, the maximum amount of compensation payable from the
Fund for a single incident, including the limit established under the 1992 CLC
Protocol, is 135 million SDR (about US$194 million). However, if three States
contributing to the Fund receive more than 600 million tonnes of oil per annum, the
maximum amount is raised to 200 million SDR (about US$288.6 million).

From 16 May 1998, Parties to the 1992 Protocol ceased to be Parties to the 1971 Fund
Convention due to a mechanism for compulsory denunciation of the "old" regime
established in the 1992 Protocol. However, for the time being, two Funds (the 1971
Fund and the 1992 Fund) are in operation, since there are some States, which have not
yet acceded to the 1992 Protocol, which is intended to completely replace the 1971
regimes.

IMO and the IOPC Fund Secretariat are actively encouraging Governments who have
not already done so to accede to the 1992 Protocols and to denounce the 1969 and
1971 regimes. Member States who remain in the 1971 Fund will face financial
disadvantages, since the financial burden is spread over fewer contributors. For both
the 1971 and 1992 Funds, annual contributions are levied on the basis of anticipated
payments of compensation and estimated administrative expenses during the
forthcoming year.

The 2000 Amendments

Adoption: 18 October 2000
Entry into force: 1 November 2003 (under tacit acceptance)

The compensation available as it stands today:

The amendments raise the maximum amount of compensation payable from the IOPC
Fund for a single incident, including the limit established under the 2000 CLC
amendments, to 203 million SDR (US$ 293 million), up from 135 million SDR
(US$194.8 million).

However, if three States contributing to the Fund receive more than 600 million
tonnes of oil per annum, the maximum amount is raised to 300,740,000 SDR (US$
434 million), up from 200 million SDR (US$287 million).

The 2003 Protocol (supplementary fund)

Adoption: 16 May 2003
Entry into force: 3 March 2005

The 2003 Protocol establishing an International Oil Pollution Compensation

Supplementary Fund was adopted by a diplomatic conference held at IMO
Headquarters in London.

The aim of the established Fund is to supplement the compensation available under
the 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions with an additional, third tier of
compensation. The Protocol is optional and participation is open to all States Parties
to the 1992 Fund Convention.

174
The total amount of compensation payable for any one incident will be limited to a
combined total of 750 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR) (about US$1.1 billion)
including the amount of compensation paid under the existing CLC/Fund Convention.

Application of Protocol

The supplementary fund will apply to damage in the territory, including the territorial
sea, of a Contracting State and in the exclusive economic zone of a Contracting State.

Winding up of 1971 fund

Due to denunciations of the 1971 Fund Convention, this Convention ceased to be in

force on 24 May 2002.

The compensation mechanism under HNS Convention (i.e.

covering cargoes under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78)
Introduction

The Convention will make it possible for up to 250 million SDR

(about US$ 361 million) to be paid out in compensation to victims of
accidents involving HNS, such as chemicals.

The HNS Convention is based on the two-tier system established under the CLC and
Fund Conventions. However, it goes further in that it covers not only pollution
damage but also the risks of fire and explosion, including loss of life or personal
injury as well as loss of or damage to property.

HNS are defined by reference to lists of substances included in various IMO

Conventions and Codes. These include oils; other liquid substances defined as
noxious or dangerous; liquefied gases; liquid substances with a flashpoint not
exceeding 60°C; dangerous, hazardous and harmful materials and substances carried
in packaged form; and solid bulk materials defined as possessing chemical hazards.
The Convention also covers residues left by the previous carriage of HNS, other than
those carried in packaged form.

The Convention defines damage as including loss of life or personal injury; loss of or
damage to property outside the ship; loss or damage by contamination of the
environment; the costs of preventative measures and further loss or damage caused by
them.

The Convention introduces strict liability for the ship owner and a system of
compulsory insurance and insurance certificates.

Limits of liability

175
For ships not exceeding 2,000 units of gross tonnage, the limit is set at 10 million
SDR (about US$14.43 million). For ships above that tonnage, an additional 1,500
SDR (US$ 2164.5) is added for each unit of tonnage from 2001 to 50,000; and 360
SDR (US$ 519.5) for each unit of tonnage in excess of 50,000 units of tonnage. The
total possible amount the ship owner is liable for is limited to 100 million SDR
(US$144.3 million).

States which are Parties to the Convention can decide not to apply it to ships of 200
gross tonnage and below, which carry HNS only in packaged form and are engaged
on voyages between ports in the same State. Two neighbouring States can further
agree to apply similar conditions to ships operating between ports in the two
countries.

In order to ensure that ship owners engaged in the transport of HNS are able to meet
their liabilities, the Convention makes insurance compulsory for them. A certificate
of insurance must be carried on board and a copy kept by the authorities that keep
record of the ship's registry.

HNS Fund

It has generally been agreed that it would not be possible to provide sufficient cover
by the ship owner liability alone for the damage that could be caused in connection
with the carriage of HNS cargo. This liability, which creates a first tier of the
convention, is therefore supplemented by the second tier, the HNS Fund, financed by
cargo interests.

The Fund will become involved:

 Because no liability for the damage arises for the ship owner. This could
occur, for example, if the ship owner was not informed that a shipment
contained HNS or if the accident resulted from an act of war

 Because the owner is financially incapable of meeting the obligations under

this Convention in full and any financial security that may be provided does
not cover or is insufficient to satisfy the claims for compensation for damage

 Because the damage exceeds the owner's liability limits established in the
Convention

Contributions to the second tier will be levied on persons in the Contracting Parties
who receive a certain minimum quantity of HNS cargo during a calendar year. The
tier will consist of one general account and three separate accounts for oil, liquefied
natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The system with separate
accounts has been seen as a way to avoid cross-subsidization between different HNS
substances.

As with the CLC and Fund Conventions, when an incident occurs where
compensation is payable under the HNS Convention, compensation would first be

176
sought from the ship owner, up to the maximum limit of 100 million SDR (US$144.3
million).

Once this limit is reached, compensation would be paid from the second tier, the HNS
Fund, up to a maximum of 250 million SDR (US$ 361 million) (including
compensation paid under the first tier).
The Fund will have an Assembly consisting of all States, which are Parties and a
Secretariat headed by a Director. The Assembly will normally meet once a year.

HNS and the CLC/Fund Conventions

The HNS Convention excludes pollution damage as defined in the International

Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the International
Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil
Pollution Damage, to avoid an overlap with these Conventions.

However, HNS covers other damage (including death or personal

injury) as well as damage caused by fire and/or explosion when oils
are carried.

MARINE INSURANCE

PRINCIPLES OF MARINE INSURANCE

Before going into details, three fundamental principles common to all types of
insurance must be discussed. These are: insurable interest, indemnity and good faith.

Insurable Interest

Under this principle an assured can only recover under the policy if he has an
insurable interest in the subject matter of the insurance. In other words, a contract of
insurance is binding on the underwriter only if it is made to cover an interest, which
the law declares to be capable of being insured. This means that the assured usually
holds or expects to acquire an interest in the nature of property. It became necessary
to establish this principle in order to prevent insurance from being used as a cloak for
wagering. An insurance of the vessel for instance, at a premium of x per cent for a
voyage from London to New York is at first sight simply a bet of a hundred to one
that the vessel will safely reach New York. What distinguishes such a contract from a
bet is that the assured must have an insurable interest, or right of property, in the ship.
In the early days of marine insurance no such requirement was necessary. This gave
rise to grave scandals, and the law was accordingly altered.

Insurable interest is the case notably where in any legal or equitable relation to the
adventure or to any insurable at risk, in consequence of which he may benefit by the
safety or due arrival of the insurable property, or may be prejudiced by its loss, or by
damage thereto, or by the detention thereof or may incur liability in respect thereof.

177
It might at first sight appear that a bet of a hundred to one that the above vessel will
safely reach New York involves a benefit or loss as she arrives or sinks, and that
therefore there is an insurable interest. But in reality there is no interest other than that
created by the wager itself. An interest to be capable of insurance must be one in the
adventure itself that is to say, the assured must stand to gain by the safe arrival of the
vessel or lose because of its destruction quite apart from the wager itself

INTERESTS, WHICH MAY BE INSURED

Ownership

The most obvious case of an insurable interest is the ownership of the ship. It should
be remembered that in the case of a shipping company the latter owns the ship, not the
shareholders. Even the owner of practically all the shares in the company does not
thereby acquire an insurable interest in the company's vessels, for the company is a
legal person apart from its shareholders. The latter may actually lose money if the
Company's ships are destroyed, for this may lead to reduced dividends or the
liquidation of the company. Likewise, they may profit the vessel's safety, for their
shares may yield more profit. But the law on marine insurance does not say - you
have an insurable interest wherever a person may benefit or lose by reason of the
existence of the insured thing. The law however does provide - a person must
stand in a legal or equitable relationship to the property insured, and this direct
relationship must cause him profit or loss according to whether or not the thing
survives.

Charterers

Apart from owners, many other parties may have a stake in the use and operation
of ships. One of the most common relationships is that of charterer and the
question therefore arises whether charterers have an insurable interest in the ship
they charter. In the case of demise charterers it seems clear that the charterer has
at least a possessor interest in the ship which would give him the right to insure.
Indeed, standard demise charter agreements can require charterers to keep the
vessel insured to protect the interests of both owners and charterers.

Under time and voyage charters, however, the charterers' interest in the hull
extends only to the potential liability, which may arise if the ship is damaged
through obeying the charterers' orders. While such liability is clearly not an
interest in the way of property, the modern view is that it is sufficient 'to have a
right in the thing insured, or to have a right or be under a liability arising out of
some contract relating to the thing insured'. In many instances it will be obvious
that charterers will benefit from the preservation of the ship or suffer prejudice
from its destruction and that they should be able to demonstrate an insurable
interest makes good commercial sense.

Mortgages

It is clear that a mortgager of the subject matter has an insurable interest and may
insure up to the full value of the ship but can only recover under the policy to the
extent of the mortgage debt.

178
Trustees

If a ship is held in trust, the trustee alone is regarded as having a legal interest and
as such may insure the full value of the property, which is the subject of the trust.

The Adventure

A person who has no insurable interest in the ship as such may nevertheless be
able to insure the adventure on which she is engaged. Thus a person might be
interested financially in the undertaking of laying an Atlantic cable without
having any interest in either ship or cable as such. A shareholder in a limited
company has only a legal interest in his shares and not in the property, which it
owns. However, it has been held that where the company is engaged upon a
business adventure such as the laying of an Atlantic cable the shareholders have
an insurable interest in that adventure.
Creditors

Whatever may be the case of the shareholder, a creditor has no such interest even
though he may know that the only chance of his loan being repaid is the
successful completion of a certain voyage. Nevertheless he will not be able to
insure the adventure, for he has a legal claim against the debtor whether or not
profits are made.

Lien Holders

While creditors in general cannot show an insurable interest there is no doubt that a
creditor who holds a lien on maritime property has an interest to the extent of his lien.
The interest of the holder of a maritime lien will arise with the incident, which brings
the lien into being, for example a collision, or the completion of salvage services.
However, the interest of a creditor seeking a statutory right of arrest in rem cannot
attach until, at the earliest, when a writ is issued and possibly not until it is served.

When Must the Interest Exist?

The question now arises - at what time must the assured have the interest in the
subject matter of the insurance? The problem arises in this way. Suppose the
owner of a ship insures her for one year, and before the policy has expired he sells
the ship. After the sale the vessel is lost. In this case the assured has an insurable
interest at the time he affects the insurance, but none at the time of the loss.

This is not unjust. The law prohibits wagers and wager policies, and logically it might
appear necessary to have the interest at the time when the insurance is affected, as is
the case in other insurances. On the other hand, it may be very convenient to insure
something in which as yet there is no interest. By doing so no interval of time elapses
between the acquisition of the interest and the taking-out of the policy, and this may
be useful from a business point of view. Two examples will make this clear. Where
carriers wish to insure against their liability as carriers they often take out policies -
say for one year - 'as interest may appear'. They may carry no goods when they affect

179
the insurance, but the moment goods are loaded on board their conveyance the policy
attaches, and they are protected from the very first moment.

Value of Insurable Interest

Any person may insure the whole of his interest. Thus the owner may insure the
whole value, and the mortgager the value of the sum advanced.

Rights against Third Parties

As insurance is designed to furnish compensation for losses automatically, and

independently of the solvency of any person liable, the existence of an action for
damages does not prevent the person entitled to compensation from insuring.
Thus where a charterer undertook to indemnify the owner for any loss, the owner
was nevertheless held entitled to insure. Likewise, a cargo-owner may insure
though he has a remedy cover, against the ship-owner. In such cases the assured
is, of course, not entitled to keep both the damages and the insurance money,
because if he gets the damages he has lost nothing, and if he gets the insurance
money he has suffered no damage.

Indemnity

Closely connected with the concept of insurable interest is the principle of

indemnity, under which the assured is entitled to be compensated precisely to
the extent of the loss he has suffered as a result of the occurrence of an event
against which the insurer has agreed to protect him. In other words, the assured
is not permitted to make a profit on the insurance.'

Subrogation

From the doctrine of indemnity two rules are derived. The first is that where the
insurer settles for a total loss the assured must abandon what is left of the thing
insured to the underwriter. The other rule is expressed in the doctrine of
subrogation. Under this doctrine, if the loss or damage is occasioned through the
negligence or other unlawful act of a third party, so that the assured can claim
damages, or if the assured has a contractual right to compensation, then the
Insurer IS entitled to take over such rights on settling the loss.

Insurers felt aggrieved by this state of the law. In their opinion it gave a purely
accidental, and therefore unreasonable, advantage or disadvantage, as the case
might be, to insurers of ships belonging to the same owners, which come into
collision.

To meet this difficulty, there is inserted in hull policies a 'sister ship clause,
which provides that in the event of a collision between ships belonging to the
same owners 'the Assured shall have the same rights under this insurance as they
would have were the other vessel entirely the property of Owners not interested
in the vessel hereby insures.

180
Utmost Good Faith

The principle of good faith is common to the entire law of contract, but the law
of insurance requires an even higher standard. This is necessary because of the
special circumstances prevailing in this trade, which put the insurer peculiarly at
the mercy of the assured.

Good Faith in All Contracts

Under the general law no party to a contract must misrepresent essential facts to
the other party. However innocent the misrepresentation, the other party can
avoid the contract, if the false statement was material and had induced him to
contract". That is if but for the misrepresentation, the other party could not have
been reasonably expected to make the agreement. In general, only actual
misrepresentations entitle the innocent party to rescind the contract. On the other
hand, failure to disclose a material fact is, as a rule, unobjectionable. For
example, if you wish to enter into a service agreement, and on inquiry
wrongfully, though innocently, say that you are healthy the prospective employer
may avoid the contract. On the other hand, if you are not asked about your health
and do not disclose that you are a carrier of germs, the employer has no right of
rescission, however material this fact may have been in his decision whether to
employ you.

Contracts 'UBERRIMAE FIDEI'

The general rule may be sufficient for ordinary contracts, but it is certainly
unsatisfactory in certain cases where one party is peculiarly defenceless in case of
the non-disclosure of material matters. This rule has therefore been tightened, for
instance, in the law relating to limited companies, and it has always been more
stringent in the law of insurance. Insurance would obviously be impossible as a
genuine business unless the insurer could rely upon having knowledge of all the
matters known to the prospective assured and which enable him to calculate
carefully the probable incidence of the risk.

Non-Disclosure

A person who is about to effect a policy must therefore not only make no active
misrepresentations, but must also disclose to the insurer every material
circumstance, that is, everything which 'would influence the judgment of a
prudent insurer in fixing the premium, or determining whether he will take the
risk'. Disclosure must be made before the contract is made. As already explained,
marine insurance business is transacted in a somewhat informal manner, and it
may be some time before the policy is issued. For this reason, the moment at
which the contract is actually concluded has been the subject of some debate. It
has therefore been provided that the contract is deemed to have been concluded
when the insurer has accepted the proposal, and this is commonly proved by the
slip bearing the insurer's initials.

Of course, in the ordinary way a person can only be expected to disclose facts
which he knows, but insurance business would be even riskier than it is if the

181
prospective assured were allowed to take shelter behind his bad memory or
ignorance. In the eye of the law a prospective assured is deemed to have
knowledge of every circumstance which, in the ordinary course of business, ought
to be known by him'. Where an agent, e.g. a Lloyd's broker, negotiates the policy,
he must disclose to the insurer every material circumstance that he should know
in the ordinary course of his business and all that ought to have been commu-
nicated to him by his principal. However, if the assured hears of a material fact
when it is too late to be communicated to the agent before the risk is accepted
then failure to disclose, will not entitle the insurer to avoid the policy.

It should be noted that what in old cases is called concealment need not
necessarily mean that some material fact was deliberately or fraudulently
suppressed. Concealment there means simply what now is termed non-disclosure.
In the modern law fraudulent concealment gives, of course, also a right to avoid
the policy. Besides, the insurer may bring an action for deceit. While the law thus
imposes a heavy burden on the assured, this rule should not be unduly extended.

Some practical definitions

Who is an Insurance Broker?

 He is an expert, well versed in marine insurance law and practice

 He is the agent of insured and not of the underwriter or company
 The broker is subject to the law of agency
 Failure on his part to exercise reasonable care and skill in executing insurance
as per clients instruction may render him liable to action for damages
 Broker is duty bound to disclose all material facts to insurer.
 The broker is directly liable to the insurer for premium.
 He has lien on policy for premium and his charges.

Who is an Insurance Agent?

 An insurance agent is duly licensed by the controller of insurance, government

of India
 Agent represents the insurance company and not the insured
 Agent gets his commission from the insurance company
 Agent is not liable to insured as he is not the agent of insured
 In India all insurance is placed either direct with insurance company or with
agent the broker is not involved

What basic Factors the underwriter takes in account when accepting H & M
risk?

Underwriter takes into account the following factors when accepting hull and
machinery risk:

Details of ship:

182
  Type of vessel (Oil Tanker, General cargo, Container vessel etc.) Oil tanker is
higher risk vessel of as compared to container vessel.
 Name of builders and place of built
 Age of vessel
 Age of engine
 Type of engine
 Deadweight / GRT
 Double hull

Details of ownership and management:

 Owner and how many times ownership changed

 Single ship owner or fleet of ships
 Management by owner or management company
 Management company
 Record of ownership and quality of management

Other Details:

 Classification society
 Last surveyed
 Port of registry
 Flag of convenience
 Nationality of crew
 Trade liner/Tramp
 Trading limits/area (warranty Limits)
 Nature of Cargo usually carried
 Claims experience of last 5 years (Premium and claims)
 Claims ratio = Incurred Claims/Net premium
 Type of cover required (Time or voyage)
 Duration of cover or voyage particulars
 Deductibles
 Previous insurance history, whether cover was denied at any time
 Vessel given on charter (Details)
 Vessel covered against P & I risks

How hull and machinery insurance is placed in the international market?

Example – Lloyd’s of London

Lloyd’s Policies: Prepared by broker; policy and Bureau slip lodged, checked, and
executed with Lloyd’s Policy Signing Office; policy impressed with seal of Policy
Office and collected by broker. Each syndicate’s line proportion insured is shown;
each subscription is a separate contract.

183
 Assured Insurance Lead Following Lloyd’s Policy
Broker Underwrite the line signing office
r Other U/W

Completion
of Slip
Broker sends
Cover Note
I. Interest Making Initialling of
Disclosure of Slip by
Risk Original Underwriter
Particulars Slip Rate, %cover

Policy
Stamped &
issued
by Lloyds

On Payment
of Premium

Companies’ Policies: Combined policy form used (since 1939) for all subscribing
companies; prepared by broker; policy passed to Institute of London Underwriters for
checking & signing.

Example of India

Hull and machinery insurance in India is obtained directly from head office of one of
the following national insurance company:

 National Insurance Company (Kolkatta)

 Oriental Insurance Company (New Delhi)
 New India Assurance Company
 United India Insurance Company
 There is no broker or agent involved in servicing of hull insurance

What is a P & I club?

P & I Club stands for Protection and Indemnity Club.

It is an insurance mutual, a Club, provides collective self-insurance to its Members.

The P & I Clubs, are a "not for profit" mutual clubs, therefore owned by its insurers

184
themselves. As it has no shares to issue, it does not need to make a profit or pay
dividends. The membership is comprised of common interest groups who wish to
pool their risks together in order to obtain "at cost" insurance cover. P & I is insurance
in respect of third party liabilities and expenses arising from owning ships or
operating ships as principals. Each Club is controlled by its members through a Board
of Directors (or Committee) elected from the membership; the Board (or Committee)
retains responsibility for strategic and policy issues but delegates to full-time
managers the day-to-day running of the Club.

Protection covers the third party liability of ship-owner/member for which he is liable
by owning and operating ship, whereas Indemnity covers the third party liability of
the member for which he becomes liable by carrying cargo. For instance, a few P & I
Clubs are:

 UK P & I CLUB
 NORTH OF ENGLAND P & I CLUB
 WEST OF ENGLAND P & I CLUB
 Swedish Club
 GAARD

What liabilities do P & I clubs cover?

 Liabilities in respect of seamen

 Liabilities in respect of passengers
 Liabilities in respect of persons other than seamen or passengers
 Diversion expenses
 Liabilities and expenses in relation to deserters, stowaways and refugees
 Liabilities for life salvage
 Collision with other vessels
 Loss of or damage to property
 Pollution
 Towage
 Liability arising under certain indemnities and contracts
 Wreck liabilities
 Quarantine expenses
 Cargo liabilities
 Unrecoverable general average contributions
 Ship's proportion of general average
 Property on board the insured vessel
 Special compensation to salvers
 Fines
 Inquiries and criminal proceedings
 Liabilities and expenses incurred by direction of the Managers
 Sue and labour and legal costs

What are the member’s (Master’s) obligations with regard to claims under P & I
club?

 A member must promptly notify the Managers of every casualty, event or

claim upon him, which is liable to give rise to a claim upon the Association,

185
 and of every event or matter which is liable to cause the member’s to incur
liabilities, costs or expenses for which he may be insured by the Association.

 A member must promptly notify the Managers of every surveyor opportunity

for survey in connection with a matter, which is liable to give rise to a claim.

 A member must at all times promptly notify the Managers of any information,
documents or reports in his or his agents' possession, power or knowledge
relevant to such casualty, event or matter as is referred to under (i) and shall
further, whenever so requested by the Managers, promptly produce to the
Association and/or allow the Association or its agents to inspect, copy or
photograph, all relevant documents of whatsoever nature in his or his agents'
possession or power.

 Member shall permit the Association or its agents to interview any servant,
agent or other person who may have been employed by the Owner at the
material time or at any time thereafter or whom the Association may consider
likely to have any direct or indirect knowledge of the matter or who may have
been under a duty at any time to report to the Owner in connection therewith.

 A member shall not settle or admit liability for any claim for which the
Association may insure him without prior written consent of the Managers.

 In the event that a member commits any breach of his obligations above, the
Directors may in their discretion reject any claim by the Owner against the
Association arising out of the casualty, event or matter, or reduce the sum
payable by the Association in respect thereof by such amount as they may
determine.

Time Bar for claims

 A member fails to notify the Managers of any casualty, event or claim within
one year after he has knowledge thereof; or

 A member fails to submit a claim to the Managers for reimbursement of any

liabilities, costs or expenses within one year after discharging or settling the
same
 A member claim against the Association shall be discharged and the
Association shall be under no further liability in respect thereof unless the
Directors in their discretion shall otherwise determine

Hull and Machinery Coverage

The purpose of the Hull and Machinery Coverage

The main purpose of the Hull and Machinery cover is to provide the ship-owner with
an expectation of status quo regarding a vessel’s operational ability during a maritime
enterprise. Since marine perils are a risk that the ship-owner assumes at each venture,
the ship-owner takes out Hull Cover to protect against losses that may occur to the
vessel and her equipment during the enterprise.

186
Coverage concerns The English Institute Time Clauses Hulls (ITCH) have forms for
years 1983 and 1995 (1/11/95). However, the 1983 Form is the more widely followed
document.

Hull & Machinery insurance based on ITCH covers all risks subject to the normal
exclusions for wear and tear and similar causes such as lack of maintenance.
Furthermore, war risks, intervention by a state power, insolvency and nuclear perils
are also excluded. Damage to parts that are defective due to error in design or faulty
material is also covered. The Plan covers 4/4ths collision liability and liability which
is a result of striking fixed and floating objects (RDC- Running Down Clause and
FFO-Fixed and Floating Objects) while the ITCH covers 3/4ths RDC but not FFO and
the American Conditions cover 4/4ths collision liability but not FFO. The advantage
of an all risks system is that all causes of loss however unusual or unimaginable are
covered unless the insurer can establish that a specific exclusion applies.

The ITCH and the American Conditions provide cover on a named perils basis (the
Assured must prove that the loss or damage was caused by one of the insured perils),
but are usually supplemented by an Additional Perils clause. With this clause added
the ITCH and American Conditions will cover nearly all losses that might arise in
practice and which are covered by the Plan. An exception to this is that under the
Additional Perils clause 2 the cost of repairing or replacing any part that is defective
due to error in design or construction is excluded unless the defect has caused
consequential damage or the costs can be defined as a cost listed in clause 1 of the
Additional Perils clause. There is no equivalent restriction in the Plan. On the other
hand the Plan contains specific rules excluding losses arising from lack of
maintenance, which are probably more stringent than the rules that follow from MIA
(the Marine Insurance Act) section 55 and English case law. The relationship between
the cover for "perils of the sea" and the exclusion of wear and tear in MIA has caused
considerable discussion particularly in connection with the decision in the “Miss Jay
Jay” case.

The recent English Court of Appeal decision in the "Nukila" case seems to expand
cover under clause.6.2. of the ITCH compared to the traditional view in that any
damage occurring during the policy period as a result of any latent defect is covered.
If the term latent defect includes an error in design and is not excluded by the
exclusion for inherent vice in MIA then the cover under for loss caused by latent
defects appears to be equivalent to that provided by the Plan. This means that the
Additional Perils clause could provide less cover than the “Inchmaree” clause, in this
type of situation.

Under the Plan the assured cannot claim compensation for un-repaired damage unless
ownership of the vessel has passed from the assured (normally by sale). Under ITCH
(Clause 18) the assured may claim for un-repaired damage at the termination of the
policy (but not in the event of a subsequent total loss sustained during the policy
period). In relation to temporary repairs, and costs incurred in expediting repairs the
Plan (§§ 12-7 and 12-8) provides coverage for extra expenses incurred in order for the
assured to save (costs and) time, with certain limitations. Under British law there is no
similar provision and the insurer is liable for “reasonable cost of repairs…”, which
normally is the cheapest repair alternative.

187
It is important to be aware of the nuances and exclusions from Hull coverage as well
as to be aware of coverage options and requirements. For instance, although the ship,
equipment and spare parts are covered by the Hull insurance, loose items that
accompany the ship in its trade, but which cannot be deemed to be a part of it, e.g.
stores and supplies are covered under the ITCH, but not under the Plan. As a result,
the ship-owner may consider purchasing additional insurance coverage for items
falling outside of the Plan’s coverage provisions. However, many times, the loss
and/or damage of such items fall well below the deductible amount. Therefore, an
individual assessment should be made.

Another important consideration is coverage of items that are not normally on board
the ship for an indefinite or prolonged period of time. The Plan’s prerequisite for
covering equipment and spare parts under the Hull coverage is that they are normally
on board. According to the Plan, actual ownership is irrelevant so long as there is a
transfer of liability of risk. Accordingly the ship-owner does not have to take out a
separate property insurance for equipment that he does not own, but for which he
carries the risk. Of interest is the Plan’s coverage of third party interests, which now
includes spare parts unlike the coverage terms in the Plan of 1964.

ITCH has to be supplemented by the Leased Equipment Clause 1/11/95) in order to

provide the assured with this type of coverage. There is, however, an important
reservation in that the liability of the insurers shall not exceed the assured contractual
liability for the leased equipment, or its replacement value. This means that, when
examining any claim involving leased equipment, it will be essential to call for the
contract of hire in order to ascertain what the assured contractual liability is.

Items that are temporarily removed from the ship is another area worth focusing upon.
The Hull cover becomes applicable in connection with loading and discharging,
routine overhauling of special equipment and when machinery or equipment is sent to
special repair yards. The prerequisite for cover under the Plan is that the relevant
object has been on board and that the intention is to put it back on board before
departure. (Thus, new equipment on its way from the manufacturer to the ship is not
covered by the hull insurance.) ITCH has to be supplemented by the Parts Removed
Clause (1/11/95). Cover is limited to 30 days whilst removed. Period in excess of 30
days is held covered at terms to be agreed provided notice is given to insurers prior to
the expiry of the 30-day extension.

Furthermore, the Plan provides for the additional condition that objects are removed
in connection with the operation of the ship or due to situations such as repair or
rebuilding. Items such as forklift trucks and other objects accompanying the ship will
have to be indemnified by the hull insurer if they are damaged while ashore in
connection with loading or discharging. It is important that the ship-owner is aware of
the absolute condition that the objects removed from the ship are intended to be
brought back on board before departure from the port in question. ITCH has to be
supplemented by the Parts removed Clause (1/11/95), see the previous section.

If the interest covered by the insurance is mortgaged, the Plan provides coverage also
for the mortgagee interest – in other words the mortgagee is automatically co-insured ,
which is not the case with other third parties. Under ITCH the mortgagee has to

188
require the mortgagor ship-owner to assign the hull policies in his favour. This is
frequently achieved by endorsements on the ship-owners’ policies noting the interest
of the mortgagee.

Timing of Insurance

The standard coverage normally run for a period of 12 months and need to be
renegotiated at each renewal. Coverage for new equipment and spare parts
commences from the time the object concerned is "swung over the railing" to be
placed onboard ship.

The ship-owner should also be aware of the situations where coverage can be denied
or reduced:

Duty of disclosure of the person affecting the insurance

The Assured has, before the insurance contract is concluded, an obligation to disclose
all circumstances that are material to the insurer when deciding whether and on what
conditions he is prepared to accept the insurance. Included in this obligation are
situations where the person affecting the insurance subsequently becomes aware that
he has given incorrect or incomplete information regarding the risk - he then has a
duty to notify the insurer without undue delay.

If the person affecting the insurance has fraudulently failed to fulfil his duty of
disclosure, the contract is not binding on the insurer. (the Plan § 3-2). If the insurer, at
the time when the information should have been given, knew or ought to have known
of the matter, he is prevented from pleading that incorrect or incomplete information
has been given.

Alteration of the risk

An alteration of the risk occurs when there is a change in the circumstances, which,
according to the insurance contract, are to form the basis of the insurance. It is,
furthermore, a prerequisite that it alters the risk contrary to the implied conditions of
the contract.

If an alteration of the risk occurs, the insurer may terminate the insurance by giving
14 days’ notice. The assured has duty to notify the insurer without undue delay if he
becomes aware that an alteration of the risk will take place or an alteration has already
taken place. Examples of alteration of risk are:

– Loss of class or change of classification society

– Trading limits
– Change of ownership

These examples are commented further below.

Un-seaworthiness

189
The insurer is not liable for a loss that is a consequence of the ship not being in a
seaworthy condition. A prerequisite is that the assured knew or ought to have known
of the ship’s defects at such a time that it would have been possible for him to
intervene. In respect of ITCH: For the insurer to avoid liability English law requires
that the assured should be privy to the un-seaworthiness. In other words, the assured
must have knowledge not only of the facts constituting the un-seaworthiness but also
knowledge that those facts rendered the ship un-seaworthy.

Safety regulations, breach of safety regulations – Warranties

A safety regulation is a rule that deals with measures for the prevention of loss. It can
be issued by public authorities or by the classification society, stipulated in the
insurance contract or prescribed by the insurer in accordance with the insurance
contract. If the assured is in breach of a safety regulation, the insurer is only liable to
the extent that it is proved that the loss is not a consequence of the breach, or that the
assured was not responsible for the breach.

ITCH does not use the term safety regulations. The area is addressed by warranties.
Under English law a warranty is strictly to be complied with, whether material to the
risk or not. In case of breach, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date
of breach of warranty (subject however to certain excuses).

Intent

If the assured intentionally brings about the casualty, he has no claim against the
insurer.

Gross negligence

Any liability of the insurer shall be determined based on the degree of fault and
circumstances generally.

Classification, Lack of classification by a class society

A prerequisite for insurance coverage is that the ship is classed with a classification
society approved by the insurer. It is no requirement under ITCH 1/10/83 (contrary to
1/11/95) that the vessel must be classed. However, if the vessel is actually classed, the
insurance terminates automatically at the time of change, suspension, withdrawal or
expiry of Class/Classification society.

The insurance automatically terminates in the event of loss, suspension or change of

class. Any failure to carry out a class recommendation or survey within the required
time limit under the Plan is treated as a breach of a safety regulation. This means that
the insurance remains in force but the insurer is not liable for loss or damage that is
caused by the failure to comply with class requirements. By contrast a failure to carry
out a periodic survey within the time allowed results in automatic termination of the
cover under clause 5.1 of the ITCH 1995 and clause 4 states that a failure by the

190
assured to comply with any recommendation, requirement or restriction imposed by
class, will discharge insurers from liability as from the time of the breach.

Change of ownership, management

Change of ownership can have an influence on the risk that the insurer has
undertaken. An alteration of the risk occurs when there is a change in circumstances
which, according to the contract, are to form the basis of the insurance, and which
alter the risk contrary to the implied conditions of the contract.

The Plan provides for automatic termination of coverage in the event of change of
ownership. The same result follows from ITCH clause 4 (1983) clause 5 (1995). The
Plan stipulates that any change of management or bareboat charterer is an alteration of
the risk. This means that if a change of management is made without the insurer being
notified the insurer can only avoid liability for losses that have occurred after the
change by proving that he would not have accepted the risk had he known that the
change would be made during the currency of the policy. Under the ITCH a change of
management etc. made without giving notice to and obtaining the consent of the
insurer results in automatic termination.

Loss due to ordinary use

The insurer is not liable for loss that is a normal consequence of the use of the ship
and its equipment. The deciding factor is that the insured has deliberately used the
ship in a manner or in a trade where damage is foreseeable (the Plan § 10-3). This
reflects a central principle of insurance law, i.e. that the insurance shall only cover
unforeseeable and unpredictable losses. It is accordingly also the case under the ITCH
and the American

Institute Hull Clause

Inadequate maintenance

The insurer is not liable for costs incurred in renewing or repairing a part or parts of
the hull, machinery or equipment which are in a defective condition as a result of
wear and tear, corrosion, rottenness, inadequate maintenance and the like. On the
other hand the consequential damages are covered.

Also under ITCH the consequential damages are covered.

Trading limits

The Plan requires that the assured shall notify the insurer before the ship proceeds
beyond the ordinary trading limit. The ship may sail in the conditional trading areas,
subject to an additional premium and to any other conditions that might be invoked by
the insurer. If the ship proceeds into an excluded trading area the insurance ceases to
be in effect. The insurer can, however, give permission in advance. If the

191
infringement was not the result of an intentional act by the master of the ship the
insurance is still in effect.

Under the ITCH the ship is held covered provided prompt notice is given. If notice is
not given the assured will be unable to recover anything if loss or damage occurs
while the ship is outside the ordinary trading limits.

Identification – Are the actions those of the assured?

One of the changes introduced into the 1995 ITCH that caused the most controversy
was the change in the wording of the due diligence proviso. It now specifically states
that not only a lack of due diligence by the assured, owner or managers, but also by a
superintendent, can deprive the assured of cover. It is, however, important to note that
this only applies in respect of the perils so named in clause.

The Plan deals with this problem in general terms. It states firstly that negligence of
the master or crew in their service as the insurer cannot plead seamen as a defence.
Secondly it is stated that the actions of persons or companies to whom functions of
significant importance for the insurance have been delegated will be regarded as the
actions of the Assured. The commentary to this rule makes it clear that this wording is
intended to be an expression of existing practice and is not intended to introduce any
change. It is assumed that it is in line with general principles of both English and
American law. In reality the courts will have to evaluate each case to decide whether
the person at fault has had the kind of authority that justifies that his actions are
identified as the actions of the Assured.

What is a Letter of Credit?

A Letter of Credit is a payment term generally used for international sales

transactions. It is basically a mechanism, which allows importers/buyers to offer
secure terms of payment to exporters/sellers in which a bank (or more than one bank)
gets involved. The technical term for Letter of credit is 'Documentary Credit'. At the
very outset one must understand is that Letters of credit deal in documents, not goods.
The idea in an international trade transaction is to shift the risk from the actual buyer
to a bank. Thus a LC (as it is commonly referred to) is a payment undertaking given
by a bank to the seller and is issued on behalf of the applicant i.e. the buyer. The
Buyer is the Applicant and the Seller is the Beneficiary. The Bank that issues the LC
is referred to as the Issuing Bank, which is generally in the country of the Buyer. The
Bank that Advises the LC to the Seller is called the Advising Bank, which is generally
in the country of the Seller.

The specified bank makes the payment upon the successful presentation of the
required documents by the seller within the specified time frame. Note that the Bank
scrutinizes the 'documents' and not the 'goods' for making payment. Thus the process
works both in favour of both the buyer and the seller. The Seller gets assured that if
documents are presented on time and in the way that they have been requested on the
LC the payment will be made and Buyer on the other hand is assured that the bank
will thoroughly examine these presented documents and ensure that they meet the
terms and conditions stipulated in the LC.

192
What documents are generally required a Letter of Credit (LC)?

 Typically the documents requested in a Letter of Credit are the following:

 Commercial invoice
 Transport document such as a Bill of lading
 Insurance document;
 Inspection Certificate
 Certificate of Origin

But there could be others too.

Letters of credit (LC) deal in documents, not goods. The LC could be 'irrevocable' or
'revocable'. An irrevocable LC cannot be changed unless both the buyer and seller
agree. Whereas in a revocable LC changes to the LC can be made without the consent
of the beneficiary. A 'sight' LC means that payment is made immediately to the
beneficiary/seller/exporter upon presentation of the correct documents in the required
time frame. A 'time' or 'date' LC will specify when payment will be made at a future
date and upon presentation of the required documents.

What are the Principles Governing LC?

Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs L/Cs. Article 5 is founded
on two principles: (1) the L/C, independence from the underlying business
transaction, and (2) strict compliance with documentary requirements.

1) Strict Compliance

How strict a compliance? Some courts insist upon literal compliance, so that a
misspelled name or typographical error voids the exporter's/beneficiary's/seller's
demand for payment. Other courts require payment upon substantial compliance with
documentary requirements. The bank may insist upon strict compliance with the
requirements of the L/C. In the absence of conformity with the L/C, the Seller cannot
force payment and the bank pays at its own risk. Sellers should be careful and
remember that the bank may insist upon strict compliance with all documentary
requirements in the LC. If the documents do not conform, the bank should give the
seller prompt, detailed notice, specifying all discrepancies and shortfalls.

2) The Independence Doctrine

Letters of credit deal in documents, not goods. L/Cs are purely documentary
transactions, separate and independent from the underlying contract between the
Buyer and the Seller. The bank honouring the L/C is concerned only to see that the
documents conform to the requirements in the L/C. If the documents conform, the
bank will pay, and obtain reimbursement from the Buyer/Applicant. The bank need
not look past the documents to examine the underlying sale of merchandise or the
product itself. The letter of credit is independent from the underlying transaction and,
except in rare cases of fraud or forgery, the issuing bank must honour conforming
documents. Thus, Sellers are given protections that the issuing bank must honour its
demand for payment (which complies with the terms of the L/C) regardless of
whether the goods conform to the underlying sale contract.

193
3) Most Common Reasons why Letters of Credit Fail

a) Time Lines:

The letter of credit should have an expiration date that gives sufficient time to the
seller to get all the tasks specified and the documents required in the LC. If the letter
of credit expires, the seller is left with no protection. Most LC s fail because
Sellers/Exporters/Beneficiaries were unable to perform within the specified time
frame in the LC. Three dates are of importance in an LC:

i) The date by when shipment should have occurred. The date on the Bill of Lading.
ii) The date by when documents have to be presented to the Bank
iii) The expiry date of the LC itself.
A good source to give you an idea of the timelines would be your freight forwarding
agent. As a seller check with your freight forwarding agent to see if you would be in a
position to comply.

b) Discrepancy within the Letter of Credit

Letters of credit could also have discrepancies. Even a discrepancy as small as a

missing period or comma can render the document invalid. Thus, the earlier in the
process the letter of credit is examined, the more time is available to identify and fix
the problem. This is another common reason why LC fail.

c) Compliance with the Documents and Conditions within the Letter of Credit

Letters of credit are about documents and not facts; the inability to produce a given
document at the right time will nullify the letter of credit. As a
Seller/Exporter/Beneficiary you should try and run the compliance issues with the
various department or individuals involved within your organization to see if
compliance would be a problem. And if so, have the LC amended before shipping the
goods.

194
What are the differences between York Antwerp74 and 94?

Y.A. 1994 Y. A. 1974

1. Rule paramount In no case shall there be No rule Paramount (Reasonable)
any allowance for sacrifice or expenditure
unless reasonably made or incurred.
2. Order of application: Rule paramount, Order of application: Numbered rules
numbered rules, lettered rules then lettered rules (Interpretation rule)
(Interpretation rule)
3. There is a common maritime adventure No mention of towing, pushing vessels
when one or more vessels are towing or salvage operations
or pushing another vessel or vessels,
provided that they are all involved in
commercial activities and not in a salvage
operation. (Rule B)
4. Pollution liability is of the ship-owner and Pollution Liability is not mentioned in
not GA: In no case shall there be any these rules.
allowance in general average for losses,
damages or expenses incurred in respect of
damage to the environment or in
consequence of the escape or release of
pollutant substances from the property
involved in the common maritime
adventure. (Rule C)
5. All parties claiming in general average No such requirement
shall give notice in writing to the average
adjuster of the loss or expense in respect of
which they claim contribution within 12
months of the date of the termination of
the common maritime adventure otherwise
an Adjuster does adjustment on basis of
facts available to him. (Rule E)
6. After G.A. if cargo is forwarded to the No such provision
destination from P.O.R: the rights and
liabilities in general average shall remain
as nearly as possible the same as they
would have been in the absence of such
forwarding. (Rule G)
7. When a ship is intentionally run on shore When a ship is intentionally run on
for the common safety, whether or not she shore for the common safety, whether
might have been driven on shore, the or not she might have been driven on
consequent loss or damage to the property shore, the consequent loss or damage
involved in the common maritime shall be allowed in general average.
adventure shall be allowed in general (Could have included damage to the
average. (Rule V) third party)
 Y.A. 1994 Y.A. 1974
8. Salvage Award as fixed per criteria in Was silent as there was no such
article 13 of ISC 89( including the criteria provision in Earlier salvage convention
the skill and efforts of the salvers in 1910.
preventing or minimising damage to the
environment, to be allowed as G.A.
9. Special compensation payable to a salver Was silent as there was no such
by the ship-owner under Article 14 ISC 89 provision in Earlier salvage convention
or under any other provision similar in 1910.
substance shall not be allowed in general
average. (Rule VI)
10. Cargo, ship's materials and stores, or any Ship's materials and stores, or any of
of them, necessarily used for fuel for the them, necessarily burnt for fuel for the
common safety at a time of peril shall be common safety at a time of peril, shall
admitted as general average. (Rule VIII) be admitted as general average.
11. The cost of measures undertaken to Was silent as there was no such
prevent or minimise damage to the provision in Earlier salvage convention
environment shall be allowed in general 1910.
average when incurred in any or all of the
following circumstances:
as a condition of entry into or departure
from any port or place in consequence of
accident, sacrifice or other extraordinary
circumstances which render that necessary
for the common safety;
as a condition of remaining at any port or
place in the circumstances prescribed in
Rule X(a), provided that when there is an
actual escape or release of pollutant
substances the cost of any additional
measures required on that account to
prevent or minimise pollution or
environmental damage shall not be
allowed as general average;
necessarily in connection with the
discharging, storing or reloading of cargo
whenever the cost of those operations is
admissible as general average.

12. No deduction in contributory value of ship No such deduction

for special compensation.
 Y.A. 1994
13. If voyage is abandoned: Net value of cargo
at destination if forwarded to destination to
be taken as contributory value. Whereas
for ship the value on completion of
discharge will be contributory value.
14. Interest shall be allowed on expenditure,
sacrifices and allowances in general
average at the rate of 7 per cent. per
annum, until three months after the date of
issue of the general average adjustment,
due allowance being made for any
payment on account by the contributory
interests or from the general average
deposit fund.
Y.A. 1974
Silent
Interest shall be allowed on
expenditure, sacrifices and allowances
charged to general average at the rate
of seven per cent per annum, until the
date of the general average statement,
due allowance being made for any
interim reimbursement from the
contributory interests or from the
general average deposit fund.

Summary of the main changes to LOF with regard to Marine Insurance

Property liable for the payment of salvage [Box 2]

LOF 2000 provides for personal effects and baggage belonging to passengers and the
Master and crew of a vessel, including any private motor vehicle and its contents
accompanying a passenger, to be exempt from the payment of salvage.

Currency of Award [Box 4]

LOF has traditionally provided that, if no specific currency of payment was agreed, the
remuneration should be paid in pounds sterling. However, it has become increasingly
apparent in recent years that most users of LOF select United States dollars as the
currency of payment. Additionally, ship values are invariably expressed in that currency
which, more often than not, is also the currency in which cargoes are bought, sold and
insured. In recognition of these factors, LOF 2000 provides that, if no alternative
currency of payment is agreed, salvage remuneration will be payable in United States
dollars.

The Duty to Co-operate [Clause F]

Clause 3 of LOF 1995 obliges the owners and Master of a casualty to co-operate with
salvers in certain respects. LOF 2000 extends the scope of that duty by requiring the
owners and the Master to provide the salvers with all information that is relevant to the
performance of the services, which is capable of being provided without undue difficulty
or delay.

Rights of Termination [Clause G]

Clause 4 of LOF 1995 gave ship-owners a right to terminate LOF "when there is no
longer any reasonable prospect of a useful result leading to a salvage award". In LOF
2000 an equivalent right is conferred on the salvers who, previously, had no contractual
right to terminate a LOF contract.

Deemed Performance [Clause H]

LOF 2000 includes a new provision, which is designed to provide a practical solution to
the difficulty in determining when salvage services can be treated as completed. Provided
the salved property has been taken to the agreed place of safety, the salvers will be
entitled to treat their services as having been performed if

(i) they are not obliged to remain in attendance to satisfy the requirements of any port or
harbour authority, governmental agency or similar authority; and
(ii) the continuation of skilled salvage services is no longer necessary to avoid the
property becoming lost or significantly further damaged or delayed.

SCOPIC Clause [Box 7 and Clause C]

In August 1999 an agreement made between the members of the International Salvage
Union and the International Group of P & I Clubs known as the SCOPIC Clause became
available for use. Its purpose is to provide an alternative regime for the determination of
claims for special compensation under Article 14 of the 1989 Salvage Convention which
would otherwise be dealt with by arbitration under LOF. The Convention incorporated
changes in the classes of property capable of being salved and the scope of remuneration
to salvers where there was no success in the traditional sense of no cure-no pay, but
services had been rendered which prevented or minimised damage to the environment
The SCOPIC Clause is expressed to be supplemental to LOF but, since it was only
introduced for a trial period, it was not considered appropriate to include more than a
brief reference to it in LOF 2000. The box layout in the new form includes a facility
enabling the parties to specify whether SCOPIC forms part of their agreement. LOF 2000
goes on to provide that, if the box is left blank, SCOPIC will not be regarded as
incorporated into the contract.

The LSSA Clauses

Most of the administrative and procedural provisions in LOF 1995 have been transferred
into these incorporated clauses without significant change although, where possible, the
language has been simplified. But the opportunity has been taken to make the following
improvements:

(i) The Clauses emphasise the need to operate the LOF system in good faith and in a
businesslike manner with a view to ensuring that claims are resolved fairly and efficiently
at a reasonable cost.
(ii) The arrangements for paying salvage awards have been streamlined to improve
efficiency and Lloyd's will now have a duty to enforce salvage security if payment is
delayed beyond 56 days after publication of an award.
(iii) Under section 49 of the Arbitration Act 1996 arbitrators have power to award
compound interest on claims. The Working Party considered that, ordinarily, only simple
interest should be awarded on LOF salvage claims. This is stated in LOF 2000 but the
clause goes on to provide that an arbitrator may award compound interest if the
proceedings have been delayed for an excessive period as a result of 'gross misconduct'
on the part of the property owners or "in other exceptional circumstances".
(iv) Clause 18 of LOF 1995 which deals with the position of subcontractors has been
substantially re-drafted to ensure that the claims of all persons engaged by the LOF
contractor are dealt with under the LOF thus providing greater certainty and protection to
the property interests.

Lloyd's Procedural Rules

These were introduced in 1990 to provide a standard procedure for dealing with claims
under LOF. They have been altered piecemeal on several occasions in the last 10 years
but, in the latest revision, the rules have been re-structured to make them easier to
understand. Also, in line with recent changes to court procedures, the new rules give
arbitrators greater powers to control proceedings including, for example, the power to
place limitations on expert evidence to contain costs.

The nine essential features of the SCOPIC Clause

1. SCOPIC is drafted so that it can be incorporated into a Lloyd's Open Form if the
parties to that contract so desire. It is not intended to be compulsory.

2. Members of the International GrANTWERPoup of P & I Clubs, who have agreed a

Code of Conduct giving Club backing to its provisions, have accepted the
provisions of SCOPIC.
P & I Clubs are normally not parties to a salvage contract and, therefore, cannot be
bound by a new clause to an LOF contract. However, the Code of Conduct will
apply whenever a member of the ISU salves a ship entered with a member of the
International Group. In individual cases, the Code can be extended to other salvers
or Clubs, but that will be a matter between them and the particular Club concerned.

3. SCOPIC does not do away with Special Compensation as we know it, but merely
replaces its method of assessment.
Special Compensation (SCOPIC remuneration) will continue to be paid only to the
extent that its assessment exceeds any Article 13 award.
4. The SCOPIC remuneration provisions can be invoked at any time by a contractor,
whatever the circumstances. The choice as to whether or not to enact the clause is
entirely a matter for the salver. There does not have to be a threat of damage to the
environment. However, the assessment of SCOPIC remuneration will only
commence at the time the salver invokes the clause (not from the commencement
of the services). As a result, the salver will, in every case, have to make a
conscious decision as to whether he wishes the SCOPIC remuneration provisions
to apply. If he does not invoke the clause, they will not apply.

5. As soon as the SCOPIC remuneration provisions are invoked, the owner must
provide, within two working days, a guarantee for USD 3 million.
The security of USD 3 million must be lodged regardless of the total amount of
SCOPIC remuneration that may be payable. There are provisions for reducing or
increasing the figure at the termination of the services. The Clubs have agreed, in
the Code of Conduct, to provide security on behalf of an entered member, unless
there is a defence to any claim he may have. If this guarantee is not provided, the
contractor, at his option, can withdraw his notice invoking the SCOPIC provisions
and revert to the Lloyd's Form as if it had not incorporated SCOPIC.

6. SCOPIC remuneration is assessed in accordance with tariff rates. Tariff rates have
been agreed for tugs of differing horsepower, together with personnel and
equipment likely to be used in a salvage operation. The tariff rates are profitable
rates. A fairly broad brush had to be used in setting up the tariffs and it is intended
that they should do rough justice. A standard uplift of 25% of the tariff rates will
be added. The benefits of such a system are substantial and an enormous
improvement on past attempts to assess a "fair rate". It should be possible, by using
the tariff, to make a calculation at the end of each day of operation to gauge the
amount of SCOPIC remuneration that has accrued.

7.
In the event of the salvers invoking SCOPIC remuneration provisions and the
Article 13 award exceeding the assessment of SCOPIC remuneration, the Article
13 award will be discounted by 25% of the difference between the Article 13
award and the SCOPIC assessment. This provision has been inserted to encourage
the salver not to invoke the SCOPIC provisions in every case. The benefit of a
reduced Article 13 award accrues to the property underwriters.
8. As soon as SCOPIC has been invoked, the ship-owner can appoint a Special
Casualty Representative (SCR), to monitor the salvage services and be kept fully
advised as to how the operation is to be carried out. The SCR will not in any way
impinge on the authority of the Salvage Master, who will always remain in overall
control and responsible for the operation. It will, however, be incumbent upon the
Salvage Master to keep the SCR fully advised and listen to his views. The Salvage
Master will be required to make daily reports and the SCR to either endorse those
reports, or make clear with what aspect he disagrees. The provision is particularly
important to the P & I Clubs, who have long felt that they have not been kept
sufficiently advised as to the progress of the salvage operations, which may
ultimately affect their interests.

9. Once the SCOPIC remuneration provisions have been invoked, the whole Lloyd's
Form contract can be terminated (1) by the contractor, if the overall cost to him
less any SCOPIC remuneration is greater than the value of the property salved, and
(2) by the owner, after giving five days' notice to the contractor. These additional
rights to terminate the whole contract are important. From the contractor's point of
view, he will be able to do so as soon as it is clear that it is not in his financial
interest to continue. So far as the owner is concerned, he will have the power to
withdraw (once SCOPIC has been invoked) at any time after giving five days'
notice. This is particularly important to the Clubs, who wish to avoid being locked
into a contract carried out by someone who they feel is inappropriate. It should not
be of a major concern to salvers as it will only apply when SCOPIC has been
invoked, which, by its nature, is only likely to be when salvage - in its traditional
form - is no longer a reasonable commercial venture.
Chapter 9: International Institutions
 1. International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

 What exactly is IMO?

The International Maritime Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations,

which is responsible for measures to improve the safety and security of international
shipping and to prevent marine pollution from ships through the development of a
comprehensive and effective framework of international standards surrounding the
design, construction, operation and manning of ships. It also is involved in legal matters,
including liability and compensation issues and the facilitation of international maritime
traffic. The IMO therefore provides a mechanism whereby the Governments of every
country with an interest in shipping can come together to decide on standards that are to
be applied to vessels on international voyages.

It was established by means of a Convention adopted under the auspices of the United
Nations in Geneva on 17 March 1948 and met for the first time in January 1959. It
currently has 170 Member States.

IMO governing body is the Assembly, which is made up of all 170 Member States and
meets normally once every two years. It adopts the budget for the next two years together
with technical resolutions and recommendations prepared by subsidiary bodies during the
previous two years.

The Council acts as governing body in between Assembly sessions. It prepares the budget
and work programme for the Assembly. Maritime Safety, Marine Environment
Protection, Legal, Technical Co-operation and Facilitation Committees and a number of
sub-committees carry out the main technical work.

 Why do we need an international organization to look after shipping?

Shipping is an international industry. If each nation developed its own safety legislation
the result would be a maze of differing, often conflicting national laws. One nation, for
example, might insist on lifeboats being made of steel and another of glass-reinforced
plastic. Some nations might insist on very high safety standards while others might be
more lax, acting as havens for sub-standard shipping.

 How has IMO Evolved?

Historical Background
Shipping is perhaps the most international of all the world's great industries. It has always
been recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by developing
international regulations that are followed by all shipping nations and from the mid-19th
century onwards a number of such treaties were adopted.

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.

It was not until the establishment of the United Nations itself that these hopes were
realized. In 1948 an international conference in Geneva adopted a convention formally
establishing IMO (the original name was the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization, or IMCO, but the name was changed on 22nd May 1982 to IMO).

The IMO Convention entered into force in 1958 and the new Organization met for the
first time the following year.

The Development Thereafter

 SOLAS

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 (SOLAS), the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 (OILPOL 54) 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 more than 40 international conventions and agreements and has
adopted numerous protocols and amendments.

IMO first task was to adopt a new version of the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the most important of all treaties dealing with maritime safety.
This was achieved in 1960 and IMO then turned its attention to such matters as the
facilitation of international maritime traffic, load lines and the carriage of dangerous
goods, while the system of measuring the tonnage of ships was revised.

 MARPOL

But although safety was and remains IMO most important responsibility, a new problem
began to emerge - pollution. The growth in the amount of oil being transported by sea
and in the size of oil tankers was of particular concern and the Torrey Canyon disaster
of 1967, in which 120,000 tonnes of oil was spilled, demonstrated the scale of the
problem. Until then there was a general complacency that the vast oceans can withstand
the effects of pollution.

During the next few years IMO introduced a series of measures designed to prevent
tanker accidents and to minimize their consequences. It also tackled the environmental
threat caused by routine operations such as the cleaning of oil cargo tanks and the
disposal of engine room wastes - in tonnage terms a bigger menace than accidental
pollution.

The most important of all these measures was the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating
thereto (MARPOL 73/78). It covers not only accidental and operational oil pollution but
also pollution by chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution.
Then, IMO was also given the task of establishing a system for providing compensation
to those who had suffered financially as a result of pollution. Two treaties were adopted,
in 1969 and 1971, which enabled victims of oil pollution to obtain compensation much
more simply and quickly than had been possible before. Both treaties were amended in
1992, and again in 2000, to increase the limits of compensation payable to victims of
pollution.

 GMDSS

Shipping, like all of modern life, has seen many technological innovations and changes.
Some of these have presented challenges for the Organization and others have presented
opportunities. The enormous strides made in communications technology, for example,
have made it possible for IMO to introduce major improvements to the maritime distress
system.

In the 1970s a global search and rescue system was initiated. The 1970s also saw the
establishment of the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO), which has
greatly improved the provision of radio and other messages to ships.

In 1992 a further advance was made when the Global Maritime Distress and Safety
System (GMDSS) began to be phased in. In February 1999, the GMDSS became fully
operational, so that now a ship that is in distress anywhere in the world can be virtually
guaranteed assistance, even if the ship's crew does not have time to radio for help, as the
message will be transmitted automatically.

 Other Areas

Other measures introduced by IMO have concerned the safety of containers, bulk
cargoes, liquefied gas tankers and other ship types. Special attention has been paid to
crew standards, including the adoption of a special convention on standards of training,
certification and watch keeping.
The adoption of maritime legislation is still IMO most important concern. Around 40
conventions and protocols have been adopted by the Organization and most of them have
been amended on several occasions to ensure that they are kept up to date with changes
taking place in world shipping.

But adopting treaties is not enough - they have to be put into effect. This is the
responsibility of Governments and there is no doubt that the way in which this is done
varies considerably from country to country.

IMO has introduced measures to improve the way legislation is implemented, by

assisting flag States (the countries whose flag a ship flies) and by encouraging the
establishment of regional port State control systems. When ships go to foreign ports they
can be inspected to ensure that they meet IMO standards. By organizing these inspections
on a regional rather than a purely national basis resources can be used more efficiently.

 ISM Code

Two initiatives in the 1990s are especially important. On 1 July 1998 the International
Safety Management Code entered into force and became applicable to passenger ships,
oil and chemical tankers, bulk carriers, gas carriers and cargo high-speed craft of 500
gross tonnage and above. It became applicable to other cargo ships and mobile offshore
drilling units of 500 gross tonnage and above not later than 1 July 2002.

 STCW

On 1 February 1997, the 1995 amendments to the International Convention on Standards

of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers, 1978 entered into force. They
greatly improve seafarer standards and, for the first time, give IMO itself powers to check
Government actions. THE CONVENTION HAS BEEN REVISED IN 2010 AND HAS
TAKEN EFFECT FROM 1ST JANUARY 2012.

It is expected that these two measures, by raising standards of management and shipboard
personnel, will greatly improve safety and pollution prevention in the years to come.

 Technical Co-operation

IMO has also developed a technical co-operation programme, which is designed to assist
Governments, which lack the technical knowledge, and resources that are needed to
operate a shipping industry successfully. The emphasis of this programme is very much
on training and perhaps the best example is the World Maritime University in Malmö,
Sweden, which was established in 1983 and provides advanced training for the men and
women involved in maritime administration, education and management.

IMO is now concentrating on keeping legislation up to date and ensuring that as many
countries ratify it as possible. This has been so successful that many Conventions now
apply to more than 98% of world merchant shipping tonnage. Currently the emphasis is
on trying to ensure that the countries that have accepted them properly implement these
conventions and other treaties.

 Which are the areas IMO will continue to focus upon?

This has been highlighted, by a Resolution, in its objectives for the next ten years as
follows:
1. Implementation of proactive policy for early identification of risk;
2. Shifting emphasis onto people;
3. Ensuring the effective uniform implementation of existing IMO standards and
regulations;
4. Ensuring the wide early acceptance of those Annexes to the MARPOL
Convention which have not yet entered into force;
5. Developing a safety culture and environmental conscience;
6. Avoiding excessive regulation;
7. Strengthening the Organization's technical co-operation programmes; and
8. Promoting the intensification by Governments and industry of efforts to prevent
and suppress unlawful acts which threaten the security of ships, the safety of those
on board and the environment (in particular, terrorism at sea, piracy and armed
robbery against ships, illicit drug trafficking, illegal migration by sea and
stowaway cases).

 Who is the Secretary-General of IMO?

The Secretary-General is Mr. Koji Sekimizu (Japan). He assumed office on 1 st January

2012.

 What is the Structure of IMO?

The Organization consists of an Assembly, a Council and four main Committees: the
Maritime Safety Committee; the Marine Environment Protection Committee; the Legal
Committee; and the Technical Co-operation Committee. There is also a Facilitation
Committee.

A number of Sub-Committees support the work of the main technical committees.

 Assembly

This is the most important Governing Body of the Organization. It consists of all Member
States and it meets once every two years in regular sessions, but may also meet in an
extraordinary session if necessary. The Assembly is responsible for approving the work
programme, voting the budget and determining the financial arrangements of the
Organization. The Assembly also elects the Council.
  Council

The Assembly elects the Council for two-year terms beginning after each regular session
of the Assembly.

The Council is the Executive Organ of IMO and is responsible, under the Assembly, for
supervising the work of the Organization. Between sessions of the Assembly the Council
performs all the functions of the Assembly, except the function of making
recommendations to Governments on maritime safety and pollution prevention, which is
reserved, for the Assembly.

Other functions of the Council are to:

1. Co-ordinate the activities of the organs of the Organization;

2. Consider the draft work programme and budget estimates of the Organization and
submit them to the Assembly;
3. Receive reports and proposals of the Committees and other organs and submit
them to the Assembly and Member States, with comments and recommendations
as appropriate;
4. Appoint the Secretary-General, subject to the approval of the Assembly;
5. Enter into agreements or arrangements concerning the relationship of the
Organization with other organizations, subject to approval by the Assembly.

The Council Members are elected observing the following criteria:

a) Ten shall be States with the largest interest in providing international shipping
services;
b) Ten shall be other States with the largest interest in international sea borne trade;
and
c) Twenty shall be States not elected under (a) or (b) above 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.

(INDIA is a member of the Council under category ‘b’)

 Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)

The MSC is the most important technical body of the Organization. It consists of all
Member States. The functions of the Maritime Safety Committee are to “consider any
matter within the scope of the Organization concerned with 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 investigations, salvage and rescue and any other matters directly affecting
maritime safety”. It also has the responsibility for considering and submitting
recommendations and guidelines on safety for possible adoption by the Assembly.
 The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)

The MEPC, which consists of all Member States, is empowered to consider any matter
within the scope of the Organization concerned with prevention and control of pollution
from ships. In particular it is concerned with the adoption and amendment of conventions
and other regulations and measures to ensure their enforcement.

 Sub-Committees

The MSC and MEPC are assisted in their work by nine sub-committees, which are also
open to all Member States. They deal with the following subjects:

1) Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG)

2) Carriage of Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC)
3) Fire Protection (FP)
4) Radio-communications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR)
5) Safety of Navigation (NAV)
6) Ship Design and Equipment (DE)
7) Stability and Load Lines and Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF)
8) Standards of Training and Watch keeping (STW)
9) Flag State Implementation (FSI)

 Legal Committee

The Legal Committee is empowered to deal with any legal matters within the scope of
the Organization. The Committee consists of all Member States of IMO.

 Technical Co-operation Committee

The Technical Co-operation Committee is required to consider any matter within the
scope of the Organization concerned with the implementation of technical co-operation
projects for which the Organization acts as the executing or co-operating agency and any
other matters related to the Organization’s activities in the technical co-operation field.
The idea is to assist the developing countries, by way of technical co-operation, that may
lack the technical expertise to implement IMO instruments.

The Technical Co-operation Committee consists of all Member States of IMO.

 Facilitation Committee

It deals with IMO work in eliminating unnecessary formalities and “red tape” in
international shipping. Participation in the Facilitation Committee is open to all Member
States of IMO.
The 1991 amendments to the IMO Convention, which established the IMO), when they
come into force, will institutionalise the Facilitation Committee, putting it on the same
standing as the other Committees. However, these amendments have not yet received
enough acceptances to come into force.

 How does IMO implement legislation?

 Enforcement

The Organization itself has no powers to enforce conventions. Therefore, IMO does not
implement any Conventions. 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.

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 that 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 that would reach their waters.

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.

However, one of the recent important developments in the functioning of IMO has been
that IMO has been given (by the approval of its assembly, which in turn comprises of all
the member States) the authority to vet the training, examination and certification
procedures of Contracting Parties to the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watch keeping 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 Maritime Safety Committee, which will judge whether or not the
country concerned meets the requirements of the Convention.

 How much does IMO cost?

It is one of the smallest agencies in the United Nations system, both in terms of staff
numbers (just 300 permanent staff) and budget. The IMO Assembly in November 2009
approved the Organization’s budget for the next biennium, agreeing to a total of
£64,304,000 for 2014 to 2015.

Contributions to the IMO budget are based on a formula which is different from that
used in other United Nations agencies: the amount paid by each Member State depends
primarily on the tonnage of its merchant fleet.
.
This is less than half what it would cost to buy a medium sized oil tanker and represents
only a fraction of the cost of the damage caused by an oil spill, for example (the Exxon
Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 has so far cost more than US$3.6 billion). If IMO is
responsible for preventing just one oil tanker accident a year then it more than covers its
cost!

The IMO budget is unique for another reason. Costs are shared between the 171 Member
States primarily in proportion to the size of each one's fleet of merchant ships. The
biggest fleets in the world are currently operated by Panama and Liberia and so they pay
the biggest share of IMO budget.

The top ten contributors for 2014 were assessed as follows (the figures show the amount
payable in £s and as a percentage of the total assessed contributions):

Country Contribution ($) Contribution (%)

Panama 5.3 million 19.3%

Liberia 2.5 million 8.8%
Bahamas 1.4 million 4.9%
Marshall Islands 1.3 million 4.8%
United Kingdom 1.3 million 4.8%
Greece 1.2 million 4.3%
Singapore 1.1 million 4.1%
Malta 0.97 million 3.5%
Japan 0.94 million 3.4%
0.91 million 3.3%

Other International Institutions and their Association with Shipping

The development of international organisations in the world of shipping has been, in the
main, in response to the evident need arising from international nature of business rather
than from the philosophical or ideological appeal of the notion of world or global
governance. The growth of international intercourse, in the sense of the development of
relations between actors – both private and public – has been a constant feature of
maturing societies; advancement in the mechanics of maritime transportation and
communications, combined with the desire for trade and commerce, have produced a
degree of interaction which ultimately called for international regulation, or international
co-operation by institutional means.

What will be presented in this paper will be a brief outlook of various international
bodies, other than the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 5, that have a bearing on
the international maritime transportation and maritime affairs in general. The main issues
governing these international bodies are of course safety of life, property and protection
of the marine environment. The international institutions discussed here will be:

2. International Labour Organisation (ILO)

3. World Health Organisation (WHO)
4. International Shipping Federation (ISF)
5. International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)
6. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)
7. Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO
8. Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

2. International Labour Organisation (ILO)

Shipping

More than three-quarters of world trade makes use of maritime or river transport. The
maritime sector is therefore international and dynamic. A further internationalisation of
the shipping industry in recent years has been manifested through changes in the
ownership and the management of ships, establishment of new registers, technological
developments, and crews consisting of seafarers from different cultures and with different
languages.

The world fleet of merchant ships comprises approximately 80,000 ships of 100 gross
tons or more (50,056 are ocean going vessels) 6. The largest fleets (by tonnage) are
registered in Panama, Liberia, Greece, Cyprus, Bahamas, Norway, Japan, Malta, China,
the Russian Federation, Singapore and the United States.

There are over 1.2 million seafarers serving aboard ships of over 100 gross tons or
waiting to do so. Approximately two-thirds are from the Asian region. There is a clear
trend in employment towards the hiring of seafarers from developing countries. Major
labour supplying countries include the Philippines, China and the Republic of Korea. An
increasing number of seafarers are also recruited from the Russian Federation and

5
The functions of IMO have been dealt with in the preceding pages, as well as in a separate lecture.
6
Lloyd’s Register, Fairplay, January 2010
Poland. A high percentage of the total number of seafarers is working on board ships not
registered in their own country.
ILO Activities

Because of the unique character of seafaring, most maritime countries have special laws
and regulations covering this occupation. Consequently, the ILO, since its founding, has
had special "machinery" for seafarers. The machinery includes the Joint Maritime
Commission, which advises the Governing Body on maritime issues, and special
Maritime Sessions of the International Labour Conference (ILC), which focus solely on
the preparation, and adoption of maritime labour standards.

The special nature of the conditions of work and life of seafarers led ILO to adopt an
extensive range of Conventions and Recommendations applying specifically to seafarers.
These instruments cover nearly all aspects of the working and living conditions at sea
such as, for example, the minimum age for admission to employment; hours of work and
rest periods; medical examination prior to employment aboard ship and periodically
thereafter; conditions for shipboard employment; articles of agreement; repatriation;
social security benefits; food, catering and accommodation; qualification requirement;
vocational training and welfare facilities; safety and health requirements. These standards
have influenced national legislation as well as the terms of collective agreements and
employment contracts laying down the working conditions of seafarers throughout the
world. This international seafarers' "code" directly or indirectly influences both the terms
of collective agreements and national maritime labour legislation.

An important maritime labour instrument is the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)

Convention, 1976 (No. 147), which sets out the minimum internationally acceptable
standards for living and working conditions on board ships.

The main focus of ILO maritime programme concerns the promotion of the maritime
labour standards. The ILO work concerning seafarers has also resulted in the adoption of
codes of practice, guidelines and reports, which address seafarers' issues.

The ILO cooperates with other United Nations agencies with an interest in the maritime
field, such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London and the World
Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. There is close contact with the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) and with regional UN offices.

Providing information and assistance to member States on ILO maritime standards and
the preparation of related national laws and regulations is given priority. Both the labour
and shipping (or transport) ministries of the countries concerned are involved in the
implementation of the ILO maritime labour standards. The following areas will continue
to keep the ILO busy with regard to shipping activities:

 Review of relevant ILO maritime instruments

 Updating of the ILO minimum basic wage of able seamen
  The impact on seafarers’ living and working conditions of changes in the structure
of the shipping industry, and
 Joint IMO/ILO ad hoc expert working group on liability and compensation
regarding claims for death, personal injury and abandonment of seafarers

ILO Maritime programmes (International Programme for the Promotion of Decent Work
in the Maritime Industry)

Objective of the programme

The objective of this Programme is to enhance social and economic conditions in the
maritime industry as a whole and particularly for seafarers as part of ILO objective aimed
at "promoting opportunities for men and women to obtain decent and productive work, in
conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity". This objective is articulated
in the concept of Decent Work, which has received unanimous support of ILO tripartite
constituents.

Practical implementation of the Programme

To achieve the fundamental objective of ILO for the maritime industry, the Programme
intends to utilise, first and foremost, the international labour maritime standards and other
tools developed by the office over the last eighty years.

A priority activity for the programme on Decent Work in the Maritime Industry is the
promotion, ratification and effective implementation of the maritime Conventions.

Moreover, in some countries which have already ratified important ILO Maritime
instruments, there still is a need to bring the working and living conditions in line with
the standards through an update/revision, as appropriate, of national laws and regulations,
as well as the streamlining of an often unclear line of responsibility between different
departments involved in seafarers social welfare and to make progress in the effective
implementation of the standards.

In addition, the level of ratification and implementation of core ILO standards, which
apply to seafarers in the same way as to other workers, especially in the light of the
Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in 1998, needs to be
pursued.

The Programme will develop an advocacy component to those in charge of the

application and implementation of standards. The Programme will organise, as
appropriate, seminars in this respect. The wider and better implementation of ILO
standards will also contribute towards improving social protection for seafarers, safety at
sea and consequently lead to better protection of the environment.

Past experience has shown that, while governmental officials dealing with the shipping
industry may be quite conversant with standards relating to safety and pollution
prevention from ships that are under the purview of the IMO, a similar level does not, in
many cases, exist as concerns the social/labour aspects. This is particularly the case for
the inspection of both national and foreign registered ships where the inspectors are better
trained on inspecting the technical aspects of the ship compared with ILO issues. In short,
the training of qualified inspectors to inspect and address labour standards, as well as
safety requirements, has to be promoted and enhanced.

The Programme will last for an initial period of 5 years and its scope and activities will
be kept under continuous review. Depending upon impact, the Programme could also be
extended if deemed necessary in the light of developments in the shipping industry.

The Programme will also closely liase with IMO to ensure the necessary coordination
with its ongoing technical assistance programme and avoid undue duplication.

Ports

Ports have undergone fundamental changes in the past decades due to changes in
shipping and cargo-handling technology, in particular the introduction of the standard -
size, inter-modal shipping containers. Cargo handling, once a labour-intensive activity,
has become increasingly capital - intensive as a result of these changes.

The result has been a substantial reduction in the number of persons required to move
cargo. Though sea borne trade has risen dramatically over the same period, the
considerable efficiencies resulting from the new technologies and techniques has meant a
dramatic decrease in the number of port workers needed in many ports. In many cases
this has resulted in redundancies and various schemes to preserve employment. It has also
led to round-the-clock port worker, with work divided into shift work, and other changes
designed to reduce the time ships spend in port and to increase the use of expensive
cargo-handling equipment.

Structural adjustment has caused the second - and more recent - wave of change in the
port sector. The general aim has been to improve the efficiency of port operations and to
bring their operations in line with private sector industries. This has usually resulted in
further cuts in the workforce.

ILO Activities

The ILO has also adopted a number of standards, which specifically concern the social
and labour conditions of port workers. Most of these are aimed at improving the safety of
dock work. Among the most important of these are the Dock Work Convention, 1973
(No. 137), the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No.
152). The first instrument concerns protection for dockworkers against changes in their
employment resulting from technological changes and structural changes. The second
instrument concerns health and safety issues.
The ILO has provided technical advisory services and executed technical cooperation
projects covering areas such as recruitment and placement of port workers, occupational
safety and health, organization of work in ports, the assessment of training needs and
subsequent curricula development for training programmes, the training of instructors,
the establishment of port training centres and supervisory training.

Port worker Development Programme (PDP)

Objective of the programme

The most recent activity has been the preparation of the Port worker Development
Programme (PDP). The objective of the programme is to enable governments and port
authorities of developing countries to establish effective and systematic port worker
training schemes, designed to improve cargo-handling performance, working conditions
and practices, safety and the status and welfare of port workers. The means of
accomplishing this objective is the preparation of centrally produced training material. So
far the material prepared covers container terminal port workers designed in such a way
that it will enable the preparation of an open-ended series of self-contained but
interrelated units of instruction by recognized experts in the field of port training working
together with a team of subject-matter experts.

The success of the PDP can be judged from the increasing number of countries and ports,
which have purchased the PDP training materials and implemented training programmes.
The growing widespread use of the PDP is a testament to its quality and value. PDP has
been implemented in more than 50 countries and has or is in the process of being
translated into at least 9 languages!

Practical Implementation

The PDP consists of centrally prepared training materials for personnel in container
terminals and other container handling facilities, for presentation by a team of specially
trained instructors working within an organisational framework, extending from national
to the port or terminal level.

The idea is to enable governments and port management to establish effective and
systematic port worker training schemes using the PDP materials that are designed to
improve:

 Cargo handling performance,

 Working conditions and practices,
 Safety, and
 The status and welfare of port workers.

Maritime and Port Security

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States, decisions
have been taken both in the framework of the IMO and in the ILO to enhance maritime
security. The ILO actions in this regard relate to improved security of seafarers’
identification and complementary port security measures.

Maritime security: Seafarers’ Identity Documents

Background

One of the issues considered crucial for improving maritime security is ensuring that
seafarers have documents enabling their “positive verifiable identification”. Many
countries will be requiring such identification before they are prepared to grant special
facilities enabling seafarers to carry out the international professional moves necessary
for their work and for their well-being. The ILO Governing Body accordingly decided to
complement action being taken in the framework of the IMO by placing an urgent item
on the agenda of the 91st Session (June 2003) of the International Labour Conference
concerning improved security of seafarers’ identification with a view to the revision of
the Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No.108).

The Convention provides for a new seafarers’ identity document facilitating the
movement of seafarers, but not replacing a passport. It introduces a viable system for
meeting contemporary security concerns while maintaining the necessary facilitation of
shipping and recognition of the needs of seafarers. The Convention requires each
ratifying country to put in place a comprehensive security regime. This would cover not
only the production by the national authorities of a modern identity document embodying
security features, but also the maintenance of national databases for the document. In
addition, the processes and procedures for the production, personalization and issuance of
the document, which would include quality control of the entire national system, would
be subject to international oversight.

Port Security

Millions of people are working in ports around the world at any one time. The safety and
security of persons working in ports and terminals, including service providers to ports
and ships are of primary importance. Access to ports is not limited only to those who
work in port areas but also to a whole range of persons and other non-port workers who
deliver goods and services to ports or have access to ports for other reasons linked to ship
and port operations.

In many countries around the world, major communities have sprung up or are in the
vicinity of port areas and many handling facilities are close to human habitation. The
IMO is in the process of developing mandatory requirements for port facility security to
address ship/port interface, i.e., the immediate shore security threat towards the ship and
vice-versa. The IMO has recognized that port facility security plans which are limited
only to the ship/port interface would not be effective without the existence of an
overarching comprehensive port security plan based on a comprehensive port security
assessment. One of the issues identified for consideration is that of port personnel
identification. As these issues impact on port worker regulations, the IMO has requested
the ILO to establish a Joint Working Group to:

a) Consider the form and content of further guidance on the wider issue of port
security including the relationship between ship and port facility security and
safety considerations relevant to port areas, including verifiable identification of
those working within these areas or having access to such areas; and
b) Consider the need for any mandatory provisions relating to the above

The ILO will be examining how to take these issues further in the future, in particular in
the framework of the planned revision of its Code of Practice on Safety and Health in
Dock Work to incorporate provisions on Security.

3. World Health Organisation (WHO)

About WHO

The World Health Organization is the United Nations specialized agency for health. It
was established on 7 April 1948. WHO's objective is the attainment by all peoples of the
highest possible level of health. Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of
complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity.

WHO is governed by 193 Member States through the World Health Assembly. The
Health Assembly is composed of representatives from WHO's Member States. The main
tasks of the World Health Assembly are to approve the WHO programme and the budget
for the following biennium and to decide major policy questions.

Ship sanitation and health

A recently released World Health Organization (WHO) literature review has identified
over 100 disease outbreaks associated with ships since 1970. This is probably an
underestimate because many outbreaks are not reported and some may go undetected.
Such outbreaks are of concern because of their potentially serious health consequences
and high costs to the industry. The main diseases associated with ships are
gastrointestinal disease and Legionnaires' disease.

Gastrointestinal disease

A wide range of pathogens affected passengers and crew during ship-associated

gastrointestinal disease outbreaks. Most of the detected gastrointestinal disease outbreaks
have been associated with cruise ships and were linked to food or water consumed
onboard ship. Factors contributing to outbreaks included contaminated bunkered water,
inadequate disinfection of potable water, potable water contaminated by sewage on ship,
poor design and construction of potable water storage tanks, deficiencies in food
handling, preparation and cooking and use of seawater in the galley.

Symptoms often start with sudden onset of vomiting and/or diarrhoea. There may be
fever and abdominal cramps. The virus can spread in food or water or from person to
person. This is a very infectious virus, and, in one outbreak on a cruise ship in 1998, over
80% of the 841 passengers were affected.

Legionnaires' disease

Legionnaires' disease is a potentially fatal form of pneumonia, first recognized in 1976.

Inhaling legionella bacteria deep into the lungs normally contracts the disease. Legionella
species can be found in tiny droplets of water (aerosols) or in droplet nuclei (the particles
left after the water has evaporated).

The WHO review showed that over 50 incidents of Legionnaires' disease, involving over
200 cases, were associated with ships in the past three decades. For example, an outbreak
of Legionnaires' disease occurred on a single cruise ship in 1994. 50 passengers were
affected on nine different cruises and one passenger died. The disease was linked to a
whirlpool spa on the ship.

The problem is not restricted to passenger ships. Surveys carried out on merchant ships
have also shown drinking water and air conditioning systems to be contaminated with
Legionella pneumophila3.

Control measures, such as proper disinfection, filtration and storage of source water,
avoidance of dead ends in pipes and regular cleaning and disinfection of spas are
therefore required to reduce the risk of legionellosis on ships.

International Health Regulations

The International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted by the World Health Organization
(WHO) in 1969, provide a regulatory framework to support public health security by
preventing the international spread of infectious diseases through permanent public health
measures for travellers, cargo, and points of entry. These regulations replaced the 1951
International Sanitary Regulations.

The purpose of the IHR is to provide the maximum protection against the international
spread of diseases with minimum interference with world traffic.

The current requirements of the IHR relate to provision of potable water at ports, public
health inspections of ships, proper disposal of waste from ships, appropriate facilities for
examining and isolating travellers and maintaining vector free zones and vector
surveillance.
The IHR are has been updated in March 2008. In the new IHR, it has included that the
revised IHR cover both urgent and routine public health services at ports, airports and
ground crossings.

WHO Guide to Ship Sanitation

The WHO Guide to Ship Sanitation is the official global reference on health requirements
for ship construction and operation and is directly referenced in Article 14 of the IHR.

Its purpose is to standardize the sanitary measures taken in ships, to safeguard the health
of people on board and to prevent the spread of infection from one country to another.
The present edition of the Guide is based on the results of a survey of 103 countries and
represents a synthesis of best national practice.

Revision of the Guide to Ship Sanitation

The Guide was first published in 1967 and was reprinted with minor amendments in
1987. The construction, design and size of ships have changed dramatically since the
1960s and the greatly increased level of transport by ships poses new hazards (e.g.
Legionnaires' disease) that were not foreseen when the 1967 Guide was published.
Therefore, WHO has now UPDATED the Guide in close collaboration with the
International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Maritime Organization
(IMO). The new guide was released in March 2008. The recommendations on the
revisions to the guide include:

 Apply to all ships including passenger ships, general cargo vessels, fishing
vessels, naval vessels and tankers;
 Cover preventive environmental health management including water supply at
port, water production, treatment and distribution on ship, swimming and spa
pools, waste disposal, food safety and vermin and vector control; and
 Contain concluding chapters on disease surveillance, outbreak investigation, and
routine inspection and audit.

4. International Shipping Federation (ISF)

ISF is the only broad based international employers' organisation dedicated to maritime
manpower issues, providing advice and guidance to members either directly or via its
extensive range of global contacts by representing them in all relevant foray where issues
are regulated.

In the plethora of international organisations, ISF represents the employers' voice on

industrial relations issues, proactively explaining and justifying employers' activities to
the media. To others, ISF is an authority on the STCW Convention and assists with
advice on its detailed technical requirements.
The ISF Secretariat also supports other international organisations, such as its sister
organisation the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), and the International Maritime
Employers' Committee (IMEC). While each organisation is quite independent, these links
ensure an exchange of information and co-ordination to prevent overlap and duplication
of effort.

Externally, ISF has consultative status with the ILO, where it co-ordinates the ship owner
position at all maritime meetings, and with the IMO. ISF attends, through ILO, meetings
of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control Committee, which
develops policy on port state control inspections within the Paris MOU region.

ISF is also an active member of the International Committee on Seafarers' Welfare

(ICSW) and regular contacts are maintained with representatives of maritime unions,
including the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF).

The Council is the principal policy-making body meeting twice a year under the
Chairmanship of the President. It comprises a representative of each ISF member
association.

ISF, with national ship owner association members7 from Eastern and Western Europe,
the Indian Sub-Continent, the Asia/Pacific Region, the Middle East and North, Central
and South America, provides a unique forum for employers to co-ordinate effectively and
influence events on maritime human resources issues.

5. International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) is the international trade association for
merchant ship operators. ICS represents the collective views of the international industry
from different nations, sectors and trades.
ICS membership comprises national ship owners' associations 8 representing over half of
the world's merchant fleet. A major focus of ICS activity is at the IMO.

ICS is heavily involved in a wide variety of areas including technical, legal and
operational matters affecting merchant ships. ICS is unique in that it represents the global
interests of all the different trades in the industry: bulk carrier operators, tanker operators,
passenger ship operators and container liner trades, including ship owners and third party
ship managers.

ICS has consultative status with a number of intergovernmental bodies, which have an
impact on shipping. Its close ties with IMO stretch back to this body's inception in 1958.

7
India is a member of ISF through the Indian National Ship Owner’s Association (INSA) with its
headquarters at Mumbai.
8
India is a member of ICS through the Indian National Ship Owner’s Association (INSA) with its
headquarters at Mumbai.
Other partners include the World Customs Organisation (WCO), the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). ICS also
enjoys close relationships with industry organisations representing different maritime
interests such as shipping, ports, Pilotage, oil industry, and insurance and classification
societies responsible for the surveying of ships.

ICS is committed to the principle of maritime regulation being formulated at an

international level. Shipping is by nature international. The regulations that apply to a
ship when it sails, say, from Buenos Aires must apply equally when it arrives in Brisbane.
The alternative to an international system of shipping legislation would be a chaotic web
of local rules and regulations that would result in commercial distortions and mass
economic deficiencies. The objective of ICS is the maintenance of a sound,
well-considered global regulatory environment in which well-run ships can operate safely
and efficiently.

Purpose of ICS

The aim of ICS is to promote the interests of ship owners and operators in all matters of
shipping policy and ship operations. To that end ICS:

 Encourages high standards of operation and the provision of high quality and
efficient shipping services
 Strives for a regulatory environment, which supports safe shipping operations,
protection of the environment and adherence to internationally, adopted standards
and procedures
 Promotes properly considered international regulation of shipping and oppose
unilateral and regional action by governments
 Presses for recognition of the commercial realities of shipping and the need for
quality to be rewarded by a proper commercial return
 Remains committed to the promotion of industry guidance on best operating
practices
 Cooperates with other organisations, both intergovernmental and
non-governmental, in the pursuit of these objectives
 Anticipates whenever possible and respond whenever appropriate to policies and
actions which conflict with the above

How ICS works?

The national associations that belong to ICS provide national representatives through a
network of committees, which are responsible for developing the international policy of
the industry, including positions to be adopted on international maritime regulatory
questions. The national representatives to ICS Committees include experts from
individual shipping companies, which are members of the national ship owners'
associations that belong to ICS. So far as possible, ICS represents the views of the entire
shipping industry at various forays, which develop international maritime conventions
and recommendations, especially the IMO. ICS is particularly influential because of the
support it receives from its member national ship owners associations', which represent
the views agreed within ICS to their national governments, which in turn comprise the
membership of bodies such as IMO.
6. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)

From 16 to 18 February 1905, 112 distinguished gentlemen assembled in Copenhagen

and formed what is today the world’s largest and most diverse private shipping
organisation. BIMCO has come a long way since then and the organisation’s agenda
today differs greatly from that of the past. However, its objective of uniting shipping
interests and pursuing the issues affecting its members remain as clear now as they were
at the start.

Throughout it all, BIMCO has consistently managed to be both flexible and supportive of
its members’ interests, capable of proactive action and responding quickly to new
priorities in a fast-changing maritime environment in an often un-certain world.

Today, BIMCO membership spans 123 countries and includes more than 2,550
companies. Owner members alone control 65% of the world merchant fleet, while 1,500
brokers and agents and 100 club and associate members complete BIMCO international
coverage. It is on behalf of these members that BIMCO carries out its tasks - ranging
from involvement in international debates on issues affecting the industry to providing
assistance in recovering unpaid balances.

BIMCO is one of the leading interest groups and membership organisation offering
practical and tangible services to ship owners, managers, brokers, agents, operators,
associations and other entities associated with the shipping industry.

BIMCO aim is that of free trade, access to markets, trade facilitation and harmonisation,
promotion of safety and quality and security. BIMCO focus is on promotion of high
shipping standards and support of existing measures to ensure quality shipping as well as,
the standardisation of regulations and a worldwide implementation regime.

Membership in BIMCO is open to companies involved in all sectors of shipping. It's

Indian membership includes 18 owner-members operating 423 vessels of 12.6 million
tons deadweight and a further 26 broker-members.

7. Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO)

SIGTTO was born out of a recognition that an industry specializing in the transport of
liquefied gas needed to establish and promote the adoption and implementation of the
very highest standards if it was first to win and then to maintain the confidence of the
public at large. In acting as a beacon for quality and best practices, SIGTTO and its
members have done just that, and that the excellent safety and pollution record of the sea
borne gas transport industry to date defines it quite categorically as a highly responsible
and effective sector.
By the late 1970s it was clear the international LNG business was set for a period of rapid
expansion. A number of involved companies were therefore concerned to agree essential
common standards for the industry, to aid its expansion, underpin public confidence and
avoid a proliferation of unilaterally defined regulations.

This group resolved to establish a body to draw together industry member companies in
an effort to establish commonly agreed standards and best practice criteria. Hence the
Society was formed and registered as a Bermuda Exempted Company (non-profit
making) with limited liability in October 1979.The Society was granted consultative
status at the IMO in 1982.

Formed originally with thirteen Members the Society has steadily grown over twenty
years to a membership of more than 100 companies; representing virtually the whole of
the world’s LNG trades and over half its LPG capacity.

SIGTTO has been an active participant in the work of IMO since it was granted observer
status back in 1982. It has become universally recognized as the authoritative voice of the
gas shipping and terminal industries and has made a significant contribution over the
years to the development and implementation of a wide variety of IMO measures.

Most recently, as one would expect, SIGTTO played a significant part in the
implementation of the new maritime security measures that entered into force worldwide
in July. The fact that the Society had been actively lobbying, supporting and working
with its members for many months prior to the introduction of the new measures should,
be recognized with appreciation.

Purpose

The Society is the international body established for the exchange of technical
information and experience, between members of the industry, to enhance the safety and
operational reliability of gas tankers and terminals. The organization has been organized
to encourage safe and responsible operation of liquefied gas tankers and marine terminals
handling liquefied gas; to develop advice and guidance for best industry practice among
its members and promote criteria for best practice to all who have responsibilities for, or
an interest in, the continuing safety of gas tankers and terminals.

To this end the Society publishes studies and produces information papers and works of
reference for the guidance of industry members. It maintains working relationships with
other industry bodies, governmental and intergovernmental agencies, including IMO, to
better promote the safety and integrity of gas transportation and storage schemes.

Benefits of being a member of SIGTTO

Membership benefits of SIGTTO are substantial. Much of SIGTTO work is publicly

available but the most important part is not. Members' benefit by:
  Access to information that is exclusive to Members, such as casualty and industry
statistics
 Access to the Technical Advisers in the London Liaison Office who can give
advice and obtain advice, on behalf of a Member, from within the Society
 Access to the very comprehensive technical library maintained in the London
Office
 Submitting proposals for projects and studies to the General Purposes Committee
 Participating in discussion forums with other Members twice each year on topics
of particular and mutual interest

In a nutshell, SIGTTO members own or operate:

 159 LNG carriers with a total capacity of 18 mill m3

 13 of the 17 LNG Export Terminals
 37 of the 47 operational LNG Import Terminals
 79 bulk LPG terminals
 70% of World LPG Capacity

SIGTTO achieves LNG supply chain reliability through:

 Initial High Standards

 Industry Technical Cooperation
 Learning From Experience
 First Class Standards & Codes
 Training
 Ship Vetting
 Written Procedures

8. Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

The Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) is a voluntary association of

oil companies having an interest in the shipment and terminalling of crude oil and oil
products. The aim is to provide expert service and advice on the safe and environmentally
responsible operation of oil tankers and terminals, promoting continuous improvement in
standards of design and operation.

OCIMF was formed at a meeting in London on 8th April 1970. It was initially the oil
industry's response to increasing public awareness of marine pollution, particularly by oil,
after the "Torrey Canyon" incident.

Governments had reacted to this incident by debating the development of international

conventions and national legislation and the oil industry sought to play its part by making
its professional expertise available and its views known to governmental and
inter-governmental bodies.
OCIMF was incorporated in Bermuda in 1977 and a branch office was established in
London primarily to maintain contact with the IMO.
The current membership of OCIMF comprises 53 companies worldwide. From India, the
Indian Oil Corporation is a member of OCIMF.

Objectives

The primary objectives of OCIMF are the promotion of safety and prevention of
pollution from tankers and at oil terminals. OCIMF was granted consultative status in
1971 at the IMO. OCIMF is organised to co-ordinate oil industry views at IMO meetings,
to review technical proposals circulated by IMO and to advise its members on legislative
activities as they develop. OCIMF presents its members' views before individual national
governmental authorities and maintains a close liaison with other industry bodies and
associations. An important contribution to the overall safety of the industry is the role
that OCIMF plays in producing technical and operational guidelines, either by itself or in
co-operation with other industry associations.

OCIMF has produced in excess of 50 of these guidelines and many are now taken as the
industry standard in their particular field. OCIMF provides the means for joint research
projects to be undertaken and co-ordinated on behalf of its members. Many of these
projects, for example, studies on tanker drift and towage, mooring hawser strength etc,
have resulted in technical guidelines being published for the wider benefit of the industry.

Strategy

The strategy of OCIMF is to identify critical safety and environmental issues facing the
oil tanker and terminal industry, and develop and publish recommended criteria that will
serve as benchmarks for the industry.

OCIMF also, in conjunction with the IMO and other regulatory bodies, both regional and
national, support the development of international conventions and regulations that
enhance the safe construction and operation of oil tankers and terminals; support the
global implementation and enforcement of such international conventions and
regulations; and encourage industry-wide acceptance of established safety and
environmental guidelines and recommendations.

SIRE Introduction

One of the most significant safety initiatives to be introduced by OCIMF is the Ship
Inspection Report Programme (SIRE). This programme was originally launched in 1993
to specifically address concerns about sub-standard shipping. The SIRE Programme is a
unique tanker risk assessment tool of value to charterers, ship operators, terminal
operators and government bodies concerned with ship safety.

The SIRE system is a very large database of up-to-date information about tankers.
Essentially, SIRE has focused tanker industry awareness on the importance of meeting
satisfactory tanker quality and ship safety standards. Since its introduction, the SIRE
Programme has received industry-wide acceptance and participation by both OCIMF
Members, Programme recipients and by ship operators. The expansion of Barges and
small vessels into SIRE was inaugurated in late 2004.

The SIRE programme requires a uniform inspection protocol that is predicated by the
following:

- Vessel Inspection Questionnaire (VIQ)

- Barge Inspection Questionnaire (BIQ)

Uniform SIRE Inspection Report:

- Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (VPG)

- Barge Particulars Questionnaire (BPQ)

There is an electronic access to the SIRE system; both dial up and via the Internet.
These features have been established to make the program more uniform and user
friendly and to provide a level of transparency unique in the marine transportation
industry.

SIRE has established itself as a major source of technical and operational information to
prospective charterers and other programme users. Its increasing use corresponds with oil
industry efforts to better ascertain whether vessels are well managed and maintained.

Inspection reports are maintained on the index for a period of 12 months from the date of
receipt and are maintained on the database for 2 years. SIRE access is available, at a
nominal cost, to OCIMF members, bulk oil terminal operators, port authorities, canal
authorities, oil, power, industrial or oil trader companies which charter tankers/barges as
a normal part of their business. It is also available, free of charge, to Governmental
bodies, which supervise safety and/or pollution prevention in respect of oil tankers/barges
(e.g. port state control authorities, MOU, etc).

INTERCARGO

INTERCARGO is the short name for the International Association of Dry Cargo Ship
owners.

The members operate predominantly Bulk Carriers in the international dry bulk trades,
such as coal, grain, iron ore and other bulk commodities. Our main role is to work with
our members, the regulators and other Shipping Associations to ensure that shipping
operates safely, efficiently, environmentally and profitably. To do this, we actively
participate in the development of global legislation through the International Maritime
Organization and other similar bodies.

INTERTANKO
INTERTANKO is the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.

INTERTANKO has been the voice of independent tanker owners since 1970, ensuring
that the oil that keeps the world turning is shipped safely, responsibly and competitively.

Membership is open to independent tanker owners and operators of oil and chemical
tankers, i.e. non-oil companies and non-state controlled tanker owners, who fulfil the
Association's membership criteria. Independent owners operate some 80% of the world's
tanker fleet and the vast majority is INTERTANKO members. As of January 2009, the
organisation has 270 members, whose combined fleet comprises some 3,100 tankers
totalling 249 million DWT. INTERTANKO associate membership stands at some 300
companies with an interest in shipping of oil and chemicals.

INTERTANKO is a forum where the industry meets, policies are discussed and
statements are created. It is a valuable source of first-hand information, opinions and
guidance. INTERTANKO has vision of a professional, efficient and respected industry
that is dedicated to achieving safe transport, cleaner seas and free competition.

INTERTANKO industry spokesperson

The strong support that INTERTANKO enjoys allows it to speak authoritatively and
proactively on behalf of tanker operators at international, regional, national and local
level. It is also able to maintain a 25-strong secretariat and a network of 14 committees
and four regional panels that coordinate an extensive work programme that comprises
more than 50 agenda items. Governments and shipping regulators have taken a closer
interest in tanker shipping in recent years. INTERTANKO has responded by establishing,
strengthening and maintaining relationships with legislators on all levels, working with
them to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the responsibilities and liabilities
involved in carrying oil and chemicals by sea.

Underlining its commitment to representing its members where key decisions are made,
INTERTANKO opened offices in Singapore and Washington DC in 1999, in addition to
its principal offices in Oslo and London. Within the shipping industry itself,
INTERTANKO participates in discussions within the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) where it has a non-governmental status and the International Oil
Spill Compensation Fund. In addition, it has consultative status at the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.

Oil and its derivatives will remain the world’s most critical commodity in the foreseeable
future and tankers will be needed to distribute it to where it is needed. As long as tankers
are vital to this distribution INTERTANKO will provide leadership in the development
and implementation of industry standards and practices, and international regulations for
maritime safety and environmental protection.
What is the World Trade Organization?

Simply put: the World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the rules of trade between
nations at a global or near-global level. But there is more to it than that.

Is it a bird, is it a plane?

There are a number of ways of looking at the WTO. It’s an organization for liberalizing
trade. It’s a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements. It’s a place for them to
settle trade disputes. It operates a system of trade rules. (But it’s not Superman, just in
case anyone thought it could solve — or cause — all the world’s problems!)

Above all, it’s a negotiating forum … Essentially, the WTO is a place where
member governments go, to try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other.
The first step is to talk. The WTO was born out of negotiations, and everything the WTO
does is the result of negotiations. The bulk of the WTO's current work comes from the
1986-94 negotiations called the Uruguay Round and earlier negotiations under the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO is currently the host to new
negotiations, under the “Doha Development Agenda” launched in 2001.

Where countries have faced trade barriers and wanted them lowered, the negotiations
have helped to liberalize trade. But the WTO is not just about liberalizing trade, and in
some circumstances its rules support maintaining trade barriers — for example to protect
consumers or prevent the spread of disease.

It’s a set of rules … At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by
the bulk of the world’s trading nations. These documents provide the legal ground-rules
for international commerce. They are essentially contracts, binding governments to keep
their trade policies within agreed limits. Although negotiated and signed by governments,
the goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their
business, while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.

The system’s overriding purpose is to help trade flow as freely as possible — so long as
there are no undesirable side-effects — because this is important for economic
development and well-being. That partly means removing obstacles. It also means
ensuring that individuals, companies and governments know what the trade rules are
around the world, and giving them the confidence that there will be no sudden changes of
policy. In other words, the rules have to be “transparent” and predictable.

And it helps to settle disputes … This is a third important side to the WTO’s work.
Trade relations often involve conflicting interests. Agreements, including those
painstakingly negotiated in the WTO system, often need interpreting. The most
harmonious way to settle these differences is through some neutral procedure based on an
agreed legal foundation. That is the purpose behind the dispute settlement process written
into the WTO agreements.

ISMA – International Ship Managers Association

Towards the end of the 1980s, ship management was emerging as an important industry
in its own right, but there was a lack of any real forum for ship managers as an
homogeneous group. The idea of forming an association of ship managers was first
floated at that time, partly to serve this need but also in response to what was perceived as
unfair criticism of a growing industry sector.

Ship managers had been made scapegoats for a perceived deterioration in shipping
standards over the preceding two decades. The argument ran that, with the replacement
of the traditional ship owner structures by new types of owner such as K/S investors,
third party managers had become the instrument of cost-cutting and shoddy operations.

In fact there have always been responsible ship managers and they were among the first
to recognise the pressure on standards. The ship management sector reacted with more
determination than any other within the shipping industry and embarked on a quality
assurance system by which negative trends could be acted upon. The result of this
initiative was the creation of the International Ship Managers’ Association (ISMA) in the
spring of 1991. Today, InterManager represents ship managers worldwide controlling a
fleet of over 1,000 ships.

To spread the quality ideal, in 1994 membership was extended to crew managers, and
more recently a class of Associate Membership created for those companies and
organisations sharing the same principles.

Today members must have establish, implement and maintain a quality management
system in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 for all activities
undertaken by the organisation.

ISMA was founded in 1991 and is based in Horsham, Sussex, UK. Its mission statement
contains four objectives – to maintain the ISMA Code as the leading quality standard in
the ship and crew management industries; to discuss matters of common interest to the
ship and crew management industries; to promote the interest of the ship and crew
management industries in general and to encourage the highest standards in ship
management and crew management through innovation, creativity; and the sharing of
knowledge amongst members.

ISMA has a strong input with underwriters, P&I Clubs, bankers and charterers. It also
cooperates with other bodies such as IMO, BIMCO, ILO and the EU. It also has a major
focus on the application of ISO-9001:2000 Code accreditation as it applies for ship and
crew managers.
ISMA through it consultative status at the IMO continues to influence discussion on core
issues of both ship management and crew management businesses.

IACS (International Society of Classification Societies)

Dedicated to safe ships and clean seas, IACS makes a unique contribution to maritime
safety and regulation through technical support, compliance verification and research and
development. More than 90% of the world's cargo carrying tonnage is covered by the
classification design, construction and through-life compliance Rules and standards set
by the ten Member Societies and one Associate of IACS.

The 10 members of IACS are: ABS, BV, CCS, DNV, GL, KR, LR, NK, RINA, and RS

IACS common structural rules

On 14 December 2005 the Common Structural Rules (CSR) for Tankers and Bulk
Carriers were unanimously adopted by the IACS Council for implementation on 1 April
2006. The Council was satisfied that the new rules have been based on sound technical
grounds, and achieve the goals of more robust and safer ships.
IACS now implements the CSR maintenance program (IACS Procedural Requirement
No.32) via the IACS CSR Knowledge Centre (KC). All the agreed Q&As and CIs
(Common Interpretations) are published on the IACS web site without delay in order to
assist its Member Societies and Industry in implementing the CSR in a uniform and
consistent manner.

IACS has also put in place a long-term plan to further increase the harmonisation
between the Tanker and Bulk Carrier rule sets.

Conclusion

The seafarers lead a very secluded life on board – busy with what they have to do! But in
today’s shipping world, it will increasingly become difficult to function in a proverbial
watertight compartment. The seafarer will constantly need to broaden his horizons and
have a feel of the maritime world that exists beyond the shipside. It was with this aspect
in mind that an introduction to the various international organisations has been given. He
no doubt uses on board the various procedures and documents produced by the
aforementioned organisations, but if he has an idea about these organisations, he will be
able to apply the rules and follow industry standards in a more sensitive manner
 Chapter 10: Introduction to
International Law and Latest Changes
to SOLAS 74; MARPOL 73/78;
STCW 2010 and Load-Line 66
CHAPTER 10 – Introduction to International Law and the
Latest amendments to MARPOL 73/78; SOLAS 74; STCW 78
and Load-line 66 Conventions

This lecture is about the latest amendments to MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS 74, STCW 78,
as REVISED by 2010 Manila Amendments and Load-line 66 conventions. However,
prior to embarking on the designated exercise of discussing the aforementioned
amendments, it is felt that a few terms in the international law terminology should be
discussed with the students. The terminology includes such terms as treaty, convention,
protocol, resolution, amendments etc. The idea is to sensitise the students with the terms
that he has to use by way of understanding and applying the IMO Conventions. The
student should have a feel of the application of a convention. How a convention is
adopted, what is the principle of amendments, what is the procedure for amendments,
what is the difference between a Protocol to amend and an amendment? By helping him
answer such questions it is envisaged that he will become comfortable with the use of
such terms and the convention as well. The brief description of international law,
basically a few of the terms, is therefore delved into at the onset.

Introduction

International law is the only universally recognized framework that applies to all people
everywhere. As an impartial and objective set of standards, international law is capable of
handling issues involving everyone at the international level as well as, resolving disputes
without prejudice in favour of one party.

This introductory note seeks to provide a basic - but not an exhaustive - overview of the
key terms employed in the international instruments binding at international law -
treaties, agreements, conventions, protocols, memoranda of understanding, resolutions,
adoption, ratification, amendments etc. The purpose is to facilitate a general
understanding of their scope and function.

Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features
and international law has applied basically the same rules to all of these instruments.
These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as
binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international
customary law.

So, what is a treaty?

It is a formal agreement between two states signed by official representatives of each

state. A treaty may be "law-making" in that it is the declared intention of the signatories
to make or amend their internal laws to give effect to the treaty. The term "treaty" can be
used as a common generic term (that is, in general sense) or as a particular term, which
indicates an instrument with certain characteristics.

(a) Treaty as a generic term

The term "treaty" has regularly been used as a generic term embracing all instruments
binding at international law concluded between international entities, regardless of their
formal designation.

In order to speak of a "treaty" in the generic sense, an instrument has to meet various
criteria.

 First of all, it has to be a binding instrument, which means that the contracting
parties intended to create legal rights and duties.
 Secondly, the instrument must be concluded by states or international
organizations with treaty-making power.
 Thirdly, it has to be governed by international law.
 Finally the engagement has to be in writing.

(b) Treaty as a specific term

There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms "treaty" as a title for
an international instrument. Usually the term "treaty" is reserved for matters of some
gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they
normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as
"treaties" are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties
and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Co-operation. It is however important to note
that the use of the term "treaty" for international instruments has considerably declined in
the last decades in favour of other terms.

What is a Convention?

The term "convention" again can have both a generic and a specific meaning.

(a) Convention as a generic term

The generic use of the term "convention" embraces all international agreements, in the
same way as does the generic term "treaty". The generic term "convention" thus is
synonymous with the generic term "treaty".

(b) Convention as a specific term

Whereas in the last century the term "convention" was regularly employed for bilateral
agreements, it now is generally used for formal multilateral treaties with a broad number
of parties. Conventions are normally open for participation by the international
community as a whole, or by a large number of states. Usually the instruments
negotiated under the auspices of an international organization are entitled
conventions (e.g. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982). The same
holds true for instruments adopted by an organ of an international organization, such as
the IMO, (e.g. the SOLAS Convention, MARPOL 73/78 Convention, STCW
Convention)

What is a Protocol?

The term "protocol" is used for agreements less formal, but nevertheless of the same
importance, than those entitled "treaty" or "convention". The term could be used to cover
the following kinds of instruments:

(a) A Protocol of Signature is an instrument subsidiary to a treaty, and drawn up by the

same parties. Such a Protocol deals with ancillary matters such as the interpretation of
particular clauses of the treaty, those formal clauses not inserted in the treaty, or the
regulation of technical matters. Ratification of the treaty will normally ipso facto involve
ratification of such a Protocol.

(b) An Optional Protocol to a Treaty is an instrument that establishes additional rights

and obligations to a treaty. It is usually adopted on the same day, but is of independent
character and subject to independent ratification. Such protocols enable certain parties of
the treaty to establish among themselves a framework of obligations, which reach further
than the general treaty and to which not all parties of the general treaty consent, creating
a "two-tier system". This function of the Protocol has been used very rarely.

(c) A Protocol based on a Framework Treaty is an instrument with specific substantive

obligations that implements the general objectives of a previous framework or umbrella
convention. Such protocols ensure a more simplified and accelerated treaty-making
process and have been used particularly in the field of international environmental law.
An example is the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(d) A Protocol to amend is an instrument that contains provisions that amend one or
various former treaties, such as the Protocol of 1978 amending the 1973 “Treaty” on
MARPOL. It is this function of the Protocol in international law that we seafarers
should be comfortable in using as, this is what is, and will be, used pertaining to us
at IMO. For a change to be termed as a ‘Protocol’, and not an amendment, two
parameters have to be fulfilled:

1. The issue has to be of vital importance

2. The change should be such that the ‘existing face’ of the treaty / convention is
altered.

For example, the change of 1997 (Introduction of Annex VI) to MARPOL 73/78 is
called a Protocol and not an amendment. Why? Because, the issue of air pollution
was of vital importance and the introduction of a new annex changed the face of the
existing convention (earlier when we mentioned MARPOL, we meant five annexes,
now we mean six annexes). Hence the change of 1997 to MARPOL is NOT called an
amendment, but Protocol of 1997.
(e) A Protocol as a supplementary treaty is an instrument, which contains supplementary
provisions to a previous treaty, e.g. the various Protocols to the Barcelona Convention
dealing with the protection of marine environment in the Mediterranean Sea.

What is a Memorandum of Understanding?

A memorandum of understanding is an international instrument of a less formal kind. It

often sets out operational arrangements under a framework international agreement. It is
also used for the regulation of technical or detailed matters. It is typically in the form of a
single instrument and does not require ratification. They are entered into either by States
or International Organizations. The European Union, for instance, has concluded
memoranda of understanding with Member States in order to organize the functions of
Port State Control within the European territory.

W h a t i s a
R e s o l u t i o n ?

I t i s a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
p o l i c y b y t h e v o t e .
L e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s
s u c h a s t h e I M O p a s s
r e s o l u t i o n s , b u t
t h e y a r e o f t e n
s t a t e m e n t s o f
p o l i c y , b e l i e f o r
a p p r e c i a t i o n , a n d
n o t a l w a y s e n a c t m e n t
o f s t a t u t e s o r
o r d i n a n c e s . O n c e a
r e s o l u t i o n i s
e n a c t e d b y a
d i p l o m a t i c
c o n f e r e n c e a t I M O ,
i t b e c o m e s a
c o n v e n t i o n a n d i s
l e g a l l y b i n d i n g .

What is meant by Adoption?

"Adoption" is the formal act by which the form and content of a proposed treaty text are
established (accepted). As a general rule, the adoption of the text of a treaty takes place
through the expression of the consent of the states participating in the treaty-making
process. Treaties that are negotiated within an international organization (like the IMO)
will usually be adopted by a resolution first of a representative organ of the organization
(like the MSC or the MEPC) whose membership more or less corresponds to the potential
participation in the treaty in question.
What is meant by the terms Acceptance and Approval?

The instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as
ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the
practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification
when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by
the head of state.

What is Accession?

"Accession" is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a
party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect
as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The
conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the
provisions of the treaty.

What is an Amendment?

The term "amendment" refers to the formal alteration of treaty provisions affecting all the
parties to the particular agreement. Such alterations must be effected with the same
formalities that attended the original formation of the treaty. Many multilateral treaties
lay down specific requirements to be satisfied for amendments to be adopted. In the
absence of such provisions, amendments require the consent of all the parties.

What is the difference between an amendment and a Protocol to amend?

An amendment basically changes a part of something that already exists within a

convention. But, a Protocol to amend will normally add something new and thereby
change the face of an existing convention.

What is Ratification?

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound
to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of
bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite
instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the
depositary (for example the Secretary-General of IMO) to collect the ratifications of all
states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants
states the necessary time frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the
domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

What is meant by the term Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or

Approval?

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does
not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and
expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process.
The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or
approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat
the object and the purpose of the treaty.

We move to the amendments now…

With the brief explanation of a few of the terms of international law that you will use
while applying the various IMO conventions, we can now move to the heart of this
lecture that deals with the latest amendments to the aforementioned four IMO
conventions. Please note, that amendments to various conventions have been many, but
only amendments between 2005 and 2010 have been included here to cover the “latest”
amendments. Also to note is that the number of amendments (between 2005 and 2010)
for MARPOL 73/78 as well as, SOLAS 74 were large. They have therefore been written
in a tabular form for easy reference.

Latest Amendments to MARPOL 73/78

Why is it called MARPOL 73/78?

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 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, and
harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. Once a treaty / convention is
adopted it cannot be changed just like that, but has to go through a long procedure.

The changes in 1978 were large (virtually changing the face of what had been adopted in
1973, as well as the issue of marine pollution was of vital importance – hence it is known
as the Protocol of 1978) 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).

Since a lot of time had already been wasted between 1973 and 1978, and it would have
needed more time to be spent to agree to delete the ‘adopted’ text of what had been
agreed upon in 1973, it was decided not to waste any further time and to let the year 1973
remain attached to the treaty. Hence MARPOL is known as MARPOL 1973/78. Had it
been decided to spend time to formally delete what had been agreed upon in 1973,
MARPOL today would have been known as MARPOL 78.

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.

1978 Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention – and the changes
brought about

The Conference, in February 1978, adopted a protocol to the 1973 MARPOL

Convention, absorbing the parent Convention and expanding on the requirements for
tankers to help make them less likely to pollute the marine environment.

The Protocol expanded the requirements for segregated ballast tanks to all new crude oil
tankers of 20,000 DWT and above and all new product carriers of 30,000 DWT and
above. The Protocol also required segregated ballast tanks to be protectively located, in
other words, placed in areas of the ship where they will minimise the possibility of and
amount of oil outflow from cargo tanks after a collision or grounding.

New tankers over 20,000 DWT were required to be fitted with crude oil washing system.
Crude oil washing, or COW, is the cleaning or washing of cargo tanks with high-pressure
jets of crude oil. This reduces the quantity of oil remaining on board after discharge.

The Protocol also called for existing tankers over 40,000 DWT to be fitted with either
segregated ballast tanks or crude oil washing systems; while for an interim period, it also
allowed for some tankers to use clean ballast tanks, whereby specific cargo tanks are
dedicated to carry ballast water only.

Additional measures for tanker safety were incorporated into the 1978 Protocol to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. These included
the requirement for inert gas systems (whereby exhaust gases, which are low in oxygen
and thus incombustible, are used to replace flammable gases in tanks) on all new tankers
over 20,000 DWT and specified existing tankers. The SOLAS Protocol also included
requirements for steering gear of tankers; stricter requirements for carrying of radar and
collision avoidance aids; and stricter regimes for surveys and certification.
In order to speed up implementation of MARPOL, the Conference allowed that the
Parties "shall not be bound by the provisions of Annex II of the Convention for a period
of three years" from the date of entry into force of the Protocol, so that countries could
accept Annex I and have three years to implement Annex II.

Both the 1978 MARPOL and SOLAS Protocols were seen as major steps in raising
construction and equipment standards for tankers through more stringent regulations.

Enforcement of MARPOL 73/78

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. 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.

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 Marine Environment

Protection Committee (MEPC) or by a Conference of Parties to MARPOL.

The Protocol of 1997 (Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution
from Ships)
Adoption: 26 September 1997
Entry into force: 19 May 2005

The Protocol was adopted at a Conference and adds a new Annex VI on Regulations for
the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships to the Convention.

Why is it required for shipping?

It is important to understand why there has been a need for tackling the issue of air
pollution within the shipping industry. It all started when the ozone layer was found to be
depleting. The ozone layer exists in the atmosphere that protects the life on earth from the
harmful effects of the sun’s rays. The depletion of the ozone layer therefore has
detrimental effects on the human health. To curb this grave problem the international
community agreed to control the usage of elements that play a major role in the depletion
of the ozone layer. The Vienna Convention on the Depletion of Ozone layer; 1985 covers
this commitment, whereby the countries agree, over a period of time, to reduce the usage
of such substances.

Where does shipping fit into all this? This question is to be answered at two levels.

First, the industries of the world have been altering their way of functioning so that the
polluting elements do not reach the atmosphere where they will contribute towards the
depletion of ozone layer.

Second, it is now time for shipping to take note of this aspect of their business. How do
ships contribute? We all know that while moving around the world, the ships always take
the shortest route (keeping safety in mind of course!). So between two points all the ships
are more or less likely to take the same route over and over again. And since this has
happened over the years, and will continue to happen in future, what happens is that
polluting particles from the numerous ships on that route suspend in the atmosphere as a
“band” and thus harm the ozone layer. It has therefore become necessary that the
“atmospheric band” of exhaust gases that will remain suspended on routes of various
shipping lanes around the world does not harm the ozone layer.

The ship’s contributory factors related to the depletion of ozone layer are sulphur oxides,
which are a function of the sulphur content in the fuel oil and the nitrogen oxides, which
are a function of the exhaust of diesel engines.

SOX (oxides of sulphur)

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 (as per 2005
amendments – as mentioned later).

Annex VI prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, which include

HALON and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). New installations containing ozone-depleting
substances are prohibited on all ships. But new installations containing
hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) are permitted until 1 January 2020.
The requirements of the IMO Protocol are in accordance with the Montreal Protocol of
19879, as amended in London in 1990.

NOX (oxides of nitrogen)

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

Annex VI of MARPOL & the NOx Technical Code explained

Under the new rules, limits are set on sulphur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions from ship exhausts. Deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances are
also prohibited.

The problem of SOx emissions was tackled by introducing a global cap of 4.5 percent by
mass (% m/m – the unit mass) on the sulphur content of fuel oils, with observance to be
monitored by the IMO. In addition, provision was made for creating special ‘SOx
Emission Control Areas’ in environmentally sensitive areas (starting with the Baltic Sea)
with even more stringent rules: i.e. fuel with sulphur content no higher than 1.5% m/m or
the fitting of exhaust gas cleaning technology.

NOx emissions present a more complex problem since they are formed as by-products of
fuel combustion in diesel engines. Whereas in the past all engines were optimised for
minimal fuel consumption, the new Annex VI rules mean that performance must be
trimmed to reduce those emissions. A mandatory NOx Technical Code, developed by
IMO, defines how this is done.

The Code applies to all engines >130kW installed on ships built after January 1, 2000
and all engines that undergo a major conversion (i.e. potentially causing the emission
standards to be exceeded) after that date. Specific NOx emission limits vary according to
engine speed.

9
This is a Protocol to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer; 1985. Under the
international law terminology (as explained earlier) this comes the “Protocol Based on a Framework
Treaty” function of the Protocol.
But there’s a large amount of misinterpretation within the industry as to what a
NOx-compliant engine is. Tested in the factory, levels may comply with the limits, but
the Code requires the engine to be surveyed every year, in order for the Flag
Administration (or class on their behalf) to issue an International Air Pollution Prevention
(IAPP) Certificate.

There are basically two ways to achieve this. The Engine Parameter Check Method or
Direct Measurement and Monitoring Method.

The first method involves a surveyor coming onboard and carrying out a check of record
books covering engine parameters and an actual inspection of NOx influencing engine
components and adjustable features (which involves stripping the engine). However, the
downside is that incurs an inspection fee, is disruptive and necessitates the installation of
manufacturers’ original NOx-related components.

The second method works by having a NOx analyser fitted onboard the vessel, which
takes readings once every 30 days, with data stored on a CD or mini-disk and handed to
the Administration. The annual survey is then reduced to an inspection of the monitoring
system and data alone, probably only half an hour’s exercise, in order for them to issue an
IAPP. However, here the challenge is to ensure that the system is secure and
tamper-proof.

Example

There is a company called MARTEK that has spent three years perfecting its new
MariNOx Engine Emissions Monitoring System, which it claims offers the simplest
solution for compliance with Annex VI and The NOx Technical Code. Constant
monitoring of emissions also allows optimisation of engine performance, allowing fuel
savings of up to 4%, says MARTEK, therefore providing rapid payback of the system’s
cost of around $100,000. Testing has already taken place aboard a tanker of over 100,000
DWT at different engine loads, and both the owner and MARTEK are reported to be
‘delighted’ with results. Once this system, and others developed in the future, becomes
marketable, the cost will definitely come down. And, research and further development in
this area will catch on in the immediate future, as it is now a requirement by law
(MARPOL) to have NOX compliant engines.
 Latest amendments to MARPOL 73/78 – From 2008 to 2013

Year of Adoption of Entry in force Section / What is the amendment?

Amendment Amendment of the Chapter
amendment effected

2008 October 2008 1 July 2010 Annex VI Review of the NOX Technical Code - after
(Revised entry into force of Annex VI, in 2005, IMO
agreed on the need to undertake a review of
Annex VI) the Annex and the associated Technical
Code, to take account of current technology
and the need to further reduce emissions from
ships. The review was concluded in April
2008. The revised NOX Technical Code 2008
will become effective as part of the
amendments.

New fuel standards - The MEPC session also

discussed the development of new fuel
standards by the International Standards
Organisation as a parallel initiative to the
Annex VI revision. The ISO has agreed to
produce the fuel specification before July
2010.

Cleaner burning distillate fuels - A revision

of existing marine pollution laws, broadly fall
into two phases. The first will see cleaner
burning distillate fuels substituted for
sulphur-high fuel oils in SECA. This will see
a progressive reduction in 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. This
means ships in the middle of the ocean will
be able to burn fuels higher in sulphur
content until 2020, when sulphur limits fall
heavily to 0.5 percent.

Stricter laws in SECA - The IMO has further

agreed to impose sulphur limits in the SECA.
The limits applicable in SECA 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. The tightening is needed to slash
sulphur emissions in coastal areas, which
SECA aim to protect.
2009 2009 1 January 2011 Annex 1 MARPOLAnnex I amendments -
transfer of oil cargo between oil
tankers at sea
amendments to MARPOL Annex I
for the prevention of marine
pollution during some ship-to-ship
(STS) oil transfer operations.
The new chapter 8 on Prevention of
pollution during transfer of oil cargo
between oil tankers at sea will apply
to oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage
and above and will require any oil
tanker involved in oil cargo STS
operations to have, on board, a plan
prescribing how to conduct STS
operations (the STS Plan), which
would be approved by its
Administration.
Notification to the relevant coastal
State will be required not less than
48 hours in advance of the scheduled
STS operations although some
relaxation to this rule is allowed in
certain, very specific, cases. The
regulations are not intended to apply
to bunkering operations.
Consequential amendments to the
International Oil Pollution
Prevention (IOPP) Certificate, the
Supplement to the IOPP Certificate
and the Oil Record Book.
MARPOL Annex I Oil residue
(sludge) amendments
Amendments to MARPOL Annex I
regulations 1, 12, 13, 17 and 38,
relating to the on board management
of oil residue (sludge). The
amendments clarify long standing
requirements and remove existing
ambiguities in order to facilitate
compliance by ships' crews.
Definitions for oil residue (sludge),
oil residue (sludge) tanks, oily bilge
water and oily bilge water holding
tanks are introduced for the first
time.
Related amendments to the
Supplement to the IOPP Certificate,
Form A and Form B, and to the Oil
Record Book.
Year of Adoption of Entry in Section / What is the amendment?
Amendment Amendment force of the Chapter
amendment effected
2010 March 2010 1st August 2011 Annex VI & Amendments to MARPOL Annex
Annex I VI (Prevention of air pollution from
ships) to formally establish a North
American Emission Control Area,
in which emissions of sulphur
oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and particulate matter from
ships will be subject to more
stringent controls than the limits
that apply globally.

New MARPOL regulation, to

protect the Antarctic from pollution
by heavy grade oils, in MARPOL
Annex I (Regulations for the
prevention of pollution by oil) on
Special requirements for the use
or carriage of oils in the
Antarctic area, a new chapter 9
with a new regulation 43, which
would prohibit the carriage, in bulk
as cargo, or carriage and use as
fuel, of: crude oils having a density,
at 15°C, higher than 900 kg/m3;
oils, other than crude oils, having a
density, at 15°C, higher than 900
kg/m3 or a kinematic viscosity, at
50°C, higher than 180 mm2/s; or
bitumen, tar and their emulsions.
An exception is envisaged for
vessels engaged in securing the
safety of ships or in a search-and-
rescue operation.
2011 July 2011 1st January Annex IV, V Annex VI energy efficiency
2013 & VI
Amendments to MARPOL Annex
VI Regulations for the prevention
of air pollution from ships, add a
new chapter 4 to make mandatory
the Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI), for new ships, and the Ship
Energy Efficiency Management
Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Other
amendments to Annex VI add new
definitions and the requirements for
survey and certification, including
the format for the International
Energy Efficiency Certificate.

The regulations apply to all ships of

400 gross tonnage and above.
However, under regulation 19, the
Administration may waive the
requirement for new ships of 400
gross tonnage and above from
complying with the EEDI
requirements. This waiver may not
be applied to ships above 400 gross
tonnage for which the building
contract is placed four years after
the entry into force date of chapter
4; the keel of which is laid or which
is at a similar stage of construction
four years and six months after the
entry into force; the delivery of
which is after six years and six
months after the entry into force; or
in cases of the major conversion of
a new or existing ship, four years
after the entry into force date. The
EEDI is a non-prescriptive,
performance-based mechanism that
leaves the choice of technologies to
use in a specific ship design to the
industry. As long as the required
energy-efficiency level is attained,
ship designers and builders would
be free to use the most cost-
efficient solutions for the ship to
comply with the regulations.

The SEEMP establishes a

mechanism for operators to
improve the energy efficiency of
ships.
Annex VI emissions

Amendments to MARPOL Annex

VI Regulations for the prevention
of air pollution from ships to
designate certain waters adjacent to
the coasts of Puerto Rico (United
States) and the Virgin Islands
(United States) as an ECA for the
control of emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulphur oxides
(SOX), and particulate matter
under. Another amendment makes
old steamships exempt from the
requirements on sulphur relating to
both the North American and
United States Caribbean Sea ECAs.
The new ECA takes effect 12
months after entry into force.

Annex IV sewage

Amendments to MARPOL Annex

IV Prevention of pollution by
sewage from ships to include the
possibility of establishing “Special
Areas” for the prevention of such
pollution from passenger ships and
to designate the Baltic Sea as a
Special Area under this Annex.

Annex V garbage

Revised MARPOL Annex V

Regulations for the prevention of
pollution by garbage from ships,
developed following a
comprehensive review to bring the
Annex up to date.
 The main changes include the
updating of definitions; the
inclusion of a new requirement
specifying that discharge of all
garbage into the sea is prohibited,
except as expressly provided
otherwise (the discharges permitted
in certain circumstances include
food wastes, cargo residues and
water used for washing deck and
external surfaces containing
cleaning agents or additives which
are not harmful to the marine
environment); expansion of the
requirements for placards and
garbage management plans to fixed
and floating platforms engaged in
exploration and exploitation of the
sea-bed; and the addition of
discharge requirements covering
animal carcasses.
2010 October 2010 1st January Annex VI Revised MARPOL Annex III
2014 Regulations for the prevention of
pollution by harmful substances
carried by sea in packaged
form adopted in order for changes
to the Annex to coincide with the
next update of the mandatory
International Maritime Dangerous
Goods (IMDG) Code, specifying
that goods should be shipped in
accordance with relevant
provisions.
 AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL
ANNEX I TO ADD CHAPTER 9 –
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE USE OR CARRIAGE OF OILS
IN THE ANTARCTIC AREA

A new chapter 9 is added as follows:

"CHAPTER 9 – SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE
OR CARRIAGE OF OILS IN THE
ANTARCTIC AREA

Regulation 43
Special requirements for the use or
carriage of oils in the Antarctic area
1 With the exception of vessels engaged
in securing the safety of ships or in a
search and rescue operation, the carriage
in bulk as cargo or carriage and use as
fuel of the following:
.1 crude oils having a density at 15°C
higher than 900 kg/m3;
.2 oils, other than crude oils, having a
density at 15°C higher than 900 kg/m3
or a kinematic viscosity at 50°C higher
than 180 mm2/s; or
.3 bitumen, tar and their emulsions, shall
be prohibited in the Antarctic area, as
defined in Annex I, regulation 1.11.7.
2 When prior operations have included
the carriage or use of oils listed in
paragraphs 1.1 to 1.3 of this regulation,
the cleaning or flushing of tanks or
pipelines is not required." (Resolution
MEPC.189 (60) deals with the
amendment to MARPOL 73/78 by
adding a new chapter (Chapter 9)
comprising a new regulation (Regulation
43) to Annex I of the Convention. The
new Regulation 43 stipulates the special
requirements for the use or carriage of
oils in the Antarctic area including the
prohibition of the use and carriage of
Heavy Grade Oil in the area.)
2011 1 August 2012 Annex VI Effective date for North American
ECA
North American Emission Control
Area (SOx, and NOx and PM)
becomes effective, under MARPOL
Annex VI.
2011 July 2011 1 January 2013 Annex IV & : entry into force of July 2011
VI amendments to MARPOL
Annex VI energy efficiency

Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI

Regulations for the prevention of air
pollution from ships, add a new
chapter 4 to make mandatory the
Energy Efficiency Design Index
(EEDI), for new ships, and the Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan
(SEEMP) for all ships. Other
amendments to Annex VI add new
definitions and the requirements for
survey and certification, including the
format for the International Energy
Efficiency Certificate.

The regulations apply to all ships of

400 gross tonnage and above.
However, under regulation 19, the
Administration may waive the
requirement for new ships of 400 gross
tonnage and above from complying
with the EEDI requirements. This
waiver may not be applied to ships
above 400 gross tonnage for which the
building contract is placed four years
after the entry into force date of
chapter 4; the keel of which is laid or
which is at a similar stage of
construction four years and six months
after the entry into force; the delivery
of which is after six years and six
months after the entry into force; or in
cases of the major conversion of a new
or existing ship, four years after the
entry into force date.
The EEDI is a non-prescriptive,
performance-based mechanism that
leaves the choice of technologies to use
in a specific ship design to the
industry. As long as the required
energy-efficiency level is attained, ship
designers and builders would be free to
use the most cost-efficient solutions for
the ship to comply with the
regulations.

The SEEMP establishes a mechanism

for operators to improve the energy
efficiency of ships.

Annex VI emissions

Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI

Regulations for the prevention of air
pollution from ships to designate
certain waters adjacent to the coasts of
Puerto Rico (United States) and the
Virgin Islands (United States) as an
ECA for the control of emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur oxides
(SOX), and particulate matter under.
Another amendment makes old
steamships exempt from the
requirements on sulphur relating to
both the North American and United
States Caribbean Sea ECAs. The new
 Annex IV sewage

Amendments to MARPOL Annex IV

Prevention of pollution by sewage
from ships to include the possibility of
establishing “Special Areas” for the
prevention of such pollution from
passenger ships and to designate the
Baltic Sea as a Special Area under this
Annex.

Annex V garbage

Revised MARPOL Annex V

Regulations for the prevention of
pollution by garbage from ships,
developed following a comprehensive
review to bring the Annex up to date.
The main changes include the updating
of definitions; the inclusion of a new
requirement specifying that discharge
of all garbage into the sea is prohibited,
except as expressly provided otherwise
(the discharges permitted in certain
circumstances include food wastes,
cargo residues and water used for
washing deck and external surfaces
containing cleaning agents or additives
which are not harmful to the marine
environment); expansion of the
requirements for placards and garbage
management plans to fixed and
floating platforms engaged in
exploration and exploitation of the sea-
bed; and the addition of discharge
requirements covering animal
carcasses.
2012 1 August 2013 Annexes I, II,
IV, V and VI Amendments to MARPOL Annexes I,
II, IV, V and VI which are aimed at
enabling small island developing States
to comply with requirements for port
States to provide reception facilities for
ship waste through regional
arrangements. Parties participating in a
regional arrangement must develop a
Regional Reception Facilities Plan and
provide particulars of the identified
Regional Ships Waste Reception
Centres; and particulars of those ports
with only limited facilities.
2010 October 2010 1 January 2014 Annexes III and Entry into force of 2010 October
VI MARPOL amendments
Revised MARPOL Annex III
Regulations for the prevention of
pollution by harmful substances
carried by sea in packaged
form adopted in order for changes to
the Annex to coincide with the next
update of the mandatory International
Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code, specifying that goods should be
shipped in accordance with relevant
provisions.

United States Caribbean ECA

becomes effective

United States Caribbean Sea Emission

Control Area (SOx, NOx and PM)
becomes effective, under MARPOL
Annex VI.

2010 October MARPOL amendments which entered into force on 1 January 2014

1. A revised MARPOL Annex III Regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful
substances carried by sea in packaged form, to include changes to the Annex to coincide
with the next update of the mandatory International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code, specifying that goods should be shipped in accordance with relevant provisions.

2. United States Caribbean Emission Control Area (ECA) now effective - The United States
Caribbean Sea Emission Control Area (SOx, NOx and PM) came into effect, under
MARPOL Annex VI, on 1 January 2014, bringing in stricter controls on emissions of
sulphur oxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter for ships trading in
certain waters adjacent to the coasts of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.
 Latest Amendments to SOLAS 74
Introduction and history

The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most
important of all international conventions 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 10.

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 incorporated 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.

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

There are two ways to make amendments to SOLAS.

The first one is done at the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) itself. Amendments
proposed by a Contracting Government are circulated at least six months before
consideration by the 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 (remember, MSC consists of all member
states).

Amendments by a Conference

The second method for amendments is by calling a diplomatic conference of Contracting

Governments. When Contracting Government requests the holding of a Conference and
at least one-third of Contracting Governments agree to hold the Conference.

10
As mentioned in my lecture on IMO, the SOLAS Convention of 1914, 1929 and 1948 were adopted by CMI (The International
Maritime Committee) – that is before IMO came into existence. When IMO met for the first time in 1959, the SOLAS Convention
was adopted in 1960.
Amendments are adopted by a two-thirds majority of Contracting Governments present
and voting. 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 deem acceptance date: 12
months minimum; deemed acceptance to entry into force: six months.
 Latest amendments to SOLAS 74 – From 2008 to 2013

Year of Adoption of Entry in force Section / What is the amendment?

Amendment Amendment of the Chapter
amendment effected
2007 October 2007 1st July 2009 Chapter IV 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).
See also resolution A.1001 (25)
Criteria for the provision of mobile-
satellite communication systems in the
GMDSS adopted by the IMO
Assembly at its 25th session in
November 2007.
2007 October 2007 1st July 2009 Chapter VI 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).
2007 October 2007 1st July 2009 INF Code Amendment to the International Code
for the Safe Carriage of Packaged
Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and
High-Level Radioactive Wastes on
Board Ships (INF Code), specifically,
to Chapter 2, on Damage Stability, to
bring it into line with updates to
SOLAS.
2007 October 2007 1st July 2009 Annex 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.
Year of Adoption of Entry in Section / What is the amendment?
Amendment Amendment force of the Chapter
amendment effected
2008 December 1st July 2010 Amendments to the SOLAS
2008 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.
2008 December 1st January 2011 Amendments to SOLAS chapter
2008 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.
2009 June 2009 1st January 2011 ECDIS and BNWAS to be
made mandatory under
SOLAS
Amendments to SOLAS
regulation V/19, to make
mandatory the carriage of
Electronic Chart Display and
Information Systems (ECDIS)
and Bridge Navigational Watch
Alarm Systems (BNWAS), under
SOLAS chapter V, Safety of
 Navigation. The requirements
will be mandatory for new ships
and phased-in for existing ships.
Other SOLAS amendments
an amendment to SOLAS
regulation II-1/3-5.2, to prohibit
all new installations of asbestos
on board ships, without
exceptions; and
amendments to the title of
Chapter VI to read, Carriage of
Cargoes "and Oil Fuels" and to
Regulation VI/5-1 on Material
safety data sheets (MSDS) to
require MSDS to be provided for
ships carrying oil or oil fuel,
prior to the loading of such oil as
cargo in bulk or bunkering of oil
fuel. The MSC also approved
Recommendations for material
safety data sheets (MSDS) for
MARPOL Annex I type cargoes
and oil fuels.

2010 May 2010 1st January 2012 Chapter II Goal-based standards

International Goal based Ship
Construction Standards for Bulk
Carriers and Oil Tankers, along
with amendments to Chapter II-1.
The new SOLAS regulation II-
1/3-10 will apply to oil tankers
and bulk carriers of 150m in
length and above. It will require
new ships to be designed and
constructed for a specified design
life and to be safe and
environmentally friendly, in
intact and specified damage
conditions, throughout their life.
Under the regulation, ships
should have adequate strength,
integrity and stability to minimize
the risk of loss of the ship or
pollution to the marine
environment due to structural
failure, including collapse,
resulting in flooding or loss of
watertight integrity.

Corrosion and fire protection

A new SOLAS regulation II-1/3-
11 on Corrosion protection of
cargo oil tanks of crude oil
tankers, to require all such tanks
to be protected against corrosion,
with related performance
standards also adopted.
 Amendments to SOLAS
regulation II-2/4.5.7 on Gas
measurement and detection and to
SOLAS regulation II-2/7.4.1
relating to fixed fire detection and
fire alarm systems. Amendments
to the International Code for Fire
Safety Systems (FSS Code).

2011 May 2011 1st January 2013 Chapter III A new paragraph 5 of SOLAS
regulation III/1 is added to
require lifeboat on-load release
mechanisms not complying
with new International Life-
Saving Appliances (LSA) Code
requirements to be replaced no
later than the first scheduled
dry-docking of the ship after 1
July 2014 but, in any case, not
later than 1 July 2019.

The SOLAS amendment is

intended to establish new,
stricter, safety standards for
lifeboat release and retrieval
systems, aimed at preventing
accidents during lifeboat
launching, and will require the
assessment and possible
replacement of a large number
of lifeboat release hooks.

2012 May 2012 1st January 2014

Amendments to the following:

• SOLAS regulation II-1/8-1, to

introduce a mandatory requirement
for new passenger ships for either
onboard stability computers or
shore-based support, for the
purpose of providing operational
information to the Master for safe
return to port after a flooding
casualty;

• SOLAS regulation III/20.11.2

regarding the testing of free-fall
lifeboats, to require that the
operational testing of free-fall
lifeboat release systems shall be
performed either by free-fall
launch with only the operating
crew on board or by a simulated
launching;

• SOLAS regulation V/14 on ships'

manning, to require
 Administrations, for every ship, to
establish appropriate minimum
safe manning levels following a
transparent procedure, taking into
account the guidance adopted by
IMO (Assembly resolution A.1047
(27) on Principles of minimum
safe manning); and issue an
appropriate minimum safe
manning document or equivalent
as evidence of the minimum safe
manning considered necessary;

• SOLAS chapter VI to add a new

SOLAS regulation VI/5-2, to
prohibit the blending of bulk liquid
cargoes during the sea voyage and
to prohibit production processes on
board ships;

• SOLAS chapter VII to replace

regulation 4 on documents,
covering transport information
relating to the carriage of
dangerous goods in packaged form
and the container/vehicle packing
certificate; and

• SOLAS chapter XI-1 regulation

XI-1/2 on enhanced surveys, to
make mandatory the International
Code on the Enhanced Programme
of Inspections during Surveys of
Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers,
2011 (2011 ESP Code, resolution
A.1049(27)).

A number of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) and the 1988 Load Lines Protocol entered into force or took effect from 1
January 2014.

2012 May SOLAS amendments which entered into force on 1 January 2014

1. Amendment to SOLAS regulation II-1/8-1, to introduce a mandatory requirement

for new passenger ships for either onboard stability computers or shore-based
support, for the purpose of providing operational information to the Master for
safe return to port after a flooding casualty;

2. Amendment to SOLAS regulation III/20.11.2 regarding the testing of free-fall

lifeboats, to require that the operational testing of free-fall lifeboat release systems
shall be performed either by free-fall launch with only the operating crew on
board or by a simulated launching;
 3. Amendment to SOLAS chapter V to add a new regulation V/14 on ships'
manning, to require Administrations, for every ship, to establish appropriate
minimum safe manning levels following a transparent procedure, taking into
account the guidance adopted by IMO (Assembly resolution A.1047(27) on
Principles of minimum safe manning); and issue an appropriate minimum safe
manning document or equivalent as evidence of the minimum safe manning
considered necessary;

4. Amendment to SOLAS chapter VI to add a new regulation VI/5-2, to prohibit the

blending of bulk liquid cargoes during the sea voyage and to prohibit production
processes on board ships;

5. Amendment to SOLAS chapter VII to replace regulation 4 on documents,

covering transport information relating to the carriage of dangerous goods in
packaged form and the container/vehicle packing certificate; and

6. Amendment to SOLAS regulation XI-1/2 on enhanced surveys, to make

mandatory the International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections
during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, 2011 (2011 ESP Code,
resolution A.1049(27)).

1. Southern tip of Africa further southward by 50 miles, came into effect on 1

January 2014.

SOLAS Amendments Enter Into Force – 1st July 2014

New requirements under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) to require all ships to have plans and procedures to recover persons from the
water are among a set of SOLAS amendments entered into force on 1 July 2014.

1. Recovery of persons from the water

The SOLAS amendments, adopted in 2012, were developed as part of the International
Maritime Organization (IMO)’s work on large passenger ship safety and are aimed at
ensuring all ships have the capability to effectively serve as a rescue asset and have the
right equipment to be able to rescue persons from the water and from survival craft, in the
event of an incident.

This new requirement is intended to enhance safety at sea and also to provide support to
search and rescue coordinators in all types of rescue operations and, particularly, in those
situations where there is insufficient dedicated search and rescue capacity or access to
helicopters and specialized rescue craft is limited.

The ship’s plans and procedures should take into account related Guidelines for the
development of plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water
(MSC.1/Circ.1447).
Ships constructed before 1 July 2014 are required to comply with the requirement by the
first periodical or renewal safety equipment survey of the ship to be carried out after 1
July 2014,whichever comes first.

The implementation of the requirements on ships to which SOLAS does not apply is
encouraged under a related MSC resolution, also adopted in 2012, which invites SOLAS
Contracting Governments to determine to what extent the requirements should apply to:
cargo ships of a gross tonnage below 500 engaged on any voyage; cargo ships of a gross
tonnage of 500 and above not engaged on international voyages; passenger ships not
engaged on international voyages; fishing vessels; high-speed craft; dynamically
supported craft; special purpose ship; and mobile offshore drilling units.

For seafarers, IMO has issued A Pocket Guide to Recovery Techniques (IMO I947E).

2. Reducing on-board noise

Also entering into force on 1 July 2014 is the new SOLAS regulation II-1/3-12, which
requires new ships to be constructed to reduce on-board noise and to protect personnel
from noise, in accordance with the revised Code on noise levels on board ships, which
sets out mandatory maximum noise level limits for machinery spaces, control rooms,
workshops, accommodation and other spaces on board ships.

3. Fire-fighter communication on-board

Amendments to SOLAS regulation II-2/10 on fire fighting enter into force on 1 July
2014, to require a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for each
fire party for fire fighters’ communication to be carried. The apparatus shall be of an
explosion-proof type or intrinsically safe. Ships constructed before 1 July 2014 shall
comply with the above requirements not later than the first survey after 1 July 2018.

4. Instructions, on-board training and drills

Further amendments to regulation II-2/15 on instructions, on-board training and drills

require an on-board means of recharging breathing apparatus cylinders used during drills,
or a suitable number of spare cylinders.

5. Protection of vehicle, special category and RO-RO spaces

Another amendment to regulation II-2/20 on protection of vehicle, special category and

RO-RO spaces related to fixed fire-extinguishing systems, updates the requirements. The
amendments apply to ships constructed on or after 1 July 2014. Ships constructed before
1 July 2014 shall comply with the previously applicable requirements.

6. Forms of certificates and records of equipment

Other amendments to the appendix to the annex to the SOLAS Convention replace all
forms of certificates and records of equipment, including its 1988 Protocol, and further
amendments relate to the forms of the Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate and
Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate of its 1978 Protocol.

7. Container convention amendments

Also entering into force on 1 July 2014 are amendments to the International Convention
for Safe Containers (CSC), 1972, which were adopted in 2013 by resolution MSC.355
(92), to incorporate and facilitate the entry into force of amendments to the CSC
Convention adopted in 1993 by resolution A.737 (18), including amendments relating to
the form of the safety approval plate and to the approval of existing and new containers.
The amendments also introduce a transitional period for marking containers with
restricted stacking capacity and include a list of deficiencies which do not require an
immediate out-of-service decision by control officers, but require additional safety
measures to enable safe ongoing transport.

Latest Amendments to the STCW Convention (Manila

Amendments 2010)
The 1978 STCW Convention – A brief explanation

The 1978 STCW Convention was the first to establish basic requirements on training,
certification and watch-keeping for seafarers on an international level. Previously
individual governments established the standards of training, certification and watch
keeping of officers and ratings, 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

watch keeping for seafarers which countries are obliged to meet or exceed.

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 Party 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 STCW Code

Sections in the STCW Code support the regulations contained in the Convention.
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.
Amendment Procedure

Amendments to the 1978 STCW Convention's technical Annex may be adopted by a

Conference of STCW Parties or by IMO 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 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 Port State Control inspectors will increasingly target ships flying flags
of countries that are not on the White List. 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.

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 were required to provide detailed information to IMO

concerning administrative measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention by
means of giving details of compliance with the Convention, education and training
courses, certification procedures and other factors relevant to implementation. 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, and while port
State control also acts to ensure compliance.

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.

The main chapters dealing with the functions, responsibility and training of was revised
and up-date with respect to:

 Chapter II: Master and deck department

 Chapter III: Engine department
 Chapter IV: Radio communication and radio personnel

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.

Emergency, occupational safety, medical care and survival functions

Mandatory minimum requirements were included 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 fire-fighting; and mandatory minimum
requirements relating to medical first aid and medical care.

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.

Watch-keeping

Measures were introduced for watch-keeping personnel to prevent fatigue.

Administrations are required to establish and enforce rest periods for watch-keeping
personnel and to ensure that watch systems are so arranged that the efficiency of watch-
keeping personnel is not impaired by fatigue.

Use of simulators in training

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).

Revised STCW Convention and Code adopted at the Manila Conference –

June 2010

Conference of Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, Manila, the Philippines, 21-25 June
2010

1 January 2012: Entry into force of May 2010 amendments to SOLAS

It is widely known that IMO was holding a Diplomatic Conference in Manila,

Philippines, earlier this year to discuss amendments to STCW. What most people fail to
identify is the extent of revisions and the implementation realities behind that. To sort
things straight let’s see what happened step by step:
STCW Manila Amendments

On June 25th, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other major
stakeholders in the global shipping and manning industry formally ratified the so-called
"Manila Amendments" to the current Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and its associated Code. The amendments
aiming to bring the STCW up to date with developments since its conception and initial
adoption in 1978, and the subsequent amendments in 1995.

Entry Into Force

The Convention amendments will be adopted with a tacit acceptance procedure which
has been agreed indicating that amendments will be accepted by 1st July 2011 UNLESS
more than 50% of the parties to the STCW object such a development. As a result
STCW Amendments entered into force on January 1, 2012.

Enhancement of STCW Objectives

The following items outline the key improvements realised through the new
Amendments:

1. Certificates of Competency & endorsements to be issued only by Administration -

thereby reducing the possibility of fraudulent practices associated with issue of
certificates of competency.
2. Common medical standards for seafarers - seafarers from one country can serve
on board ships of another country without undergoing another medical exam.
3. Revalidation requirements rationalized for the benefit of the seafarer.
4. Introduction of modern training methodology i.e. distance learning and web based
learning.
5. Hours of rest harmonized with the requirements of ILO Maritime Labor
Convention (2006) with a view to reducing fatigue.
6. Requirements introduced to avoid alcohol and substance abuse.
7. New Competencies required to be built and curriculum to be updated in life with
modern developments and real life needs
8. Refresher Training is properly addressed within the convention

A brief outline of key curriculum upgrades is as follows:

Chapter I General provisions

 Regulation I/2 : Only Administrations to issue COC & maintain electronic

database for verification of authenticity
 Regulation I/3 : near coastal voyage requirements made more clear, including
principals governing such voyages and entering "into an undertaking" with the
Parties concerned (flag and coastal states)
 Regulation I/4 : PSC Assessment of seafarer watch keeping & security standards -
"Compromise to security" in the list
 Regulation I/6 : Guidance on e-learning
 Regulation I/9 : Medical standards updated in line with ILO MLC Requirements
 Regulation I/11 : revalidation requirements made more rational and includes
revalidation requirements for tanker endorsements
  Regulation I/14 : companies responsible for refresher training of seafarers on their
ships

STCW Chapter II Support Level

Chapter Two is the section on the deck department. The principal change in Chapter II is
the addition of an Able Seafarer - Deck Rating. This is separate from the Rating Forming
Part of a Navigational Watch (RFPNW).
Based on sea time requirements, it will be critical for a mariner to get their RFPNW
qualification as early in their career as possible. Sea time toward an AB qualification will
not start until RFPNW qualifications have been met and any sea time toward subsequent
licenses will require the AB endorsement. This will require training and testing and will
be a new section called A-II/5.

STCW Chapter II Operational and Management Level

Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) will be required training for
all deck officers on all vessels that are equipped with ECDIS. ECDIS will be treated the
same as ARPA or the GMDSS training, where it is an STCW restriction from serving on
equipped vessels if you don't have these training certifications.
By 2012 nearly all vessels more than 200 gross tons will be required under a separate law
to have ECDIS equipment. By default, any deck officer on vessels of more than 200 tons
will need ECDIS training. There will be two levels of ECDIS, operational and
management dealing with the different responsibilities of each.
Bridge Resource Management, Teamwork and Leadership training will be mandatory at
both the operational and management levels.

STCW Chapter III Engineering

The principal change in Chapter III is the addition of an Able Seafarer - Engine Rating.
This is separate from the Rating Forming Part of an Engineering Watch.
Many countries have only had the RFPEW level and this new Able Seafarer Engine
rating will require the RFPEW to be STCW Compliant. This will require training and
testing and will be a new section called A-III/5.

Section A-III/1 will be reformatted and reorganized. You will no longer need to have the
30 months of approved training in the engine room. The wording will now be more
synchronized with the deck department and will read three years of sea service with one
year of combined work shop skills and six months of engine room watchstanding.
A new Electro Technical Officer (ETO) and an Electro Technical Rating (ETR) will be
added.

Engine Room Resource Management, Teamwork and Leadership training will be

mandatory at both the operational and management levels.

STCW Chapter V
Tankers and Tank Ships:

There will now be three categories of Tanker-man on tank ships.

 Oil
 Chemical
 Liquid Gas

In addition, each Tanker-man category will have two levels

 Basic (currently called assistant)
 Advanced (currently called Person in Charge (PIC)

The major change will be the division of the chemical from the oil and each requiring its
own sea service prerequisites on each type of vessel and specific training for each.
Additionally, there will be a specially designated Tanker Fire Fighting Course, although
some parties may allow Basic Fire Fighting courses to cover this requirement.

Passenger Vessels - There will be a consolidation of rules for passenger vessels.

Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV), Dynamic Positioning (DP) Vessels and Operations Ice
Covered Waters:
There will be a new section with guidance on special licensing or training requirements
for OSVs, Dynamic Positioning (DP) Vessels and vessels operating in water that are
covered in Ice.

STCW Chapter VI

Marine Environmental Issues:

The amendments will include the addition of marine environmental awareness issues in
the Personal Safety & Social Responsibilities course conducted as part of Basic Safety
Training as well as an operational level of marine environmental concerns at the STCW
Code A-II/1 and A-III/1 levels of Certification.

Basic Safety Training

The Personal Safety & Social Responsibilities (PSSR) coverage of the following subjects
will be added:

 Communications
 Control of Fatigue
 Teamwork

These additional subjects will make the PSSR module longer in length but it should still
be less than one day in length. However, this will cause an increase in the length of Basic
Safety Training courses from the usual five days to at least 5.5 days.

Refresher Safety Training:

One of the key elements of the STCW 2010 amendments appears to be the removal of
loopholes with respect to refresher training. The STCW Code, which was vague in this
area and many countries opted to interpret the "within five years" requirement loosely. It
has been decided that certain courses that may affect the safety and survival of the crew
and passengers in an emergency warrant periodic refresher training.

Refresher Training may take the form of e-learning, shipboard drills and training
or shore based training.

The safety courses will require refresher training every five years and the courses may be
abbreviated somewhat from the original course lengths. The training that will need to be
refreshed by an approved method (in class or shipboard - yet to be determined) are:

 Proficiency in Survival Craft and Rescue Boats

 Advanced Fire-fighting
 Basic Safety Training
 Fast Rescue Boat
 Medical Training

Security Training:

The amendments will include three levels of security training

 Level One - Security Awareness (All crew members)
 Level Two - Person with Security Duties
 Level Three - Ship Security Officer - ISPS Code

Anti Piracy training will be added to each level as well.

STCW Chapter VIII: Watch keeping

This section of the STCW Code will be harmonized with the Maritime Labour
Convention (MLC) Convention. The Maritime Labour Convention was signed in 2006
and was created to create regulations for seafarers right's so that there would be a global
minimum standard for how mariners are treated.

Harmonisation with IMO MLC

Where the IMO (International Maritime Organization) oversees the STCW Certification
Convention, the ILO (International Labour Organization) oversees the MLC Convention.
When the International Labour Organization adopted a "bill of rights" for the world's
maritime workers, all concerned - governments, seafarers and shipowners - hailed this
new labour standard as a landmark development for the world's most globalized sector.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had taken important steps to build
protections in the areas of safety, certification and pollution, but the sector was awash in
a wide range of international labour standards going back over eight decades. The ILO
Maritime Labour Convention 2006 modernizes these standards to:

1. Consolidate and update more than 60 earlier ILO Conventions and

Recommendations.
2. Set minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship.
3. Address conditions of employment, accommodation, recreational facilities, food
and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security
protection.
4. Promote compliance by operators and owners of ships by giving governments
sufficient flexibility to implement its requirements in a manner best adapted to
their individual laws and practices.
5. Strengthen enforcement mechanisms at all levels, including provisions for
complaint procedures available to seafarers, the shipowners' and shipmasters'
supervision of conditions on their ships, the flag States' jurisdiction and control
over their ships, and port state inspections of foreign ships.

Latest amendments to the LOAD LINE Convention 1966

International Convention on Load Lines, 1966

Adoption: 5 April 1966

Entry into force: 21 July 1968

Introduction and history

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 weather-tight 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 were made determining
the freeboard of tankers 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 explicit acceptance. The
Maritime Safety Committee, the IMO Assembly, could consider amendments 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 area
 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
 The 1983 amendments - to extend the summer and tropical zones southward off
the coast of Chile.

The 1988 Protocol

Adoption: 11 November 1988
Entry into force: 3 February 2000

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.

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: SUPERCEEDED BY THE 2003 AMENDMENTS (As mentioned
below)

The 2003 amendments

Adopted: June 2003
Entry into force: 1 January 2005 (under tacit acceptance)

The amendments to Annex B to the 1988 Load Lines Protocol (i.e. the International
Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as modified by the Protocol of 1988 relating thereto)
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 amount to a comprehensive revision of the technical
regulations of the original Load Lines Convention.

1 January 2014: Amendments to LL Protocol

Amendments to regulation 47 of the 1988 LL Protocol to the International Convention

on Load Lines (LL), 1966 to shift the Winter Seasonal Zone off the southern tip of
Africa further southward by 50 miles.

Conclusion

What has been presented above is an endeavour to help the student to comprehend the
various amendments and to bring home the point that any convention has to flexible
enough to incorporate the changing world of shipping. As more developments take place,
the conventions will be amended to incorporate the changes in order to keep pace.
Furthermore, the student should also realise that the conventions are normally made
keeping the future in mind and therefore they cannot be rigid.
Chapter 11: Control Procedures
Chapter 11 – Control Procedures
Introduction

All ocean-going vessels engaged in international commerce must have a country of

registry in order to operate in international waters. Accordingly, most countries provide
these registration services or flags of registry. These nations, which provide vessel
owners with comprehensive, competitive ship registry services and maritime expertise,
are all member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

In the competitive international shipping industry, there are a number of factors that must
be met for a valid registry. One of the most important is that a flag state be an IMO
member nation, which has adopted all of the IMO maritime safety Resolutions and
Conventions. Secondly, a flag state should have an established maritime organization that
is capable of enforcing all international and national regulations. Major flag registries
provide comprehensive maritime expertise and administrative services; require safety
inspections, and utilize recognized classification societies to monitor its vessels
compliance with all international and flag state standards.

Flag states have certain rules and requirements for vessels that fly their flags. Major
requirements include crew nationality, crew composition, ship owner citizenship and ship
building requirements. The construction requirement applies to the entire hull and
superstructure of the ship and the majority of all materials outfitting the vessel.

Regardless of the flag a vessel flies, compliance with, for example SOLAS, standards and
other internationally recognized conventions are monitored by the flag state since it is
their primary responsibility. The flag state has the main responsibility for ensuring that
its vessels meet all established international guidelines. The flag state conducts annual
ship examinations, which include a thorough inspection of the vessel and its safety
systems. As a result of these examinations, a vessel is certified to be in compliance with
all international safety standards. The effort of the flag state is also augmented by an
additional annual survey conducted by a classification society to certify a vessel’s
seaworthiness and structural integrity. The latter survey is done to ensure the
maintenance of Class.

Port states, that is, those countries at whose ports a vessel calls, also play an important
role in this regulatory framework. To ensure compliance with safety requirements, the
port state conducts inspections on all vessels visiting its ports. This cooperative effort
between flag and port states provides a maritime safety enforcement system, which has
proven effective over the years.

Then there are very localised inspections. These pertain to ascertain specific functions.
The case in point here is the vetting inspections conducted by the oil industry prior to
chartering a vessel. There is also a condition survey done by a P & I Club prior to
underwriting a vessel in its club to provide third party insurance cover. And finally, there
can also be a port terminal inspection which is highly a localised inspection pertaining to
 the existing laws being followed in a particular port. The following table will help
understand the concept of various control procedures.

Type of Entity Purpose Certificate issued, if any Types of survey

Flag State To ensure Statutory certificates Initial, annual, intermediate,
compliance with under, SOLAS, renewal for issuance and
international law MARPOL, STCW, Load- maintenance of statutory
line certificates
Classification Insurance Certificate of Class Initial, annual, intermediate,
Society renewal for the
MAINTENANCE of Class
Port State To ensure At the end of the said At random in a port.
Control CONTINUED inspection However, the randomness is
compliance with normally controlled if the port
international law (as state is a part of a regional
incorporated in their MOU
domestic law) as
well as a vested
interest in protecting
their territorial
waters
Vetting For tanker At the end of the said The entire vessel prior to
Inspections chartering inspection being chartered
Condition P & I Insurance The certificate from the The entire vessel prior to
surveys cover P & I Club to indicate the giving third party insurance
cover cover
Inspection by Depending on the At the end of the said Very local
Port Terminal local law inspection
Authority
What is the difference between an inspection and a survey?

An inspection is limited in scope. The intention is to get a feel (on part of the inspector) of how
the performance standards are being met. On the other hand, a survey is far more detailed. The
concept of the word “analysis” is very closely related to the process of a survey. It is analysis of
the whole situation be it the functioning of an equipment or the functioning of a “system” at
large. For instance, a PSC inspector begins his work on board the ship by an inspection that is
known as the preliminary inspection. If satisfied, he limits his inspection. But if he has reason to
believe that there is a lacuna in the normal functioning on board, then he is bound to go into the
details by starting an audit trail. It then becomes a survey. He will analyse whether the SMS on
board is functioning or not.

1. Flag State Control

The flag state is responsible, under international law, to ensure that a ship is maintained in a
safe, sound and seaworthiness condition. To ensure that the ship does so, the flag state inspects,
or arranges for inspection, the ship and issues what are called the statutory certificates. These
certificates are governed by conventions under international law such as, SOLAS, MARPOL,
Load-line, and STCW etc.

UNCLOS; Article 94 - Duties of the flag State

1. Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical
and social matters over ships flying its flag.

2. In particular every State shall:

(a) maintain a register of ships containing the names and particulars of ships flying its flag,
except those which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account
of their small size; and
(b) assume jurisdiction under its internal law over each ship flying its flag and its master,
officers and crew in respect of administrative, technical and social matters concerning the ship.

3. Every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety
at sea with regard, inter alia, to:
(a) the construction, equipment and seaworthiness of ships;
(b) the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the
applicable international instruments;
(c) the use of signals, the maintenance of communications and the prevention of collisions.

4. Such measures shall include those necessary to ensure:

(a) that each ship, before registration and thereafter at appropriate intervals, is surveyed by a
qualified surveyor of ships, and has on board such charts, nautical publications and navigational
equipment and instruments as are appropriate for the safe navigation of the ship

(b) that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who possess appropriate
qualifications, in particular in seamanship, navigation, communications and marine engineering,
and that the crew is appropriate in qualification and numbers for the type, size, machinery and
equipment of the ship;

(c) that the master, officers and, to the extent appropriate, the crew are fully conversant with and
required to observe the applicable international regulations concerning the safety of life at sea,
the prevention of collisions, the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution, and the
maintenance of communications by radio.

5. In taking the measures called for in paragraphs 3 and 4 each State is required to conform to
generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps
which may be necessary to secure their observance.

6. A State which has clear grounds to believe that proper jurisdiction and control with respect to
a ship have not been exercised may report the facts to the flag State. Upon receiving such a
report, the flag State shall investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to
remedy the situation.

7. Each State shall cause an inquiry to be held by or before a suitably qualified person or
persons into every marine casualty or incident of navigation on the high seas involving a ship
flying its flag and causing loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State or serious
damage to ships or installations of another State or to the marine environment.

The flag State and the other State shall co-operate in the conduct of any inquiry held by that
other State into any such marine casualty or incident of navigation.

Statutory Certificates

Surveyors thoroughly review a vessel's documentation (certificates) to ensure that they comply
with international standards with regard to safety, pollution prevention and safe manning during
the intervals mandated by the various conventions. Surveys must be completed within the
required survey window as stipulated under the international law. The surveys are conducted for
the issuance, and subsequent maintenance, of the following certificates:

Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate

Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate

Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate:

- Lifesaving Appliance.
- Fire fighting Equipment
- Navigation Equipment

Load Line Certificate

Documentation, and Safe Manning certificate
Accommodations, provisions, and working spaces

It is the responsibility of the flag state to ensure adherence, by a ship, to international law with
regard to housekeeping under the ILO Convention 147. The above certification ensures the
compliance with five major conventions namely, SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, Load-line and
ILO 147.

All the above certificates have a validity of five years. During this period, the ship is surveyed
annually, periodically (intermediate survey) and finally at the end of five years for renewal. The
extent of survey and the time spent in conducting a survey varies at each survey. This is a
function of the age, type and size of the vessel and the survey can extend from a few hours to a
few weeks!

2. Classification Surveys
When the vessel is being built, it has now become imperative by tradition and practice of the
shipping world over the years that the ship is classed by a classification society. The
classification society starts its work from the approval of plans prior to the commencement of
construction. During the entire period the ship is under construction, a classification surveyor
will survey the workmanship of construction. The objective here is of course from the future
insurance point of view, but a ship owner today cannot afford to function without the
certification from a classification society. So, in a nutshell, the scope of classification is:


verify compliance with the applicable rules

 rd by a classification
society surveyor(s), and at the relevant production facilities that provide key components
such as the steel, engine, generators and castings, to verify that the vessel is constructed
in accordance with the classification rules

 on satisfactory completion of the above, the ship owner’s request for the issuance
of a class certificate will be considered by the relevant classification committee, or
another body, of the class society and, if deemed satisfactory, the assignment of class
will be approved and a certificate of classification issued


periodical class surveys, carried out onboard the vessel, to verify that the ship continues
to meet the relevant rule conditions for continuation of class.

A classification survey is therefore a visual examination that normally consists of:

-
-
- and trials where applicable.

 When a surveyor identifies corrosion, structural defects or damage to hull,

machinery and/or any piece of its equipment which, in the opinion of the surveyor, affects the
ship’s class, remedial measures and/or appropriate recommendations/conditions of class are
implemented before the ship continues in service.

 ‘Recommendation’ and ‘condition of class’ are synonymous terms used by IACS

societies for requirements that specific measures, repairs, request for surveys etc., are to be
carried out by the owner within a specified time period in order to retain class.

 Each classed vessel is subject to a specified program of periodic surveys after

delivery. These are based on a five-year cycle and consist of annual surveys, an intermediate
survey and a class renewal/special survey (held every 5 years). The rigor of each specified survey
increases with the age of the vessel.

 The class renewal surveys/special surveys include extensive out-of-water

examinations to verify that the structure, main and essential auxiliary machinery, systems and
equipment of the ship remain in a condition, which satisfies the rules. The examination of the
hull is supplemented, when specified, by ultrasonic thickness measurements and the witnessing
of tests as specified in the rules and as deemed necessary by the attending surveyor. The survey
is intended to assess whether the structural integrity remains effective and to identify areas that
exhibit substantial corrosion, significant deformation, fractures, damages or other structural
deterioration.
 The intermediate survey (held approximately half way between special surveys)
includes examinations and checks as specified in the rules to determine whether the ship
remains in a general condition, which satisfies the rule requirements. According to the type and
age of the ship, dry-docking may be required and the examinations of the hull may be
supplemented by ultrasonic thickness measurements as specified in the rules and where deemed
necessary by the attending surveyor.

 At the time of annual surveys, the ship is generally examined. The survey
includes an external, general inspection of the hull, equipment and machinery of the ship and
some witnessing of tests, so far as is necessary and practical in order to determine whether the
ship remains in a general condition which satisfies the Rule requirements. Older ships of certain
types may also be subject to a general examination of some specified internal areas of the hull.
Depending upon the age, size, type and condition of the vessel, an annual survey may take from
several hours to a few days to complete.

What is the difference between classification and certification?

Certification is a one-time verification that something meets a standard. Certification is a

process that ensures that a system complies with national, international, industry or other
standards at the time of certification. The process of Certification generally concerns systems
that will become part of the ship.

Classification is part of a life-long process to assure a ship is built and maintained to

industry-accepted standards. There are four steps to it:

1. Development of Rules of Classification: Rules are developed in accordance with field and
engineering experience and are reviewed and approved by an extensive committee system of
foremost industry experts. Thus the Rules are acceptable to a broad spectrum of owners,
charterers, operators, and the class society’s in-house experts. Not all classification societies
have such a "public" Rule-making process.

2. Design Review: Designers of marine vessels submit their designs to classification society (of
their choice) engineers to verify that requirements have been met. Lists of requirements for
submittals are found in each society’s set of Rules or Guides.

3. Survey during construction. Approved design drawings are sent to classification surveyors at
vendor shops and fabrication yards. There the surveyors confirm that the equipment as built
conforms to the requirements and the approved drawings.

4. Surveys after construction. Once commissioned, periodic surveys as well as damage and
repair surveys, are performed throughout the life of the ship to ensure that the ship remains in
compliance with the classification rules, thereby enhancing the safety of the ship and the
protection of the environment. Classification surveyors visit each vessel at least every 15
months over a five-year cycle. An "Intermediate" survey is conducted after two and a half years.
Once each five years a comprehensive survey is performed, a "Special" survey, including dry-
docking.

Harmonization of surveys

A brief word on harmonisation. On going through the write up so far, you may have a feeling
that why the same issue has to be surveyed more than once? Well, the answer is that each survey
has a different purpose and therefore done by a different entity. This however does not mean
that there has to be too much of repetition in the concept of surveying a ship. And that is where
the IMO has brought about the scheme of harmonisation of surveys whereby, the various
entities co-operate with each other and try to survey at the same time. This not only reduces the
workload of the ship’s staff but also reduces the time spent.

3. Port State Control (this is also dealt with as a separate chapter)

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the
condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international
regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules.

Many of IMO most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be inspected
when they visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet IMO requirements.
These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag State implementation, but
experience has shown that they can be extremely effective, especially if organized on a regional
basis. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region
before embarking on its return voyage and it is to everybody's advantage if inspections can be
closely co-ordinated.

This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected but at the same time prevents ships
being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships' standards rests
with the flag State - but port State control provides a "safety net" to catch substandard ships.

A point to also be noted is the fact that the vested interest of the government of a PSC inspection
is to ensure that its territory is not harmed by a visiting vessel in terms of safe operations and
preventing pollution to its environment.

Port State Control (PSC) is a ship inspection program whereby foreign vessels entering a
sovereign state’s waters are boarded and inspected to ensure compliance with various major
international maritime conventions, namely:

1. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),

2. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL),
International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watch keeping for
Seafarer (STCW),
3. Load Lines (LL),
4. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG)
5. International Labour Organization Convention No. 147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum
Standards) (ILO 147).

The level of survey conducted by a PSC inspector can go from a preliminary inspection to a
more detailed inspection of the entire vessel. This will be dependent upon the impression that he
gets while on board. What he will check is to ensure that there is a well-planned system of
operation on board. If satisfied at the initial stage, then he will limit his inspection otherwise; he
will start his detailed inspection.

4. Vetting Inspections

Ship vetting is an in-depth assessment of a ship with respect to its quality and that of its owner,
operator and manager, right from commissioning to current status. Vetting enables the charterer
to optimise vessel selection by matching available vessels to operational requirements of the
voyage and therefore maximising efficiency.

Brief History
Tanker ownership was traditionally with oil companies. Long-term time charters were becoming
increasingly rare with the spot charter market becoming very active.

In and around the ‘70s and ‘80s, the oil industry saw ownership of tankers gradually moving
from oil companies to independent ship owners. The pattern of tanker ownership moved from
the well-established independent ship owner with a substantial fleet to non-traditional shipping
interests, often with no active interest or experience in shipping. The fleet size was also small,
sometimes only a single ship representing the owner’s stake in the oil industry.

Ship managers began to play a growing and influential role in this changing world. The oil
industry, now being a major spot charterer of all types of tonnage, began to be concerned with
the quality of tankers. A number of member companies of an internationally well-established
organisation called the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) began the
development of ship vetting systems in the late '70s and early '80s. Each scheme was unique to
the individual company's needs. Recognising that different standards were sometimes being
applied, with consequent confusion amongst ship owners, OCIMF members developed
Inspection Guidelines for Oil Tankers in 1989, based on international conventions such as
SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW etc. and industry-accepted technical guidance such as ISGOTT
(International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals) and other standards.

Individual in-house databases enabled the oil company to form a reliable view of a ship's
suitability for charter. The number of major tanker accidents in 1989, ship quality and liability
issues assumed an even greater prominence in the oil industry. Besides vessels, there was a
realisation in the industry that shore-based management of the ship was important as well.
Therefore, OCIMF members began to assess the quality of ship management agencies,
operators, their policies and the implementation of those policies.

The Objectives of Vetting

The overall aim is to increase safety at sea and to decrease pollution. The following issues are
part of the broader perspective of ship vetting:

 To check whether the ship complies in every respect with international legislation and
with certain industrial standards
 To avoid major oil pollution cases because it damages the reputation of oil companies
and it involves enormous financial responsibilities.
 At the same time, the environment is better protected. To increase safety on board as
well as to better the safety management of a company
 To decrease the danger of explosion and/or fire and the ensuing damages for the terminal
installation and its surroundings
 To ensure that cargo is not carried on substandard ships
 There are too many implications if the cargo is damaged or lost due to substandard
vessels, owners, operators or managers.

There are at present mainly two initiatives working in this field:

(1). Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE) is a project worked out by OCIMF and concerns
the transport of oil by sea.
Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE)

With a significant increase in ship inspection activity, OCIMF members with ship vetting
programmes recognised that duplication of ship inspections was occurring and occasionally
several inspectors from oil companies, and indeed from other organisations such as Port State
Control and insurance interests, had been on board the ship at the same time seeking to carry out
inspections. Clearly, apart from the sheer inefficiency of this activity, ship staff was put under
considerable stress at times when the ship was busy in port, probably loading or discharging.
OCIMF members also recognised that it would be impossible for individual companies to
maintain up-to-date inspection reports on every ship that was potentially of interest to them and
that some system of sharing inspection reports was necessary. This combination of
circumstances led to the development of the SIRE programme that was launched in November
1993. The original SIRE programme consisted of a database comprising OCIMF member
company's inspection reports compiled according to each company's individual inspection
procedures. The SIRE report itself contained only that information that had been submitted by
the inspecting company and neither the report nor OCIMF provided any conclusion, rating or
recommendation as to the suitability of the ship. A key feature of SIRE is that membership is
entirely voluntary.

(2). Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI) is an independent organisation with its own statutes
and it is also part of a bigger project, initiated under the ‘Responsible Care Programme’ of the
European Community, concerning the distribution, transport and storage of chemicals and gas
over the road, in the air and at sea.

Chemical Distribution Institute

The Chemical Distribution Institute, based in the UK has its own inspection system, which it is
harmonising with the OCIMF SIRE system. The form was originally introduced by CEFIC, the
European Chemical Industry Council. The CDI is gradually harmonising its safety measures
with OCIMF, so the two groups can share information.

Companies in CDI include Chevron, DOW, Lyondell, BP Norsk Shell, Du Pont, ExxonMobil,
Hoechst, Akzo Nobel, BASF, ConocoPhillips, Petrobras and Kuwait Petroleum. The databases
are available to all participating companies, accredited inspectors, ship owners (marine) and
terminal operators (terminals). CDI produces report analysis software, which can, for example,
shows tables and reports of the number and percentage of non-conformances, inspector
observations, comments and non-conformances by category.

The Inspection Process

Inspectors working for oil companies go on board ship and make a report based on quality of the
vessel, its equipment and operational practices. Under the SIRE programme, all the vetting
inspections, which oil companies make on ship owners, are put into a standard format, so they
can be shared between the oil companies.

The vetting inspection is very thorough and strict. Under no circumstances can it be taken
lightly. Every aspect on the ship is put to test, be it big or small – from the main engine to the
galley exhaust! The inspection takes a few hours to conduct but once accomplished and passed,
there is normally a validity of one year.

An important point to note is that if a deficiency found is a small one, the ship owner (through
the ship’s staff) is given time to have it rectified. After which, if found satisfactory, the ship is
passed. But if the deficiency is big, the ship fails the inspection and the ship will once again be
put to an entire vetting inspection to have it passed. But under no circumstances can a ship be
detained. All the failure of a vetting inspection results in is that the oil company will not put its
cargo on the vessel till such time the vessel has passed the vetting inspection. This in itself is a
big commercial loss for the ship owner!

5. Ship Condition Surveys

The P & I Club organises condition surveys to enable managers to determine whether entered
ships conform to acceptable standards. These are completed on vessels for the following
reasons:

 When ships over 10 yrs old are entered in the club, this can be either a pre-entry or a post
entry condition survey
 If after a visit by a club inspector, the inspector feels that the ship does not conform to
the Clubs standards.
 Following a claim, which could possibly have occurred due to a lapse in on board
maintenance/management
 If information is received from a third party e.g. PSC that the ship is below Club
standard
 If the ship changes classification societies, usually from an IACS to a non IACS society
 If after a lengthy period of lay up (6 months or more) a ship is re-activated

It is important to note that independent surveyors appointed by the ship inspection department of
a P & I Club carry out the condition surveys. It is vital in a mutual club that each Member feels
confident they are sharing their claims and premium with ship owners of similar quality. The
condition survey system is a way of ensuring this confidence is maintained.

6. Surveys by Port Terminal Authorities

This is a highly localised form of survey. It is entirely dependent upon the domestic and local
laws by which a particular port is governed. The objective of such an inspection is once again to
ensure that the ship will undertake the cargo operations in a safe manner without causing any
harm to the port property, its dockworkers and the environment.

The inspections can therefore include a thorough checking of the cargo equipment, the safety
measures on board in normal circumstance as well as, in emergency situations, all the overboard
discharges and the levels of communication between the ship and the port. It is in the interest of
the vessel that prior to its arrival, it confirms from the ship’s agent regarding the presence of any
local laws that the port is governed by for which the vessel will have to undergo an inspection.

Conclusion

The idea here has been to educate the student on the various aspects of control measures that a
ship is put to. It is imperative to bear in mind that all of the above control measures have
become, and will get more and more enhanced in future, with the implementation of the Safety
Management System (SMS) on board under the purview of the ISM Code. The idea is not to just
prepare for a particular survey, have the vessel passed and so certified, and then return to a
casual way of doing business on board. The idea is to ensure that a vessel is in a constant state
of readiness to undertake any survey. That is the idea of developing a “safety culture” on board
as mentioned in my lecture on ISM Code.

Port State Control

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the
condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international
regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules.

Many of IMO most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be
inspected when they visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet IMO requirements.
These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag State implementation, but
experience has shown that they can be extremely effective, especially if organized on a
regional basis. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the
region before embarking on its return voyage and it is to everybody's advantage if inspections
can be closely co-ordinated.

This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected but at the same time prevents ships
being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships’ standards rests
with the flag state – but Port State Control provides a “safety net” to catch sub-standard ships.

IMO has encouraged the establishment of regional port state control organizations and
agreements on PSC – Memoranda of Understanding or MOU – have been signed covering all of
the world’s oceans:

1. Europe and the north Atlantic (Paris MOD);

2. Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MOU);
3. Latin America (Acuerdo de Vifia del Mar);
4. Caribbean (Caribbean MOD);
5. West and Central Africa (Abuja MOD);
6. The Black Sea region (Black Sea MOD);
7. The Mediterranean (Mediterranean MOU);
8. The Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MOU); and
9. The Arab States of the Gulf (GCC MOU (Riyadh MOU».

Port State Control (PSC) is a ship inspection program whereby foreign vessels entering a
sovereign state's waters are boarded and inspected to ensure compliance with various major
international maritime conventions, namely:

1. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),

2. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL),
International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watch keeping for
Seafarer (STCW\
3. Load Lines (LL),
4. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(COLREG)
5. International Labour Organization Convention No. 147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum
Standards) (ILO 147).

PSC programs are of-a regional nature; that is, several countries sharing common waters have
grouped together under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure that vessels trading
in their area are not substandard.

The nature and origins of port state control

The concept of a state exercising its jurisdiction over ships that ply its waters and particularly
those that call at its ports is well established in both history and legal practice.

It is universally acknowledged that once a ship voluntarily enters a port it becomes fully subject
to the laws and regulations prescribed by the officials of that territory for events relating to such
use and that all types of vessels, military and other, are in common expectation obliged to
comply with the coastal regulations about proper procedures to be employed and permissible
activities within the internal waters.
But the practice of majority of ports, at least until the last decade, was to give scant inspection to
calling vessels. A pilot may well have checked whether the vessel was loaded below her marks,
but even this was circumvented by not the uncommon but immensely dangerous practice of
‘hogging’ the ship to bend her load-line above the waterline. Maritime authorities were
concerned almost exclusively with the affairs of their own ships (and then often in a far too
lackadaisical manner). With the growth of flags of convenience – many of whose maritime
authorities turned a blind eye to the condition of the vessels whose fees they so readily received
– with the lack of interest by port authorities, and with the inadequacies of general port state
policing of passing ships, the un-seaworthy ship (euphemistically referred to ‘sub-standard’)
abounded. That this slide was hastened by the general decline in world trade in the late 1970,
particularly for non-containerised break bulk cargo vessels, bulk carriers and tankers, cannot be
denied. Surplus and superannuated tonnage long overdue for the scrap-yard can only be used to
make meagre profits in the hands of marginal and economically stressed ship owners.

It was in relation to Oil tankers (many of which were knocked together with undue haste in the
oil boom of the early 1970's) that the international community first sat up and took notice that
there was perhaps something untoward going on in the shipping industry. The sad reality of
news making is that it is often easier to galvanise public opinion with a single photograph of
three forlorn oil-soiled penguins than with a headline recording the sinking of yet another bulk
carrier with all hands lost.

The control and prevention of oil pollution has long occupied the minds of international
maritime legislators. The chapter of major oil tanker casualties, starting with the grounding of
the Torrey Canyon in 1967, gave a very conspicuous public face to the vagaries of shipping and
the tragedy of what can happen when things go wrong. Less conspicuous was the continuing
appalling loss of non-tanker merchant ships, particularly bulk carriers, which remain one of he
prime causes of concern of the shipping industry to this day.

While oil pollution casualties may well have highlighted sub-standard shipping as a green issue,
the continuing loss of seaman’s life is the whole nub of the issue and the catalyst that has given
strength to the arms of the ILO, IMO and the ITF in coordinating international reaction.

Suffice to state that collectively, as will be pointed out below, the international conventions
provide the framework for port state control inspections, and without them, and the considerable
labours that precede their conclusions, port state control would have little direction as it would
have teeth.

What has the maritime community done about it?

As has been alluded to above, the ILO and the ITF have played significant roles in applying
pressure upon maritime states to apply relevant safety conventions and regimes. The CMI (a
French abbreviation but in English the organization is referred to as International Maritime
Committee) has also played its part in addressing salvage and safety issues. But it is upon the
IMO that the responsibility for the drawing up and implementation of safety standards became
focused.

In addition to the promotion of international conventions, the IMO passes its own Assembly
resolutions, which in turn bind the member States of the IMO. It is these resolutions therefore,
which coupled with the international conventions, impose obligations on port state to exercise
the controls envisaged by the resolutions.

The IMO has recently consolidated its port state control measures. The consolidated resolution
and its annexure set out the procedures for port state control in chapter and verse. Inspections
are categorised as initial port state inspections and then more detailed inspections. Guidelines
are provided for detention and reporting procedures.

Not only do the IMO provisions require surveys and inspections to ensure that vessels comply
with the appropriate international conventions, they also now make 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 ship board
procedures relating to the safety of ships'. It should also be noted that the IMO plays an active
role as observer in the activities of the regional port state control co-operation groupings
referred to below.

Shipping is an international industry which is proud of its tradition of freedom of the seas, but
that does not mean that ships can sail wherever they like regardless of their condition. The
maritime world has the right to expect that ships of all nations meet the levels of safety and
environmental protection, which have been traditionally agreed upon. It is up to ship owners to
make sure that their ships are safe, properly manned and do not pollute the seas and it is the duty
of governments to make sure that ships flying their flag comply with the standards laid down in
the IMO treaties which they have ratified. If they fail to do so, then IMO –which has the
stewardship of these standards – has not only the right but also the obligation to take further
action.

How has the law provided the tools for the job?

To do the job, the coastal authorities need to rely upon two tools: their own "domestic" law, and
international law.

Domestic laws consist of statutes passed by parliament (and regulations promulgated under the
authority of those statutes) and the country's common law - comprising mainly decisions of the
courts and the writings of jurists.

But all states need also to rely upon a perhaps more significant body of law to come to grips
with the problem of the sub-standard ship - the International Law of the Sea.

The first recognition was given to PSC by Article 25 of UNCLOS, which empowered states to
take necessary steps to prevent the breach of conditions by vessels calling at any port. This
provided the framework upon which the subsequent conventions and resolutions of the IMO
could hang. Important to our present discussion is Resolution A.596 (15), which pointed out that
‘the great majority of maritime accidents are due to human error and fallibility and that the
safety of ships will be greatly enhanced by the establishment of improved working practice’.

In 1995 Resolution A.742 (18) gave content to this by allowing a port state control inspector,
who had "clear grounds" for believing that the operational condition of any ship did not meet
with the stipulations of Convention. To check on-board procedures. Central to this was an
enquiry into whether key crewmembers could communicate adequately with one another and if
the officers in charge of the navigational watch were familiar with bridge control and
navigational equipment. Thus, in these Resolutions, we see the beginning of a focus on the
human element, which departed from the previously restricted ambit of port state control
inspection that involved checking certificates and documents only.

The legal basis for port state control of human factors is further galvanised by the ISM Code
Regulations. These Regulations apply to passenger ships, oil and chemical tankers, bulk carriers,
gas carriers and cargo high-speed craft of 500 gross tonnage and above and to other cargo ships
and mobile off shore drilling units of 500 gross tons. They outline a system of verifications in -
the form of a Document of Compliance and a Safety Management Certificate, which must be re-
validated after differential time periods as specified in the Regulations. The code has been
described as "the last chance for the shipping industry to put its house in order, a license to
operate ships, a stout cord that will finally lasso the cowboys". It has a focus on the management
system of the ship, which includes the control of human factors.

More broad ranging authority is given to the port state authorities by the STCW. This
Convention was revised in 1995 due to a growing awareness of human factors in shipping
casualties. The resultant STCW -95 has a focus on ensuring globally implemented minimum
standards for maritime training and control of seafarers' competency. The need for such
uniformity has been stressed by the 1MO, and thus the STCW-95 will become an important
focus when addressing the problem of regulating the human factor. Although full compliance
with the revised STCW-95 is only required by I February 2002, its content is still vital to our
present discussion.

As has been mentioned, the STCW-95 saddles primary responsibility with the flag state.
Regulation 1/4 goes on to prescribe the boundaries of port state intervention. The subordinate
position of the port state is highlighted by the fact that subsection 1 of these regulations limits
the port state control to the inspection of the "appropriate certificate or a valid dispensation".
However, subsection 3 of the same Regulation demonstrates the recognition that the port state
must be given a certain degree of flexibility in order to be able to act as an effective safety net.
Thus, the subsection allows for an assessment where "there are clear grounds for believing that
such standards are not being maintained".

Again, several prescribed categories lay out where such ‘clear grounds’ exist so as to delineate
the boundaries of intervention. Again, these boundaries are blurred by the catch-call stipulation
that intervention is allowed whenever the “ship is otherwise being operated in such a manner as
to pose a danger to persons, property or environment”.

It is these broad categories, which provide the ‘legal loop-hole’ for port state regulation of
human factors in the appropriate circumstances. This must be interpreted also to include safety
drills to demonstrate effective crew coordination and communication when there are grounds to
believe that ineffectiveness in this relation have been the cause of dangerous operation.

Thus the adoption of the ISM Code and STCW-95 suggest that the legislation is indeed broad
enough to encompass the control of human factors through port state control.

The Port State Control of Human Error

The relevant question becomes how these more interactive measures can be most effectively
implemented within a state. It will be argued that this is best achieved through port state
control, which "confers the power to board, inspect and where appropriate, detain a merchant
ship". This form of regulation has come to the fore in the past 10 years. However, it must not be
seen in isolation, but rather within the context of two other forms of regulation which are
charged with the maintenance of safety of ships at sea, but which have proved to be ineffective
in establishing comprehensive control.

The first of these is flag state control, which covers the "international and domestic powers and
obligations of a state which allows vessels to register under its flag". An example of such an
international power appropriate to our present discussion is the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers (STCW). This
Convention gives the flag state the primary responsibility for exercising control, through
legislation and penalties, so as to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are complied
with. Practically, this involves the issuing of a certificate indicating that the provisions of the
Convention have been complied with. Without these certificates, worldwide trade would be
near impossible.

This protection offered by the Flag State is, however, unable to provide sufficient regulation.
This is particularly true within the field of human error where an interventionist approach to
regulation is required. The problem is that it is not feasible for the Flag State to employ a
global inspectorate to ensure continued compliance with standards across the globe. The local
classification and non-exclusive marine surveyors who are contracted out by the Flag State can
only achieve a limited degree of regulation. They work under continuous pressure from the
ship owners, often in dangerous conditions. In certain cases, unscrupulous registers that issue
certificates to ships that are clearly un-seaworthy exacerbate this lack of effectiveness. These
problems are addressed by PSC, which provides regulation that is more independent and which
has the infrastructure needed for any interactive control.

Similarly, the regulation offered by coastal state control is not broad enough to encompass the
control of human error. Such control gives to the state certain limited powers under international
law to protect its interest along that coastline. Because the interference with ships on the high
seas is particularly dangerous and inconvenient, intervention is limited to those cases where the
ship is involved in ‘non-innocent passage’. This is defined as the passage that is “prejudicial to
the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state”. The regulation of human error can clearly
not be effectively implemented within the limited scope of this power.

The question then becomes whether port state control can cure the deficiencies of both flag and
coastal state control.

Regional initiatives - the Memoranda of Understanding

Crucial to the success of port state control operations is the sharing of information gained about
particular ships or their owners and operators, between jurisdictions in and out of which those
ships trade. This for two reasons: first, one would not like unduly to inconvenience ships by
inspecting them at each and every port; and second, to give forewarning to maritime states of
the delinquents in their midst. The establishment of regional initiatives in which states are tied
together in their port state control activities by memoranda of understanding ("MoD's"), are
becoming increasingly significant and will no doubt one day encompass most of the world's
oceans and ports. With the ease .of dissemination of information through the internet, it is" also
likely to become the norm that the various regional initiatives, set up for geographic
convenience, will increasingly share each other's databases, thereby closing the net even more
effectively on the un-seaworthy ship and its unscrupulous owner seeking to ply a trade into
unsuspecting ports.

The first and perhaps most prominent of the regional groupings is the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding which was signed in 1982.

The groundwork was laid for effective international co-operation. The key to the Paris MOU
(and indeed to others and to port state control itself) is a requirement that each contracting state
will ensure through an effective system of port state control, that foreign merchant ships calling in
its ports, comply with the international instruments listed in the MOU.

The MOU requires each contracting authority, within three years, to inspect an annual total of
25% of foreign merchant ships calling at its ports. And each authority will 'consult, co-operate
and exchange information' with other authorities'. Authorities should "seek to avoid inspecting
ships which have been inspected by any of the other authorities within the previous six months
unless they have clear grounds for inspection."
The 1982 Paris MOU required that PSC would be conducted ‘without discrimination as to flag’.
It also required that each state will ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to ships
flying the flag of a state not party to the MOU. As will be seen below, PSC has matured to the
stage where it now recognizes the need to accept the stark reality that some ships pose more of a
problem than others. Most MOU now allow (indeed require) discrimination upon the basis of
flag, age, type of vessel, loan owner or operator or even known classification society.

The Paris memorandum sets out detailed guidelines as to inspection procedures and detention.
The prime purpose of detention is to ensure rectification of defects in the vessel. In the case of
deficiencies, which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, the Authority will
ensure that the hazard is removed before the ship is allowed to proceed to sea.

For this purpose, appropriate action may be taken which may include detention or stopping the
ship from continuing an operation by reason of established deficiencies. Which, individually or
together, would render the continued operation hazardous" Exceptions are allowed where a ship
needs to proceed to a repair port. To prevent an errant ship owner from running a detention, the
MOU stipulates that such ships will be refused access to any port within other party states, until
the owner or operator has provided evidence of rectification of the defects.

One of the most important and effective provisions of the Paris MOD is the obligation imposed.
Upon each authority to publish quarterly information about detentions under PSC procedures.
This information is required not only to contain the name of the ship. But also the name of her
owner and operator, her flag state and her classification society" The reasons for the detention
are then given".

Initially port states were reluctant to publish detention information, particularly where owners
were identified. They feared a rash of damages suits by irate ship-owners. Indeed there have
been a number of protests at the content of detention publications. But publication has in the
past three years become the norm. Let the brokers of the world know what ships have been
detained and why. Let the world's insurers know who the miscreants are. Let the consumer,
passenger or cargo shipper, know who the delinquents are and let them avoid using substandard
ships as an effective means of ridding the oceans of their scourge. So comfortable have the port
state authorities become with the publication of detention lists that you will now find them
regularly in Lloyds List (UK, Australia, Canada arid the US, on a monthly basis) and even on
the Internet. Indeed the Internet is likely to be a very valuable co-ordinating tool in the
administration of port state control procedures in the future. It is the easiest way to access
detention databases and will certainly become the prime means of publication of detained ships
in the future.
Following the lead (and largely also the letter) of the Paris MOU came the Tokyo MOU for the
Asian-Pacific Region 1993. The Tokyo MOU is up-and-running although many of the
participating states have yet to establish effective port state control facilities and procedures.

The Vina del Mar MOU, 1992, covers the Latin American maritime authorities. This MOU
recognizes the objectives of a further regional maritime cooperation scheme and then again
repeats, largely to the letter, the provisions of the Paris MOU.

The most recent PSC system is that set up in the Caribbean on 9 th February 1996 in terms of
practically identical to the Paris MOU. The UK is expected to sign the MOU on behalf of its
independent territories in the Caribbean and the MOU takes effect upon signature of each
participating country.

Other regional initiatives are on the way: the Mediterranean region has already had preparatory
meetings, and there are discussions for West and Central African and Persian Gulf region,
piloted largely by the Iranian Maritime Administration, for a further initiative for an Indian
Ocean rim. Clearly, the success of these regional MOU is interdependence upon the efforts of
each other.

Conclusion

Port state control internationally has come of age. With its roots founded in necessity bred of
successive maritime casualties, it has come into its own as the most effective means of ridding
the world's ports and oceans of sub-standard, un-seaworthy and dangerous ships. This is not to
say that international pressure on" flag states, owners and classification societies to do their jobs
properly and responsibly should be in any way relaxed - but the reality remains that there are
good and bad ship owners. There are good and bad classification societies. And there are good
and bad ship registers. Let the international message of port state control be loud and clear - bad
ships, bad owners, bad flag states and bad classification societies are pariahs for which there
should be no place in the shipping industry of the future.

Synopsis of findings from Routine Surveys, Inspections, and Audits

Statutory Certificates, Overdue Surveys

Surveyors, auditors and inspectors routinely review a vessel’s documentation (certificates) to

verify that they have been endorsed for all required surveys during the intervals mandated by the
various conventions or class requirements. Surveys must be completed within the required
survey interval for the statutory documents to remain current.

Cargo Ship Safety Radio Surveys

Common findings recorded in this category relate to main radiotelegraph transmission and
reception equipment. In some cases, the power output of transmitters has been found to be
below an acceptable level, causing a reduction in the range of transmissions. Faults observed in
receiving equipment include unsatisfactory reception. Typical examples of other findings in this
category are deteriorated aerials; broken aerial insulators; improperly rigged aerials for very
high frequency equipment; inoperable automatic alarms; defective speakers; and faulty power
sources.

Cargo Ship Handling Equipment and Surveys

1. Lifesaving Appliances

Properly functioning lifesaving appliances are key elements of ship safety. Routine crew
examinations and proper maintenance can identify or remedy potential problems, such as
structural defects in lifeboats, inoperative lifeboat engines or flemming gear, missing or
inoperative lights on lifebuoys and lifejackets, excessively worn lifting hooks in lifeboats,
missing retro-reflective tape from equipment, badly corroded engine mounts in lifeboats,
missing safety equipment from lifeboats, unsatisfactory “float-free” arrangement on life rafts
and inoperative lifeboat launching systems.

2. Fire fighting Equipment

It is of utmost importance that the fire fighting equipment be properly examined, maintained and
ready for immediate use at all times. Unfortunately, there are many fire fighting findings
(related to the detection, extinction or risk of fire) observed during surveys and audits including:
missing or holed fire hoses; missing fire hose nozzles: defective breathing apparatus; excessive
oil accumulation in machinery spaces bilges broke!! Fire detectors; missing, poorly maintained
or uncharged fire extinguishers; holed or soft patched fire mains; missing or broken fire station
cabinet handles and hinges, wrenches and hydrant hand wheels; unmarked, broken or
inoperative fire dampers; unprepared fire and emergency crews; valves and fittings related to
IGS in disrepair; C02 cylinder room being used for storage; paints stored in machinery spaces
instead of in a dedicated paint locker; heavy accumulation of grease in galley exhaust ventilation
trunk; seized machinery space skylights; frozen or holed funnel dampers; engine room
ventilators.

3. Navigation Equipment

During surveys and audits, the types of findings include out-of-date, uncorrected or missing
charts for the intended voyages; inaccurately calibrated magnetic compasses; faulty radio
direction finders, echo depth sounders, radar's, gyro repeaters, and navigation lights; outdated
Tide Tables, List of Lights and Sailing Directions, etc.; and copies of regulations (e.g., SOLAS,
MARPOL, ITU etc.) not on board.

Cargo Ship Safety Construction Surveys

The following findings deal mainly with steering gear and mooring arrangement requirements.
Other findings, which relate to structural items, are discussed under class surveys, hull (below)
– steering control malfunctioning; officers not knowledgeable about emergency steering
procedures; communications in emergency steering room not working; anchor chains,
windlasses, wire ropes and mooring lines in a deteriorated physical condition and potentially
dangerous; defective guards on winches and windlasses; and missing anchors and chain.

Housekeeping and Fire Safety, Documentation, Manning, Accommodations

1. Manning

The STCW Convention requires that ships have properly trained and qualified crews. These
elements of manning are important because the safety of a ship, its crews, passengers and cargo
and the protection of the marine environment depend to a large extent on the training,
experience and competence of the crew. The majority of findings in this category relate' to the
minimum international standards for certificates issued under the STCW Convention. Each flag
State is responsible for establishing the appropriate levels of the manning aboard ships under its
jurisdiction and for issuing each ship with safety-manning certificate. Findings in each category
include navigational watches stood by uncertified officers, incorrectly endorsed officers'
certificates for the ship they are serving aboard (e.g. oil tankers, gas carriers and chemical
tankers), key officers not in attendance and manning exceeding the numbers listed on the Cargo
Ship Safety Equipment Certificate.

2. Documentation

Statutory certificates are issued to ships in accordance with the various international
conventions. Surveyors, auditors and inspectors have found findings related to a vessel's
certificates including expired certificates, overdue annual or intermediate surveys, and
improperly issued or missing certificates after a vessel has changed flag from one State to
another.

3. Accommodations, Provisions and Working Spaces

Examples of findings pertaining to the crew accommodations include: infestation by

cockroaches; blocked drains; dirty hospitals and bathrooms; leaking toilet piping; missing
shower nozzles and controls; broken or inoperable sinks and toilets; crew members living in
hospital spaces; doors to accommodations not closing adequately; and broken light fixtures and
switches, As far as provisions are concerned, the findings usually relate to poor standards of
cleanliness. Other findings included in this category are deteriorated insulation in galleys that
poses a potential health hazard; ineffective or inoperative refrigeration machinery for cooling
storerooms; and insufficient food for the intended voyage. Finally, as far as working spaces are
concerned, findings include lack of adequate lighting and ventilation as well as defective or
missing guards to protect the operator from the moving parts of machinery.

MARPOL Surveys

Careful attention should be paid to pollution prevention measures on board, as well as

maintaining accurate records for the handling of oil and other pollutants. Penalties can be severe
for an owner and any irresponsible crewmember if a vessel fails to comply with the regulations.
Findings noted during surveys and audits include – missing oil record keeping book or entries
not up to date; poorly maintained, mis-operating or inoperative equipment for separating oil
from water including oil-content monitoring devices; sludge tank connected directly overboard;
and missing or un-posted pollution placard.

Load Line Surveys

Surveyors have recorded. Findings where ventilators, air pipes, watertight doors and hatchways
had deteriorated sufficiently to warrant repairs. These findings could have been avoided by
adequate maintenance performed prior to surveyor attendance. Other findings in this category
include: cargo hatch cover securing devices missing or inoperable; sounding pipe caps missing;
air pipes holed; securing devices on weather tight and watertight doors missing; holed cargo
hatch covers; non-sealing weather tight doors; corroded manhole covers; and unsafe rails at the
side of the ship. Other findings associated with the Load Line Convention are discussed under
classification surveys, hull (below).

Classification Surveys

1. Hull

The findings include damage and deterioration of the hull, including items such as distorted
bulbous bow plating and side shell plating deformations; damaged gangways, accommodation
ladders, exposed walkways/platforms, and pilot ladders; corroded cable trays and trunks; faulty
closing appliances; seriously wasted, holed, cracked or fractured side frames, transverse deck
beams, deck plating, and watertight bulkheads in the chain locker, forecastle storage space, and
engine room; holed vent pipes/closure heads; holed or damaged hatches; weather tight doors not
sealing; overdue special hull surveys; and corroded access ladders to cargo holds or tanks.

2. Machinery

Surveys that have identified poorly maintained engine rooms list findings such as excessive oil
in bilges and throughout the engine room. Other findings in this category include inoperable
remote controls on boiler safety valves; defective fuel-oil valves on main and auxiliary engines;
improperly adjusted steering gear; accumulation of water leaking on auxiliary' engines; frozen
or inoperable sea water inlet valves; defective generators; defective and leaky fuel-oil pumps
and poorly maintained air compressors (resulting in the shortage of starting air for the main
engine); leaky or wasted hydraulic lines servicing deck machinery and cargo hatches; and leaky
engine exhaust piping.

3. Cargo gear

Findings noted during surveys have included – absence of identification marks on hooks,
blocks, and shackles and other small items of equipment; unavailable documentation attesting to
examinations and testing certification; excessively corroded winch bed plates; and winch drums
and brakes posing a danger and requiring repairs.
Chapter 12: Principles and practice of
ISM Code
Principles and Practice of International Safety Management (ISM) Code

Introduction

Understanding a little of the history behind the ISM Code will help focus attention on the
“human element” issues and lead to the realisation that the ISM Code is a loss prevention or
accident prevention tool addressing the “software” problem – the people problem – rather than
the hardware. The significance of this is that the SMS 11 of the ISM Code can only function if it
has been fully implemented and is being run by people. If the SMS is not implemented and
working, then the insurance implications will be very serious indeed, with the ship owner
possibly facing claims he cannot defend, losing his right to limit his financial liability, losing his
insurance cover and quite probably finding that the ship and his company have been blacklisted,
such that he cannot trade his ship. In extreme cases, the ship owner may find himself exposed to
criminal liability.

Background

During the second half of 1980s and early 1990s, there seemed to be an explosion of maritime
accidents and claims. Some of which were:

1987: Herald of Free Enterprise capsized off Zeebrugge. Extensive loss of life

1987: Dona Paz ferry collided with tanker in the Philippines – estimated 4386 people died

1989: Exxon Valdez ran aground off the coast of Alaska spilling 38,000 tonnes of oil causing
extensive environmental damage. Final claims level exceeding US $ 5 billion

1990: Scandinavian Star disaster. Extensive loss of life.

1991: Agip Abruzzo with 80000 tonnes light crude on board in collision with RO-RO ferry
Moby Prince off Livorno, Italy. Fire, pollution and 143 people died.

1991: Salem Express Egyptian ferry struck reef and sank. 470 people killed.

1992: Agean Sea broke in two off La Coruna, Spain. Extensive pollution. Claims to the tune of
US$ 200 million.

1993: Braer driven to into Shetland Islands – widespread pollution. Claims in the region of
US$ 200 million.

1994: Estonia RO-RO passenger ferry sank after bow door fell off during heavy weather at sea.
Extensive loss of life.
1996: Sea Empress major oil pollution of Milford Haven, UK.
During the aforementioned period P & I insurance claims, and consequently the cost of P & I
insurance, rose on an average by 200 percent 12. It is understood that a similar phenomenon was
experienced with Hull and Machinery claims and premium. Various inquiries were held to
ascertain as to what might be behind the problem.

Cause – human error

11
SMS – Safety Management System
12
Philip Anderson, “ISM Code”
A common factor that appeared in each inquiry report was basically that these accidents were
primarily arising out of human failings. On reflection, this does not come as a surprise. While
statistical data are not available, human error or human factor, or whatever title one wishes to
give the phenomenon, have been responsible for most maritime accidents throughout history.
So, the human factor figure for maritime accidents is probably 100 percent. Just how close you
come to 100 percent would depend upon where the investigator / researcher stopped in tracing
the particular casual chain for any particular accident. The problem needed to be tackled and, the
problem to be tackled was a human problem. The solution for this problem was therefore
enabling and or, enhancing the management systems through the entire process of ship
operation.

Objectives of the Code

The stated objectives of the Code are initially set out in the first paragraph of the Preamble to
the Code13, which provides:

“The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and
operation of ships and for pollution prevention”.

The initial statement is expanded and the objectives are set out in full in Section 1.2 of the Code:

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 the objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of
life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment and
to property.

1.2.2 Safety-management objectives of the Company should, inter alia:

.1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment
.2 establish safeguards against all identifiable risks
.3 continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and on board ships,
including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environment protection.
1.2.3 The safety management system should ensure:

.1 Compliance with the mandatory rules and regulations

.2 that applicable Codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the organisation
(IMO), Administration, classification societies and maritime industry organisations are
taken into account.

A change of perspective on rules and regulations

The points raised by an INTERTANKO document clearly points out the factors that led to the
objectives of the Code being formulated. In one of the paragraphs, the document explains:

“…the Code was produced in response to potential pressure, following a number of high profile
incidents, for the shipping industry to clean up its act, the perception being that the existing
rules and regulations were not in themselves sufficient to ensure a real diminution in the
number of shipping casualties – in particular it was felt there was a need to reduce the scope of
human error by imposing and industry standard of good management…”.

13
International Safety Management Code
The ISM Code is concerned with procedures whereby the safety and pollution prevention
aspects of a ship are managed, both ashore and on board, rather than laying down specific rules
on the technical condition of the ship itself.

There are of course various sets of rules, regulations and conventions dealing with the technical
issues, which a ship owner will need to comply with. The Code does not necessarily introduce
any new set of rules and regulations, but rather provides a requirement that the SMS should be
structured, such that it can check and verify compliance with all the various rulers and
regulations. A misunderstanding, which seems frequently to arise in the minds of many people,
is to think that the ISM Code has suddenly become an all-encompassing, all-embracing piece of
legislation, incorporating all the various existing sets of rules and legislation. The Code does not
incorporate them at all, although it is a breach of the regulations that principally gives rise to
exposure to legal and insurance liabilities. What the ISM Code does is to make a requirement
that the SMS will provide procedures by which a company can check that it does comply with
the various rules and procedures to check and verify that they continue to comply. Another
important point to understand and remember is that these procedures must be documented and
recorded.

An interesting observation in this regard is made by George P. Pamborides 14:

“…in general, the Code introduces ‘transparency’ in shipping and something which will shed
light on the everyday operations of a ship, an area which up to now has remained an exclusive
privilege of the ship owner. This is now bound to change, giving access to such information to
all other interested parties. It appears that this new system has the potential of affecting the
meaning of well-established concepts like ‘seaworthiness’, ‘due diligence’, and matters related
to the limitation f liability, as well as the issue of ‘privity’ in insurance. It may further affect
indirectly other areas, which lie entirely out of the scope of the Code, like issues of general
identification of ‘operators’.

Another interesting point is raised by Peter Martyr 15, who observes:

“…the Code is intended to be preventative and therefore the assumption must be that it will
prevent accidents. It is not intended to provide a vehicle for punishment, although this may well
be the initial effect…”

If one need an explanation of why it has been considered necessary to look afresh at the way
maritime safety has been managed, which moved away from a regulatory framework to one
based on a “safety culture”, one would only need to reflect upon the appalling rate of bulk
carrier losses in the past years. For instance, during the period 1980 – 1997, there were
reportedly 167 bulk carriers lost and what is infinitely worse and unacceptable is that 1352 lives
were lost on those vessels16.

Safety and Environment Protection Policy

The ISM Code requires the company to provide, in clear and concise terms, a statement
describing what it aims and intentions are with regard to its SMS along with outline details of
how those aims and objectives are to be achieved. The significance and importance of the Safety
and Environment Protection Policy should not be underestimated – for it may come under very
close scrutiny if a major incident occurs. The policy is basically a statement by the company to
all its employers, whether ashore or on board. It is very important that the statement on the

14
George P. Pamborides, “The ISM Code: Potential Legal Implications”.
15
Peter Martyr, “ISM Code: Pollution – Lawyer”
16
Philip Anderson, “ISM Code”
policy really does voice the intentions, aspirations and commitment of that particular company
rather than some eloquent prose of bought off-the-shelf SMS!

Implications for the company

From a practical point of view such a policy would be needed in order for the company to have
credibility with its personnel with regard to its commitment to safety and protection of the
environment. Furthermore, it should be anticipated that if an incident did arise involving the
company then the press and media would certainly scrutinise the policy most carefully and use it
to criticise, ridicule or condemn the company. Also, for different but related reasons, the courts
would also look very carefully at the policy statement as well as the historical track record of the
company in light of the policy statement.

Safety Management System (SMS)

It would not be an overstatement to claim that what the ISM Code is all about is the
development and implementation of a safety management system (SMS).
The responsibility is upon the owning or operating company to develop, implement and
maintain not only a written but dynamic safety management system covering a whole range of
safety, environmental and related matters.

Implications of the functional requirements of SMS

The functional requirements as set out in the code are really just the main chapter headings of
the ISM Code – the named organs, as it were, of the SMS. They are not intended to be an
exhaustive list but rather represent the minimum requirements of an acceptable SMS.

It is the structure, implementation and working of the SMS, which will be the real deciding
factor of whether or not a company is complying with the ISM Code. The entire debate about
the legal and insurance implications will pivot around the working of the SMS.

Quality assurance system vs. ISM Code

There is no doubt about it, the authors of the ISM Code were clearly following a methodology
which had been developing for many years in quality management systems. Indeed much of the
language and style are reminiscent of those found in, for instance, the ISO Quality Assurance
System. It has been suggested by some classification societies that a ship owner who fully
implements the ISM Code is probably more than 80 percent compliant with ISO 9002.
However, this does not mean that a ship owner or ship manager who is an already accredited to
ISO 9002 will be ISM Code compliant.

Some important differences

Whilst the two types of management systems may be very similar in some ways, and may
indeed compliment each other, there is a very important difference, which is not always fully
appreciated.

Quality assurance is a voluntary process, which shows that the audited company or body
performs to certain standards, which the body itself sets. If he fails to implement the QA system
in accordance with his own written procedures then he may very well find that the consequences
will be that the accrediting body will, if the non-compliance is serious enough, withdraw the
accreditation. There is very unlikely to be a legal or insurance ramification. However,
compliance with the ISM Code is quite different – it is a mandatory requirement. If a ship owner
fails to comply there may be serious legal and insurance implications, since the ship owner
would be in breach of the law of his flag state and international law.

Certification

The government of the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly – the “Administration” – is
responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code and for issuing the
appropriate certificates.
Documents of Compliance (DOC)

The DOC will be issued by the Administration i. e. the flag state to the company. The issue of
DOC by the Administration will only be done once the Administration has satisfied itself that
the company has properly developed and implemented a safety management system, which
complies with the ISM Code. To achieve this, the company must produce objective evidence to
show that the SMS has been in operation for at least three months on board at least one ship of
each type operated by the company. The sort of objective evidence required would include the
documented procedures along with the records of the internal audit performed by the company
ashore and on board.

Once the Administration has satisfied itself that the requirements have been met then it will
issue a DOC for the types of ships on which the initial verification was based. If the company
requires additional types of ships to be covered by the DOC then they will need to demonstrate
their capability to comply with the ISM Code for those additional types of ships – once the
Administration is satisfied then it will extend the validity of the original DOC.

An important point to note is that only the issuing Administration may withdraw the DOC.
There is no power vested in the Port State Control to withdraw a DOC, or indeed an SMC, of a
foreign flagged vessel. However, one criterion for an Administration to withdraw a DOC is if
there is an evidence of a major non-conformity. Since the flag state (the Administration) is only
likely to be verifying compliance once a year, it is much more likely that it will be Port State
inspections, which will reveal major non-conformities. It can be anticipated that the particular
Port State will report major non-conformities to the flag state. The flag state would then be
obliged to act upon the report.

What is non-conformity?

It is defined as17:

“…an identifiable deviation which poses a serious threat to personnel or ship safety or a
serious risk to the environment and requires immediate corrective action; in addition, the lack
of effective and systematic implementation of a requirement of the ISM Code is also considered
as a major non-conformity…”.

Lord Donaldson points out the whole idea of DOC 18:

“…each ship owner has personally to obtain a certificate called a Document of Compliance’,
certifying, in effect, that he is a fit and proper person to be a ship operator in the light of the
safety management policies which he has evolved and is enforcing in relation to himself and
each of his ships…”

Safety Management Certificates (SMC)

17
Philip Anderson, “ISM Code”
18
Lord Donaldson of Lymington, “The ISM Code: The Road to Discovery”
The SMC will be issued by the relevant Administration, i. e. the flag state – in respect of each
ship operated by the company flying its flag.

Before the SMC is issued there is an initial verification of compliance by way of an external
audit on board the particular ship. The initial verification at least includes the following issues:

 The DOC is appropriate for that ship type

 The shipboard SMS, i. e. the procedures manuals, complies with the requirements of the
ISM Code
 The shipboard SMS is implemented
 The company’s SMS has been functioning effectively on board that ship for at least three
months
 Records of the company’s internal audits have been maintained.

The verifications are of course to check that the SMS is functioning effectively.

 The SMC is valid for a period for five years

 The validity of SMC is subject to at least one intermediate verification, confirming the
effective functioning of the SMS, and that any modifications carried out since the
previous verification comply with the requirements of the ISM Code. In certain cases,
particularly during the initial period of operation under the SMS, the Administration may
find it necessary to increase the frequency of the intermediate verification. Additionally,
the nature of non-conformities may also provide a basis for increasing the frequency of
intermediate verification.

In a similar way to the DOC, the only body authorised to withdraw the SMC is the issuing
Administration itself.

There are two main reasons identified for which an Administration may withdraw an SMC:

 If they have not received a request for an intermediate verification

 If there is evidence of major non-conformity with the ISM Code

Presumably, with regard to the second point, it is assumed that immediate corrective action has
not been taken.

The role of the flag state administration

The Administration performs a number of crucial roles within the ISM, which have major legal
significance.

First, it is the flag of the vessel, which determines the whole legal regime to which the ship is
subject. All the mandatory rules and regulations, Codes and guidelines which the ship needs to
comply and which the SMS needs to check compliance are those rules and regulations which
have been enacted by the government of the country of the flag of the vessel.

It is indeed the responsibility of the Administration to ensure that the company does comply
with the appropriate and relevant mandatory rules and regulations and does take into account
applicable Codes and Guidelines.

It is to the Administration that the owner must report the full name and details of the entity
responsible for the operation of the ship, if different from the owner.
Delegation of authority

While the Administration is the authority for verifying compliance and issuing the DOC and
SMC, it may delegate these functions, although not the responsibility.

The role of the classification societies

It appears that majority of the Administrations have delegated their classification and
verification functions to classification societies. Clearly, classification societies have acted for
flag states for many years in issuing certain statutory certificates.

The IACS member class societies are involved in the ISM certifications in a serious manner.
They have developed their own guidelines for IACS auditors undertaking certification and a
mandatory series of model training courses for auditors. They have also developed an electronic
database recording statistics on the progress of ISM Code certification.

Role of Port State Control (PSC)

Much of the success, or otherwise, of the ISM Code will depend upon how well the system is
policed by PSC. Indeed the whole industry appears to have taken it as a foregone conclusion
that PSC will be the policemen of the Code. It should be remembered, however, that the
intention is that the company – the personnel of the companies, both ashore and on board – is
primarily charged with ensuring compliance. After all the SMS is its system – it is the one
exposed to accident and claims; it is the one, which will face the consequences. Following the
company, though, the responsibility for verifying that the SMS has not only been properly
developed and implemented, but also that it is properly functioning, rests with the
Administration – the flag state.

Where does the Port State Control fit in?

There is no mention about this in the ISM Code, Chapter IX of SOLAS. Where, and how, then
do Port States fit into the picture? What powers do they have and how may they exercise their
authority to check compliance with ISM and to impose sanctions against those who do not
comply. A brief explanation is given here.

PSC inspectors are officials representing the government of the country, which the ship is
visiting. International co-operation between PSC and consequently government in different
countries is effected through MOU.

In accordance with the provisions of SOLAS, Port State authorities can board and conduct
inspections of foreign vessels in their ports. The purpose of these inspections is to identify
deficiencies, if any, in vessels, which would render them non-compliant with internationally,
recognised safety standards and also to eliminate unfair competition.

Since ISM Code has been incorporated into Chapter IX of SOLAS, this will clearly bring the
operation of the ship’s SMS within the ambit of PSC. Clearly, the first thing the PSC officer is
going to request is sight of the copy of DOC and the ship’s SMC. The question which obviously
needs to be asked now is along the following lines: if the copy of DOC and SMC appear to be in
order, how much further can the PSC officer go to check the ISM compliance?

Because the SMS is not a physical “thing” which the PSC officer can observe visually and take
a view on whether there is an indication of a serious deficiency. Certainly it is relatively easy
task for an inspector to look at the portable fire extinguishers and form a view on whether they
appear to be properly maintained and serviced. That they are clean, accessible and carry a label
stating when they were last tested and/or re-charged. If there is something, which causes him
concern, then he is likely to ask for one of the extinguishers to be discharged.

Certainly one way to proceed further by the PSC officer in checking the SMS is to observe, for
example, a portable fire extinguisher which is perhaps dirty or has passed its recharge/test date.
The PSC officer may pick a member of the crew at random and ask him to set off an
extinguisher. The PSC officer may then ask to see the relevant procedures manual and the
particular procedure dealing with the inspection, care and maintenance of the portable fire
extinguishers and will then be on a paper audit trail to establish whether those written
procedures are being followed. This process should reveal the records as well as, corrective
actions taken to rectify the system in this regard including the company’s verification. He may
also see the planned maintenance procedures relevant to the portable fire extinguishers. He may
ask to see the familiarisation and training procedures and ask to see those records for the present
crew to confirm that they have received familiarisation and training in the use of portable fire
extinguishers. If problems start to come to light while following the audit trails then clearly the
PSC officer is likely to expand his investigation into the functioning of the SMS.

Compliance is more than holding certificates

The existence of the DOC and SMC alone does not confirm compliance with ISM. The working
SMS itself needs to be examined in order to check compliance. This is well explained by a true
story that has been procured from the Internet.

The vessel was a medium sized bulk carrier and was loading a cargo on the west coast of USA.
An unescorted US coastguard officer appeared at the Captain’s cabin, introduced himself and
then asked the captain to take him to the bridge. On the bridge the discussion went something
like this:

USCG Officer: “Captain, we are going to have an emergency drill. You have a (imaginary) fire
in your forepeak store. Sound the emergency signal and muster the emergency parties”.

Captain: “You have got to be joking! Half my crew are ashore and the others are busy around
the ship or working cargo”.

USCG Officer: “Captain, sound the emergency alarm signal”.

When the protests fell on deaf ears, the Captain reluctantly sounded the emergency alarm.

After many telephone calls to and from various members of the crew and after nearly 20
minutes an emergency party had been mustered and proceeded to the forward part of the ship.
The discussions on the bridge then continued.

USCG Officer: “Captain – that was disgraceful – tell your men to stand down – the drill is
over”.

Captain – (Stunned silence)

USCG Officer: “I will return in two days time and we will do the drill again”.

Captain: “I am sorry but I have nearly finished loading and the ship is sailing tomorrow”.
USCG Officer: “Captain, I will return in two days time and we will do the drill again. You have
a nice day now”.

The ship was detained.

With which the USCG Officer took his leave and true to his word, returned two days later, in the
meantime the crew had been exercised in various emergency drills and, when the USCG Officer
asked for the emergency signal to be sounded, everything went like clockwork. The USCG
Officer congratulated the Captain and crew and wished them a pleasant and safe voyage.

As a consequence of that incident all the ships in the management fleet were reminded to ensure
that in port they did need to maintain their ability to respond to an emergency in just the same
way as if they were at sea, an account needed to be taken of manning levels and the state of
readiness.

The important point is that it may be relatively cheap both in respect of time and money to have
a portable fire extinguisher recharged or to have the crew practice an emergency drill exercise –
there may not be a “quick fix” solution when it comes to considering a serious deficiency in the
SMS.

Designated Person (DP)

The role and function of the Designated Person is quite new for most companies within the
international shipping industry. The implication and role of the designated person may,
potentially, have a most significant impact and effect upon the legal position of the ship owner
or manager when questions of actual fault and privity are considered.

The clear intention has been to create an identifiable contact point between the senior levels of
the shore management and the ship. However, in the past the marine superintendent
accomplished this role. But, with various changes within the shipping industry in the past 20 to
30 years, this in some cases had a diminishing role with the result of creating a void leading to a
breakdown of communications indicating the level of relationship between the shore and the
ship. So, what is the role of designated person?

First, it is clearly anticipated that within any company there can be more than one designated
person. The actual role of the designated person seems to be threefold:

1. A conduit between the company ashore and the specific ship on all matters relevant to
the SMS
2. An independent individual with direct access to the highest levels of management
3. An over-seer – verifying and checking that the SMS is functioning adequately

It is not intended that the DP should be directly involved in the implementation of the SMS –
such tasks would rest with those on board the ship in conjunction with the relevant
superintendents or safety manager. It is also significant to note that the DP does not have to be
one of the “highest levels of management”. Indeed there is no specific requirement for the DP to
be a member of the company’s management at all, although it is suggested that this would
usually be the case.

When analysing the role of the DP, it is important to look at the wording in the ISM Code. The
requirement is that the DP must have “direct access” to the highest levels of management. It
does not say that the DP must actually “report” to the highest levels of management. The idea
therefore is to have that direct access to report or to gather support of the highest levels of
management if it is found that certain line managers or superintendents or masters were failing
in their responsibilities and duties to implement and maintain the SMS. The responsibility and
authority of the DP therefore includes:
 Monitoring the safety and pollution prevention aspects of the operation of each ship
 Ensuring that needed resources and shore-based support are applied as required

Within the context of these two guidelines the DP also has responsibility:

 For organising safety audits

 For monitoring that corrective action has been taken

A common sense understanding therefore delineates that the combined functions of the DP is
the overall management of SMS, including the provision of required resources to enable the
SMS to be managed effectively.

The Master

Apart from the roles and responsibilities of the Master that we all are aware of, the ISM Code
imposes even more duties and responsibilities on the Master:

 Implementing the safety and environment protection policy of the Company

 Motivating the crew in the observation of that policy
 Issuing orders and instructions in a clear and simple manner
 Verifying that specified requirements are observed
 Reviewing the SMS and reporting its deficiencies to the shore based management

One important aspect to understand is that the Master still remains in command and the
requirements of the ISM Code do not override that position. The Master holds one of the most
important roles within the SMS of the ISM Code. Unless the Master can motivate his officers
and crew to actually implement the SMS and allow it to function as it was intended, then the
whole project will be nothing more that a few thousand words on pieces of paper in procedures
manuals – but there will be no SMS.

What a Master is required to do is to have a good contemporaneous documented evidence of a

fully functional SMS that will include details all reports of accidents, non-conformities and
hazardous occurrences, details of safety meetings on board, training and familiarisation on board
and communications with the DP.

The legal status of the Code

The ISM Code was drafted and prepared as a self-contained document. However, the bringing
into force of its provisions was achieved on an international basis through its incorporation into
the SOLAS Convention. Therefore, its compliance became mandatory under new Chapter IX to
the SOLAS Convention. So, all the States party to SOLAS have had to give it shape by
incorporating it into their domestic legislation.

Countries, which have not ratified the SOLAS Convention

Somewhere in the region of 98 percent of the world’s merchant fleet by tonnage flies the flag of
signatories to the SOLAS Convention. This is a high figure although, but it also brings to light
the fact that there are 2 percent of countries that are not party to SOLAS and therefore vessels
flying their flag are not required to comply with the requirements of the ISM Code. Now, many
of such ships may be very small and involved only in domestic trade of such a State. This is
obviously irrelevant to the present discussion as it is of concern only to their domestic laws.

The point comes what if such a vessel is required to make an international voyage and wishes to
visit a port of a country, which is a member of IMO that has ratified SOLAS and has
incorporated the ISM Code into its domestic legislation?

The answer to this question will be dependent upon the following two parameters:

1. The way the ISM Code has been incorporated into the domestic legislation and,
2. The attitude of the PSC officer

It should however be noted that if a vessels enters a port where it is required by local laws the
compliance of the ISM Code, then it is an unlawful act. Since it is not required by the vessel’s
flag state what the vessel can do is approach one of the organisations to which many of the other
Administrations have delegated the function of verifying compliance and issuing certificates on
their behalf, such as one of the classification society that is a member of IACS. It may be
possible that they could issue ISM “equivalent” certificates, which may be sufficient to satisfy
the PSC officer that the vessel involved does have an SMS in place, which meets the standards
required by the ISM Code.

Practical aspects of the Code

Resources and personnel – ISM Requirements

The ISM Code and the successful implementation of the SMS are very much involved with
people – particularly the Master, officers and crew on board the ship. Considerable
responsibility is placed on the company to ensure that correct people, in sufficient numbers, are
recruited. It is now the responsibility of the company to ensure that the master, officers and crew
it employs are not only properly certified but also competent in accordance with the
requirements of the STCW Convention. It is also important for the company to maintain records
that it has actually followed the requirements of its recruitment policy.

Written procedures will need to be in place not only in the personnel department of the company
office ashore but also in the office of any manning agencies that may be used. This may not be
new for many companies. But what has changed because of ISM Code is that if a seaman’s
competence has to be questioned – say after an incident – then the company will have to prove
its adherence to a recruitment policy. This has become all the more relevant today because of
the recruitment of seafarers from non-traditional maritime countries. A company should
therefore have the following procedures with respect to recruitment and manning in context of
the SMS:

 The trade in which the ship is engaged and the workload on the crew
 The skills required by the crew for the safe execution of the tasks they are expected to
perform
 The awareness of the crew with respect to their SMS duties
 The availability of records of qualification and medical fitness

Training and familiarisation

A company will now have to consider methods of training and familiarisation when determining
ways to ensure that new personnel transferred to new assignments are made aware of their
responsibilities under SMS. The following is a suggestive list to bring home the point to the
student:
  Give information of company’s SMS and the ship’s details to the seafarer prior to
joining the ship
 Provide for familiarisation once the seafarer is on board regarding the equipment and
SMS
 Have the seafarer answer a questionnaire once his familiarisation is complete on board
after arrival

The above should include video familiarisation packages whether ashore or on board regarding
the vessel’s SMS

Development of plans for key shipboard operations

The idea here is to introduce proactive measures, which the company must establish to prevent
accidents through prior planning and to make preparations in order to deal effectively with a
major incident if one did occur. A Suggested subject matter for operations documentation is
delineated below. The list is not exhaustive and will normally be varied to take into account the
circumstances of a particular ship:

General

- Shipboard organisation
- Functional responsibilities
- Reporting procedures
- Communications between ship and the company
- Inspections by master and senior officers
- Provisions and maintenance of documents and records
- Medical arrangements
- Fitness of duty and avoidance of excessive fatigue
- Alcohol and other drug policies
- Checklist for seaworthiness and cargo worthiness

The ship in port

- Accepting cargo
- Loading and discharging procedures, including those related to dangerous goods
- Harbour watches and patrols
- Liaison with shore authorities
- Monitoring trim and stability
- Procedures when the ship is temporarily immobilised
- Accidental spillage of cargo or bunkers
- Use of reception facilities for oil, NLS or garbage
- Response to pollution incidents

Preparing for sea

- Stability condition and checking for draughts

- Assessment of weather conditions
- Securing of cargo and openings in the hull
- Control testing
- Documentation of sailing conditions
- Verification of up to date charts and publications
- Verification of the functioning of pollution prevention equipment
The ship at sea

- Bridge and engine watch-keeping arrangements

- Special requirements in bad weather and fog
- Radio communication check
- Emergency procedures at sea
- Fire patrols and security patrols
- Provisions for discharge into the sea of dirty ballast etc.

Preparing for arrival in port

- Control testing
- Port information and communications
- Pilotage information
- Assessment of weather conditions
- Sailing directions, tide tables and charts
- Ballast conditions
- Stability and watertight integrity

Emergency preparedness

The other proactive requirement on the company under the code arises under Section 8 of the
Code, which is aimed at the anticipation of a risk and the subsequent risk assessment exercise to
identify potential emergency situations that may arise. Thereafter how such an emergency
would be dealt with should they arise.
The company is required to establish procedures to identify, describe and respond to potential
emergency shipboard situations and establish programmes for drills and exercises to prepare for
emergency actions. The SMS should provide for measures ensuring that the company’s as well
as, the ship’s organisation can respond at any time to hazards, accidents and emergency
situations.

The real problems will arise when a shipping company does not properly develop the relevant
ship specific plans for shipboard operations. This may happen for a number of reasons, for
instance, the ship owner / manager has bought an off-the-shelf, readymade set of procedures
manuals or, the procedures manuals have been developed without consulting those on board
who will be expected to implement procedures. In other words, a non-ship person has developed
it!

It may look good to begin with, but a time will come when such a lacunae will be exposed.

Reporting

Reporting and analysing accidents, non-conformities and hazardous occurrences form the
backbone of the SMS within a company. The reporting loop includes reports on “learning from
experience”. This is only possible when there is a reporting feedback loop. This would usually
be by means of a written response:

 Confirm as adequate and appropriate the immediate corrective action taken on board
following the incident
 Be a formal amendment to an existing SMS procedures or instructions
 Require the development and implementation of new SMS procedures
 Involve the dissemination and distribution of the lessons to be learnt throughout the
company
Documentation

The SMS of the ISM Code is a document-based system. It emulates many of the practices and
methods that were developed during the last half-century in quality assurance type systems. This
includes a formal system of document control. The following points need to be noted:

 Valid documents are available at all relevant locations

 Changes to documents are reviewed and approved by authorised personnel
 Obsolete documents are promptly removed
 The documents used to describe and implement the SMS can be referred to as the Safety
Management Manual

The ISM approach to maintenance

Prior to the ISM Code, ship owners could probably be divided into two distinct categories with
regard to the maintenance of ship and its equipment:

First there were those who adopted an approach, which can be summed up as, “if it ain’t broke
don’t fix it!” This could be termed as the breakdown policy!

The second approach could be described as the planned maintenance policy. This is the
preventive approach such that the equipment will be overhauled or changed, if required, before
it broke down.

It is quite probable that the introduction of the planned maintenance schemes has been the single
biggest expense of the ISM implementation. This is also an area that can be, in times of poor
charter markets, where corners can be cut. However, it is also an area where a lacuna is easiest
to detect. PSC will always target this system and over a period of time be able rid the industry of
cutting corners in this area. Therefore, the planned maintenance system also is an important
component of the SMS on board.

Implications of not having an adequate maintenance system in place

The maintenance of the ship and equipment is an ideal target for a PSC inspector to audit. In
addition, there could be potential problems with third party or external auditors, e.g. inspectors
from the Administration. To put it in a nutshell, the implications can be:

 Basic non-compliance with the ISM Code (Chapter IX of SOLAS) with the risk of losing
the DOC and SMC
 Failure to be able to demonstrate due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy
 Possible loss of rights to limit financial liability
 Possible loss of insurance cover

Case study

The Marion is a very interesting case when considering the potential relevance of ISM related
issues from a number of perspectives, although there are two, which stand out specifically:

 The necessity to have procedures in place to check that what should be done is actually
being done
 The necessity for important information relating to safety issues on board to be referred
to senior management ashore
The incident itself occurred more than 20 years before any ISM compliance dates were on the
horizon. However, the case seemed to anticipate much of what was to develop by way of the
philosophy behind the ISM Code.

What happened on the Marion that led to a claim in excess of US$ 25 million?

On March 14, 1977 the Liberian registered tanker, Marion, came to anchor in a position about
2.7 miles of the Heugh which was about one mile from the Tees Fairway buoy off Hartpool in
the UK. On 18 March Marion attempted to weigh her anchor. She was unable to do so because
her anchor had fouled an oil pipeline, which ran submarine. The pipeline was severely damaged
by Marion’s anchor. The owners of the pipeline and other companies who contended that they
had suffered loss by reason of the damage to the pipeline claimed damages in excess of US$ 25
million.

The managers of the Marion had admitted that the damage to the pipeline had been caused
partly by the negligence of their servant, the Master. The Master had anchored close to the
pipeline although he was unaware of its existence because he was navigating with a chart that
was very seriously out-of-date and uncorrected. The up-to-date chart had the presence of the
pipeline. Such a chart was in fact in the chartroom but he decided to use the old chart.

The owners, on accepting the fault of their servant, the Master, wanted to limit their liability to
about US$ 1 million. The issue to be discussed by the court was that whether the fault occurred
without the actual fault of the ship managers. If that was the case they could limit their liability,
otherwise they were liable to pay US$ 25 million.

The management team of Marion ashore comprised of a managing director, an operations

manager, an assistant operations manager and engineer superintendent. The management team
was experienced and well qualified but only the managing director was in the frame as far as the
question of fault and privity is concerned. The Master too was very experienced and an old hand
with the company. The company had arrangements for up-to-date charts to be provided as well
as, notices to mariners on a regular basis. It was basically the eccentricity of the Master that he
had great affection to use old charts rather than new ones!

What had also happened was that the practice of use of old and uncorrected charts was pointed
by the flag state inspection in its report. The report was sent to the Company. When the report
arrived, the managing director was out of country. However, the operations manager and the
assistant manager did read the report and informed the Master to change the practice of using
old charts and ensure that the charts are up to date and corrected henceforth. What they did not
do was to inform the managing director on his return. In fact the Liberian inspector’s report was
lying among his many papers and he came to know about the report only when the incident
occurred and the claim was made against the company.

The court picked up a number of points:

 The master did not acknowledge the receipt of the letter from the operations manager
and no follow up action was taken

 The court was critical that regardless of what the procedures might be, ship managers did
not have procedures in place to check that the master was indeed following the correct
procedures. It was felt by the court that the activities of the Master, or the lack of it,
should have been checked by the company.

 The Liberian safety inspector’s report had been left on the managing director’s table.
The court was also particularly critical of the managing director for not having
 procedures in place whereby his line managers would bring such important matters to his
attention. The court therefore concluded that it was indeed the managing director’s own
fault that he was not told about the report and consequently constituted that the incident
occurred by the actual fault of the managers.

Now, the ISM angle to this incident

The line of reasoning on part of the court suggests of what might be expected of the Designated
Person, or what the courts might expect of the “most senior levels of management”, when
considering what the DP should be reporting to them and ensure that it is actually conveyed.
Those “most senior members of the management” must make it very clear indeed, not only to
the DP, but also to other members of their management team, that they need to be told of any
adverse reports coming in that might have an adverse effect on the safety of the ship. For, failing
to do so they will be condemned by the court of law for not having procedures in place and held
responsible for such fault and thereby losing their right to limit their financial liability and also
the insurance cover.

The use, maintenance and correction of navigational charts should be subject to internal audits
by personnel external to the bridge (internal audits of the company). With a properly functioning
SMS the bad practices of the Master would have been picked up at an early stage, by one or the
other means, the situation should have been remedied.

At the end of the day, the ship managers of Marion were unable to limit their liability and
therefore ended up paying in excess of US$ 25 million. This is because, in a nutshell:

 They did not have procedures in place for the most senior levels of management to be
advised of major safety issues relating to their vessels

 They did not have procedures in place to verify, review and evaluate safety related
activities on board their vessels

 Clearly, post ISM Code implementation, a properly implemented and functioning SMS
will fully protect the owners in these types of situations.

Conclusion

It could certainly be suggested that having a SMS in place and, more importantly, functional in
line with ISM Code requirements the damage can be picked up at an early stage (as shown in the
case study above) and remedial action taken long before it can be converted into an incident and
a possibility of loss of cover for the owner or the operator. A properly implemented and
functioning SMS not only adds to the safety on board and contributes towards the protection of
the marine environment but it also fully protects the owners.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN SHIPPING

Channels of Communication

1) CHAIN CHANNEL : It rigidly follows the formal chain of command

When To Use Chain Channel?

 Information is important / confidential

 Requires discretion on part of the receiver

 Responsibility for action is high and specific

2) WHEEL CHANNEL: It relies on the leader to act as the central conduit for the
entire group’s communication.
When To Use Wheel Channel?

 Action requires cooperation of a number of people

 Responsibility lies on one person

 Feedback goes to the disseminator of the information

3) ALL CHANNELS: It permits all group members to activity communicate with

each other.
When to Use All Channels?

 Information is not confidential

 Action requires cooperation of several groups … Deck, Engine, Crew

 Responsibility lies with top management

CHANNELS EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA

Criteria Chain Wheel All Channel

Speed Moderate Fast Fast

Accuracy High High Moderate

Emergence of Moderate High None

a leader

Member Moderate Low High

Satisfaction

Is Channel Selection Important?

Benefits of selecting the right channel of communication:

1. Saves time

2. Saves money

3. Specific flow of information

4. Kills rumours

5. Encourages responsible behaviour

6. Avoids confusion and uncertainty

Steps towards Transparent Communication

1. Announce timetable for making important decisions

2. Explain decisions an behaviours that may appear inconsistent or secretive

3. Emphasize the downside, as well as the upside of current decisions and further plans

4. Openly discuss worst-case possibilities- it is almost never as anxiety provoking as the

unspoken fantasy.

How Can I Become An Effective Communicator?

1. Use multiple channels

2. Tailor the message to the audience

3. Empathize with others

 4. Remember the value of face-to face communication when dealing with change

5. Practice active listening

6. Match your words and actions

7. Use the grapevine

8. Use feedback

A Cultural Guide to Communication

1. Assume differences until similarity is proven

2. Emphasize description rather than interpretation or evaluation

3. Practice empathy

4. Treat your interpretation as a working hypothesis

LEADERSHIP

Definition of leadership

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and

directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent, Leaders carry out
this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values and ethics ,
character knowledge and skills.

Situational Leadership

This is a term that can be applied generically to a style of leadership, but that also refers to a
recognized, and useful, leadership model. In simple terms, a situational leader is one who can
adopt different leadership styles depending on the situation. Most of us do this anyway in our
dealings with other people: we try not to get angry with a nervous colleague on their first day;
we chase up tasks with some people more than others because we know they'll forget otherwise.
But Ken Blanchard, the management guru best known for the "One Minute Manager" series,
and Paul Hersey created a model for Situational Leadership in the late 1960's that allows you to
analyze the needs of the situation you're dealing with, and then adopt the most appropriate
leadership style. It's proved popular with managers over the years because it passes the two
basic tests of such models: it's simple to understand, and it works in most environments for most
people. The model doesn't just apply to people in leadership or management positions: we all
lead others at work and at home.

Development Level

Clearly the right leadership style will depend very much on the person being led - the follower -
and Blanchard and Hersey extended their model to include the Development Level of the
follower. They said that the leader's style should be driven by the Competence and
Commitment of the follower, and came up with four levels:
 High Competence Experienced at the job, and comfortable with their own ability
D4
High Commitment to do it well. May even be more skilled than the leader.
High Competence Experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to go it
D3
Variable Commitment alone, or the motivation to do it well / quickly
Some Competence May have some relevant skills, but won't be able to do the job
D2
Low Commitment without help. The task or the situation may be new to them.
Generally lacking the specific skills required for the job in
Low Competence
D1 hand, and lacks any confidence and / or motivation to tackle
High Commitment
it.

Development Levels are also situational. I might be generally skilled, confident and motivated
in my job, but would still drop into Level D1 when faced, say, with a task requiring skills I don't
possess. For example, lots of managers are D4 when dealing with the day-to-day running of
their department, but move to D1 or D2 when dealing with a sensitive employee issue.

You can see where this is going. Blanchard and Hersey said that the Leadership Style (S1 - S4)
of the leader must correspond to the Development level (D1 - D4) of the follower - and it's the
leader who adapts.

For example, a new cadet joins your team and you have to help him through the first few days.
You tell him the jobs he needs to finish the first day, and you push off to a meeting. The cadet
is at level D1, and you've adopted S4. Everyone loses because the new person feels helpless and
de-motivated, and you don't get the desired results at the end of the day.

On the other hand, you're handing some work over to an experienced chief officer you’ve listed
all the tasks that need to be done, and a set of instructions on how to carry out each one. They're
at level D4, and you've adopted S1. The work will probably get done, but not the way you
expected, and the officer despises you for treating him like an idiot.

But swap the situations and things get better. Give detailed instructions and a checklist for the
new cadet, and he’ll thank you for it. Give your chief a quick chat and a few notes before, and
everything will be fine.

Leadership Behaviour

Blanchard and Hersey characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of direction and of
support that the leader gives to his or her followers, and so created a simple grid:
  Directing Leaders define the roles and tasks of the 'follower', and supervise them
closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely
one-way.
 Coaching Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the
follower. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more
two-way.
 Supporting Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to
the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the
follower.
 Delegating Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is
with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved.

Effective leaders are versatile in being able to move around the grid according to the situation,
so there is no one right style. However, we tend to have a preferred style, and in applying
Situational Leadership you need to know which one that is for you.
By adopting the right style to suit the follower's development level, work gets done,
relationships are built up, and most importantly, the follower's development level will rise to
D4, to everyone's benefit.
Chapter 13 – Casualty Investigation Code
Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents

Introduction

This Code recognizes that under IMO conventions each flag State has a duty to conduct an
investigation into any casualty occurring to any of its ships when it judges that such an
investigation may assist in determining what changes in the present regulations may be desirable
or if such a casualty has produced a major deleterious effect upon the environment. The Code
also takes into account that under the provisions of UNCLOS article 94, a flag State shall cause
an inquiry to be held, by or before a suitably qualified person or persons into certain casualties
or incidents of navigation on the high seas. However, the Code also recognises that where a
casualty occurs within the territorial sea or internal waters of a State, that State has a right, under
UNCLOS article 2, to investigate the cause of any such casualty which might pose a risk to life
or to the environment, involve the coastal State's search and rescue authorities, or otherwise
affect the coastal State.

The aim of this Code is to promote a common approach to the safety investigation of marine
casualties and incidents, and also to promote co-operation between States in identifying the
contributing factors leading to marine casualties. The result of this common approach and co-
operation will be to aid remedial action and to enhance the safety of seafarers and passengers
and the protection of the marine environment. In achieving these aims, this Code recognizes the
need for mutual respect for national rules and practices and puts particular emphasis upon co-
operation.
By introducing a common approach to marine casualty investigations and the reporting on such
casualties, the international maritime community may be better informed about the factors
which lead up to and cause, or contribute to, marine casualties. This may be facilitated by:

 Clearly defining the purpose of marine casualty investigation and the guiding principles
for its conduct.
 Defining a framework for consultation and co-operation between substantially interested
States.
 Recognizing that the free flow of information will be promoted if individuals who are
attempting to assist the investigation may be offered a degree of immunity, both from
self-incrimination and from any ensuing risk to their livelihood.
 Establishing a common format for reports to facilitate publication and sharing of the
lessons to be learned.

It is not the purpose of the Code to preclude any other form of investigation, whether for civil,
criminal, administrative, or any other form of action, but to create a marine casualty
investigation process the aim of which is to establish the circumstances relevant to the casualty,
to establish the causal factors, to publicise the causes of the casualty and to make appropriate
safety recommendations. Ideally, marine casualty investigation should be separate from, and
independent of, any other form of investigation.

Objective

The objective of any marine casualty investigation is to prevent similar casualties in the future.
Investigations identify the circumstances of the casualty under investigation and establish the
causes and contributing factors, by gathering and analysing information and drawing
conclusions. Ideally, it is not the purpose of such investigations to determine liability, or
apportion blame. However, the investigating authority should not refrain from fully reporting
the causes because fault or liability may be inferred from the findings.
Application

This Code applies, as far as national laws allow, to the investigation of marine casualties or
incidents where either one or more interested States have a substantial interest in a marine
casualty involving a ship under their jurisdiction.

Definitions

For the purpose of this Code:

Marine casualty means an event that has resulted in any of the following:

 The death of, or serious injury to, a person that is caused by, or in connection with,
the operations of a ship; or
 The loss of a person from a ship that is caused by, or in connection with, the
operations of a ship; or
 The loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a ship; or
 Material damage to a ship; or
 The stranding or disabling of a ship, or the involvement of a ship in a collision; or
 Material damage being caused by, or in connection with, the operation of a ship; or
 Damage to the environment brought about by the damage of a ship or ships being
caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship or ships.

Very serious casualty means a casualty to a ship which involves the total loss of the ship, loss of
life or severe pollution.

Serious casualty means a casualty which does not qualify as a very serious casualty and which
involves:

 A fire, explosion, grounding, contact, heavy weather damage, ice damage, hull
cracking or suspected hull defect, etc., resulting in;
 Structural damage rendering the ship unseaworthy, such as penetration of the hull
underwater, immobilization of main engines, extensive accommodation damage
etc.; or
 Pollution (regardless of quantity); and/or
 A breakdown necessitating towage or shore assistance.
Marine incident means an occurrence or event being caused by, or in connection with, the
operations of a ship by which the ship or any person is imperilled, or as a result of which serious
damage to the ship or structure or the environment might be caused.

Causes means actions, omissions, events, existing or pre-existing conditions or a combination

thereof, which led to the casualty or incident.

Marine casualty or incident safety investigation means a process held either in public or in
camera conducted for the purpose of casualty prevention which includes the gathering and
analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions, including the identification of the
circumstances and the determination of causes and contributing factors and, when appropriate,
the making of safety recommendations.

Marine casualty investigator means a person or persons qualified and appointed to investigate a
casualty, or incident, under procedures laid down in national legislation for the furtherance of
marine safety and protection of the marine environment.
Serious injury means an injury which is sustained by a person in a casualty resulting in
incapacitation for more than 72 hours commencing within seven days from the date of injury.

Ship means any kind of vessel which is used in navigation by water.

Lead investigating State means the State that takes responsibility for the conduct of the
investigation as mutually agreed between the substantially interested States.

Substantially interested State means a State:

 Which is the flag State of a ship that is the subject of an investigation; or

 In whose internal waters or territorial sea a marine casualty has occurred; or
 Where a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm to the environment of
that State, or within those areas over which the State is entitled to exercise
jurisdiction as recognised under international law; or
 Where the consequences of a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm
to that State or to artificial islands, installations, or structures over which it is
entitled to exercise jurisdiction; or
 Where, as a result of a casualty, nationals of that State lost their lives or received
serious injuries; or
 That has at its disposal important information that may be of use to the
investigation; or
 That for some other reason establishes an interest that is considered significant by
the lead investigating State.

Conduct of marine casualty investigations

Where an investigation is to be conducted, the following should be taken into consideration:

 Thorough and unbiased marine casualty investigations are the most effective way of
establishing the circumstances and causes of a casualty.

 Only through co-operation between States with a substantial interest can a full analysis
be made of a marine casualty.

 Marine casualty investigations should be given the same priority as criminal or other
investigations held to determine responsibility or blame.

 Marine casualty investigators should have ready access to relevant safety information
including survey records held by the flag State, the owners, and classification societies.
Access to information should not be barred by reason of competing investigations.

 Effective use should be made of all recorded data, including voyage data recorders
(VDR), if fitted, in the investigation of a marine casualty or marine incident wherever it
occurred. The State conducting the investigation should arrange for the read-out of the
VDR.

 Marine casualty investigators should be afforded access to Government surveyors,

coastguard officers, vessel traffic service operators, pilots or other marine personnel of
the respective States.

 The investigation should take into account any recommendations or instruments

published by IMO or ILO, in particular those relating to the human factor, and any other
recommendations or instruments adopted by other relevant international organizations.
  Reports of investigations are most effective when released to the shipping industry and
public.

In accordance with 9, other substantially interested States should be invited to be represented

during any such investigation and should be admitted as a party in the proceedings and have
equal standing, rights and access to evidence as the State conducting the investigation.

Recognizing that any vessel involved in a casualty may continue in service and that a ship
should not be delayed more than is absolutely necessary, the State conducting the investigation
should start the investigation as soon as practicable, without delaying the ship unreasonably.
Other substantially interested States may, by mutual agreement, join the investigation either
immediately or at a later stage.

Responsibility for investigating casualties and incidents

Flag States are encouraged to ensure that investigations are carried out into all casualties
occurring to its ships. All cases of serious and very serious casualties should be investigated.

Where a marine casualty or incident occurs within the territorial sea of a State, the flag and
coastal States recognizing the obligations of that State to its citizens and the legal status of the
territorial sea under the provisions of UNCLOS and also recognising the duties placed on a flag
State, the flag and coastal States should co-operate to the maximum extent possible, and
mutually agree which State should take the role of lead investigating State.

Where a marine casualty or incident occurs on the high seas, a flag State should carry out an
investigation into a casualty to, or on, any of its ships. If that casualty is a collision involving a
ship of another flag State, then the States should consult with each other and agree which will be
the lead investigating State and determine the best means of co-operation under this Code. In
line with 9.1, if another State is a substantially interested State by virtue of the nationality of the
ship's crew, passengers or other persons, or the location of the casualty that State or States
should be invited to take part in the investigation.

By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State, the

flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under UNCLOS article 94, section 7.

An investigation should be started as soon as practicable after the casualty occurs. Substantially
interested States should, by mutual agreement, be allowed to join an investigation conducted by
another substantially interested State at any stage of the investigation.

Responsibilities of the lead investigating State

The lead investigating State should be responsible for:

 Developing a common strategy for investigating the casualty in liaison with

substantially interested States;
 Providing the investigator in charge and coordinating the investigation;
 Establishing the investigation parameters based on the laws of the investigating State and
ensuring that the investigation respects those laws;
  Being the custodian of records of interviews and other evidence gathered by the
investigation;
 Preparing the report of the investigation, and obtaining and reflecting the views of the
substantially interested States;
 Coordinating, when applicable, with other agencies conducting other investigations;
 Providing reasonable logistical support; and for
 Liaison with agencies, organizations and individuals not part of the investigating team.

Consultation

Notwithstanding the obligation placed on the master or owners of a ship to inform its flag State
authority of any casualty occurring to the ship, where a casualty or incident occurs in the
internal waters or territorial sea of another State, the coastal State should notify, with a
minimum of delay, the flag State or States of the circumstances and what, if any, action is
proposed by the coastal State.

Following a casualty, the investigating State should inform the other substantially interested
States, either through the Consular Office in that State or by contacting the relevant authorities
listed in MSC/Circ.781/ MEPC.6/Circ.2. That State and the other substantially interested States
should consult, at the earliest opportunity, on the conduct of the investigation and to determine
details of co-operation.

Nothing should prejudice the right of any State to conduct its own separate investigation into a
marine casualty occurring within its jurisdiction according to its own legislation. Ideally, if more
than one State desires to conduct an investigation of its own, the procedures recommended by
this Code should be followed, and those States should co-ordinate the timing of such
investigations to avoid conflicting demands upon witnesses and access to evidence.

Co-operation

Where two or more States have agreed to co-operate and have agreed the procedures for a
marine casualty investigation, the State conducting the investigation should invite
representatives of other substantially interested States to take part in the investigation and,
consistent with the purpose of this Code, allow such representatives to:

 Question witnesses;
 View and examine evidence and take copies of documentation;
 Produce witnesses or other evidence;
 Make submissions in respect of the evidence, comment on and have their views
properly reflected in the final report; and
 Be provided with transcripts, statements and the final report relating to the
investigation.

States are encouraged to provide for maximum participation in the investigation by all States
with a substantial interest in the marine casualty.

The flag State of a ship involved in a marine casualty should help to facilitate the availability of
the crew to the investigation and encourage the crew to co-operate with the State conducting the
investigation.

Disclosure of records
The State conducting the investigation of a casualty or incident, wherever it has occurred,
should not make the following records, obtained during the conduct of the investigation,
available for purposes other than casualty investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the
administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs any possible
adverse domestic and international impact on that or any future investigation, and the State
providing the information authorizes its release:

 All statements taken from persons by the investigating authorities in the course of
the investigation;
 All communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the
ship;
 Medical or private information regarding persons involved in the casualty or
incident;
 Opinions expressed during the conduct of the investigation.

These records should be included in the final report, or its appendices, only when pertinent to
the analysis of the casualty or incident. Parts of the record not pertinent, and not included in the
final report, should not be disclosed.

Personnel and material resources

Governments should take all necessary steps to ensure that they have available sufficient means
and suitably qualified personnel and material resources to enable them to undertake casualty
investigations.

Issue of marine casualty reports and submission to IMO

The lead investigating State should send a copy of the draft of the final report to all substantially
interested States, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report as soon as
possible. If the lead investigating State receives comments within thirty days, or within some
mutually agreed period, it should either amend the draft final report to include the substance of
the comments, or append the comments to the final report. If the lead investigating State
receives no comments after the mutually agreed period has expired, it should send the final
report to the Organization in accordance with applicable requirements and cause the report to be
published.

By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State that

will be reporting to IMO, the flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under
IMO conventions.

Reports, or relevant parts of reports, into the circumstances and causes of a marine casualty
should be completed as quickly as practicable, and be made available to the public and the
shipping industry in order to enhance safety of life at sea and protection of the marine
environment through improved awareness of the factors which combine to cause marine
casualties.
Where a substantially interested State disagrees with whole or part of the report referred to in
12.1 above, it may submit its own report to the Organization.

The investigating State, upon determining that urgent safety action is needed, may initiate
interim recommendations to the appropriate authority.

Re-opening of investigations
When new evidence relating to any casualty is presented, it should be fully assessed and referred
to other substantially interested States for appropriate input. In the case of new evidence which
may materially alter the determination of the circumstances under which the marine casualty
occurred, and may materially alter the findings in relation to its cause or any consequential
recommendations, States should reconsider their findings.
Chapter 14 - IAMSAR
IAMSAR Manual

IMO: IAMSAR Manual: International aeronautical and maritime search and rescue manual.
Jointly published by IMO and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the three-
volume IAMSAR Manual provides guidelines for a common aviation and maritime approach to
organizing and providing search and rescue (SAR) services. Each volume can be used as a
standalone document or, in conjunction with the other two volumes, as a means to attain a full
view of the SAR system. SOLAS chapter V Safety of Navigation requires ships to carry an up-
to-date copy of Volume III of the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue
(IAMSAR) Manual.

The IAMSAR manual is divided into three volumes:

 Volume I, Organization and Management, discusses the global SAR system concept,
establishment and improvement of national and regional SAR systems and co-operation
with neighbouring States to provide effective and economical SAR services.

 Volume II, Mission Co-ordination, assists personnel who plan and co- ordinate SAR
operations and exercises.

 Volume III, Mobile Facilities, is intended to be carried aboard rescue units, aircraft and
vessels to help with performance of a search, rescue or on-scene coordinator function,
and with aspects of SAR that pertain to their own emergencies.

The primary purpose of the three volumes of the International Aeronautical and Maritime
Search and Rescue Manual is to assist States in meeting their own search and rescue (SAR)
needs and the obligations they accepted under the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, and the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). These volumes provide guidelines for a common aviation
and maritime approach to organizing and providing SAR services. States are encouraged to
develop and improve their SAR services, to co-operate with neighbouring States and to consider
their SAR services to be part of a global SAR system.

Each IAMSAR Manual volume is written with specific SAR system duties in mind, and can be
used as a stand-alone document, or, in conjunction with the other two volumes, as a means to
attain a full view of the SAR system.

The Organization and Management volume (volume I) discusses the global SAR system
concept, establishment and improvement of national and regional SAR systems, and co-
operation with neighbouring States to provide effective and economical SAR services;

The Mission Co-ordination volume (volume II) assists personnel who plan and co-ordinate SAR
operations and exercises; and

The Mobile Facilities volume (volume III) is intended to be carried aboard rescue units, aircraft,
and vessels to help with performance of a search, rescue, or on-scene co-ordinator function and
with aspects of SAR that pertain to their own emergencies.

Purpose

The purpose of the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual for
Mobile Facilities, which is intended for carriage aboard search and rescue units, and aboard civil
aircraft and vessels, is to provide guidance to those who:
  Operate aircraft, vessels or other craft, and who may be called upon to use the facility to
support SAR operations
 May need to perform on-scene co-ordinator functions for multiple facilities in the
vicinity of a distress situation
 Experience actual or potential emergencies, and may require search and rescue (SAR)
assistance

Responsibilities and Obligations to Assist

Under long-standing traditions of the sea and various provisions of international law, ship
masters are obligated to assist others in distress at sea whenever they can safely do so. The
responsibilities to render assistance to a distressed vessel or aircraft are based on humanitarian
considerations and established international practice. Specific obligations can be found in
several conventions, including the following:

 Annex 12 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue
 Regulation V/33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS 1974).
 National and Regional SAR System Organization

SAR Co-ordination

The SAR system has three general levels of co-ordination:

 SAR co-ordinator (SC)

 SAR mission co-ordinator (SMC)
 On-scene co-ordinator (OSC) & SAR Co-ordinators
 SC is the top level SAR manager; each State normally will have one or more persons or
agencies for whom this designation may be appropriate

SC has the overall responsibility for:

 Establishing, staffing, equipping and managing the SAR system

 Establishing RCC and rescue sub-centres (RSC)
 Providing or arranging for SAR facilities
 Co-ordinating SAR training
 Developing SAR policies
 SAR Mission Co-ordinator

Each SAR operation is carried out under the guidance of an SMC. This function exists only for
the duration of a specific SAR incident and is normally performed by the RCC chief or a
designee. The SMC may have assisting staff.

The SMC guides a SAR operation until a rescue has been affected or it becomes apparent that
further efforts would be of no avail. The SMC should be well trained in all SAR processes, be
thoroughly familiar with the applicable SAR plans, and:

 Gather information about distress situations

 Develop accurate and workable SAR action plans
 Dispatch and co-ordinate the resources to carry out SAR missions.

SMC duties include:

  Obtain and evaluate all data on the emergency
 Ascertain the type of emergency equipment carried by the missing or distressed craft
 Remain informed of prevailing environmental conditions
 If necessary, ascertain movements and locations of vessels and
 Alert shipping in likely search areas for rescue, lookout and/or radio watch
 Plot the areas to search and decide on methods and facilities to be used
 Develop the search action plan and rescue action plan as appropriate
 Co-ordinate the operation with adjacent RCC when appropriate
 Arrange briefing and debriefing of SAR personnel
 Evaluate all reports and modify search action plan as necessary
 Arrange for refuelling of aircraft and, for prolonged search, make arrangements for the
accommodation of SAR personnel
 Arrange for delivery of supplies to sustain survivors
 Maintain in chronological order an accurate and up-to-date record
 Issue progress reports
 Recommend to the RCC chief the abandoning or suspending of the search
 Release SAR facilities when assistance is no longer required notify accident
investigation authorities
 If applicable, notify the State of registry of the aircraft
 Prepare a final report

On-Scene Co-ordinator

When two or more SAR facilities are working together on the same mission, one person on-
scene may be needed to co-ordinate the activities of all participating facilities.

The SMC designates an OSC, who may be the person in charge of a:

 Search and rescue unit (SRU), ship, or aircraft participating in a search, or

 Nearby facility in a position to handle OSC duties
 The person in charge of the first facility to arrive at the scene will normally assume the
OSC function until the SMC arranges for that person to be relieved.

Rendering assistance

Vessels Assisting

Methods of Distress Notification

 An alarm signal or a distress call from another vessel at sea, either directly or by relay.
 A distress call or message from aircraft. This usually occurs by relay from a CRS
 Alert sent from a vessel's alerting equipment and then relayed shore-to-ship
 Visual signals or sound signals from a nearby distressed craft

Immediate Action

The following immediate action should be taken by any ship receiving a distress message:

 Acknowledge receipt of message.

 Gather the following information from the craft in distress if possible:

- Position of distressed craft

- Distressed craft's identity, call sign, and name
- Number of POB
 - Nature of the distress or casualty
- Type of assistance required
- Number of victims, if any
- Distressed craft's course and speed
- Type of craft, and cargo carried
- Any other pertinent information that might facilitate the rescue

 Vessels should maintain communications with the distressed craft while attempting to
advise the SAR system of the situation.

Proceeding to the Area of Distress

 Establish a traffic co-ordinating system among vessels proceeding to the same area of
distress
 Maintain active radar plots on vessels in the general vicinity
 Estimate the ETA to the distress site of other assisting vessels
 Assess the distress situation to prepare for operations on-scene

On-Board Preparation

A vessel en route to assist a distressed craft should have the following equipment ready for
possible use:

Life-saving and rescue equipment:

Lifeboat, inflatable life-raft, lifejackets, survival suits for the crew, lifebuoys, breeches, buoys,
portable VHF radios for communication with the ship and boats deployed, line-throwing
apparatus, buoyant lifelines, hauling lines, non-sparking boat hooks or grappling hooks,
hatchets, rescue baskets, pilot ladders, scrambling nets, copies of the International Code of
Signals, radio equipment operating on MF/HF and/or VHF/UHF and capable of communicating
with the SMC and rescue facilities, and with a facility for direction finding (DF), supplies and
survival equipment as required, fire-fighting equipment, portable ejector pumps, binoculars,
cameras, bailers and oars.

Signalling equipment:

Signalling lamps, searchlights, torches, flare pistol with colour-coded signal flares, buoyant
VHF/UHF marker beacons, floating lights, smoke generators, flame and smoke floats, dye
markers, loud hailers.

Preparations for medical assistance, including:

Stretchers, blankets, medical supplies and medicines, clothing, food, shelter

Miscellaneous equipment:

If fitted, a gantry crane for hoisting on each side of ship with a cargo net for recovery of
survivors, line running from bow to stern at the water's edge on both sides for boats and craft to
secure alongside, on the lowest weather deck, pilot ladders and manropes to assist survivors
boarding the vessel, vessel's lifeboats ready for use as a boarding station, Line-throwing
apparatus ready for making connection with either ship in distress or survival craft, Floodlights
set in appropriate locations, if recovery at night.
Vessels Not Assisting

The master deciding not to proceed to the scene of a distress due to sailing time involved and in
the knowledge that a rescue operation is under way should:

 Make an appropriate entry in the ship's log-book

 If the master had previously acknowledged and responded to the alert, report the
decision not to proceed to the SAR service concerned
 Consider reports unnecessary if no contact has been made with the SAR service
 Reconsider the decision not to proceed nor report to the SAR service when vessel in
distress is far from land or in an area where density of shipping is low

Developing a Rescue Plan

Although the SMC normally prepares a rescue plan, sometimes the OSC may have to develop it.

Factors to consider include:

 Risk to SAR personnel

 Number, location and disposition of the survivors
 Condition of survivors and medical considerations
 Current meteorological conditions
 Current sea conditions, as appropriate
 Time of day
 Survival equipment on hand
 Type of rescue craft, etc

In a distress incident, even uninjured persons who are supposedly able-bodied and capable of
logical thought are often unable to accomplish simple tasks and may hinder their own rescue.

Positioning of landing or pick-up areas

 Operating areas on vessels should be located on the main deck and, if practicable,
arranged on both port and starboard sides
 The operating areas consist of an outer manoeuvring zone and an inner clear zone
 Whenever possible, the clear zone should be close to the ship's side
 Any amount of the manoeuvring zone may extend outboard but none of the clear zone
may do so
 Identify clear access to the operating area and exit from it to the ship's side
 Establish the best position within the area for the manoeuvring zone that will give the
largest clear zone
 Areas close to the bow are not recommended due to the increased air-flow turbulence
created by the ship's passage
 As large a stretch of deck which is clear of obstructions should be made available as a
pick-up area
 During the night, pick-up area floodlighting should be provided and the floodlights
should be located so as to avoid glare to pilots in flight or to personnel working on the
area
 The arrangement and aiming of floodlights should be such that they are not directed
towards the helicopter and shadows are kept to a minimum
 The spectrum distribution of the floodlights should be such that the surface and obstacle
markings can be correctly identified
 Obstacles should be clearly identified by obstacle lights
  Where pick-up area floodlighting and obstacle lighting cannot be provided, the ship
should, in consultation with the pilot, be illuminated as brightly as possible, particularly
the pick-up area and any obstructions, such as masts, funnels, deck gear, etc.
 Clothing or other objects lying about should be cleared away or secured due to strong
air-wind current from the helicopter.
 The helicopter may be able to lift a person from a lifeboat or a life-raft secured on a long
painter. However, life-rafts have been overturned by the helicopter's air-current

Safety Preparations

A briefing to discuss the safety aspects and operational details of helicopter-ship operations
should be held for all involved personnel prior to the operation's commencement. Wherever
available, the following fire-fighting equipment or its equivalent should be ready during
helicopter operations:

 At least two dry powder extinguishers with an aggregate capacity of not less than 45 kg
 A suitable foam application system (fixed or portable), capable of delivering a foam
solution at a rate of not less than 6 litres per minute for each square metre of clear zone
and sufficient foam compound to enable the rate to be maintained for at least five
minutes
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) extinguishers with an aggregate capacity of not less than 18 kg &
a deck water system capable of delivering at least two jets of water to any part of the
helicopter operating area at least two fire hose nozzles which should be of the
dual-purpose type
 Fire-resistant blankets and gloves
 Sufficient fire proximity suits
 Portable fire-fighting equipment for oil fires should be stationed near the disembarkation
space
 If possible, the fire-fighting pump should be started and hoses should be connected and
kept in readiness
 For better identification from the air, and also for showing the direction of the wind to
the helicopter pilot, flags and pennants should be flown
 All crew members concerned, as well as the persons to be evacuated, should wear
lifejackets

Rescue by Maritime Facilities

General Maritime Considerations

For survivors in the water, the rescuing vessel may find it necessary to:

 Rig scramble nets

 Launch lifeboats
 Launch life-rafts
 Have crew members suitably equipped to enter the water to assist survivors
 Be prepared to provide initial medical treatment

For a fire or extremely heavy weather, or where it is impossible for the rescue ship to come
alongside, then a lifeboat or life-raft may be towed to a closer position.

In heavy weather, the use of oil for reducing the effect of the sea should be considered.
Experience has shown that vegetable oils and animal oils, including fish oils, are most suitable
for quelling waves lubricating oils may be used. Fuel oil should not be used, except as a last
resort, as it is harmful to persons in the water. Lubricating oil is less harmful, and tests have
shown that 200 litres discharged slowly through a rubber hose with an outlet just above the sea,
while the ship proceeds at slow speed, and can effectively quell a sea area of some 5,000 square
metres.

In heavy weather, a ship with a low freeboard may be better suited to affect rescue. . A boarding
station may be rigged by mooring a life-raft alongside.

The direction of approach to the distressed craft (or survivors) will depend upon circumstances.
Some emergencies, such as a ship on fire, may have to be approached from windward and
others, such as life-rafts, from leeward.

The two key factors are:

1. Whether a lee-side protection is necessary during the rescue operation and

2. The comparative rates of drift of the distressed craft and the rescuing ship.

Debriefing of Survivors

Survivors should be questioned about the distressed craft as soon as possible. Their input may
be able to further assist in the SAR operation, future SAR operations, or the prevention of
incidents in the future. The information should be relayed to the SMC.

Questions to ask include the following:

 What was the time and date of the incident?

 Did you bail out or was the aircraft ditched?
 If you bailed out, at what altitude?
 How many others did you see leave the aircraft by parachute?
 How many ditched with the aircraft?
 How many did you see leave the aircraft after ditching?
 How many survivors did you see in the water?
 What flotation gear had they?
 What was the total number of persons aboard the aircraft prior to the accident?
 What caused the emergency?
 What was the total number of persons on board the vessel?
 What was the last known position?
 Were any of the persons able to leave by lifeboat or raft?
 How long was the survivor in the water?
 Were search craft seen before the survivors were located and, if so, what were the dates
and times of the sightings?
 Were any signals or devices used to try to attract the attention of search craft? If so, what
were they and when were they used?

Survivors should also be questioned about their medical history:

 Recurring disease
 Heart trouble
 Diabetes
 Epilepsy
 Conditions from which they may suffer

This information should be noted, together with any medical attention given, for future
attending physicians.
The questioning of survivors has the following purposes:

 To ensure that all survivors are rescued

 To attend to the physical welfare of each survivor
 To obtain information, which may assist and improve SAR services

Care must be taken to avoid worsening a survivor's condition by excessive interrogation.

OSC Duties

The duties are:

 Co-ordinate operations of all SAR facilities on-scene

 Receive the search action plan or rescue plan from the SMC or plan the search or rescue
operation, if no plan is otherwise available
 Modify the search action or rescue action plan as the situation on-scene dictates, keeping
the SMC advised (do in consultation with the SMC when practicable)
 Co-ordinate on-scene communications
 Monitor the performance of other participating facilities
 Ensure operations are conducted safely, paying particular attention to maintaining safe
separations among all facilities, both surface and air
 Make periodic situation reports to the SMC. The report should include but not be limited
to:

- Weather and sea conditions

- The results of search to date
- Any actions taken
- Any future plans or recommendations

 Maintain a detailed record of the operation:

 On-scene arrival and departure times of SAR facilities, other vessels and aircraft
engaged in the operation
 Record of areas searched
 Record of track spacing used
 Actions taken based on sightings and leads reported
 Record of results obtained

 Advice the SMC to release facilities no longer required

 Report the number and names of survivors to the SMC
 Provide the SMC with the names and designations of facilities with survivors aboard.
 Report which survivors are in each facility
 Request additional SMC assistance when necessary (for example, medical evacuation of
seriously injured survivors)

Planning the Search

Datum

It will be necessary to establish a datum, or geographic reference, for the area to be searched.
The following factors should be considered:

 Reported position and time of the SAR incident

 Any supplementary information such as DF bearings or sightings
  Time interval between the incident and the arrival of SAR facilities
 Estimated surface movements of the distressed craft or survival craft, depending on drift

The datum position for the search is found as follows:

 Drift has two components: leeway and total water current

 Leeway direction is downwind
 Leeway speed depends on wind speed the observed wind speed when approaching the
scene may be used for estimating leeway speed of life-rafts by using the graph following
this discussion (Persons in the water (PIW) have no leeway while life-raft stability and
speed vary with or without drogue or ballast)
 Total water current may be estimated by computing set and drift when approaching the
scene
 Drift direction and speed is the vector sum of leeway and total water current
 Drift distance is drift speed multiplied by the time interval between the incident time, or
time of the last computed datum, and the commence search time
 Datum position is found by moving from the incident position, or last computed datum
position, the drift distance in the drift direction and plotting the resulting position on a
suitable chart

The method to plot the search area:

 Draw a circle centred on datum with radius R

 Using tangents to the circle, form a square as shown in the attached figure
 If several facilities will be searching at the same time, divide the square into sub-areas of
the appropriate size and assign search facilities accordingly

Search Area Determination

When a vessel in distress sends a distress signal and requires immediate assistance, then loses
radio communication, how do you find them? The vessel, or if the vessel sinks, the survivors in
a survival craft or in the water, may start to drift under the same weather/oceanic conditions as
at the time of the distress call. To where are they drifting?

Different objects have different drift characteristics depending on the following:-

Shape of the object;
Size of the object;
Submerged portion of the object;
Exposed portion of the object above the waterline.

In maritime drift, there are two important forces which cause the object to drift. One is the Total
Water Current (TWC) which includes Sea/Ocean Current (SC), Wind Current (WC), Tidal
Stream Current and other current, if any. It should be noted that:-
1) Tidal stream current generally exists within 3 nautical miles of the shore line, particularly
within bays and sounds;
2) Wind current exists when the distance is greater than 20 nautical miles from the shore with
water depths greater than 30 metres;
3) Sea current exists when the distance is greater than 25 nautical miles from the shore with
water depths greater than 100 metres.

If the above criteria for each wind current and sea current are not met respectively, the depth of
water is important and prevails.

The other is the Leeway (LW) which is caused by the wind blowing over the area for a long
period of time, say in open sea, from 4 to 48 hours, creating the movement of surface water.

Leeway is generally in a downwind direction, but as both the shape and the exposed portion of
the object are factors which contribute to the direction and rate of drift, LW will not always
exactly follow the downwind direction. The object will tend to drift to the left side or to the right
side of downwind. In model calculations, we call this the angle of divergence. Therefore, for an
object drifting in the open sea, there will be two datum points known as ‘datum left’ and ‘datum
right’ respectively for the establishment of the search area.

If the distance between two datum points in which the separation ratio (SR) is greater than 4,
(the ratio of distance between two datum points (DD) and the Probable Error of Position (E), i.e.
SR = DD/E), a Widely Diverging Datum calculation is required. Otherwise, one complete
search area covers both datum points.

The above is always taken into consideration by the Search Mission Co-ordinator (SMC) who
plans the Search Action Plan in the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre (MRCC) ashore. The
“International Aeronautical and Maritime Search And Rescue Manual (IAMSAR) Vol. II”
provides all necessary information such as graphs, curves, corrections to navigational errors for
both search ships and vessels being searched, uncorrected sweep width for both of merchant
ships, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, weather corrections, wind causing leeway for different
objects with rate of drift, angle of divergence etc, to the SMC who makes the search plan.
Generally, there are three uncertainties causing inaccuracies of calculated search areas. The
accuracy of search areas depends on many factors, such as accuracy of the reported incident
position, time of incident position, and direction of drift.

The most important is the actual observation of wind and current on scene, and the On Scene
Co-ordinator (OSC) should be capable to report wind and current with drift direction to SMC at
regular intervals in the Situation Report (SITREP).

However, from the Master’s point of view, he can take the simplified technique to calculate the
datum and start searching, if there is no Search Action Plan given from MRCC. The Master
considers the Total Water Current and Leeway causing the drift of object to determine the
datum, and with an assumed radius of 10 nautical miles depicting the search area.

Another publication “International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual
(IAMSAR) Vol. III” provides all necessary and useful information to the Masters of ships when
they are involved and participate in rendering assistance to search objects, persons or vessels in
distress at sea. This “IAMSAR Vol. III” is a mandatory manual on board merchant ships and at
SAR facilities.

In Section 3 (On Scene Co-ordinator of “IAMSAR Vol. III” – Planning the Search by the
Shipmasters), there are some differences in calculations of search plans made by shipmasters, as
the information given in Vol. III does not include the “Persons in Water” (PIW) leeway speed
and divergence angles or Leeway speed given for drifting of life rafts without divergence
angles. The datum for the search in principle is found as follows:

(1) reported position and time of the incident,

(2) Time interval between the incident and the arrival of the search vessel,
(3) Calculate the total water current and leeway.

It is noted that for PIW, no leeway has been mentioned in “IAMSAR Vol. III”, but in fact, and
according to “IAMSAR Vol. II” for SMC, PIW do have leeway and divergence angles in
calculations as well. So the information given in Vol. III for shipmasters is much simpler than
the information given in Vol. II for SMC in MRCC.

Search Patterns

Expanding Square Search (SS)

 This type is most effective when the location of the search object is known within
relatively close limits
 The commence search point is always the datum position
 Often appropriate for vessels or small boats to use when searching for persons in the
water or other search objects with little or no leeway
 Due to the small area involved, this procedure must not be used simultaneously by
multiple aircraft at similar altitudes or by multiple vessels
 Accurate navigation is required; the first leg is usually oriented directly into the wind to
minimize navigational errors
 It is difficult for fixed-wing aircraft to fly legs close to datum if S is less than 2 NM

Sector Search (VS)

 This is most effective when the position of the search object is accurately known and the
search area is small. . Used to search a circular area centred on a datum point
 Due to the small area involved, this procedure must not be used simultaneously by
multiple aircraft at similar altitudes or by multiple vessels
 An aircraft and a vessel may be used together to perform independent sector searches of
the same area
 A suitable marker (for example, a smoke float or a radio beacon) may be dropped at the
datum position and used as a reference or navigational aid marking the centre of the
pattern
 For aircraft, the search pattern radius is usually between 5 NM and 20 NM
 For vessels, the search pattern radius is usually between 2 NM and 5 NM

Track Line Search (TS)

 This is normally used when an aircraft or vessel has disappeared without a trace along a
known route
 Often used as initial search effort due to ease of planning and implementation
 Consists of a rapid and reasonably thorough search along intended route of the distressed
craft
  Search may be along one side of the track line and return in the opposite direction on the
other side (TSR)
 Search may be along the intended track and once on each side, then search facility
continues on its way and does not return (TSN).
 Aircraft are frequently used for TS due to their high speed.

Parallel Sweep Search (PS)

 This is used to search a large area when survivor location is uncertain

 Most effective over water or flat terrain
 Usually used when a large search area must be divided into sub-areas for assignment to
individual search facilities on-scene at the same time
 The commence search point is in one corner of the sub-area, one-half track space inside
the rectangle from each of the two sides forming the corner
 Search legs are parallel to each other and to the long sides of the sub-area

Multiple vessels may be also be used to conduct a parallel sweep search.

Co-ordinated Vessel and Aircraft Search Pattern

 This is normally used only if there is an OSC present to give direction to and provide
communications with the participating craft
 Creeping line search, co-ordinated (CSC) is often used
 The aircraft does most of the searching, while the ship steams along a course at a speed
as directed by the OSC so that the aircraft can use it as a navigational checkpoint
 The aircraft, as it passes over the ship, can easily make corrections to stay on the track of
its search pattern
 Gives a higher probability of detection than can normally be attained by an aircraft
searching alone

Reference:

IAMSAR Manual; International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual, Volume III,
Mobile Facilities (incorporating 2001, 2002 and 2003 amendments); IMO/ICAO, London/Montreal,
2003
Chapter 15 – Places of Refuge, Wreck &
Salvage
Place of refuge

 Where the safety of life is involved, the provisions of the SAR convention should be
followed. Where a ship is in need of assistance but safety of life is not involved, the
guidelines given in IMO A 949 (23) should be followed.
 When a ship has suffered an incident, the best way of preventing damage or pollution
from its progressive deterioration would be to lighten its cargo and bunkers; and to repair
the damage. Such an operation is best carried out in a place of refuge.
 While coastal states may be reluctant to accept damaged or disabled ships into their area
of responsibility due primarily to the potential for environmental damage, in fact it is
rarely possible to deal satisfactorily and effectively with a marine casualty in open sea
conditions.
 Granting access to a place of refuge could involve a political decision with due
consideration given to the balance between the advantage for the affected ship and the
environment resulting from bringing the ship into a place of refuge and the risk to the
environment resulting from that ship being near the coast.

Action required of master and / or salvors

 Appraisal of the situation

 The master should, where necessary with the assistance of the company and/or the
salvor, identify the reasons for his/her ship’s need of assistance.
 Identification of hazards and assessment of associated risks.
 The master, where necessary with the assistance of the company and/or the salvor,
should estimate the consequences of the potential casualty if the ship remains in the
same position; if the ship continues on its voyage; if the ship reaches a place of refuge;
or if the ship is taken out to sea.

Identification of the required actions

 The master and / or the salvor should identify the assistance they require from the coastal
state.
 Contacting the authority of the coastal state.
 The master and/or the salvor should make contact with the coastal state in order to
transmit to it the relevant particulars.
 Such contact should be made through the coastal state’s Maritime Assistance Service
(MAS) as per IMO A 950(23).
 Establishment of responsibilities and communications with all parties involved.
 The master and/or the salvor should notify the MAS of the actions that are intended to be
taken and within what period of time.
 The MAS should notify the master and/or the salvor of the facilities that it can make
available with a view to assistance or admittance of the ship to a place of refuge, if
required.

Response actions

 Subject, where necessary, to the coastal state’s prior consent, the shipmaster and the
shipping company concerned should take any necessary response actions, such as
 signing salvage or towage agreement or the provision of any other service for the
purpose of dealing with the ship’s situation.
 The master, the company and, where applicable, the salvor of the ship should comply
with the practical requirements resulting from the coastal state’s decision-making
process.

Reporting procedures

 The reporting procedures should be in accordance with the procedures laid down in the
safety management system of the ship concerned under the ISM Code.

Wreck and salvage

The merchant shipping (wrecks and salvage) rules, 1974

 Part I preliminary
 Part II wrecks
 Communication of intelligence of wreck: where a receiver receives intelligence of any
vessel having been wrecked or stranded or of being in distress, he shall, immediately on
receipt of such intelligence communicate it to the principal officer.

Procedure to be observed on finding a wreck

 Any person who finds and takes possession of a wreck within the limits of jurisdiction of
a receiver or brings any such wreck within such limits shall as soon as practicable, make
a report in writing to the receiver in the form specified.
 The receiver shall forward a copy of every such report to the principal officer.

Procedure for taking possession of sunken or abandoned wreck

Action to be taken on taking possession of a wreck

 Report to underwriter.
 Claims to wreck.
 Claims in doubtful cases.
 Claims by agents or assigns.
 Claim of a representative of deceased owner.
 Delivery of wreck to rightful owner.
 Sale of unclaimed wreck.
 Procedure for the sale of a wreck.
 Property proved not to be wreck.

Buoys found adrift or ashore

Part III Salvage

Owner of any vessel in distress or master or any other person duly authorised by the owner in
this behalf may enter into an agreement with any person for rendering salvage services to the
vessel in distress.

Where any vessel to which salvage services have been rendered constitutes a wreck, the owner
thereof, if he claims the wreck, should be afforded an opportunity to settle all matters relating to
salvage charges between him and the salvor. In any such case, the delivery of the wreck to the
owner shall be withheld until the receiver is satisfied that all claims relating to salvage charges
have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.

Where in any such case, the owner or the salvor reports to the receiver that matters relating to
salvage could not be settled amicably between the parties and the dispute is to be settled by the
competent court, the receiver shall withhold delivery of the wreck to the owner until the
judgment.

International Salvage Convention 1989

Definitions

"Salvage operation" means any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property
in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever.

"Vessel" means any ship or craft, or any structure capable of navigation

"Property" means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and
includes freight at risk.

Application

This convention shall apply whenever judicial or arbitral proceedings relating to matters dealt
with in this convention are brought in a state party.

Duties of the salvor and of the owner and master

The salvor shall owe a duty to the owner of the vessel or other property in danger:
 to carry out the salvage operations with due care;
 in performing the duty specified in subparagraph (a), to exercise due care to prevent or
minimize damage to the environment;
 whenever circumstances reasonably require, to seek assistance from other salvors; and
 To accept the intervention of other salvors when reasonably requested to do so by the
owner or master of the vessel or other property in danger; provided however that the
amount of his reward shall not be prejudiced should it be found that such a request was
unreasonable.

The owner and master of the vessel or the owner of other property in danger shall owe a duty to
the salvor:

 to co-operate fully with him during the course of the salvage operations;
 in so doing, to exercise due care to prevent or minimize damage to the environment; and
 When the vessel or other property has been brought to a place of safety, to accept
redelivery when reasonably requested by the salvor to do so.

Criteria for fixing the reward

Article 13

1. The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account
the following criteria without regard to the order in which they are presented below:

(a) The salved value of the vessel and other property;

(b) The skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment;

(c) The measure of success obtained by the salvor;

(d) The nature and degree of the danger;

(e) The skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other property and life;

(f) The time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvors;

(g) The risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or their equipment;

(h) The promptness of the services rendered;

(i) The availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvage operations;

(j) The state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor's equipment and the value thereof.

2. Payment of a reward fixed according to paragraph 1 shall be made by all of the vessel and
other property interests in proportion to their respective salved values. However, a state party
may in its national law provide that the payment of a reward has to be made by one of these
interests, subject to a right of recourse of this interest against the other interests for their
respective shares. Nothing in this article shall prevent any right of defence.

3. The rewards, exclusive of any interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable
thereon, shall not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property.

Special compensation Article 14

1. If the salvor has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its
cargo threatened damage to the environment and has failed to earn a reward under article 13 at
least equivalent to the special compensation assessable in accordance with this article, he shall
be entitled to special compensation from the owner of that vessel equivalent to his expenses as
herein defined.

2. If, in the circumstances set out in paragraph 1, the salvor by his salvage operations has
prevented or minimized damage to the environment, the special compensation payable by the
owner to the salvor under paragraph 1 may be increased up to a maximum of 30% of the
expenses incurred by the salvor. However, the tribunal, if it deems it fair and just to do so and
bearing in mind the relevant criteria set out in article 13, paragraph 1, may increase such special
compensation further, but in no event shall the total increase be more than 100% of the expenses
incurred by the salvor.

3. Salvor's expenses for the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2 means the out-of-pocket expenses
reasonably incurred by the salvor in the salvage operation and a fair rate for equipment and
personnel actually and reasonably used in the salvage operation, taking into consideration the
criteria set out in article 13, paragraph 1(h), (i) and (j).

4. The total special compensation under this article shall be paid only if and to the extent that
such compensation is greater than any reward recoverable by the salvor under article 13.

5. If the salvor has been negligent and has thereby failed to prevent or minimize damage to the
environment, he may be deprived of the whole or part of any special compensation due under
this article.

6. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of recourse on the part of the owner of the vessel.

The thinking behind SCOPIC clause

SCOPIC is designed to remedy the practical and legal defects of art. 14, by providing a simple
formula for calculating special compensation, motivating conduct by creating incentives and
disincentives and providing security to the salvors.

Apportionment between salvors - Article 15

1. The apportionment of a reward under article 13 between salvors shall be made on the basis of
the criteria contained in that article.

2. The apportionment between the owner, master and other persons in the service of each
salving vessel shall be determined by the law of the flag of that vessel. If the salvage has not
been carried out from a vessel, the apportionment shall be determined by the law governing the
contract between the salvor and his servants.

Problem areas - special compensation Art 14

 Art. 14 comes into effect only in respect of salvage operations of a vessel which by itself
or its cargo threatened damage to environment. SCOPIC can be invoked regardless of
whether or not threat of damage to environment.
 Salvors expenses had been defined as out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred by
salvor and a fair rate for equipment and personnel actually and reasonably used.
However the term “fair rate” is vague and is not defined as a “fair rate of expenditure” or
a “fair rate of remuneration” (which includes margin of profit).
 The “increase” or “up lift” in respect of special compensation was from 0% to 100% of
the expenses. This leads to a lot of uncertainty.

As per SCOPIC – bonus is as follows:

 If actual cost more than tariff, then actual cost +10% or tariff rate + 25% of tariff rate;
whichever is greater

Different types of salvage operations

1. Only life salvage.

2. Life and property salvage.
3. Life and property salvage plus environmental protection.

Impact of salvor invoking SCOPIC

 1. Property salvage based on Article 13.
2. Environmental protection based on SCOPIC
3. Ship owner to provide US$ 3 million as security within 2 days; can appoint ship
owner’s casualty rep.
4. H & M and cargo insurers can appoint special rep.
5. Salvor can withdraw SCOPIC if security not given.
6. Ship owner may terminate SCOPIC giving 5 days notice.
7. Salvor may terminate agreement if un-remunerative.
8. Salvor penalised if Art. 13 award greater than SCOPIC remuneration.

Towage operations

 Towage is the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another vessel
nothing more is required then accelerating of the progress.
 Towage service is ordinarily confined to vessels that have received no injury or
damage.

Characteristics of towage operation

 Property to be towed
 No damage or peril
 Contractual obligation
 Success not essential
 No maritime lien (unless provided in contract)
 No security (unless provided in contract)
 No award other name agreed remuneration

OCEAN TOWING

The objectives of these Guidelines are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss
of life, avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment, and to
property through providing minimum recommendations for the organization, planning and
execution of ocean towages and the design of associated equipment.

Application

These Guidelines are applicable to international ocean towing operations from one State to
another State. However, these guidelines may also be used for any other ocean towing
operation. These Guidelines do only apply to commercial towage operations, which are not in
the nature of salvage. However, amongst towing vessels available to undertake such towing,
priority should be given to those which are fitted to the nearest extent.

Definitions

 Bollard Pull (BP) - Documented continuous bollard pull

 Breaking Load (BL) - Documented minimum breaking load
 Ocean towing - Towing operations where the distance between designated ports of
refuge or safe anchoring along the route is more than 24 hours, taken into account
weather conditions.
 Tow - The towing vessel, including towing vessel equipment and the towed object
including its towing equipment, cargo and cargo securing.
 Towage - The complete towing operation.
  Towing equipment - All towing equipment on the towing vessel and the towed object
used to affect the towage.
 Towing master - The manager responsible for the towage. A Tug master may be
designated as Towing master.
 Tug master - The master of a towing vessel.
 1 and 10-year return periods - The most unfavourable combination of extreme
environmental conditions, comprising wind, wave and current, that can be expected
statistically every 1 and 10 years respectively.

Responsibilities

 Organizational command lines should be established and responsibilities and duties

clearly defined before a towage commences.
 The towing operation should be in charge of a competent towing master, normally being
either the master of the towing vessel or the master of the leading towing vessel, in case
the towed object is towed by more than one towing vessel.
 The towing master is responsible for the towing operation. In preparation for the towing
operation, the towing master should consider these guidelines, as appropriate. The
towing master should also consider what regulations are applicable during the towage, as
well as ensuring that all relevant safety measures as he finds necessary are implemented.
 Nothing in this section shall set aside or limit the towing master's/tug master's authority
in accordance with maritime laws.

Manning of towing vessels and towed objects

 Towing vessels should be manned to operate the towing vessel on a 24-hour basis in
accordance with the STCW Code.
 The manning should also, in addition to operating the vessel, be sufficient to ensure that
it will be possible to:

a) establish a new towing connection; and

b) Board the unmanned towed object, if planned, in an emergency situation.

 If the towed object is manned, the number of personnel on board the towed object
should, as far as possible, be limited to the necessary crew only.
 Considerations should be given to the need to safely transfer personnel and equipment
between the towing vessel and the towed object when such operation is planned to take
place in an emergency situation.
 Personnel under transfer should have life jackets or immersion suits; carry suitable radio
communication equipment and portable lights. In selecting immersion suits, due regard
should be given to the degree of body heat-loss protection necessary in the area of
operation.

Planning

 All aspects of the towage should be planned in advance, taking into account such factors
as maximum anticipated environmental conditions as reflected in section 9.1, including
tidal streams, current and water depths, as well as the size, windage, displacement and
draft of the tow. Possible cargo and cargo securing arrangements on board the towed
object should also be taken into consideration. Strength calculation of non-routine cargo
securing arrangements should be carried out. Weather routeing advice should be
obtained and used where available and appropriate and careful considerations given to
the bollard pull of the towing vessel(s) to be employed. The towing arrangements and
 procedures should be such as to reduce to a minimum any danger to personnel during the
towing operations.
 There should be a contingency plan on board the towing vessel to cover the onset of
adverse weather, particularly in respect of arrangements for heaving to or taking shelter.
Personnel should be familiarized with their responsibilities and duties in an emergency
situation in accordance with this contingency plan. If the towed object is manned, the
contingency plan should also be carried on such object. If found appropriate, the
following guidance for design environmental conditions should apply:
 Duration of towing operation Return period:
a) < 5 days 1 year
b) 5 days 10 year

There should be operation or towing manuals on board the towing vessel which describe routine
towing operations and additional manuals to describe any special towage requirements, of which
due account should be taken.

Preparation

 The tow should not proceed to sea until a satisfactory inspection of the tow has been
carried out by the towing master and, if requested or for any reason considered
necessary, by any other competent person.
 The towing operation should not commence unless the environmental conditions
prevailing, and forecast, will allow the tow to achieve safe sea room where the tow is not
endangered by a lee shore or other navigational hazards.
 Where operational limitations have been identified for the tow, procedures should be put
in place to prevent the tow encountering conditions in excess of the limitations. Such
procedures may include weather routeing or safe shelter locations, or both.

Survey

In cases, where particular circumstances or factors signify an increased risk to the tow, or where
the risk cannot be evaluated on the basis of seafaring and nautical knowledge and experience
alone, the owner of the towing vessel, owner(s) of the towed object or the towing master/tug
master should apply for survey in accordance with these guidelines by a competent organization
or authority, as appropriate.

Design environmental conditions

 The towed object, including cargo and securing arrangements, should be capable to
withstand the loads caused by the most adverse environmental conditions expected for
the season and areas in question.
 The duration of a towing operation is measured from the time the operation is started
until the tow is in a safe condition at its arrival location. If there are locations along the
route where the towed object can safely be located, the duration of the towing operation
can be measured between such locations.
 For long duration towing operations passing through areas having different sea state
characteristics, the worst sea state for the route should be considered when selecting the
cargo securing arrangements and the equipment to ensure watertight integrity of the
towed object.
 The continuous bollard pull of the towing vessel(s) involved should be sufficient to
maintain station keeping of the tow in the following environmental conditions, acting in
the same direction:
 a) Wind: 20 m/s
b) Significant wave height: 5 m
c) Current: 0.5 m/s

Other criteria may be acceptable if high confidence on the weather forecasts and experience data
for the actual waters can be obtained.

Weather forecast

 Where possible a weather forecasting source should be available on a 24-hour basis for
the whole towing operation.
 Weather forecasts should, as a minimum, contain the following information:

a) Synopsis of the area

b) Wind speed and direction
c) Wave height and period
d) Swell height and period
e) Outlook for the next 48 hours.

 In certain high risk situations, or when such forecast may be seasonally unpredictable,
consideration should be given to obtaining a second weather forecast.
 Weather forecasts should be received on the towing vessel (and received or relayed on
the towed object if manned) at least every 24 hours during the towage. Where there is
specific weather limitations imposed, then more frequent forecasts may be appropriate
and possible direct communication with the forecaster if significant changes are
expected.

Towing vessel requirements

 Towing vessels should carry on board appropriate valid cargo ships certificates
according to their size.
 The following documents should also be provided:

a) Documentation of bollard pull

b) Documentation of all towing vessel equipment, ref. section 12

 The continuous bollard pull (BP) at maximum continuous rated power of the main
propulsion machinery should be documented. The testing procedure in Appendix A or a
similar procedure should be adhered to.
 When selecting towing vessels for long distance towing operations, special
considerations should be given to the following:

a) The vessels propulsion and steering gear are appropriate for the proposed towage
operation;
b) The towline should not hamper the vessel's manoeuvrability under extreme
environmental conditions; and
c) The towing gear can be handled safely and effectively.

 Towing vessels should have an adequate reserve of fuel depending on the duration of the
towing operation. If refuelling on route is necessary, suitable arrangements should be
provided before towing commences.
 Towing vessels should keep a towing log with information according to Appendix B.
Further, it should keep an engine log for main propulsion machinery and auxiliaries
 required for the towage, which as a minimum should contain information related to
running hours and unscheduled events.
 Towing vessels should have a documented maintenance system for all important systems
including communication and navigation equipment, main and auxiliary machinery, and
steering and towing gear.
 Notwithstanding the above requirements, all towing vessels, irrespective of their size,
should have as a minimum:
 Marine radar in compliance with relevant recognized performance standards appropriate
for the size and operation of the vessel;
 Adequate self-sufficient fire suppression capability;

 Installation of the following equipment:

1. A searchlight that can be directed from the vessel's main steering station;
2. Two VHF-FM radios with Digital Selective Calling capability if not already equipped
with Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS);
3. An illuminated card type magnetic steering compass or an illuminated flux gate
magnetic compass (with a reserve power supply) that can be read at the vessel's main
steering station;
4. An echo depth-sounding device that can be read at the vessel's main steering station; and
5. An electronic positioning device; and
6. The following on board:

a) Currently corrected marine charts of the area to be transited, published by an appropriate

authority, of a scale large enough to make navigation of the area possible; and
b) Any other useful currently corrected navigational publications and notices.

Towing equipment

 The towing equipment should be designed according to the below mentioned

recommendations and recognized standards. The towing arrangements should be suitable
for the particular tow and of adequate strength.
 The towing vessel should be equipped with a towing winch.
 It is recommended that the towing winch brakes should have an appropriate static
holding capacity to that of the documented minimum breaking load (MBL) of the largest
towline to be used. The holding capability should be calculated for the outermost towline
layer on the winch drum at which towing will be performed.
 The design and scantling of the towing winch, including supports, should be capable of
withstanding the breaking load of the main towing wire rope without permanent
deformation.
 It should be possible to release the tension on the winch drum(s) in an emergency and in
all operational modes. The end attachment of the towing wire rope to the winch drum
should be of limited strength, thus forming a weak link in case the towline has to be run
out. After an emergency release the winch brakes should revert to normal function
without delay. It should also be possible to carry out the emergency release sequence
(emergency release/application of brakes) even during a black-out.
 It is recommended that on board towing vessels, whenever practicable, the winch should
be fitted with equipment for measuring the tension in the towline. This equipment
should, as a minimum, record the mean tension and the tension peaks, and the
information should be displayed in the wheel house.
 Means should be provided to spool the towline effectively on the drum(s).
 Towline protection sleeves or other means should be provided to prevent the towlines
being damaged by chafing or abrasion. There should be no sharp edges or obstructions at
 the stern of the vessel that may damage the towlines during operation. A sufficient
number of spare towline sleeves should be carried on board.
 An appropriate length for the towline should be determined using established criteria.
Where no such criteria has been established, the minimum required length (L) of the
main towline should be determined from the formula; L= (BP/BL)x1800 m, where: BL =
Documented breaking load of the towline, BP = Continuous bollard pull
 All wire ropes in use should have the same lay (i.e. right hand, left hand, etc.).
 The minimum documented breaking load (MBL) of the main towline should generally
be in accordance with the following table:

a) Bollard pull (BP) (tonnes) <40 40-90 >90

b) MBL (tonnes) 3.0xBP (3.8-BP/50) BP 2.0xBP

 A spare towline satisfying all requirements for the main towline should be kept on board
the towing vessel. If the towing winch is equipped with two drums the spare towline
should preferably be stored on the winch drum, readily available for use. The alternative
is to have a spare towline which should be in position and so arranged to ensure that
transfer to the main towing drum is easily, quickly and safely affected. In case of two
towed objects whereby two independent towlines (main and spare) are to be connected,
an extra spare towline should be board, arranged as specified above.
 All wire rope terminations should be hard eyes, i.e. reinforced thimbles or spelter sockets
except for the end connection to the drum on the towing winch.
 All connecting items like shackles, rings, etc., should have an ultimate load bearing
capacity of minimum 50% in excess of the documented minimum breaking load (MBL)
of the towing arrangement to be used.
 If fibre rope pennants are used, the pennants should be in a sound condition and the
minimum breaking load of any fibre rope pennants should not be less than:

a) 2.0 times the tow line MBL, for tugs with bollard pull less than 50 tonnes;
b) 1.5 times the tow line MBL, for tugs with bollard pull greater than 100 tonnes;
and linearly interpolated between 1.5 and 2.0 times the tow line MBL for tugs with
bollard pull between 50 and 100 tonnes.
c) Fibre rope pennants should be of grommet construction and be terminated with
hard eyes, and should not normally be connected directly to the apex of the towing
bridle.

 The towing vessel should be equipped with sufficient spare equipment to completely
replicate the towing arrangements, unless found impractical.
 Inspection of the towline should be carried out on completion of each towing operation.
The results of the inspection should always be recorded as a basis for decision on future
inspection programs. The inspection should also be noted on the towing log.
 No part of any towline arrangement should be used for the towing operation if:

a) the reduction in cross sectional area due to wear, abrasion, corrosion and broken
wires exceeds 10% or there is severe kinking, crushing or other damage resulting in
distortion of the rope structure;
b) End sockets or other towline terminations such as thimbles, etc., are damaged,
deformed or significantly corroded.

 If relevant, gog ropes or alternative arrangement should be provided to prevent athwart-

ship pull, and to facilitate retrieving of the towline. The arrangement should be remotely
operated from a safe position. A spare gog rope should be carried on board.

Towed object
 Every towed object, whether manned or not, should be assessed and provided with a
confirmation of its fitness to be towed, covering all below mentioned requirements.
 The towed object should have adequate intact stability in all the loaded and ballast
conditions expected during the voyage. Compliance with any applicable damage stability
criteria should be verified, if not unreasonable due to special conditions. Such damage
stability should be demonstrated to the extent the towed object may have been
previously documented to.
 Prior to sailing, the watertight and weather tight integrity should be confirmed by an
inspection of the closing arrangements for all hatches, valves, air pipes, and other
openings through which water might enter the towed object and affect its stability. It
should also be confirmed that any watertight doors or other closing arrangements within
the hull are securely closed and that any portable closing plates are in place.
 Towed objects should be at a suitable draught and suitably trimmed for the intended
voyage, commensurate with the stability condition.
 It should be documented that the towed object has adequate structural integrity in
relation to the cargo loads, the design environmental conditions and other foreseen loads
during the voyage. Where applicable, reference should be made to the towed object's
loading manual.
 The cargo securing arrangements (ref. section 6.1) and weather protection for the cargo,
equipment and stores carried on the towed object should be carefully examined to ensure
that they are adequate for the voyage. Where applicable, reference should be made to the
towed object's cargo securing manual.
 Where applicable, a bridle should normally be used for connection of the main towing
wire rope to the towed object. Chains should be used in way of chafing areas such as
fairleads.
 All connection parts (e.g. each leg of a bridle) should have a documented minimum
breaking load (MBL) exceeding the breaking load of the towing arrangement.
 Towline attachments should be designed to resist the towline pull from any likely
direction, with use of fairleads if necessary. The design and arrangement of the towing
fittings should take into account both normal and emergency conditions.
 The ultimate strength of any towline attachment (bracket or bollard and their foundation)
should not be less than 1.3 times the minimum breaking load of the towing arrangement
which is to be attached.
 Fairleads should be designed to accommodate the chafing chain and should be shaped so
as to prevent excessive bending stress in the chain links.
 A bridle recovery system should be fitted on the towed object, strong enough to be
utilised after towline breakage, in case the bridle is planned to be used again during the
towage.
 Emergency towing equipment should be provided in case of bridle failure or inability to
recover the bridle. This equipment should preferably be fitted at the bow of the towed
object and should consist of a spare bridle or towing pennant fitted with a floating rope
and buoy allowing it to be picked up without any significant hazard.
 Towed objects should exhibit the navigation lights, shapes and, if manned, make the
sound signals required by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972, as amended. Due consideration should be given to the reliability of the lights and
sound signals and their ability to function for the duration of the voyage. When
practicable, a duplicate system of lights should be provided.
 Boarding facilities should be rigged on each side of the towed object.
 When appropriate, the rudder should be secured in the amidships position and measures
taken to prevent the propeller shaft from turning.
 Life-saving appliances in the form of lifejackets and life buoys shall be provided
whenever personnel are likely to be on board the towed object even if only for short
periods. When personnel are expected to remain on board for longer periods of time, life
 rafts should also be provided. If the freeboard is more than 4.5 m, life raft davits should
be provided, unless rendered impractical due to the design or conditions of the towed
object.
 Whenever the towed object is continually manned, the riding-crew should be provided
with adequate supplies of food and water, cooking and sanitary facilities, radio
equipment, including means of communication with the towing vessel, distress signals,
life-saving and fire-fighting appliances.
 Towed objects should be equipped with an anchor, suitable for holding the towed object
in severe weather conditions, that is securely attached to a chain cable or wire and is
arranged for release in an emergency by persons on, or boarding the towed object, unless
rendered impractical due to the design or conditions of the towed object.
 To reduce the risk of pollution, the amount of oil carried on the towed object should be
limited to what is required for the safety of the towed object and/or towing vessel and for
their normal operations, provided no risk to the environment will result from the removal
of oil from the towed object.

In an emergency

 Should the tow present a direct danger to navigation, offshore structures or coastlines
through breaking adrift or for some other cause, the master of the towing vessel is bound
by SOLAS regulation V/2 to communicate the information by all the means at his
disposal to ships in the vicinity, and also to the competent authorities at the first point on
the coast with which he can communicate.
 In all cases, the arrangements for recovering the tow, should it break adrift, should be
made in accordance with good seamanship, bearing in mind the seasonal weather
conditions and area of operation.
APPENDIX A

Bollard pull testing procedure

1. A proposed test programme should be submitted prior to the testing.

2. During testing of continuous bollard pull (BP) the main engine(s) should be run at the
manufacturer's recommended maximum torque according to maximum continuous
rating.
3. Verification of the actual output should be requested during the test.
4. During testing of overload pull, the main engine(s) should be run at the manufacturer's
recommended maximum rating that can be maintained for minimum 30 minutes. The
overload test may be omitted.
5. The propeller(s) fitted when performing the test should be the propeller(s) used when the
vessel is in normal operation.
6. All auxiliary equipment such as pumps, generators and other equipment which are
driven from the main engine(s) or propeller shaft(s) in normal operation of the vessel
should be connected during the test.
7. The length of the towline should not be less than 300 metres, measured between the stern
of the vessel and the test bollard. A minimum length of twice the vessel length might be
accepted.
8. The water depth at the test location should not be less than 20 metres within a radius of
100 metres of the vessel. If the water depth of 20 metres cannot be obtained at the test
location, then a minimum water depth which is equal to twice the maximum draft of the
vessel may be accepted. It should be noted that reduced water depth may adversely
affect the test results.
9. The test should be carried out with the vessel's displacement corresponding to full ballast
and half fuel capacity.
 10. The vessel should be trimmed at even keel or at a trim by stern not exceeding 2% of the
vessel's length.
11. The vessel should be able to maintain a fixed course for not less than 10 minutes while
pulling as specified in items 2 or 3 above. Certified continuous bollard pull is the
average reading of the 10 minutes period.
12. The test should be performed with a wind speed not exceeding 5 m/sec.
13. The current at the test location should not exceed 0.5 m/sec. in any direction.
14. The load cell used for the test should be approved by a competent body and be accurate
within +/- 2% within the range of loads to be measured and for the environmental
conditions experienced during the test.
15. An instrument giving a continuous read-out and also a recording instrument recording
the bollard pull graphically as a function of time should both be connected to the load
cell. The instruments should if possible be placed and monitored ashore.
16. The load cell should be fitted between the eye of the towline and the bollard.
17. The figure certified as the vessel's continuous bollard pull shall be the towing force
recorded as being maintained without any tendency to decline for a duration of not less
than 10 minutes.
18. Certification of bollard pull figures recorded when running the engine(s) at overload,
reduced RPM or with a reduced number of main engines or propellers operating can be
given and noted on the certificate.
19. A communication system shall be established between the vessel and the person(s)
monitoring the load cell and the recording instrument ashore, by means of VHF or
telephone connection, for the duration of the test.

APPENDIX B

Towing log

Vessel: .................................................................. Date/Master sign.

...................................../................................................................
Main Towline: (Installed).................................... Breaking Load: (M/T)..............................
Length / Diameter: ............... Inspection Date / Year: .................
Spare Towline: ...................................... Breaking Strain: (M/T)..............................
Length/Diameter: ............... Inspection Date / Year: .................
Main Towline: Lubrication (L) Maintenance (M) Date: ................................................................
Reference Inspection Reports etc.: ...........................................
Spare Towline: Lubrication (L) Maintenance (M) Date: ...............................................................
Reference Inspection Reports etc.: ...........................................
Towed Object: .................................................. Towline Connected:
Date/Hours................................ Position: ...........................................
Length of Bridle (M): ....................................... Towline Released:
Date/Hours................................... Position: ...........................................
TOWING INFORMATION (NOON + MIDNIGHT OR TWICE A DAY)
FROM TO Duration of wire rope used (total days/hours)
Wire tension (M/T)
Wire length (m)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Wire length Adjusted + - (m)
Remarks
Date / Year Hours Date / Year Hours Max. Aver. Wave (height/direct./period)
Wind (force/direct.)
Total to be transferred to page Remarks:
________
Chapter 17 – Emergency Response
Procedures
Emergency Response Procedure

IMO ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION A. 852 (20) 27 November 1997 Guidelines for A Structure
of an Integrated System of Contingency Planning For Shipboard Emergencies

General remark

 The ISM Code establishes an international standard for the safe management and
operation of ships by defining elements which must be taken into account for the
organization of company management in relation to ship safety and pollution prevention.
Since emergencies, as well as cargo spillage, cannot be entirely controlled either through
design, or through normal operational procedures, emergency preparedness and pollution
prevention should form part of the company’s ship safety management. For this purpose,
every company is required by the ISM Code to develop, implement and maintain a
Safety Management System (SMS).
 Within this SMS, procedures for describing and responding to potential shipboard
emergency situations are required.
 If the preparation of response actions for the many possible varying types of emergency
situations which may occur are formulated on the basis of a complete and detailed case-
by-case consideration, a great deal of duplication will result.
 To avoid duplication, shipboard contingency plans must differentiate between "initial
actions“ and the major response effort involving "subsequent response", depending on
the emergency situation and the type of ship.
 A two-tier course of action provides the basis for a modular approach, which can avoid
unnecessary duplication.
 It is recommended that a uniform and integrated system of shipboard emergency plans
should be treated as part of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, forming a
fundamental part of the company’s individual Safety Management System (SMS).

Integrated system of contingency plans for shipboard emergencies

Scope

 The integrated system of shipboard emergency plans (hereinafter referred to as the

"system") should provide a framework for the many individual contingency plans
(hereinafter referred to as the "plans"), tailored for a variety of potential emergencies, for
a uniform and modular designed structure.
 Use of a modular designed structure will provide a quickly visible and logically
sequenced source of information and priorities, which can reduce error and oversight
during emergency situations.

Structure of the system

The structure of the system comprises the following six modules, the titles of which are:

 Module I: Introduction
 Module II: Provisions
 Module III: Planning, preparedness and training
 Module IV: Response actions
  Module V: Reporting procedures
 Module VI: Annexes.

An example of the arrangement of these modules is shown in Appendix 2.

 Each module should contain concise information to provide guidance and to ensure that
all appropriate and relevant factors and aspects, through the various actions and
decisions during an emergency response, are taken into account.

Emergency Plan(s) Implementation Flow Chart

This flow chart outlines the step-wise approach to carrying out the emergency plan(s)
implementation. It indicates steps or objectives to be achieved rather than specific procedures to
be followed.

Based on experience, a seven-step approach to implementing the plan(s) can be set out which
leads to a useful and effective integrated emergency response plan.

STEP 1: Evaluate the risks and hazards which may result in different emergency situations
(Possible events should be identified and their probability of occurrence and consequences must
be addressed to set priorities for planning)

STEP 2: Identify the required response tasks (This step requires a thorough definition of
actions which must be taken in an emergency)

STEP 3: Identify the shipboard emergency response participants and establish their roles,
resources and communication lines (There is a limited range of potential participants in
emergency response aboard; it is important to identify them early)

STEP 4: Make changes necessary to improve existing plans and integrate them in the
system (Integrating all existing plans into one plan will reveal problems with overlapping
activities and complicated interfaces)

STEP 5: Prepare final plan(s) and obtain identity with both the shore side and shipboard
plan(s) (Once agreement on the integrated plan has been reached, a final plan should be
documented out to be kept ready for updating in accordance with the experiences gained under
steps 6 and 7)

STEP 6: Educate the emergency response participants about the integrated system and
plan(s) and ensure that all emergency responders are trained (It is important that emergency
responders are well trained)

STEP 7 Establish procedures for periodic testing, review and updating of the plan(s)
(Emergency responders should test the plan on a regular basis. Any deficiencies should then be
corrected in the plan and the training programme)

MODULE IV

Response actions

Fire

Damage to the ship

Pollution

Unlawful acts threatening........and crew

Personnel accidents

Cargo related accidents

Emergency assistance to other ships

MODULE V

Reporting procedures

The master is obliged to report details and to inform all interested parties about the emergency
and the actions taken so far by means of the fastest telecommunication channels available.
Chapter 18 – CASE STUDIES
HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Bow and stern doors

It is necessary to give a more detailed description of the lower car deck (G deck) and its doors.

The HERALD, in common with other modern Ro/Ro ferries, had an enclosed superstructure
above the bulkhead deck. For this to be considered as contributing to the ship’s intact stability it
must be weathertight. Scuppers were provided on the bulkhead deck capable of draining off any
minor quantity of water which may accumulate through weather, fire fighting, washing decks or
pipe leakages. These scuppers were capable of handling about 3/400 tons per hour, using some
20 seven-inch drain pipes with non-return valves on each side of the ship.

It should be noted that the term “weathertight” does not imply that the condition is of a lower
order of tightness than “watertight”. Watertight is applied to doors and bulkheads where there is
the possibility of water accumulating at either side. Weathertight applies to doors or openings
which are only required to prevent the ingress of water from the side exposed to the weather.
When testing for weathertightness, the procedure is to hose test from the weather side only,
whereas when testing for watertightness the hose test would be applied from both sides. At the
bow there were inner and outer doors. At the stern only outer doors were fitted. The bow and
stern doors were required to be weathertight.

All the vehicle deck bow and stern doors were hydraulically operated and were so arranged that
they swung horizontally about vertical axes, on radius arms. Their weight and movement were
supported by rubberised rollers (or wheels). In order to support the bow and stern doors whilst
being opened or closed, the vessel’s belting at both the bow and the stern was extended in the
form of a horizontal platform which was shaped to fit the fenders of the ramps, thereby allowing
the vessel to be held tight in the berth when loading and discharging. The doors stowed against
the ship’s sides when open. They met at the centre line so that one door stowed to port and the
other to starboard. The inner bow doors were lock gate type. They opened in a forward direction
and stowed against longitudinal bulkheads to port and starboard. The construction of the doors
was such that they were able to withstand the normal forces anticipated in the bow and stern
areas of the vessel. Structurally they were required to be at least as strong as a fully plated bow
and stern. They also had sufficient rigidity to prevent distortion during the opening and closing
operations. Although the spade at the level of the belting deflected the seas at the bow when the
vessel was proceeding at full speed, in calculating the strength of the bow doors there was no
reduction in scantlings because of this factor.

In the closed position, watertightness was maintained by compressing tubular neoprene seals
around the outer periphery of the doors. Closure of the doors and the compression on these seals
was maintained by a system of clamps and dogs which were hydraulically operated. The dogs
were forced by hydraulic cylinders into box shaped blind-ended apertures in the deck head and
on the car deck. There were limit switches which controlled the distance during which full
pressure needed to be applied.

The hydraulic pressure to the opening/closing rams was piped through directional control valves
which were actuated by a lever in the control box. This control lever, like the clamping lever,
returned to the off position when the operator released it. There was an alarm bell which rang
whilst the doors were in motion. The bell was a safety device to prevent anyone being caught
unawares, and should not have been switched off.

There is no reason to think that there was any fault which would have prevented the doors from
being closed hydraulically. There was some evidence from a Mr. John Calderwood, who was a
freight driver, that he returned to G deck before the ship sailed and that he heard a loud metallic
bang which made him think that the crew were having difficulty in closing the bow doors. The
Court were not convinced that Mr. Calderwood had an accurate recollection of the events which
he endeavoured to describe.

The manoeuvres leading to the capsize

Upon departure the HERALD went astern from the berth, turned to starboard at the end of the
Kennedy Quay and proceeded to sea through the inner harbour. The HERALD was being
manoeuvred on combinators. A combinator is an engine control on the bridge. At any one
position the propeller pitch is combined with revolutions and engine throttle to give the desired
speed. The wing engines and propellers were not controlled by a true combinator as the
machinery ran at constant revolutions. The control only affected pitch and the engine took up
the required load automatically. The centre engine was controlled by a true combinator with a
pitch control trimming wheel which was set at the maximum value. The engine settings had
been adjusted, however, so as not to overload it.

The Master and deck officers testified that when entering or leaving Zeebrugge with this ship
trimmed by the head care was taken to restrict the speed to a level which would avoid 'water
coming over the bow spade. The Second Officer said that he would watch the spade and if water
came on top of it he would inform the Master, who would slacken speed. The Master and the
Chief Officer gave speeds for Combinator 4 and Combinator 6 settings which appear to be
significantly below those of which the ship was actually capable.

Thus Captain Lewry stated that at Combinator 4 the speed would be 10-12 knots while at 6 it
would reach 15-16 knots. The corresponding figures given by Mr. Sabel were 7 knots and 12
knots or a little higher. The PRIDE experiment showed the vessel would have been capable of a
speed of approximately 14 knots on Combinator 4 setting and knots on Combinator 6.

The SPIRIT Class were designed for rapid acceleration with engines capable of going from idle
to full load rapidly and with propellers designed to accept this increasing load without difficulty.
On passing the Outer Mole Captain Lewry set Combinator 6 on all three engines. The HERALD
accelerated rapidly from 14 knots to a possible ultimate speed of 18 knots. Towards the end of
this acceleration the combination of dynamic sinkage, or squat, and an increase in bow wave
height caused water to enter over the spade and flow aft into G deck. The fact that Captain
Lewry set Combinator 6 is strange in the light of the evidence given by himself and by the two
Mates that they restricted the Combinator settings, until the bow tank had been pumped out
fully, to levels at which water did not come over the spade. Both the model tests and the Pride
experiment indicated clearly that at Combinator 6 the bow wave would be well up the bow
doors, i.e. perhaps 2 m above the level of the top of the spade.

The Court has concluded that on the evening of the 6th March Captain Lewry did not follow the
practice, which he described, of restricting speed so that water did not come above the spade.
The Court is satisfied that the rate of inflow of water was large and increased progressively as
the ship dug the bow spade deeper into the water and decreased the freeboard forward. A large
quantity of water entered G deck and caused an initial lurch to port due to free surface instability
which was extremely rapid and reached perhaps 30". The water collected in the port wing of the
vehicle deck and the ship became stable again at a large angle of loll. Water in large quantities
continued to flood through the open bow doors aperture. Thereafter the HERALD capsized to
port rather more slowly until eventually she was at more than 90". It is not possible to say
whether the ship reached more than while still floating or whether this was only when she
reached the sea bed. There is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her
beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed.

The immediate cause of the disaster

The HERALD capsized because she went to sea with her inner and outer bow doors open. From
the outset Mr. Mark Victor Stanley, who was the assistant bosun, has accepted that it was his
duty to close the bow doors at the time of departure from Zeebrugge and that he failed to carry
out this duty. Mr. Stanley had opened the bow doors on arrival in Zeebrugge. Thereafter he was
engaged in supervising members of the crew in maintenance and cleaning the ship until he was
released from work by the bosun, Mr. Ayling. Mr. Stanley then went to his cabin, where he fell
asleep and was not awakened by the call “Harbour Stations”, which was given over the Tannoy
address system. He remained asleep on his bunk until he was thrown out of it when the
HERALD began to capsize. Mr. Stanley has frankly recognised his failure to turn up for duty
and he will, no doubt, suffer remorse for a long time to come. If the Company regards it as
appropriate or necessary to take disciplinary action against Mr. Stanley it has power to do so
under the Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy. In fairness to Mr. Stanley it is right to record
that after the HERALD capsized he found his way out of the ship on to her hull where he set
about rescuing passengers trapped inside. He broke a window for access and, when he was
scooping the glass away his right forearm was deeply cut. Nevertheless he re-entered the hull
and went into the water to assist passengers. He continued until he was overcome by cold and
bleeding.

The bosun, Mr. Terence Ayling, told the court that he thought he was the last man to leave G
deck, where he had been working in the vicinity of the bow doors and that, so far as he knew,
there was no one there to close the doors. He had put the chain across after the last car was
loaded. There is no reason why the bow doors should not have been closed as soon as the chain
was in position. Mr. Ayling was asked whether there was any reason why he should not have
shut the doors. He replied “It has never been part of my duties to close the doors or make sure
anybody is there to close the doors.” He also said “At that stage it was harbour stations so
everybody was going to their stations.” He took a narrow view of his duties and it is most
unfortunate that that was his attitude. It is only fair to add that his behaviour after the HERALD
capsized was exemplary. In the absence of any deck officer he took the responsibility for
organizing the rescue efforts, first from the bridge and later in the passenger spaces.

The questions which arise are: why was the absence of Mr. Stanley from his harbour station not
noticed? and, why was there not a foolproof system which would ensure that the vital task of
closing the bow doors was performed irrespective of the potential failure of any one individual?
This was not the first occasion on which such a failure had occurred. In October 1983 the
assistant bosun of the PRIDE had fallen asleep and had not heard “Harbour Stations” being
called, with the result that he neglected to close both the bow and stern doors on the sailing of
the vessel from No. 5 berth, Dover.

A general instruction issued in July 1984 prescribed that it was the duty of the officer loading
the main vehicle deck (G deck) to ensure that the bow doors were “secure when leaving port”.
That instruction had been regularly flouted. It was interpreted as meaning that it was the duty of
the loading officer merely to see that someone was at the controls and ready to close the doors.
That is not the meaning of the instruction. The instruction is not clearly worded, but, whatever
its precise meaning, it was not enforced. If it had been enforced this disaster would not have
occurred. We will revert to these points later.

Mr. Paul Ronald Morter was the Second Officer of the HERALD on 6th March. Mr. Morter
went to G deck during the course of loading to relieve the Chief Officer. Despite the arrival of
Mr. Morter the Chief Officer remained on G deck for a time, without explaining why he did so.
In due course the Chief Officer left Mr. Morter in charge of loading. About 10 or 15 minutes
before the ship was due to sail the Chief Officer, who had overheard difficulties between Mr.
Morter and the shore staff, returned and, according to a deposition made by him on the 1st April
1987, he suggested that the second officer should go aft and stand by for harbour stations while
he completed the loading. That statement does not accord with the recollection of Mr. Morter.
The evidence of Mr. Morter is that he did not expect the Chief Officer to return before
departure. When there were still 20 to 25 cars to load Mr. Morter overheard on his radio the
Chief Officer giving orders. The two officers did not meet face to face. Mr. Morter assumed that
once the Chief Officer had arrived and started issuing orders he, Mr. Morter, was no longer to
exercise the responsibilities of loading officer. The Court sensed that there was some tension
between the Chief Officer and Mr. Morter and that the whole picture had not emerged in the
course of their evidence.
MV TOSA

Barely has the maritime community heaved a sigh of relief at the release of two Indian seafarers
from S. Korea, comes the news of M.V, ‘TOSA’, Master, Capt. Glen Aroza – an Indian
National being detained in Taiwan. This incident points to the need for concerted efforts at
national and international level to protect the rights of innocent seafarers.

Capt. Glen Aroza has been detained in Taiwan since April 17 2009, after M.V, ‘TOSA’, which
is a large crude carrier registered in Panama, was taken at gunpoint from the high seas from
international waters to Hualien in Taiwan said Capt. V.K. Gupta, Master of CMMI. Two other
crew members, namely the second officer (a Bangladesh national) and a seaman (a Philippines
national), who were on watch at the time of the alleged incident, have also been detained in jail
without bail.

The allegations against the Master are vague and have been changed / amended a number of
times at the whim and caprice of Taiwanese authorities.

It was first alleged that the TOSA had collided with a Taiwanese fishing trawler in international
waters as a consequence of which the trawler capsized and two fishermen lost their lives. When
inspections of the hulls of the trawler as well as the TOSA revealed that there was no physical
contact between the two vessels, it was alleged that the trawler (whose length is said to be 21.6
meters and deadweight about 100 tons) capsized due to the wake of the TOSA. On the face of it,
this allegation is ludicrous. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance of the ships and the seas
knows that it is impossible for a trawler of that size to capsize simply by the waves created by a
large ship – unless of course she was inherently unstable and un-seaworthy. This allegation is all
the more atrocious in view of the fact that the wind force at the time was only about force 5/6 on
the Beaufort scale.

Subsequently, records and investigations revealed that the second officer was independently in-
charge of the navigation watch and though the Master had left WRITTEN orders to give all
vessels – especially fishing vessels, a wide berth and to be called in case of doubt, the second
officer did not consider it necessary to inform the Master as, in his opinion, the TOSA had
passed the trawler at a safe distance. The allegation against the Master was now changed to
“involuntary manslaughter”, failure to render assistance (even though, no distress signal –
whether visual / wireless or otherwise were sent out either by the trawler or by any other station
on shore or at sea) and / or failure to train the second officer and the seaman on duty.

Even if one ignores the patent impossibility of the alleged facts, detention of and investigation
against the Master and crew of the TOSA are patently illegal and without jurisdiction for the
following reasons:

1. It is an admitted position that at all material times, the second officer was independently in
charge of the navigation watch and that the Master was not on the bridge – indeed he first learnt
about the alleged incident from Taiwan coast guard nearly nine / ten hours after the event.
STCW Convention clearly provides that the duty officer remains fully responsible for the safe
navigation of the watch even if the Master is present on the bridge – unless the Master takes
over the watch. Thus, if at all any blame attaches to the TOSA for the alleged capsizing of the
Trawler; the officer of the watch is solely responsible and the allegations of any neglect or
wrongful act on the part of the Master are without any basis.

2. At all times, the TOSA was on the “High Seas” as defined in international law (well outside
the territorial waters of Taiwan) – in fact she was forced into Taiwanese ports illegally and
under threat of armed force against all international law and accepted norms of civilized
behavior. Thus, even if all the facts as alleged are true, Taiwanese authorities have no
jurisdiction whatsoever – whether civil or criminal.

3. Article 92 of UNCLOS 1982 states: “Ships shall sail under the flag of one state only and, save
in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall
be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.”

4. Article 97 of UNCLOS further holds that “no arrest or detention of the ship, even as a
measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag state.”
The flag state in this case was the Republic of Panama- where the TOSA is registered. 1

5. Article 1 of “The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to
Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or Other Incidents of Navigation” provides: In the
event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a sea-going ship and
involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the
service of the ship, criminal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted only before the
judicial or administrative authorities of the State of which the ship was flying the flag at the time
of the collision or other incident of navigation.
Article 2 of the same Convention provides: “No arrest or detention of the vessel shall be
ordered, even as a measure of investigation, by any authorities other than those whose flag the
ship was flying.”

This is not the first time Taiwan has detained an Indian citizen and merchant navy officer in
violation of international law. In 1996-1999, Captain Raj Goel was detained in Taiwan for three
and a half years.

Recently, two Indian merchant navy officers were illegally detained in South Korea for over one
and a half years. It is no exaggeration to say that these officers were released mainly because of
the pressures brought about by the international shipping community. Efforts by official circles
in India were woefully inadequate and consisted of no more than lip service.

It would be naïve to expect Taiwanese authorities to abide by international law unless sufficient
pressure is brought on it. It would be equally futile to hope that those in power will do anything
at all to protect Indian sea-farers unless they are compelled to do so. It is time the maritime and
shipping community in India join hands to wake up our political masters and civil servants from
their slumber and indifference.

Footnotes

The incident of Maersk Dubai is worth recalling here - if only to highlight the double standards
observed by Taiwan.

The Maersk Dubai was a Taiwan registered vessel owned by Yang Ming Marine Transport
Corporation. She was manned by Taiwanese officers and Philipino crew.

In March 1996, two Romanian nationals were discovered in one of the containers on the ship
and ordered overboard on a makeshift raft, approximately 38 nautical miles off Gibralter.

Again, about two months later, while proceeding towards Halifax, another Romanian was found
in a container and forced overboard by the Master – one Captain Sheng Hsiu and four of his
officers. A fourth stowaway was discovered by one of the Filipino crew and was kept hidden
until the ship arrived at Halifax, where eight Filipino crewmen jumped ship and reported the
incident to the authorities.
Captain Hsiu and his officers were arrested and charged with first degree murder. The radio
operator attempted to escape by jumping into Halifax harbour but was later arrested.

Captain Hsiu attempted to deny access to the ship under “international shipping laws”.

Romania requested extradition of the Master and the accused officers. The Presiding judge held
that he did not have jurisdiction as the alleged crimes had been committed on the high seas.
However, he added that but for the lack of jurisdiction the Court would have committed all of
the officers.

“Taiwan protested the storming of the ship and the arrest of the officers, and contested the
attempt by Canadian authorities to extradite them to Romania citing Articles 92 and 97 of
UNCLOS.

The officers were eventually extradited to Taiwan.

Captain Hsiu was charged with criminal negligence causing death and was subsequently
acquitted for lack of evidence regarding the stowaways’ death.

None of the other officers were brought to trial.

It was widely reported that the Pilipino crew who reported the crime to the Canadian authorities
were victimized and their families harassed and threatened in the Philippines.

COSCO BUSAN

The COSCO Busan oil spill occurred at 08:30 UTC-8 on 7 November 2007 between San
Francisco and Oakland, California, in which 53,569 US gal (202,780 l) of IFO-380 heavy fuel
oil, sometimes referred to as "bunker fuel", spilled into San Francisco Bay after the container
ship M/V COSCO Busan operated by, Fleet Management Ltd., struck Delta Tower of the San
Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge in thick fog.

Investigators found that maritime pilot John Cota was impaired from his use of prescription
pharmaceuticals while piloting the boat, which rendered him unable to use the onboard radar
and electronic maps correctly, and that the Vessel Traffic Service of the United States Coast
Guard failed to warn Cota that the vessel was headed for the bridge Cota was sentenced to 10
months in federal prison for his role in the incident.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency after meeting
federal, state and local officials overseeing the cleanup. The proclamation made additional state
personnel, funding and equipment available to assess and clean up the environmental damage.

Causes

The National Transportation Safety Board determined the following probable causes of the
accident:

1. the pilot’s degraded cognitive performance from his use of prescription medications,
despite his completely clean post accident drug test,
2. the absence of a comprehensive pre-departure master/pilot exchange and a lack of
effective communication between Pilot John Cota and Master Mao Cai Sun during the
accident voyage, and
3. (COSCO Busan Master) Sun's ineffective oversight of Cota's piloting performance and
the vessel’s progress.
Other contributing factors included

1. the failure of Fleet Management Ltd. to train the COSCO Busan crewmembers (which
led to such acts of gross negligence as the bow lookout eating breakfast in the galley
instead of being on watch) and Fleet Management's failure to ensure that the crew
understood and complied with the company’s safety management system;
2. the failure of Caltrans to maintain foghorns on the bridge which were silent despite the
heavy fog;
3. the failure of Vessel Traffic Safety (VTS) to alert Cota and Sun that they were headed
for the tower. VTS is legally required to alert a vessel if an accident appears imminent,
yet they remained silent;
4. the malfunctioning radar on the COSCO Busan, which led Captains Cota and Sun to use
an electronic chart for the rest of the voyage. Although Coast Guard investigators found
the radar to be in working order, they did not examine it until days after the accident
(allowing time for faulty equipment to be fixed, which is not uncommon after a marine
accident)
5. Captain Sun's incorrect identification of symbols on the electronic chart;
6. the U.S. Coast Guard’s failure to provide adequate medical oversight of Cota, in view of
the medical and medication information he had reported to the Coast Guard.
Chapter 19 – Ship Handling
Each example assumes a ship on even keel in calm conditions and still water. In this situation
no forces are involved and the ship has its centre of gravity approximately amidships.

Pivot point - stopped

Making Headway

Two forces now come into play, firstly the forward momentum of the ship and secondly,
longitudinal resistance to forward momentum, created by the water ahead of the ship. These two
forces must ultimately strike a balance and the pivot point moves forward. As a rough guide it
can be assumed that 25% of the ships forward momentum, at constant speed, is spent in
overcoming longitudinal resistance and the pivot point will be approximately 1/4L from
forward.

Pivot point - making headway

Making Sternway
The situation is now totally reversed, the momentum of sternway must balance longitudinal
resistance, this time created by the water astern of the ship. The pivot point moves aft and
establishes itself approximately 1/4L from the stern.

Pivot point - making sternway

It should be stressed that other factors such as acceleration, shape of hull and speed may all
affect the position of the pivot point. The arbitrary figures quoted here however, are perfectly
adequate for a simple and practical working knowledge of the subject.
 TURNING LEVERS AND MOMENTS

More important perhaps, than the position of the pivot point, is the effect its shifting nature has
upon the many turning forces that can influence a ship. These are rudder force, transverse thrust,
bow thrust, tug force, interactive forces and the forces of wind and tide.

Vessel Stopped

If we look at the ship used in our example, we can see that it has a length overall of 160 metres.
It is stopped in the water and two tugs are secure fore and aft, on long lines, through centre
leads.
If the tugs apply the same bollard pull of say 15 tonnes each, it is to a position 80m fore and aft
of the pivot point.

Turning levers - vessel stopped

Thus two equal turning levers and moments of 80m x 15t (1200tm) are created resulting in even
lateral motion and no rate of turn.
Making Headway

With the ship making steady headway, however, the pivot point has shifted to a position 40m
from the bow. The forward tug is now working on a very poor turning lever of 40m x 15t
(600tm), whilst the after tug is working on an extremely good turning lever of 120m x 15 t
(1800tm).
This results in a swing of the bow to starboard.

Turning Levers: Making Headway.

Making Sternway
The efficiency of the tugs will change totally when the ship by contrast makes sternway. Now
the pivot point has moved aft to a position 40m from the stern. The forward tug is working on
an excellent turning lever of 120m x 15t (1800tm) whilst the after tug has lost its efficiency to a
reduced turning lever of 40m x 15t (600tm).
This now results in a swing of the bow to port.

Turning Levers : Making Sternway

General

The ship handler faces many problems but there is none more frequently experienced and less
understood than the effect of wind. All too often when slowing down after a river passage,
whilst entering locks and during berthing, it can create a major difficulty. With or without tugs,
if the problem has not been thought out in advance, or if it is not understood how the ship will
behave in the wind, the operation can get out of control extremely quickly. Needless to say,
with no tug assistance, it is wise to get this area of ship handling right first time and also
appreciate what the limits are.

It is frequently stated by many a Master that 'the large funnel right aft, acts like a huge sail'.
Whilst this is to some extent true, it simply does not explain everything satisfactorily. It is
important to look at the problem more closely.

Vessel Stopped

Looking at figure 1 we have a ship on even keel, stopped dead in the water. It has the familiar
all aft accommodation and we will assume, at this stage, that the wind is roughly on the beam.
Whilst the large area of superstructure and funnel offer a considerable cross section to the wind,
it is also necessary to take into account the area of freeboard from forward of the bridge to the
bow. On a VLCC this could be an area as long as 250 x 10 metres.
The centre of effort of the wind (W) is thus acting upon the combination of these two areas and
is much further forward than is sometimes expected. This now needs to be compared with the
under water profile of the ship and the position of the pivot point (P) as discussed previously.
With the ship initially stopped in the water this was seen to be close to amidships. The centre of
effort of the wind (W) and the pivot point (P) are thus quite close together and therefore do not
create a turning influence upon the ship. Although it will vary slightly from ship to ship,
generally speaking most will lay stopped with the wind just forward or just abaft the beam.
Figure 1 – Vessel Stopped
Vessel Making Headway
When the same ship is making headway, the shift of the pivot point upsets the previous
balance attained whilst stopped, figure 2. With the wind on the beam, the centre of effort of
the wind remains where it is but the pivot point moves forward. This creates a substantial
turning lever between P and W and, depending on wind strength, the ship will develop a
swing of the bow into the wind.

Figure - 2 Vessel making headway

This trend is compounded by the fact that at lower speeds the pivot point shifts even further
forward, thereby improving the wind's turning lever and effect. It is a regrettable fact of life
that when approaching a berth with the wind upon or abaft the beam that as speed is reduced
the effect of the wind gets progressively greater and requires considerable corrective action.
When approaching a berth or a buoy with the wind dead ahead and the ship on an even keel
such an approach should be easily controlled. Even at very low speeds the ship is stable and
will wish to stay with the wind ahead until stopped.
Vessel Making Sternway
The effect of the wind on a ship making sternway is generally more complex and less
predictable. In part this is due to the additional complication of transverse thrust when
associated with single screw ships. Remaining with the same ship, figure 3, we have already
seen that with sternway the pivot point moves aft to a position approximately 1/4 L from the
stern. Assuming that the centre of effort (W) remains in the same position, with the wind still
on the beam, the shift of pivot point (P) has now created a totally different turning lever (WP).
This will now encourage the bow to fall off the wind when the ship is backing, or put another
way, the stern seeks the wind.

Figure - 3 Vessel Making Sternway

Some caution is necessary, however, as the turning lever can be quite small and the effect
disappointing, particularly on even keel. In such cases the stern may only partially seek the
wind, with the ship making sternway 'flopped' across the wind. This situation is not helped by
the centre of effort (W) moving aft as the wind comes round onto the quarter. This in turn tends
to reduce the magnitude of the turning lever WP.

The other complicating factor is transverse thrust. If the wind is on the port beam, there is every
likelihood that transverse thrust and effect of wind will combine and indeed take the stern
smartly into the wind. If, however, the wind is on the starboard beam, it can be seen that
transverse thrust and effect of wind oppose each other. Which force wins the day is therefore
very much dependent upon wind strength versus stern power, unless you know the ship
exceptionally well, there may be no guarantee as to which way the stern will swing when
backing.

Trim and Headway

Figure - 4 Stern trim and headway

So far we have only considered a ship on even keel. A large trim by the stern may change the
ship's wind handling characteristics quite substantially. Figure 4 shows the same ship, but this
time in ballast and trimmed by the stern. The increase in freeboard forward has moved W
forward and very close to P. With the turning lever thus reduced the ship is not so inclined to
run up into the wind with headway, preferring instead to fall off, or lay across the wind. Because
the ship is difficult to keep head to wind, some pilotage districts will not accept a ship that has
an excessive trim by the stern, particularly with regards SBM operations.
Trim and Sternway
The performance when going astern is also seriously altered. With the wind on the beam and
W well forward, the turning lever WP is consequently increased (figure 5). Once the ship is
stopped and particularly when going astern, the bow will immediately want to fall off the wind,
often with great rapidity while the stern quickly seeks the wind.

Figure - 5 Stern trim and stern way

When berthing with strong cross winds, or attempting to stop and hold in a narrow channel, it is
best to plan well ahead as such a ship can prove very difficult to hold in position. However, as
long as we have some prior knowledge as to how the ship will react to the influence of the wind
it can be turned to advantage and readily employed to aid rather than hinder ship handling. Not
for nothing is it often referred to as a "poor mans tug!"

Vessel Head to Wind with Headway

The middle diagram in Figure 6 shows a vessel making Headway through the water, and
Heading directly into the Wind. W is now well forward of amidships, and in fact very close to
P; the wind is exerting no turning moment, or sideways force, on the vessel. A comparatively
small change in relative wind direction (either by alteration of course, or wind fluctuation), will
place the wind on the vessel's bow; the whole of one side of the vessel will now be exposed to
the wind, and W will move aft as shown in the side diagrams of Figure 6. The following effects
will now be experienced:-
a) The Turning Force will now develop a turning moment about P, tending to turn the vessel
into the wind again.
b) The Wind Force will also develop a sideways force on the vessel, away from the exposed
side.

Figure 6 Headway with Wind Ahead - On Even Keel.

Head to Wind therefore, the vessel is "course stable", provided that she maintains Headway
through the water.
If the ship has a large Trim by the stern W will be further forward, with a reduction, or even
loss, of "course stability". This can sometimes result in a rapid and violent loss of control.
Vessel Head to Wind with Sternway.
Consider the situation when our vessel remains Head to Wind, but now starts to make
Sternway through the water. W remains forward, whilst P has moved aft, as shown in the
middle diagram of figure 7: the wind is exerting no turning moment, or sideways force.

Figure 7 Sternway with Wind Ahead - On Even Keel

A comparatively small change in the relative direction of the wind will move W aft, as shown in
the side diagrams of Figure 7: however P remains aft of W. The following effects will now be
experienced:-
a) The Wind Force will develop a strong turning moment about P, tending to turn the vessel's
bow further away from the wind.
b) The Wind Force will develop a sideways force on the vessel, away from the exposed side.
Head to Wind, as soon as the vessel starts to make Sternway through the water, she loses
"course stability" and the bow will pay off away from the wind, sometimes quite rapidly.
If the ship has a large Trim by the stern W may move further forward, perhaps quickly, and the
loss of "courses stability" is even more pronounced. This can sometimes result in a rapid and
violent loss of control.
Vessel Stern to Wind with Headway
The middle diagram of figure 8 shows a vessel making Headway through the water, and with
the Wind directly Astern. P is forward, a long distance from W, which is well aft. A
comparatively small change in relative wind direction will move W forwards as shown in the
side diagrams of Figure 8: however W is still some distance abaft P. The following effects will
now be experienced:-
a) The Wind Force will develop a strong turning moment about P, tending to turn the vessel's
Stern further away from the Wind.
b) The Wind Force will develop a sideways force on the vessel, away from the exposed side.

Figure 8 Headway with Wind Astern - On Even Keel

Making Headway with Stern to Wind, the vessel loses "course stability" and is difficult to steer,
this effect is greater when there is also a following Sea or Swell.
If the ship has a large Trim by the Stern, W may move further forward, and loss of "course
stability" may be generally less pronounced, but still a potential danger.
Vessel Stern to Wind making Sternway
The middle diagram of Figure 9 shows a vessel making Sternway through the water, and with
the Wind directly Astern. P has moved aft, fairly close to W, which remains even further aft. A
change in relative wind direction will eventually move W forward of P, as shown in the side
diagrams of Figure 9, with the following effects:-
a) The Wind Force will develop a turning moment about P, tending to turn the vessel's Stern
back into the Wind.
b) The Wind Force will develop a sideways force on the vessel, away from the exposed side.

Figure 9 Sternway with Wind Astern - On Even Keel

Making Sternway through the water, with Stern to Wind, the vessel is again "course stable".
If the ship has a large Trim by the Stern W may move further forward, generally improving
"course stability"; however with such a Trim there is always the possibility of unpredictable loss
of control. Calculations
It is very useful to have a quantitative understanding of the actual force that a ship experiences
whilst influenced by the wind. This may be of considerable benefit to pilots when endeavouring
to estimate the wind limitations of a particular class of ship, establishing the size of tugs for a
district and so forth. When confronted by the harbour authorities it is perhaps better, in the
interests of professionalism, to be armed with concrete facts rather than simply say "we do not
think it can be done". Worse is to be forced to attempt a movement with unacceptable risks.
Whilst complicated formulae do exist, for calculating the force of wind upon a ship, it would be
more practical to have at hand a relatively simple method of achieving a working figure. The
first requirement is to obtain the best available estimation of the area of the ship presented to
the wind in square metres. This can be as simple as:
2
Length overall(m) x max. freeboard(m) = windage area(m )
2
An approximate wind force in tonnes per 1,000 m can then be calculated using:
If V = Wind Speed (metres / second) = Wind Speed (knots ) ÷2, then Force (tonnes)
2 2
per 1000m = V ÷ 18

It should be noted that the wind force varies as the square of the wind speed.
Small increases in wind speed can mean large increases in wind strength,
especially in stronger winds, when gusting can place an enormous strain on the
ship.
Wind force
Wind force depends on: windage, wind velocity (wind pressure), angle between apparent
wind and heading. Wind pressure is proportional to wind velocity squared.
Centre of wind pressure depends on distribution of windage alongside the ship.
Ship in beam wind
Ship stopped
� Wind force is large.
� There is no longitudinal component.
� Behaviour of the ship depends on the centre of wind pressure, which could be in front
or behind of the point of application of transverse resistance force (pivot point). This
point is approximately at midship.
� Ship is drifting and turning either way, depending on the relative position of these
points.
Ship with headway
� Point of application of wind force is behind the pivot point.
� Ship has tendency to swing towards the wind line.

3 Ship with sternway

� Point of application of wind force is in front of the pivot point.
� Ship has tendency to swing out of the wind line.

Wind from bow quarter

Ship with headway
�� Point of application of wind force is behind the pivot point.
�� Ship has tendency to swing towards the wind line.

Ship with sternway

� Point of application of wind force is behind the pivot point.
� Ship has tendency to swing towards the wind line.
Anchor Work
Designated Purpose of Anchors

On the basis of generally accepted criteria, a ship is expected to remain at anchor:

(a) In good holding grounds.
(b) In sheltered and semi-sheltered waters.
(c) In winds up to gale force 8.

The master is expected to put to sea if severe storms are forecast.

The existing equipment is not intended by the classification societies to be suitable

as:

(a) A last means of defence in case of a machinery breakdown off a lee shore in a
storm.
(b) A means of bringing a large moving ship to a stop.

Ordinary Standard Stockless (OSS) and High Holding Power (HHP) Anchors

The two anchor types in ordinary use today are the ordinary standard stockless, of which
the most common types are Byers and Halls, and the high holding power anchor, of
which the most popular is the Admiralty Cast anchor type 14 (AC 14).

Brief History of Both Anchors

The OSS anchor was introduced in 1840 (figure 1). Its greatest defect was its inherent
roll instability, which was first noted by the Admiralty in 1885. If an anchor is roll
unstable, one of the flukes will penetrate further into the seabed than the other. The
shearing forces acting on the more deeply buried fluke will cause it to bite even deeper
and rotate under the shank of the anchor. This process can continue until the fluke and
the crown structure have rotated through 180 about the shank and the flukes are pointing
upwards. In this position, the pull is less than 50 per cent than that obtained with both
flukes penetrating the seabed.
 Figure 1 - The Ordinary Stockless Anchor (OSS)

After much criticism from commanding officers of RN ships, test were introduced in
1943 and a design called the AC14 was effected (figure 2). This has now been accepted
as the warship bower anchor and is normal equipment for some shipping companies. The
main design improvements include a larger fluke area with stabilising fins.

Figure 2 - The AC 14 High Holding Power Anchor

Knowledge of the type of anchor on your ship is necessary because the holding power of
each type is different. The holding power of an anchor is normally expressed in tonnes.
The maximum holding power is reached when the anchor starts to drag but without
reduction in its stability.

Holding efficiency = Holding power

 Anchor deadweight

Maximum Holding Power is reached when the anchor starts to slip but without
reduction in its stability.

Cable Considerations
The anchor is most efficient when subjected to a horizontal pull by the cable on the
seabed. The aim should be to ensure that enough cable is veered to achieve this situation.
If insufficient cable is veered to exert a horizontal pull at the anchor, its holding power
will be reduced in accordance with the following scale:
Angle of inclination of cable at anchor Percentage of maximum holding pull of anchor
5° 80
10° 60
15° 40

When the ship drags her anchor, more cable is veered and the anchor holds. This action is
correct, but the belief that it is the resistance of the extra cable on the seabed that lets the
ship hold is a fallacy; the veering of the cable removed the shank/cable angle and the
anchor holds once more.
Amount of Cable to Use

In addition, the amount of cable to veer depends upon a number of factors:

(a) Holding characteristics of the anchor.
(b) Length of stay.
(c) Strength of wind, tidal stream or current, and sea / swell.
(d) Swinging room.
(e) Type of cable.
(f) Depth / draught ratio.
An approximate formula for forged steel cable is:
Amount of cable to veer in shackles is one and a half times the square root of the depth of
water in meters.
The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship quotes the amount of cable to veer in shackles is
twice the square root of the depth of water in fathoms.
Operational Aspects
When anchoring in an area where other ships are anchored, the approach course
opposed to the resultant of the wind and current can be visually appreciated. This is
more difficult to achieve when anchoring in an area devoid of other shipping, especially
at night. The larger the ship, the smaller the limiting speed before dropping anchor. In a
VLCC, the speed over the ground must be less than 0.5 knot. It is difficult to achieve a
situation with the ship stopped over the ground.
A rule of thumb method often used is to reverse the engines until the propeller wash
reaches the bridge or manifold (chosen by experience) and then let go the anchor.
However, even if the experience of the master is such that he knows the ship is stopped
through the water on these occasions, the ship is not necessarily stopped over the
ground.
Prior to anchoring, the set and drift of the current and wind should be established as well
as possible and the ship placed on a heading opposed to the resultant of these forces. The
anchor position should be marked on the chart and the forecastle officer briefed on the
bridge.
In large ships, in order to establish that the ship is on the correct heading and the ship is
stopped over the ground, the anchor should be lowered to the seabed, brake applied and
taken out of gear. The cable should then be paid out slowly until the forecastle officer
can use the lay of the cable to ascertain the correct ship's heading. Provided that the
length of the cable does not exceed twice the depth of water, the anchor will trip or drag,
thus obviating undue stress on the tackle. Some pilots and masters prefer to carry out this
operation with the anchor still in gear. When the forecastle officer is satisfied that the
ship's heading and headway are correct, then the rest of the cable should be paid out and
finally brought up. Excessive sternway, once the anchor has dug into the seabed
material, can cause some part of the tackle to fail or carry away. The inertia of large
ships is considerable. A VLCC making one knot over the ground has the same kinetic
energy as Concorde at 1000 knots.

When the ship is brought up, the position of the bridge should be marked on the chart and
swinging circle annotated with clearing bearings.

DREDGING ANCHORS

In the coastal trades of Europe small ships frequently resort to dredging anchors when
berthing as an aid in confined areas, often in difficult tidal and wind conditions. On
larger tonnage, with the exception in cases of emergencies, it is an art which over the last
two or three decades has declined in usage.
It goes without saying, that the type of sea bed is of paramount importance to dredging,
soft mud being the most obvious choice. The bottom must also be free of obstructions
such as power lines, pipes and rock. As the anchors normally dredge just inside the lines
of the ship, there must also be adequate under keel clearance to avoid damaging the hull.
The Windlass
Research has shown that whilst the anchors and the cable are relatively reliable, the
windlass is not. This is partly due to the disproportionate size of a windlass on the much
larger ship of today. It should be remembered that the Kinetic Energy created by a ship of
> 50,000 dwt moving over the ground in any direction, at more than say 0.3 knot, is
enormous. By comparison, windlasses may only be capable of lifting a minimum design
weight, which is specified by the Classification Societies. This is the weight of the anchor
and four shackles of cable, hanging dead in the water and therefore nothing in
comparison to the full weight of the ship. If all of this energy is imparted into the anchor
it has to go somewhere and it is usually to the windlass. The dissipation of such energy
results in as brake or gear failure!
Safety Parameters
Extensive research by the Classification Societies has established some safety parameters
within which to operate when dredging anchors.
a) The amount of cable in the water should not exceed 1¼ x depth of water.
(Some sources quote 2 x depth). If this figure is exceeded the anchor is likely
to dig in and commence holding.
b) The design speed of a windlass gypsy in gear is about 30 feet/minute which is
approximately 3 minutes a shackle. This is equal to a ship speed of 0.3 knots
over the ground.
c) The windlass is only designed to lift the dead weight of the anchor and four
shackles.

If therefore, the amount of cable in the water does not exceed 1½ x depth, we have a
safety factor which guards against speeds in excess of 0.3 knot, because the anchors will
not dig in and hold, but drag.
When the amount of cable exceeds 1½ x depth, the speed must be below 0.3 knot,
especially if the windlass is in gear or the brake is screwed up. The anchor will most
certainly dig in and attempt to hold the full weight of the ship.
Letting Go
On smaller ships, when pilots are putting out anchors for dredging purposes, it is
customary to 'let the anchor go' on the brake. On large ships, however, with unknown
equipment and crews of mixed nationality and capability, it may be appropriate to walk
out the anchors in gear rather than let them go on the brake. This affords the pilot much
more control over the operation, guarding against the crew 'screwing up' the brake with
the wrong amount of cable out, or worse still, letting the cable run away, leaving the pilot
with 12 shackles out on both anchors!
Each tanker company has its own specific Standing Orders for anchoring large
ships; their individual methods invariably work around these recommendations and
should be adhered to at all times.
DREDGING TWO ANCHORS
Dredging is remarkably effective at eliminating the two major problems that occur when
berthing without tugs, namely control of heading and speed. The effect of dredging can
be seen in figure 3. The ship is conducting a dredge with two anchors, working into a
port side berthing position. By dredging the two anchors the pivot point is brought right
forward between the two windlasses. This gives the ship a much improved and excellent
steering lever. The small weight of the two anchors is also surprisingly effective in
controlling the speed of the ship. Even whilst maintaining dead slow revolutions, the ship
may gradually slow down and stop. This in turn ensures that the pivot point remains
forward and that lateral resistance, which would otherwise oppose turning ability, is also
kept low throughout.
The net result is an ability to keep the speed down, but at the same time use main power
more efficiently when controlling heading with kicks ahead. The bow can virtually be
driven on the anchors, to the desired position and more to the point will remain there. At
the same time, the old enemy, speed is kept well under control !

Some Masters may express some concern as to whether two anchors being dredged will
foul each other while the ship is turning. The answer to this is no because, if the ratio of
cable to depth of water is correct, one anchor simply cannot reach the cable of the other;
they should also be easy to recover once alongside.
Figure 3 – Dredging two anchors
Dredging One Anchor
Generally speaking because pilots and masters have more experience of dredging one
anchor than two, the question is frequently asked, "Why dredge two anchors?". The
answer is relatively simple: because dredging one anchor only achieves 50 % of the
effect which could otherwise be gained by dredging two anchors. It is, therefore, not
possible to use anything like the same amount of power for positioning the bow and the
speed is nowhere near as easy to control.
By using one anchor, particularly on large beam ships, it should be remembered that the
pivot point is moved out to the side, figure 4. This creates an effective turning moment,
in much the same manner as a back spring. This can quite clearly be felt and needs
constant counter helm to correct, this can be irritating if a straight line approach is
desired. On the other hand, if a large turn in confined waters is necessary prior to
berthing then this tendency can obviously be utilised and turned to great advantage.

The single anchor can be viewed effectively as a back spring. The validity of these points
should be considered when deciding whether to deploy one/two anchors.

Figure 4 – Dredging one anchor

Important Points
There is a very fine line between the success or failure of a dredging operation. The
following points are crucial in order to achieve the desired results:-
a) Maintain the normal slow speed of approach prior to letting go, or walking out,
the anchors. If the ship is stopped the anchors will dig in and it is then difficult to get
underway again. The ship may also drift badly out of position.
b) Walk the anchors out as early as possible. This gives sufficient time to get the feel
of the ship before the berth is reached.
c) Do not let the ship stop too early. This lets the anchor flukes drop and dig in and it
then takes substantial power to get the ship underway again.
d) Do not let the speed build up. This pushes the pivot point back to its normal position.
Consequently the anchors cease to be effective and are of no use.
e) Do not exceed 1 1/2 x depth. It is possible however, especially on small ships, to 'feel'
the anchors and adjust the amount of cable accordingly.
f) Keep the weight on the anchors. Going astern the ship will take the weight off the
cables and they become ineffective.
g) Avoid rushing the operation, particularly swinging, on large ships. There should
only be a gentle and steady strain on the cable(s); the manoeuvre being slow but very
effective.
h) Once in position on the berth, slack back the cables as the tension in them is sufficient
to pull the ship off the berth.
Planning for Anchoring
Master Shall:
1. Identify a suitable anchoring position before entering the anchorage area
2. Conduct a planned approach including speed reduction in ample time and orienting the
ships head prior anchoring to
(a) Same as similar sized vessels around or
(b) Stem the tide or wind whichever is stronger
Decide on which method of anchoring to be used and the number of shackles depending
on the depth of water, expected weather and holding ground. A simple rule in
determining length of cable to use:
Standard condition:
Length of cable = [(Depth of water in meters * 2) + 90 ] / 27.5
When good holding power cannot be expected:
(e.g. Strong Wind, Strong Current, Harder Sea bottom)
Length of cable = [(Depth of water in meters * 3) + 140 ] / 27.5
Radar parallel indexing technique can be used, as it is an effective tool in maneuvering
approach to anchoring position.
A fix reference point is necessary in establishing the intended anchoring position relative
to this fix point.
Preparation for Anchoring
The Chief Officer must supervise letting go or weighing the anchors and should only
assign experienced crew members to anchor work.
Prior to Anchoring, the Chief Officer should be aware of:
a. Approximate anchoring position
b. Method of approach
c. Which anchor to use
d. Depth of water
e. Method of Anchoring
f. Final amount of Cables
Procedure of the Introduction to Anchoring
At the Forecastle:
Check brakes are on and clear the securing devices (Anchor Lashings, Bow Compressed
Bar etc.)
a. Start Hydraulic (Source of) Power of Windlasses
b. Check Anchor Shape / Light
c. Check Communication with the Bridge
d. Check Lighting on Forecastle including torch , at night time
e. Ensure all personnel are wearing Safety Helmets, Safety Shoes and Goggles.

Before Letting Go Anchor:

The Chief Officer shall confirm that there is no craft or any obstacle under the bow and
inform to the Bridge.

The Master shall ensure that the vessels GPS speed at the time of anchoring is near-zero
or indicates a slight sternway.
The speed should be verified by visual transits and/or Radar ranges of Landmarks, if
available or other fix conspicuous targets.
Where means of communication between Bridge and the Anchoring party is by Portable
radio, the identification of the ship should be clear to avoid misinterpretation of
instructions from other user of such equipment in the vicinity.
Routine Anchoring Operation
There are 2 methods for Anchoring according to depth of the water:
Method 1 (Preferable for Depths up to 50m )
a. Walk out the anchor to Half a shackle above the sea bottom
b. Hold the cable on the brake and take the windlass out of gear
c. Stop the vessel over ground
d. Drop the anchor
e. Control the speed of cable flow by the brake , while not allowing pile-up
f. Bring anchor cable direction forward and confirmed anchor holds its position

Disadvantages:

If the brake fails, or there is too much speed over ground, the cable will run out to the
bitter end with consequent damage. The brake lining could also be damaged due to this
Dynamic load.
Method 2 (Suggested for Depths over 50m )
a. Stop the vessel over ground
b. Walk out the anchor under power until the complete length of required cable is paid
out and anchor holds it position on the seabed.
c. Bring anchor cable direction forward and confirmed anchor holds its position.
Disadvantages:

Vessel must be completely stopped to avoid major damage to Windlass.

Particular Caution for VLCCs / big ships

VLCCs, because of their inertia require great caution while anchoring.
They can suffer equipment failure if attempting to anchor whilst moving at speeds as low
as half a knot over the ground.
Hence, the vessel must be nearly stopped not only in the linear direction but axial too,
meaning the bow should not be swinging much either while anchoring.
The depth at which the vessel can safely anchor is about 110m or less, beyond which the
windlass may have extreme difficulty in recovering the anchor.
Emergency Anchoring
Anchors should be ready for letting go on arrival and departure port, when in anchoring
depths. At least, any wire lashings are to be removed and the anchors held on brake.
In critical situations, to arrest the movement of the vessel, after stopping/reversing the
main engine, it is preferable to let go both anchors simultaneously instead of one.
Anchor retrieval
For weighing in the anchors, to reduce the load on the windlass, and keep the cable near
vertical, as required, short movements to be given on the main engine (and Bow Thruster
used, where is applicable)
The stay and direction of the cable and the residual shackles are to be continuously
reported to the bridge.
Anchor Wash to be run to clean the chain and the anchor.
When anchor is fully hove, the brake is to be applied and the windlass taken out of gear.
The bow stopper is to be put when it is deemed safe to do so.
Note:

If it does not engage properly on the chain, then it is to be lowered across the chain as far
as possible and lashed down in this position in such a manner, that if the cable does slip,
the bar will fall into place across the chain.
Walk Back speed
On the standard, the weighing chain speed is 15cm / second (= one shackle 27.5 meter / 3
minutes). Its corresponding to 0.3 kts of ship's speed.
It means ships speed with combining turning rate and drifting to wind and current lee side
should be controlled less than 0.3 kts against direction anchor chain is going.
Do not use propelling beyond maneuvering Half Ahead / Astern Engine, except in
emergency cases, once walk back is commenced.
Communication between bridge and forward
For the good image as macro-wise to actual ship's pose and condition of anchoring
progress, Bow watchmen must report following to the Commander on the Bridge.
a) Approaching speed should follow a gradual decrease plan
b) Reducing speed for anchoring
c) Anchoring speed (Going walk-back)
d) Status chain number have been drawn on each shackle interval
It is preferable to report as "XX shackles in the water" in order for the commander to
easily visualize Length of chains being in the water and can estimate timing of touching
anchor with bottom.
e) Anchor chain direction and tightness after bottom touch
Report shall be combination of following factor
For Horizontal direction:
"clockwise" and "straight down" (or upright)
For Vertical direction :
"as Long hand (of the clock)"
"as Short hand (of the clock) "
For Tightness :
"Strong tight", "Moderate tight, "Easy tight" and "Slack"
Ex. Chain - 2 o'clock - as short hand - with moderate tight
Anchor watch check item - deck officers guideline
Following are the basic check item that should be taken into account by deck officer
while performing anchor watch
1. Instruction from the Master or Chief Officer
2. Ships position w.r.t swinging circle as marked on chart
3. Length of anchor chain in use
4. Signals, lights, and shapes now in use
5. Visitors identity, number, and business
6. Onboard work
7. Carrying out Master's and Chief Officer's instruction?
8. Is deviation of the vessel's current position from measured position within the value
given by master?
9. Is any oil floating on sea around the vessel?
10. Is under keel clearance being monitored and any change in UKC on similar heading
investigated?
11. Are regulation signals, lights, and shapes being displayed?
12. Are VHF receivers set to the correct working / watch channels?
13. Is there any ship (anchored or underway) that is likely to collide with own vessel?
14. Reporting and record of necessary matters?
15. Is the accommodation ladder raised to deck level when not in use?
16. Is safety net fitted properly?
17. Is lighting sufficient?
18. Are any small crafts approaching vessel (ISPS vigilance maintained)?
19. Is anchor chain monitored for excess weight?
20. Has OOW confirmed matters to be turned over to successor?
21. Necessary items entered in Logbook?
22. Master call during excessive Wind Velocity, reduced visibility or in case Whirling
(Yawing) angle :
The factors to be considered in choosing an anchorage are:
Holding quality of the bottom:
The nature and the slope (irregular) of the bottom should be considered poor holding
ground
Adequacy of room for swing
Protection from wind land sea
Strength of tidal stream and wind
Duration of stay at anchor
Type of anchors and cable
Nature of bottom and anchor design
Older types of anchors will hold satisfactorily in firm seabeds such as:
Clay
Soft chalk
Sand
Sand/shingle
Heavy mud
But will drag in softer sea beds such as :
Soft mud
Shingle
Shell
Recent improvements in anchor design have resulted in obtaining satisfactory hold in any
kind of seabed
No anchor, no matter how well designed, will hold on rock, except by a fluke of the
anchor.
Amount of cable required
The cable must be long enough to ensure that a part of it near the anchor always remains
in the seabed.
The rest of the cable acts as a spring in preventing the anchor from being jerked when the
ship is yawing from side to side, or pitching.
ANCHOR WORK
Terms associated with anchoring:
a) Dragging
b) Scope
c) Walk back
d) Short Stay
e) Brought up
f) Securing Anchors
g) Bitter end of cable
h) Lead
i) Fouling
j) Bow Stopper
k) Long Stay

Dragging
An anchor is said to be dragging when, instead of holding the ship, the ship drags it along
the bottom; this may occur in heavy weather, in a strong current, or when insufficient
cable has been paid out. A small amount of dragging on anchoring is necessary, in order
to bury the anchor in the seabed.
Scope

Scope is the ratio of the length of the anchor cable to the vertical distance from the hawse
pipe to the seabed. (Depth plus height of hawse pipe above seabed).

Cable
Length
Height
Scope = Cable Length/ Height
The scope used depends upon several factors:

 The nature of the holding ground. Stiff clay, rock, shells, very soft mud and
stones are considered poor holding ground.
 The amount of swinging room available as the wind or stream changes in
direction.
 The degree of exposure to bad weather at the anchorage.
 The strength of wind and stream.
 The duration of stay at anchorage.

Walk Back:

Is lowering the anchor or paying out the anchor cable on power (windlass clutched).
Brought Up

Vessel is said to brought up when the vessel starts to ride the anchor after anchor has
been let go and required amount of cable is paid out. This is determined when the vessel
is heading into the tide, current or wind and anchor cable has come to short stay.
Bitter End

Bitter end was originally the turn of a cable’s end around the bitts. It now refers to the
end of the anchor chain cable secured in the chain locker or the loose end of a line. In all
cases the inboard end is referred to as the bitter end.
Bitter end is secured to the pipe using pin so that it can be easily let go in emergency.
Securing Anchors

When vessel sails into deep waters for a long voyage then the anchors are secured by
housing them right in the hawse pipe, engaging bow stopper and lashing the cable using
devils claw or wire and bottle screws. The spurling pipe is covered and cemented to
prevent ingress of sea water during passage on shipping seas.

Bow stopper
Devils Claw

Is a deck fitting used to take the load of the anchor cable, anchor and the dragging forces
acting on the vessel after the vessel is brought up.
Foul Hawse

A ship has a foul hawse if the cables are crossed or otherwise foul of each other when she
is riding to two anchors. If the she swings 180 degrees she will have a foul hawse, and the
cables are then said to have a Cross in them: another 180 degrees more in the same
direction would cause an Elbow in the cable; a further 180 degrees would cause an elbow
and a cross, and yet another 180 degrees would cause a round turn.

Clear or foul Anchor

The anchor is reported clear or foul as soon as it is entirely sighted. To be clear the
anchor must be hanging from is its ring and clear of its own cable and of any obstruction
such as a bight of rope or chain picked up from the bottom.
Short Stay

When the anchor cable is leading close to vertical then the anchor is said to be at short
stay.
Long Stay

When the anchor cable is leading at acute angles then the anchor is said to be at long stay.
To decide whether the vessel is brought up or not

After anchor is let go and the required cable has been paid out. The vessel will swing into
tide and or current. At first the cable will stretch out on anchor biting the seabed and will
be leading almost right ahead at long stay and then she will come to short stay. When the
vessel is riding the anchor with bow into tide/current at short stay the vessel is said to be
brought up to the anchor. This can also be checked by plotting the position of the vessel
on chart or by bearings.

To check whether anchor is dragging

By watching the bearing of two fixed lights or objects in line. Beam bearings are the best.
If they change, the ship is dragging.

By dropping the deep sea lead on to the bottom, and noting if it trails ahead of the ship.

By putting the hand on the cable before the windlass. Listen for any sound of the anchor
dragging by bringing the ear close to the cable. Both these methods, however, may be
deceptive because vibration and sound are often caused by the cable moving on hard
ground even though the anchor is holding well. Also, in soft mud the anchor might drag
without causing any vibration or sound.

By observing the anchor cable if she comes to long stay then short stay and then long stay
repeatedly means she is dragging anchor.

By plotting position of vessel and confirming that the position is within the swinging
circle.

SHIP SQUAT
When a ship proceeds through water, she pushes water ahead of her. In order not to leave
a 'hole' in the water, this volume of water must return down the sides and under the
bottom of the ship. The streamlines of return flow are speeded up under the ship. This
causes a drop in pressure, resulting in the ship dropping vertically in the water.
As well as dropping vertically, the ship generally trims for’d or aft. The overall decrease
in the static under keel clearance, for’d or aft, is called Ship Squat. It is not the difference
between the draughts when stationary and the draughts when the ship is moving ahead.
If the ship moves forward at too great a speed when she is in shallow water, say where
this static even-keel under keel clearance is 1.0 to 1.5 meters, then grounding due to
excessive squat could occur at the Bow or at the Stern.
For full-form ships such as Supertankers or OBO vessels, grounding will occur generally
at the BOW. For fine-form vessels such as Passenger Liners or Container Ships the
grounding will generally occur at the STERN. This is assuming that they are on even
keel when stationary. It must be generally, because in the last two decades, several ship
types have tended to be shorter in LBP and wider in Breadth Moulded. This has lead to
reported groundings due to ship squat at the bilge strakes at or near to Amidships when
slight rolling motions have been present.
Salient points
 Squat is the decrease in under-keel water, that is, the difference between her under-
keel clearances when making way and when stopped over the water.
 It is not the increase in draft as visually read or as shown on draft indicators.
 Bernoulli’s theorem states that in any moving fluid, the sum of the potential energy,
the kinetic energy and the pressure energy is a constant.
 As the water flows aft at greater speed, its kinetic energy increases.
 According to Bernoulli’s theorem, when the kinetic energy of the water increases, its
pressure energy must reduce.
 Since the ship is supported by the pressure energy of the water, as the pressure energy
has reduced, the ship sinks to a longer draft.
 In addition to the bodily sinkage that occurs, the ship also trims by the head or by the
stern.
 With a static even keel trim, full form vessels such as tankers and bulk carries with C b
more than 0.7 trim by the head.
 Fine form vessels such as passenger ships and containers vessels with C b less than 0.7
trim by the stern.
 The overall decrease in under –keel clearance due to sinkage and trim is the squat
forward or aft.

The factors that affect the amount of squat

1) The ships speed over the water

 The squat varies approximately directly as the speed over the water in knots
squared.
 Squat occurs even when the ship is moored, if a tide is running.
 Hence squat should be taken into account when conducting draft surveys.
 Also, when loading to a particular draft, squat could result in under loading if
the drafts are read when a tide is running.

2) The block coefficient, Cb

 The squat varies directly as the C b. The Cb values generally vary from about
0.85 for very large tankers to about 0.75 for bulkers, about 0.7 for general
cargo vessels to about 0.6 or less for passenger vessels and container ships.

3) The blockage factor, S

 The blockage factor, S, is the ratio between the immersed cross sectional are
of the vessel and the cross sectional area of the water in the canal.

S = b x Static Draft / B x depth of Water

where
‘b’ is the breadth of the ship and
‘B’ is the width of the canal.
 Even in open waters, this factor is to be considered using the width of
influence ‘B’ in place of the width of the canal B.
 The width of influence ‘B’ in open waters is obtained as
 ‘B’ = [ 7.7 + 20 (1-Cb)2] b
where ‘b’ is the breadth of the ship.
 The ‘B’ value in open waters varies from about 8 b for large tankers to about
9.5 b for general cargo vessels to about 12 b for container and passenger ships.
 In open waters where the depth of water to draft of ship ratio is about 1.2, the
value of the blockage factor S will be around 0.1.

4) The static under keel clearance

 The lesser the under-keel clearance, the more is the squat because the stream
lines of return flow aft of the water, past the vessel increases due to the
reduced clearance under the vessel.
 This increases the kinetic energy and therefore further reduces the pressure
energy of the water.
 Thus as the ratio of depth of water to draft to ship reduces, the squat increases.

5) The at rest trim of the vessel

 The squat at the bow increases to a greater extant if her at rest trim was by the
head.
 The squat at the stern will increase to a greater extent if her at rest trim was by
the stern. The calculated maximum squat should therefore be applied to the
greater of the two end drafts to obtain the minimum under keel clearance.

6) Passing another ship in a river or canal

 When the ship is passing or overtaking another vessel in a river or canal, the
squat can increase up to twice the normal value as the combined blockage
factor, S, becomes the sum of the blockage factor of each ship.

7) The squat increases if the ship is close to the bank of a river or canal.

8) Formulae
 From the analysis of many measured squat values on ships and results of ship
model tests some empirical formulae have been developed for satisfactorily
estimating the maximum squat is confined and one waters.
 Obviously the squat is greater in confined waters and lesser in open waters.
 For a vessel at an even keel static trim when the ratio of the depth of water to
the draft of ship is in the range of 1.1 to 1.4, the maximum squat in open or
confined waters may be predicted fairly accurately by either of the
expressions:-

(i) Maximum squat = Cb x S0.81 x V2.08

20
in the above expressions:
‘S’ is the blockage factor.
‘V’ is the ship’s speed over the water in knots.
  Other approximate formulae are:-
Maximum squat in open waters = Cb x V2
100
Maximum
squat in confined waters

Where S is between 0.1 and 0.265 = Cb x V2

50

Both the above approximate formulae slightly over estimate the maximum squat thereby
erring on the safer side.

 At this point, a consideration may arise as to the depth of water, which can be
considered shallow.
 This depends on the depth of influence of the ship, which is approximately 5/C b x
draft.
 In depths above the depth of influence the ship may be considered in shallow
waters.
 The depth of influence is more than 5 times the draft, though the ship’s squat may
commence to increase slightly at such depths it is not of much consequence.
 The increase in squat is significant when the depth to draft ratio is less than 2.
 It is much more pronounced and of consequence when this ratio is less than 1.5
 The best course of action to reduce squat is to reduce the ship’s speed, because the
squat varies directly as the ship’s speed squared.
 Halving the speed will reduce the squat to a quarter.
 However, the fact that manoeuvering which is already sluggish in shallow waters
may deteriorate further should also be considered when reducing the speed.
Signs that a ship has entered shallow water
 Maximum Ship Squat increases.
 Mean bodily sinkage increases.
 Ship will generally develop extra trim by the bow or the stern.
 Wave-making increases, especially at the forward end of the ship.
 Ship becomes more sluggish to manoeuvre - To quote a pilot, “almost like being in
porridge.”
 Draught indicators on the Bridge or echo-sounders will indicate changes in the end
draughts.
 Propeller rpm indicator will show a decrease. If the ship is in 'open water' conditions
i.e. without breadth restrictions, this decrease may be up to 15% of the Service rpm in
deep water. If the ship is in a confined channel, this decrease in rpm can be up to 20%
of the Service rpm.
 There will be a drop in speed. If the ship is in open water conditions this decrease
may be up to 35%. If the ship is in a confined channel such as a river or a canal then
this decrease can be up to 75%.
 The ship may start to vibrate suddenly. This is because of the entrained water effects
causing the natural hull frequency to become resonant with another frequency
associated with the vessel.
 Any Rolling, Pitching and Heaving motions will all be reduced as ship moves from
deep water to shallow water conditions. This is because of the cushioning effects
produced by the narrow layer of water under the bottom shell of the vessel.
 The appearance of mud could suddenly show in the water around the ship’s hull say
in the event of passing over a raised shelf or a submerged wreck.
 Turning Circle Diameter (TCD) increases. TCD in shallow water could increase
100%.
 Stopping distances and stopping times increase, compared to when a vessel is in deep
waters.
 Effectiveness of the rudder helm decreases.
 Width of the wake increases considerably.
 FOR CALCULATING SQUAT

 Assume
b = breadth of ship.
B = breadth of river or canal OR width of influence in open waters
H = depth of water.
T = ship's even-keel static draft.
Cb = block co-efficient.
V = ship speed relative to the water or current.

 S = Blockage factor = Cross section Ship = b X T

Cross Section Canal B X H

 If the ship is in open waters then B can be calculated by using below given
formula & is called width of influence.

B = [7.7 + 20 (1-Cb)2] b

 Maximum squat is given by = Cb x S0.81 x V2.08 (in metres)

20

9) Two short cut formulae with some restrictions are also used, they are

A) Applicable only for open water conditions where H/T is within 1.1 to 1.4

 Maximum squat = Cb x V2 in metres

100

B) Applicable only to confined channels where S = 0.1 to 0.265

 Maximum squat = Cb x V2 in metres

50

Note: The first formula is more accurate & preferred than the short cut formulae as it has
no restrictions.

The solved example below sums up both the methods.

Wall or bank effect

7.3.1 Bernoulli’s law and continuity law

In order to understand the effect of a solid bank or wall on the behaviour of moving ship
along it, it is necessary to study pressure distribution around ship's hull and relevant basic
laws governing flow phenomena.

Continuity law: Velocity x cross section = const

V1 x S1 = V2 x S2 = const.
Consequence: if cross section decreases, velocity increases and vice versa
Bernoulli’s law: static pressure + dynamic pressure = const.
Static pressure = atmospheric pressure + head of water
Dynamic pressure = C x velocity squared
Consequence: if velocity increases, dynamic pressure increases and static pressure and
head of water decreases and vice versa.
SUCTION FORCE
When the ship is moving close to a solid wall or bank suction force is created drawing the
ship closer to the bank. This is because of reduced cross section, accelerated flow and
reduced pressure in the space between the ship and bank.
Suction force is proportional to the speed of the ship squared and inversely proportional
to the distance from the bank.

Suction forces calculated for example ship are shown below:

SUCTION FORCE (Tanker 148000 Dwt)

Distance a (m) Speed Force
(Kn) (Ton)
50 5 21
10 83
30 5 31.6
10 124.5
5 5 63
10 250
RESTRICTED WATER EFFECT

Suction force together with bow cushion effect make stern to move closer to the bank.
Rudder is to be used to counter this effect.

Because of the proximity of the bank ship takes a sheer and suction force moves close to
the stern.
USING SUCTION FORCE TO THE ADVANTAGE

PASSING THROUGH NARROW PASSAGE

Entering the passage closer to the bank helps turning to starboard as needed. If the ship is
entering closer to the island, suction is in the wrong quarters and opposes turning to
starboard.
ENTERING OR LEAVING SHALLOW BANK

When the ship is entering a shallow bank then due to restricted cross-section and reduced
pressure under bow portion of the ship trim to bow may occur and the ship may hit the
bottom with the bow.

When the ship is leaving shallow bank and entering deep-water area, the opposite may
occur and the ship may hit the bottom with the stem.

Interaction
The film 'Interaction' which to date has probably been seen by thousands of seafarers,
is without doubt extremely good value. Despite its age the content is still good and
very relevant. This is another area where manned models excel giving officers every
opportunity to take their ship in close to a bank or ship at various speeds and
experience the effects of interaction for real. The models are very strong, having
survived some spectacular collisions and groundings over the years, as such this is the
best way to gain invaluable experience, better than one day too late on a real ship!
Change the above introduction
Bank Effect
The problem in its most simplistic form is the boundary layer of water that surrounds a
ship when it is making headway. Forward of the pivot point a positive pressure area
builds up whilst aft of the pivot point the flow of water down the ship's side, creates a low
pressure area, figure 1. This area extends out from the ship and in deep open water clear
of other traffic is not a problem.
 Figure 1 Pressure distribution with headway (simplified) Interaction
If, however, the ship commences to close a vertical obstruction, such as a shoal or canal
bank, the area experiences some degree of restriction and the ship will be influenced by
the resultant forces which build up. It is often thought that the positive pressure at the
bow is the main problem, probably because of the tendency to relate most channel work
to the bow and heading. Looking at figure 2 it can be seen that whilst pressure at the bow
is important it is only working on a short turning lever forward of the pivot point. The
low pressure or suction area is, on the other hand, working well aft of the pivot point and
consequently is a very strong force.

Figure 2 Bank effect

As a result of the two forces which have developed, the stern of the ship is likely to be
sucked into the bank. It can be very difficult to break out of its hold, the ship requiring
constant corrective rudder and power, sometimes hard over, in order to control heading.
Excessive speed, yet again, is a crucial factor in creating a 'Bank Effect' problem, because
the magnitude of the forces varies with the square of the ship's speed or water flow.
Squat
So far we have only considered a vertical obstruction in the vicinity of the ship. Should it
also be running in shallow water, depth less than twice the draft, an additional
obstruction exists which can seriously compound the problem. In figure 3 the ship is
running on even keel with a small under keel clearance and, therefore, water which
would normally pass under the ship is now severely restricted.
 Figure Normal steering
3 Shallow water lever
This results in two things, firstly the build of water ahead of the ship, longitudinal
resistance pushes, the pivot point back from P to PP and the steering lever is reduced.
Secondly the water being forced under the bow, at a higher speed than normal, creates a
low pressure and loss of buoyancy. The ship will now 'Squat by the Bow' which in turn
makes the problem even worse. Several cases have been reported of large ships running
in shallow water and experiencing bow sinkage of up to 2 metres!

Figure 4 The effect of squat (water pressure)

In addition to the possibility of grounding forward there also exists the possibility of
losing control and sheering violently out of a channel. If the helmsman allows a small
swing to develop, longitudinal resistance ahead of the ship will be brought round onto the
exposed bow, (as in figure 5) which in turn will encourage a violent swing in the same
direction as the helm. Counter helm to correct the swing may be sluggish because as we
have seen, the steering lever is reduced. Once the ship does respond, it may now sheer
violently the other way. A chain reaction then sets in, with the ship sheering badly from
one side to the other and failing to respond correctly to the helm. The effect can be
extremely rapid, with the ship out of the channel and aground in just a few minutes.
Excessive speed is the main contributing factor under such circumstance; reduced speeds
are essential to avoid such violent forces building up.
 Figure 5 The effect of squat (helm response)
Trim is also important and in some districts the pilotage authority may refuse to handle
certain ships if they are trimmed by the head and may even request a small trim by the
stern. The latter does, in any case, improve the steering lever and therefore the handling
of a ship, it may also be intended as an allowance for squat by the bow and very much a
decision based upon local knowledge and experience.
Shallow Water
It would be wrong to imply that bank effect is only experienced within the domain of
canals and rivers with steep sided banks, as illustrated in figure 6-6. To a ship running in
shallow water, with adjacent but gently shelving mud or sand banks, such as low lying
estuarial areas, figure 6-7, the effect can be far more insidious and violent.
There are many cases, in the archives of casualty investigation, where groundings and
collisions have occurred in such areas, due to drastic loss of control, whilst the ship was
under the combined influence of shallow water and bank effect.
One noticeable feature in some of these casualties, is the tendency of the Master to
immediately reduce revolutions, or even stop the engine, when faced with the ship
sheering the wrong way and apparently failing to respond to progressively larger angles
of helm. Whilst this is of paramount importance, if it is evident that grounding or
collision is imminent, in other circumstances it is suicide. Hard over rudder and a healthy
'kick ahead' are essential to regaining control.
These are of course generalities and every event is dictated by a set of unique
circumstances.
It is clear that many ships work daily in shallow water without any problems what so
ever, just occasionally however, all the ingredients, shallow water, bank effect, excessive
speed, poor trim, come together and combine in an insidious manner to create another
casualty.
Ship to Ship Interaction
It is clear thus far that a great deal of caution needs to be shown when operating in
narrow and shallow waters. It almost goes without saying, that extreme care is needed if
it is now intended to bring another ship into the same situation by getting involved in an
overtaking or passing situation as well.
 Figure 6 Bank configuration - steep sided

Figure 7 Bank configuration - shallow shelving

Passing
In the interests of both simplicity and clarity the sequence of events during a 'meeting end
on' manoeuvre are contained in figures 8, 9 and 10.

Figure 8 Passing
1. Maintaining a centre- of
Phase 1
channel
approach position Both ship’s bows may be
pushed apart.

Figure 9 Passing - Phase 2

Figure 10 Passing - Phase 3
The overtaking operation is shown in figures 11, 12 and 13.

Figure 11 Overtaking - Phase 1

Figure 12 Overtaking - Phase 2
Figure 13 Overtaking - Phase 3
The following general points should be noted.
a) Prior to the manoeuvre each ship remains in the centre of the channel for a long as
possible. Failure to do so, could expose either ship to bank effect, leading to a sheer
across the path of the oncoming ship or grounding.
b) Speed should be low to reduce the interactive forces. There is then, plenty of reserve
power for corrective 'kicks ahead'.
c) If the ships pass from deep to shallow water, at any time during the manoeuvre, the
forces will increase drastically and extreme caution should be exercised.
d) The smaller of two ships and tugs, are likely to be the most seriously affected. Large
ships should be aware of this and adjust their speed accordingly.
e) Figures 8 to 13 illustrate the anticipated sheers that may develop throughout each
manoeuvre and the maximum corrective helm that may be required, in this case 35°.
f) The engines should be brought to dead slow ahead for the manoeuvre, particularly
turbine or fixed pitch propeller ships,so that power is instantly available to control the
ship with 'kicks ahead'.
g) On completion of the manoeuvre each ship should regain the centre of the channel as
quickly as possible to avoid any furtherance of bank effect.

Use of Tugs
To gain a broad insight into the use of tugs, it is first important to be aware of the types of
tug commonly available and in particular their strengths or weaknesses. To do this it is
helpful to group the many different types of tugs according to their working methods and
this provides the following broad categories .....
* conventional tugs.
* tractor tugs.
* azimuth stern drive tugs (ASD).
Conventional Tugs
The conventional or traditional tug, for years the work horse of the maritime industry
and still widely employed, has two inherent design features which can, by modern
standards, limit its efficiency. These are .....
* the traditional propulsion unit.
* the towing hook position.
The propulsion unit is usually a single right or left handed propeller with a standard
rudder configuration, not unlike many small vessels world wide. To increase bollard
pull, with the installed power unit, the propeller may be placed in a shroud or rotating
nozzle, some may have controllable pitch screws and some may be twin screwed. Whilst
they may be economical, powerful, have good sea keeping qualities and be well proven
over the years, they may, nevertheless, by modern standards, be restricted by fairly basic
manoeuvrability.
This means that the conventional tug, if required to do so by the pilot, might be slow and
sometimes limited in its ability to reposition quickly. The tug's master must also be very
careful to avoid difficult situations whereby the tug may become trapped and unable to
manoeuvre freely to a safer position, if it is beyond its handling capabilities.
Like most traditional vessels, propulsion is at the stern, and this dictates the design
position of the towing hook. When a tug is making way as an ordinary vessel, with no
tow connected, or when making way and towing, but the tow line is slack, the pivot point
will be approximately a 1/4 of the length of the tug from forward and the tug may be
expected to handle like any other conventional vessel.
Once however, a tow is connected (see figure 1) and the tug takes the weight, it is likely
that the pivot point (P) will move aft towards the position of the towing point or hook,
which will usually be as far forward as design permits and as near amidships as possible.
Although the distance of (P) from the propeller and therefore thrust (T) is now reduced, it
is still substantial and the tug retains a good turning moment (PT) and a fair degree of
manoeuvrability under the tow.

Figure 1 - Conventional tug, without gob rope

If, however, any attempt is made to rigidly fix the tow, at or closer to the stern (see figure
2) it results in a large or total reduction of (PT), which will affect a serious loss of
manoeuvrability. The towing hook therefore needs to be positioned as far forward of the
propulsion unit as possible, thus allowing the tug freedom of movement under the tow
line.

Figure 2 - Conventional tug, with gob rope

This combination of towing hook amidships and limited manoeuvrability, has a tendency
to place the conventional tug at particular risk to either interaction or girting.
Interaction Forward
In 1950 a leading tug manufacturer conducted a research programme into a large number
of tug accidents all of which had resulted in the loss of life. The most common cause of
these accidents was found to be "interaction". Since then the size of ships using tugs has
increased enormously and the tug, still relatively small and often working alongside,
must be very much more at risk from this invisible phenomenon.
In simple terms, a ship making headway through the water has zones of differing water
pressures surrounding it. This results in a positive pressure forward of its pivot point
extending out from the ship, whilst a low pressure or suction area exists all the way down
the ship's side from the pivot point to the propeller. Near the stern this suction area is
augmented by the flow of water into the propeller aperture whilst the engine is turning
ahead and, it should be noted, at any time whilst controllable pitch propellers are
engaged.
It should be remembered that the strength of these interaction zones and the distance they
extend out from the ship can increase dramatically, not only with a small increase in ship
speed but also if the ship passes into shallow water and the pressure zones are restricted.
When a tug is working its way in towards the ship's forebody, with the intention of
passing a line forward, it may pass through one or more of these important areas (see
figure 3) and experience adverse handling characteristics.

Figure 3 - Tug interaction, forward

In position 1, for example, and similarly all the way down the side of the ship, if the tug
is allowed to get in too close, it might, despite all the efforts to prevent it, be bodily and
inexplicably sucked into the ship's side. This might occur unintentionally in strong
winds, when a tug is in the lee of a large ship which is drifting down upon it. Once
trapped alongside it can be extremely difficult to get off again, unless the ship's speed is
substantially reduced thereby relaxing the strength of the suction area. For the
unfortunate tug master, this can be the start of a chain of handling difficulties which can
accumulate and end in disaster.
In position 2, the tug is again working in close to the ship's side and passing through an
area where it is half in and half out of the respective pressure and suction zones. A
positive force is pushing the bow out from the ship, while another force is pulling the
stern into the ship. This combined turning couple will create a strong shear away from
the ship which will require rapid and bold use of both helm and power to correct it.
When working close in under the bows, in position 3, the tug may have run slightly
ahead of the ship's bow pressure zone and consequently find a very strong positive force
being exerted on the stern and rudder. This will give a similar effect to that of putting the
helm hard over towards the bow of the ship and the tug could sheer rapidly across its
path. Bold corrective counter rudder with power will be needed instantly, but even then
may be ineffective against a force which can be very strong.
If the ship's speed is too high and the interaction forces correspondingly severe, or if the
tug master fails to keep control, the tug can find itself in position 4 with alarming and
fatal rapidity. The consequences may be flooded decks and serious collision damage,
particularly from underwater contact with the ship's bulbous bow, with the possibility of
capsize and loss of life.
A sudden and catastrophic loss of stability is the most likely cause of a capsize and this
can occur even with a very slight collision. Tugs, it should be noted, roll over and flood
extremely quickly, thus affording little time for the crew to escape!
Interaction Aft
When a tug is approaching to pass a line aft it is also likely to feel the effect of interaction
and may, similar to the forward tug, experience some handling difficulties. This will be
particularly evident if the ship's speed has not been sufficiently reduced. The resultant
interaction forces may be too strong, causing vigorous suction, or low pressure area,
around the after body of the ship (see figure 4). This is compounded by the more obvious
and widely recognised risk that is associated with working under the stern, in close
proximity of the ship's propeller.

Figure 4 - Tug interaction, aft

When a tug makes its approach and is in, for example, position 1, it will be influenced by
this suction and may start to take a sheer towards the ship's stern. As this maybe a low
pressure area, the tug will have less water resistance ahead of it and may also experience
an unexpected increase in speed. Unless quick action is taken, with counter rudder and
appropriate power, the tug will be drawn unwittingly into the stern of the ship and
become stuck somewhere alongside in the region of position 2.
Extreme cases are possible, when the forces are so strong that the tug fails to respond to
full rudder or power and may inadvertently land heavily alongside. If the ship is in
ballast, partly loaded or has a large overhanging stern the tug could be drawn into
position 3, with the possibility of serious structural damage to the tug's superstructure
and upperworks.
The danger from the propeller is a more obvious threat and, naturally, care should be
exercised whenever a tug is working close under the stern. Whilst it is the safest 'best
practice' for a conventional propeller to be stopped it is not always practicable,
particularly with controllable pitch propellers, and the tug's master should always be kept
fully informed as to the status of the propulsion unit when coming in close. This is, in
any case, a good policy to adopt during all tug operations.
Whilst procedures vary from port to port, some tug masters may opt to make their
approach in relative safety from dead astern, on the centre line of the ship. When close in,
bow to stern, the first line is passed down to the tug's bow and then the tug eases out to a
safer position, to complete making fast and taking up station.
Girting a Tug
There have, in the past, been serious accidents involving tugs that have resulted in a
tragic loss of life, and which have been caused by a phenomenon known variously as
girthing, girding or girting, in differing parts of the world. With their towing hook
amidships conventional tugs have always been vulnerable to girting and their basic
manoeuvrability makes it all the more difficult to extricate this type of tug, should it be
caught in such an unenviable position. It can be caused by one, or both of the following
.....
* the ship turning independently and too quickly away from the tug.
* excessive straight line speed with a tug made fast.
Let us look, at an example of a common situation, with a conventional tug forward on a
long line.

Figure 5 - Girting a tug, secured forward

Position 1 - in this area the tug is relatively safe and regardless of whether the ship's
speed is too high it does not result in any immediate problem, provided it remains with a
small angle on the bow. Whilst it can remain in attendance such a small arc of relatively
safe effectiveness will naturally limit its operational capabilities.
Position 2 - if the tug is out in this position broad on the bow, the ship could as a result
of too much starboard helm or excessive speed, or both, outrun the tug which may have
neither the time nor manoeuvrability to turn and keep up with the rapidly swinging or
accelerating ship.
Position 3 - this is the worst possible situation where the tug is being pulled around on
the radius of the tow line and because of the position of its hook, is then dragged along
with the tow line out on its beam. Due to the nature of the forces involved, it will also be
pulled over to a dangerous angle of heel and unless the tow line breaks, or can be
released immediately, the tug which is powerless to respond and already listing heavily,
may capsize!
A conventional tug working aft, is perhaps more at risk than the forward tug, as its design
characteristics frequently oblige it to lay with the tow line much more inclined towards its
beam.

Figure 6 - Girting a tug, secured aft

Position 1 - provided the ship is either stopped or proceeding at extremely low speeds a
conventional tug can work quite efficiently with maximum bollard pull in all directions
at this and any other position around the stern.
Position 2 - if the ship's speed now increases, the tug will have to work around onto a
heading which is more in keeping with the ship, not only to keep up with the
accelerating ship but also to maintain a safe lead with the tow line. This does, however,
have a tendency to encourage the tug master to work with the tow line dangerously near
the tug's beam and unfortunately also results in substantial loss of bollard pull over what
was a previously large useful arc of operation.
Position 3 - should the ship's speed become excessive, or if the stern of the ship is swung
rapidly away from the tug, it may be unable to respond quickly enough and could fail to
keep the safe station previously illustrated. As a consequence, the tug might be dragged
around on the radius of the towline, to this dangerous position and capsized with
shocking rapidity.
It is also very important to note that a tug attending a ship aft, but in the close confines of
a lock, may find itself in a similar situation, but with even less ability to manoeuvre.
Should the tug get caught across the lock with a ship proceeding at too high a speed it
will be exposed to a very serious risk of girting.
For those unfortunate enough to have witnessed it, a tug being girted and capsized is an
awesome and frightening sight. It frequently happens too quickly to activate quick
release gear and allows absolutely no time whatsoever for the evacuation of the crew
who may become trapped in the submerged tug.
In all these cases, the danger of girting can be removed, by tripping the quick release gear
on the towing hook, thereby releasing the towing line.

The Gob Rope

The conventional tug, in comparison with the more manoeuvrable tractor tug and
azimuth stern drive tug, may be at a disadvantage as a result of .....
* interaction.
* girting.
* excessive ship speed.
* confined locks and dock areas.
* traditional manoeuvrability.
In certain cases, some conventional tug masters might be seen working a gob, or gob rope
in order to improve safety and performance (see figure 7). This is a rope of suitable
length and strength which a crewman will use on the towing deck, to bowse down or 'gob
down' the main tow rope and which may subsequently be adjusted in length when
required by the master.

Figure 7 - Conventional tug, working a gob rope

Its use brings the pivot point of the tug (see figure 7-1) aft to the area of the gob rope and
this encourages the tug to pivot around that point and keep its stern up to the tow.
Limitations and safety

Figure 8 - Gob rope, limitations and safety

Position 1 - once secured the gob rope clearly limits the manoeuvrability of the tug's
stern under the tow line to a relatively small arc. On the other hand it is a good
compromise as it helps to keep the tug's stern up to the ship. At suitably low speeds the
tug can be usefully employed to dig in and assist when needed. The tug master may
occasionally slacken the gob rope right off to regain full manoeuvrability if it is
necessary in order to reposition the tug before taking the weight again.
Position 2 and 3 - these two positions show the tug with its gob rope secured, exposed to
the risk of girting due to excessive ship speed and being swung around on the radius of
the tow line. In this instance, however, because the gob rope has kept the pivot point aft it
is being swung safely around by its stern thus giving the tug master valuable time during
which the tow may be safely slipped.
Tractor Tugs
The tractor tug represents a complete departure from the traditional design of the
conventional tug, but with companies like Voith Schneider and Schottel developing
tractor tugs between 1950 and 1960 it is, perhaps surprisingly, not a particularly new
concept.
The key to the true tractor tug lies in the use of two multi-directional propulsion units, of
which some are rather like large rotating outboard motors with others consisting of
rotating vertical blades. They enable the thrust units of the tug to be placed side by side
more or less under the bridge, thereby facilitating spectacular manoeuvrability in the right
hands (see figure 9). Interestingly, these units have also enjoyed considerable success for
many years installed on some ferries operating in inshore waters.

Figure 9 - Tractor tug

On a tractor tug the towing point (P) can be placed much nearer the stern because the
propulsion units, and therefore the thrust (T) is always 'outside' of the towing point, thus
creating a good positive turning moment (PT). If this is compared with the conventional
tug back in figure 2, it can be seen that this is completely the opposite to the traditional
configuration.
In many cases versatility is further enhanced by working the tug's tow line directly from
the winch drum with a remote control joy stick from the bridge. The tug master can thus
alter the length of the tow line at will and with considerable ease.
The tractor tug can perhaps best be defined as one where, like a farm tractor towing a
trailer, the power unit is always ahead of and pulling on the towing point, unlike a
conventional tug where the propulsion is actually behind the towing point and pushing it.
It may be imagined, quite correctly, when steaming at speed without a tow, that with the
propulsion unit thus sited this type of tug suffers from a lack of directional stability. With
the power driving the tug close to the pivot point, the steering lever is indeed poor, but
this is easily overcome by the versatility of the thruster units. When first learning to drive
such units this initially feels a little quirky but it does not take long to get accustomed to
it. Directional stability is also improved by fitting a large skeg on the centre line of the
hull aft and this also supports the tug if it is dry docked or grounded.
The argument for and against tractor tugs by comparison with conventional tugs, remains
a matter of individual requirement being perhaps best summed up with a brief resume.
Firstly the advantages, which have to some extent already been outlined .....
Advantages of Tractor Tugs
* full thrust over 360 degrees.
* rapid power-on response time.
* outstanding manoeuvrability.
* able to re-position quickly if so required by the pilot.
* simple control systems.
* very low risk of girting.
* can more effectively overcome interaction forces close in to a ship.
* improved operational capability in a restricted area such as a lock or an enclosed
dock.
* may decrease the 'turn round time' of port movements that normally use tug
assistance.
* reliable, robust propulsion units.
It is reasonable, therefore, to view these types of tugs as extremely versatile, ideally
suited to the confines of a busy harbour, river, canal or sheltered estuarial waters. There
may of course be disadvantages and the following list, which is by no means exhaustive,
illustrates a number of important considerations.
Disadvantages of Tractor Tugs
* high capital investment costs.
* less bollard pull per kilowatt power.
* repair and maintenance of complex underwater units may be expensive.
* handling in an open seaway is poor due to the short distance between pivot point and
thrust, creating a short steering lever.
* heeling angle with full side thrust may be up to 21 degrees with some tugs.
Therefore, risk of damage can exist when laying alongside a ship.
* sophisticated underwater units may be damaged if grounded and/or fail if choked
with debris.
* draft may be up to 5m, which is large in comparison to conventional tugs.
* the re-training of conventional tug masters is essential in order to fully maximise a
tractor tug's potential.
Azimuth Stern Drive (ASD) Tugs
There are throughout the many pilotage districts of the world, but particularly so in Japan
and Australia, a substantial number of tugs known as azimuth stern or 'Z' drive tugs (see
figure 10)
This tug is not, strictly speaking, a tractor tug in the true sense of the word but more of a
compromise, utilising some of the benefits of both conventional and tractor tug alike. It
can employ two towing positions, one amidships and one forward, and main propulsion
is from two rotating azimuth units which although similar to those employed in tractor
tugs, are placed aft, rather like a traditional twin screw tug.
The ASD tug can therefore be used in the same manner as a conventional tug, using the
amidships towing position but with considerably improved handling. However, it is when
using the forward towing position, usually direct from a bow towing winch, that the ASD
tug realises its full potential secured alongside a ship in the push-pull mode. With
virtually the full length of the tug between the thrust units (T) and the forward towing
point (P) the ASD tug can be used to great effect. It is perhaps best compared to the pure
tractor tug by listing its relevant advantages and limitations.

Figure 10 - Azimuth stern drive tug

Advantages of an Azimuth Stern Drive Tug
* better directional stability at speed.
* more suitable hull form for open waters and working in a seaway.
* improved bollard pull per kilowatt power.
* azimuth units easy to withdraw for maintenance and repair.
* maximum heel with side thrust less at 15°.
* shallower average draft of 3m.
Limitations of an Azimuth Stern Drive Tug
* side stepping ability not as good.
* squat at the stern and flooding of the aft deck has been known to occur with certain
design types when backing with full power.
* still susceptible to girting when using the after towing position.
* slightly more at risk from the effects of interaction.
* it is not uncommon for 99 % of all towing to be limited to the forward position.
* complex control systems.
* more susceptible to rubbish damage in propellers.
1. Conventional Tugs
2. Tractor Tugs
3. Azimuth Stern Drive Tugs ( ASD )

Gob Rope

 For increased safety.

 To shift the ‘P’ aft.
 Helps to keep the stern up to the ship.
Common Causes of Accidents

 Interaction
 Girding

 Ship turning independently and too quickly away from the tug.
 Excessive straight line speed with tug made fast.

Conventional Tugs

 Traditional Propulsion Unit.

 Position of towing hook.
 Pivot point.
 With Gob Rope.
 Without Gob Rope.

Disadvantage

 Interaction.
 Girding.
 Excessive ship speed.
 Confined to locks and dock areas.
 Traditional Maneuverability.
Tractor Tugs

 Total departure from conventional tugs.

 Enables ‘P’ to shift aft.
 Two multi-directional propulsion units with vertical rotating blades.
 Propulsion under the bridge and has excellent maneuverability.
 PT is large.

Advantages

 Full thrust over 360 degrees.

 Rapid / Instant response.
 Excellent maneuverability.
 Able to reposition quickly.
 Simple control systems.
 Very low risk of girding.
 Can effectively overcome interaction forces.
 Improved operational capability in restricted areas.
 May decrease the turn around time of the port.
 Reliable, robust propulsion system.

Disadvantages

 High capital investment costs.

 Less bollard pull per kilowatt power.
 High maintenance costs.
 Prone to underwater damage.
 Large draft as much as 5 m.
 More heel with full side thrust.
 Training of crew.
Azimuth Stern Drive Tugs

 Compromise between the two designs.

 Has two towing points.
 Two rotating azimuth units aft placed like traditional twin screw tugs.

Advantages

 Better directional stability at high speeds.

 More suitable hull form for open waters.
 Improved bollard pull per kilowatt power.
 Azimuth units can easily be retracted for maintenance.
 Lesser heel with full side thrust.
 Shallow draft.

Disadvantages

 Side stepping ability not as good.

 Squat at stern is more.
 Still susceptible to girding when using stern towing position.
 Complex controls.
 Damage to propellers.
 Not common and additional training required.

Where to Position Tugs

 What is the intended movement.

 Will the ship predominantly be with headway.
 The position of ‘P’.
 Where will the tug be in relation to the ships pivot point.
 Number and Type of tugs.
Chapter 20 – Ship Handling...Contd.
WHEELHOUSE POSTER

The wheelhouse poster is to be permanently displayed in the wheelhouse.

The following information for turning and emergency stopping maneuvers is required to
be posted on the navigation bridge. The information on turning includes:

• Expected turn trajectory of the center of gravity and another point furthest from it.

• These trajectories must be shown in a rectangular coordinate system with the origin at
the point where the rudder was deflected. Length units are cables.

• Time and speed when vessel turns 90, 180, 270 and 360 degrees from the original
course.

The following information on emergency stopping maneuvers is to be available:

• Trajectories of full astern stopping maneuvers plotted along with turning (maximum
rudder).

• Diagram of the stopping characteristics, including information on track reach (distance

traveled), speed and time to stop for approach speeds corresponding to slow ahead, half
ahead, full ahead and full sea ahead.

• Full astern maneuvering is to be presented with the envelope (a line connecting all the
possible vessel-dead-in-the-water positions).

All the above information is to be presented for full load conditions.

If an optional class notation is requested on the basis of sea trials in full load conditions,
the above information is to be based on full scale sea trials.

If an optional class notation is requested on the basis of maneuvering prediction, the

above information is to be based on maneuvering prediction.
PILOT CARD

The pilot card, to be filled by the Master, is intended to provide information to the pilot
upon boarding the ship.

Availability of the empty card is required as a condition of optional class notations.

The pilot card is to contain information on the current condition of the ship with regards
to its loading, propulsion and maneuvering equipment as well as other relevant
equipment.
Chapter 21 –Environment Protection
The MARPOL Convention

The MARPOL Convention, adopted on 2 November 1973, is an international convention

for the protection of the marine environment, which is in force world-wide. The Articles
of the Convention contain general provisions such as applicable definitions and scope.
The Convention additionally comprises two Protocols and six Annexes.

Annex I: Prevention of pollution by Oil

Annex I (in force since 2 October 1983) deals with structural requirements and imposes
strict limitations on oil discharges. To ensure compliance with the discharge
requirements, special technical equipment has to be installed on ships. Besides, all
important shipboard operations, especially operations concerning the treatment and
disposal of separator residues and oily bilge water, have to be entered in an Oil Record
Book.

Annex II: Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk

Annex II (in force since 6 April 1987) deals with bulk transports of noxious liquid
substances, which include cargo residues of chemical tankers. Under the provisions of
this Annex, discharges of such substances are prohibited in principle. Exemptions are
possible depending on the classification of noxious substances in either category X, Y, or
Z. All operations on board ships that involve noxious substances have to be entered in a
Cargo Record Book.

Annex III: Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances carried by Sea in

Packaged Form

Annex III (in force since 1 July 1992) requires that, in order to prevent pollution of the
marine environment, harmful substances in packaged form have to be transported in
compliance with the provisions of this Annex, which applies, for example, to dangerous
goods transported in containers.

Annex IV: Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ship

Annex IV (in force since 27 September 2003) deals with the prevention or reduction of
marine environmental pollution by ships’ sewage. Under the provisions of this Annex,
discharges of ships' sewage are prohibited. Vessels can be exempted if they are equipped
with a sewage treatment plant or if sewage from a holding tank is discharged at a distance
of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. The second ordinance amending
environmental regulations in shipping dated 9 April 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 698)
made the discharge regulations in Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 also mandatory for
German pleasure craft operating in the Baltic Sea area.

Annex V: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships

Annex V entered into force on 31 December 1988. Different discharge regulations apply
to the different types of ships' garbage. A Garbage Record Book has to be kept in which
the treatment and disposal of garbage generated on board the ship has to be fully
documented.

Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

Annex VI entered into force on 19 May 2005. It limits, inter alia, nitric oxides and
sulphuric oxides.

What is SOPEP?

When oil spill occurs at sea, it spreads over the surface of the sea water, leaving a deadly
impact on marine mammals, birds, the shore line and most importantly the ocean and the
environment.

The cost to clean up an oil spill depends on the quantity and quality of oil discharged in
the sea and is calculated on the basis of factors such as legal claims, money paid as
penalties, loss of oil, repairs and cleanups, and the most important – loss of marine life
and the effects on human health which cannot be measured against any amount.

As prevention is better than cure, in order to avoid the above mentioned monitory losses
and primarily to avoid marine pollution and losses of marine species, a prevention plan is
carried on board by almost all cruise and cargo vessel. This plan is known as SOPEP or
ship oil pollution emergency plan.

The Ship Oil Pollution Emergency Plan, or SOPEP, is a prevention plan carried on
board of almost all cruise and cargo vessels. In this plan you get an overview of possible
procedures in case of an oil spill. In the plan is also mentioned who you should contact
(list of authorities, oil clean up teams and port state control) and how to report this event
to the nearest coast guard station.

Understanding SOPEP

As mentioned earlier, SOPEP stands for Ship oil pollution emergency plan and as per the
MARPOL 73/78 requirement under Annex I, all ships with 400 GT and above must carry
an oil prevention plan as per the norms and guidelines laid down by International
Maritime Organization under MEPC (Marine Environmental Protection Committee) Act.

The Gross tonnage requirement for oil tanker, according to SOPEP, reduces to 150 GT as
oil itself is a kind of cargo which doubles the risk of oil pollution.

Master of the ship is the overall in charge of the SOPEP of the ship, along with the chief
officer as subordinate in charge for implementation of SOPEP on board. SOPEP also
describes the plan for the master, officer and the crew of the ship to tackle various oil
spill scenario that can occur on a ship. For oil tankers, action plan widens regarding the
cargo handling and cargo tanks containing huge quantities of oil.
Purpose of the Plan

 The Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan ("SOPEP") is to be seen as

information from the owners to the Master of a particular ship.

 It shall advise the Master how to react in case of an oil spill to prevent or at least
mitigate negative effects on the environment.

 The Plan contains operational aspects for various oil spill scenarios and lists
communication information to be used in case of such incidents.

Legal Background

 It is compulsory for all ships of more than 400 Gross Tons (Oil tankers of more
than 150 GT) to carry a SOPEP onboard.

 The required contents are described in MARPOL Convention Annex I Reg. 26.

 "Guidelines for the Development of a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan"

are published by IMO under MEPC. 54 (32) 1992 as amended by MEPC.86 (44)
2000.

 The SOPEP forms an integral part of the IOPP certificate. Its existence is verified
in the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate.

 In any case the SOPEP has to be approved by the flag state administration of the
flag the ship is presently flying or by a classification society on behalf of this flag.

Scope

 The Plan consists generally of 4 Sections with the mandatory contents and its
Appendices with additional information as contact addresses and data plus a set of
certain drawings for easy reference for the Master.

 The provided SOPEP sample plan has been prepared as a general guidance how to
write such a plan in accordance with the new IMO Guidelines as amended in
March 2000. It has to be seen as an example how the contents basically could be
written in order to fulfil the requirements

 All pre-texted steps and preventive measures have to be seen as an example only.

 The individual SOPEP should be prepared in line with the "Table of Content /
Index of Sections" as per sample.
  It has to be tailored carefully to the particular ship and company procedures and
policies. Specific instructions should be incorporated according to ship type,
purpose, and company requirements.

 Especially for tankers actions in regard to the cargo tanks and cargo handling
have to be included in the instructions.

 The contents of the plan have to be fully in line with the instructions given by the
company within the ISM Safety Management Manual.

Contents of SOPEP

SOPEP contains the following things:

 The action plan contains duty of each crew member at the time of spill, including
emergency muster and actions.
 SOPEP contains the general information about the ship and the owner of the ship
etc.
 Steps and procedure to contain the discharge of oil into the sea using SOPEP
equipments.
 On board Reporting procedure and requirement in case of oil spill is described.
 Authorities to contact and reporting requirements in case of oil spill are listed in
SOPEP. Authorities like port state control, oil clean up team etc are to be notified.
 SOPEP includes drawing of various fuel lines, along with other oil lines on board
vessel with positioning of vents, save all trays etc.
 General arrangement of ship is also listed in SOPEP, which includes location of
all the oil tanks with capacity, content etc.
 The location of the SOPEP locker and contents of the locker with a list of
inventory.

Ship oil pollution plan contains:

 An action plan with instructions for the oil pollution prevention team. This is a list
of duties the crewmembers have to fulfil in case of an oil spill.
 An emergency plan.
 General information about the ship.
 Procedures to discharge the oil into the sea in accordance to MARPOL
regulations
 Drawings of fuel/oil lines.
 Location of SOPEP boxes.

The plan should be written in accordance to the International Maritime Organization

regulations.

Additional entries

According MARPOL following appendices should be added to the SOPEP:

  Coastal State Contacts (as annually published but quarterly updated in the Internet
by IMO.

 Blank form for listing of Port Contact Addresses to be kept up-to-date by the
Master.

 “Remarks to plan writers” can be found on various pages for guiding users where
the sample text has to be tailored as a minimum.
 Ship Interest Contact List (communication data incl. 24hours contact phone no. to
owners / managers, data abt. charterer, insurance, P&I Club, etc.).

Following drawings should be added to the SOPEP for easy reference for the ship's
command in case of an oil spill:

 General Arrangement Plan

 Tank Plan
 Fuel Oil Piping Diagram

Those drawings form the minimum requirement by MARPOL. Further plans may be
added if found appropriate.

Additional voluntary Entries

Additional Appendices can be entered as found necessary by the owners, i.e.:

 Training and drill procedures.

 Plan review procedures.
 Record keeping procedures.
 Public affairs policy.

All appendices do not belong to the mandatory part of the plan's contents but have to be
kept updated by the owners as found necessary.

Approval responsibilities

 The approval is a flag state obligation as a part of issuing the IOPP Certificate. If
they have authorized the classification societies to issue this certificate, this
authorization generally includes the approval of the SOPEP.

 Certain Flag administrations offer direct approval services too.

 In case of a transfer of class the approval by the previous classification society or

another flag state authority will generally be accepted.

 If a ship changes to a flag, the approval of the SOPEP for this flag has to be made
by the flag state authority directly.
Ballast Water Management

International Maritime Organization Convention on Ballast Water Management

For over a decade, the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations (IMO)
has been working on the development of international regulations for managing ballast
water in vessels to minimize the risk of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species
becoming established in coastal waters around the world as a result of ballast water
discharges. On February 13, 2003, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed
to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water
& Sediments. This Convention and its supporting Annex (the Convention), if ratified by a
sufficient number of nations and entered into force, will be the first time international law
has attempted to minimize the spread of non-indigenous, aquatic organisms by requiring
ballast water management. This Convention also would establish the first performance
standards applicable to ballast water treatment. A delegation of U.S. officials, led by the
Coast Guard, participated at the IMO in the development of the Convention.

Under the Convention, all new and existing vessels with ballast tanks will be required to
implement ballast water management procedures and meet specific standards when on
voyages entering a nation’s waters from beyond its Exclusive Economic Zone (200
miles). The Convention specifies both (i) an interim ballast water exchange standard, and
(ii) ballast water performance standards.

The ballast water exchange standard requires an efficiency of at least 95 percent

volumetric exchange of ballast water in a vessel’s ballast tanks. The ballast water
performance standards require that vessels subject to the performance standards reduce
the concentration of viable organisms (expressed in terms of the number of organisms per
unit volume of discharged ballast water) discharged from their ballast tanks to the levels
specified in the Convention’s regulations.

The IMO developed a timeline by which new and existing vessels will be required to
meet the standards. In general, new vessels (defined in the Convention as constructed in
or after 2009) will be required, upon entry into service, to meet the performance
standards. Existing vessels (defined in the Convention as constructed before 2009) are
given a phase-in period (until either 2014 or 2016, depending on the size of the vessel)
before they must meet the performance standards. During the phase-in period, existing
vessels are to conduct ballast water exchange. The Convention does not grant permanent
“grandfathering” for existing vessels.

Currently there are no technologies that have been demonstrated aboard vessels that
would meet the standards established by the Convention. The Coast Guard and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, however, have been involved in
testing of scaled-down treatment technologies. To some extent, the slow pace of
development and implementation of ballast water treatment technologies is a result of the
lack of a definitive standard for ballast water. To ensure that proven technologies are
available, the Convention provides that the IMO must review the performance standards
no later than 3 years before the earliest effective date of the standards, for achievability,
efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
Many hope the Convention’s standards will spur scientific research to develop sufficient
technologies and the data needed to effectively manage ballast water to the prescribed
standards before the Convention’s deadlines. Vessels participating in a program approved
by the IMO to test and evaluate promising ballast water treatment technologies will be
given a 5 year grace period before having to comply with applicable standards.

Nations that are party to the Convention are given the right to implement additional, more
stringent measures than are provided in the Convention, to prevent, reduce, or eliminate
the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.

The Convention’s ballast water management regulations would apply to both port nations
and flag nations under whose authority a vessel operates, which ratify the Convention. As
a result, whether or not the U.S. ratifies the Convention, U.S.-flagged vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks that call on ports in nations that have ratified it will likely be
subject to the requirements of the Convention after it enters into force. In addition, if
Canada or the U.S. ratifies the Convention and it enters into force, vessels that ply trade
in the Great Lakes and between Alaska and the continental United States also would be
subject to the IMO regulations, as these vessels move between U.S. and Canadian waters
en route to their destinations. Otherwise, U.S. coastwise trade would be unaffected by the
IMO Convention.

The Convention will enter into force if 12 months after the date on which at least 30
nations, representing more than 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage, ratify it.
Further details of the Convention are described in the Appendix attached to this
memorandum.
Summary of the International Maritime
Organization’s Ballast Water Management Convention
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) body agreed to and adopted a treaty, the
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water &
Sediments, on February 13, 2004. The Convention aims to minimize the spread of non-
indigenous, aquatic organisms through ballast water by imposing international standards
that will apply to all ballast-carrying vessels on international voyages.

A. General Obligations and Applicability.

Under the Convention, all new and existing vessels with ballast tanks will be required to
implement ballast water management procedures and meet specific standards when on
voyages beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone of a nation.

All vessels will have to have on board and implement a Ballast Water and Sediments
Management Plan approved by the flag nation under whose authority the vessel is
operating. The plan is to be specific to each vessel and is to describe the actions to be
taken to implement the vessel’s ballast water management requirements and practices.
Vessels also must have a Ballast Water Record Book to record when ballast water is
taken on-board, circulated, or treated for ballast water management purposes, and
discharged into the sea.

The Convention’s ballast water management regulations would apply both to U.S.-
flagged vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that undertake international voyages
and internationally flagged vessels that call on U.S. ports. Under current interpretation,
vessels that ply trade in the Great Lakes and between Alaska and the continental United
States also would be subject to the IMO regulations, as these vessels enter extraterritorial
waters en route to their destinations. Otherwise, coastwise trade would be unaffected by
the IMO Convention.

B. Standards for Ballast Water Management.

The Convention specifies both an interim ballast water exchange standard, and ballast
water performance standards:

Ballast Water Exchange Standard.

The ballast water exchange standard requires that vessels performing ballast water
exchange must do so with an efficiency of at least 95 percent volumetric exchange of
ballast water in a vessel’s ballast tanks. For vessels exchanging ballast water by the
pump-through method, pumping through 3 times the volume of each ballast water tank
will be considered to meet the 95 percent volumetric exchange standard.

All vessels conducting ballast water exchange will be required to, whenever possible,
perform the exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at
least 200 meters in depth. In cases where a vessel is unable to conduct ballast water
exchange as above, it must perform the exchange 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
meters in depth. When neither of these requirements can be met, the port State may
designate areas where vessels may conduct ballast water exchange.

Ballast Water Performance Standards.

The ballast water performance standards require that vessels subject to the performance
standards reduce the concentration of viable organisms discharged from their ballast
tanks to the following levels:
Class of Organisms Maximum Concentration of Organisms
Allowed in Discharged Ballast Water
(number of organisms/unit volume of ballast
water)
Size Class of Organisms:
(in organism’s minimum dimension)

Organisms >50 microns (micrometers)*

(* - This larger organism size class is generally
aimed at controlling zooplankton and other
animal organisms.)
Organisms between 10-50 microns**
(** - This smaller organism size class is
generally aimed at controlling phytoplankton
and other small plant organisms.)
<10 viable organisms per cubic meter
(1,000,000 litres) of ballast water.
<10 viable organisms per millilitre (0.001 litre)
of ballast water [i.e., <10 million viable
organisms per cubic meter (1,000,000
millilitres) of ballast water].

Indicator Microbe Type: <1 colony-forming unit per 100 millilitres (0.1
litre) of ballast water.
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae

Escherichia coli <250 colony forming unit per 100 millilitres

(0.1 litre) of ballast water.
Intestinal Enterococci

<100 colony forming unit per 100 millilitres

(0.1 litre) of ballast water.

B. Compliance Deadlines.

The Convention specifies deadlines for meeting the standards. The IMO developed a
complicated timeline by which new and existing vessels will be required to meet the
standards:

New Vessels (constructed in/after 2009).

In general, new vessels (defined in the Convention as constructed in or after 2009) will be
required, upon entry into service, to meet the performance standards. The specific
deadlines are as follows:

A new vessel with a ballast water capacity of <5,000 m3 is to conduct ballast water
management that meets the ballast water performance standard.

A new vessel with a ballast water capacity of >5,000 m3, and constructed before 2012, is
allowed a phase-in period before having to meet the ballast water performance standard:
the vessel may conduct ballast water management that meets either the ballast water
exchange standard or the ballast water performance standard until 2016, after which time
the vessel is to meet the ballast water performance standard.
  Those with a ballast water capacity of >5000 m3, and constructed in or after 2012,
are to conduct ballast water management that meets the ballast water performance
standard.
Existing Vessels (constructed before 2009).

Existing vessels (defined in the Convention as constructed before 2009) also will be
required to meet the performance standards, but are given a phase-in period (until either
2014 or 2016, depending on the size of the vessel) before they must meet those standards.
During the phase-in period, existing vessels will be required to conduct ballast water
exchange. The specific deadlines are as follows:

An existing vessel with a ballast water capacity of 1,500 - 5,000 cubic meters (m3) is to
conduct ballast water management that meets either the ballast water exchange standard
or the ballast water performance standard until 2014, after which time the vessel is to
meet the ballast water performance standard.

An existing vessel with a ballast water capacity of <1,500 m3 or >5,000 m3 is to conduct

ballast water management that meets either the ballast water exchange standard or the
ballast water performance standard until 2016, after which time the vessel is to meet the
ballast water performance standard.

The Convention does not grant permanent “grandfathering” for existing vessels.

C. Review of Ballast Water Management Standards.

The IMO is to review the ballast water performance standards no later than 3 years before
the earliest effective date of the standard. The review is to include an assessment of the
standards’ biological and environmental efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, and
whether appropriate technologies are available to achieve the standards.

D. Sediment Reception Facilities.

Parties to the Convention are to ensure that ports and terminals, where cleaning or repair
of ballast tanks occurs, have adequate reception facilities for the reception of sediments.

E. IMO Approval of Ballast Water Management Technologies.

Ballast water management technologies for meeting the Convention’s standards must be
approved by the IMO in accordance with IMO Guidelines. These include systems that
make use of chemicals/biocides or organisms/biological mechanisms, or which alter the
chemical/physical characteristics of the ballast water.

F. Research and Monitoring; Technical Assistance.

The Convention encourages nations (individually or jointly) to conduct research on
ballast water management, and monitor the effects of ballast water management in waters
under their jurisdiction.

The Convention encourages nations (directly, or through the IMO or other international
organizations) to provide support to other Parties that request technical assistance,
including for training of personnel, and ensuring the availability of relevant technology,
equipment, and facilities.

G. Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies.

Vessels participating in a program approved by the IMO to test and evaluate promising
ballast water treatment technologies have a leeway of 5 years before having to comply
with applicable standards.

H. Survey, Certification, and Inspection.

The flag State under whose authority the vessel is operating is to survey all vessels of
>400 gross tonnage and certify compliance with Convention requirements.
The flag State is to issue certificates to certified vessels, effective for up to 5 years.
Port State control officers may inspect a vessel, including verifying that the vessel has a
valid certificate, inspecting the Ballast Water Record Book, and/or sampling the ballast
water.

If there are concerns, then the port may conduct a detailed inspection and take such steps
to ensure that the vessel will not discharge ballast water until it can do so without
presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health, or property.
“All possible efforts” are to be made to avoid a vessel being unduly detained or delayed.

I. More Stringent Measures.

Nations party to the Convention are given the right to implement additional, more
stringent measures than are provided in the Convention, to prevent, reduce, or eliminate
the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
The Party should consult with adjoining/nearby States that may be affected by such
standards or requirements, and is to notify the IMO, at least 6 months prior to the
projected implementation date, of its intention to establish additional measures (except in
emergency or epidemic situations).
J. Entry Into Force.
The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by more than 30 nations,
representing more than 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage.
OPA 1990 / NPDES (of USA)

OPA – 1990 - A Brief Outline

In 1989, what was then, the worst oil spill in history took place in the Alaskan water area.
The OPA 90 Regulations, which stands for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, was spurred on
by the horrible spill in the Alaskan area.
What this bill is meant to do is to protect the environment, population, and the
corporation all at once. It protects the environment by ensuring that there is a well
documented outline of how a company will react in the case of a spill. It protects the
population by making sure the company does what it needs to do. And it protects the
environment by making sure that a spill is dealt with properly and that impact to areas
such as fisheries will be contained.
What the act states is that any oil company, meaning ship or oil rig, is liable for the costs
and damages resulting from an accident when oil is spilled into the ocean water,
shorelines, or in an area that is popular for fisheries. This is the first act that was created
for establishing liability on a corporation, due to damages to resources, injuries and loss
of income for people who fish those areas.
When the bill was written it put a limit of liability to 75 million dollars, which means that
all the company would have to pay out in the event of any spill would be that amount,
however, due to the spill in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, it was attempted to be raised up
to 10 billion dollars due to the sizable amount that is being spilled in that location. That
attempt was blocked by both political sides because there are other wells in that area that
need to be protected.
All companies must have a prevention plan for any spills, and in case of any spills, they
must also have a clean up plan as well. However, if the spill is from an act of God, war,
or from another form of a third party they are not responsible for the clean up. The catch
with this stipulation is that the party has to be fully cooperative with the effort of
releasing information on how it happened, and any records that the government may
request in order to get the spill cleaned up. If they do not cooperate, they could end up
being liable for all the damages.
In case the corporation responsible is not able to clean up the mess, there is a tiny tax that
all consumers pay when they go and get gasoline at the stations. It is a tiny tax that goes
into a trust fund for situations that occur when the party is unable to clean up the mess.
This fund is titled the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The maximum amount that can be
paid out of that fund is $1 billion dollars for one single accident and $500 million for the
claims with the natural resources assessment.

US COAST GUARD RAISES OPA-90 LIMITS OF LIABILITY

The new OPA-90 limits of liability took effect as of 31 July 2009

On 1 July 2009 the US Coast Guard published an Interim Rule adjusting the limits of
liability for vessels and deepwater ports under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA-90) to
reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
In 2006, following a major oil spill from the tank vessel Athos I in the Delaware River
(where the vessel’s limit of liability amounted to only about 20 percent of the total
cleanup costs and damages), Congress enacted the Delaware River Protection Act
(DRPA) to increase OPA-90 liability limits to levels that would reflect a proper
apportionment between responsible parties and the National Pollution Fund. These limits
were USD3000 per gross registered ton (grt) for single-hull tank vessels (previously
USD1200); USD1900 per grt for double-hull tank vessels (previously USD1200); and
USD950 per grt for non-tank vessels (previously USD650).
However, Congress was also concerned that inflation would further erode responsible
party liability and shift the economic risk of oil spills to the public. The DRPA therefore
also required that OPA-90 limits of liability be adjusted not less than every three years to
reflect significant increases in the CPI in order to preserve the “polluter pays” principle
embodied by OPA-90. According to the Interim Rule, any cumulative increase in the
CPI of 3 percent or greater over a three year period will be considered “significant” and
will trigger new adjustments to the OPA-90 limits. The Coast Guard also has discretion
to adjust the limits before three years if necessary.
The new OPA-90 limits of liability, which average about 6.8% and will take effect as of
31 July 2009, are as follows:
Source category Previous limit of New limit of liability
liability
(a) Vessels:
(1) For an oil cargo tank vessel The greater of $3,000 per The greater of $3,200 per
greater than 3,000 gross tons with gross ton or $22,000,000. gross ton or $23,496,000.
a single hull, including a single-
hull tank vessel fitted with double
sides only or a double bottom only.
(2) For a tank vessel greater than The greater of $1,900 per The greater of $2,000 per
3,000 gross tons, other than a gross ton or $16,000,000. gross ton or $17,088,000.
vessel referred to in (a)(1).
(3) For an oil cargo tank vessel The greater of $3,000 per The greater of $3,200 per
less than or equal to 3,000 gross gross ton or $6,000,000. gross ton or $6,408,000.
tons with a single hull, including a
single-hull tank vessel fitted with
double sides only or a double
bottom only.
(4) For a tank vessel less than or The greater of $1,900 per The greater of $2,000 per
equal to 3,000 gross tons, other gross ton or $4,000,000. gross ton or $4,272,000.
than a vessel referred to in (3).
(5) For any other vessel The greater of $950 per The greater of $1,000 per
gross ton or $800,000. gross ton or $854,400.
(b) Deepwater Ports:
(1) For a Deepwater Port, other $350,000,000 $373,800,000.
than a Deepwater Port with a limit
of liability established by
regulation under 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(2).
(2) For the Louisiana Offshore Oil $62,000,000 $87,606,000.
Port (LOOP).
Source: Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations, page 31360
The Interim Rule also clarifies an ambiguity regarding the definition of “single-hull” for
purposes of applying the new limits. A single-hull tank vessel means a vessel that is
“constructed or adapted to carry, or that carries, oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue, that
is not a double hull” as defined by Coast Guard regulations. The new single-hull limits
of liability do not apply to tank vessels carrying hazardous materials, rather than oil, as
cargo.
Members using ARVAK or Shoreline as their COFR guarantors do not need to take any
action with respect to the new limits of liability since these providers will take the
necessary steps to update existing COFRs to reflect the new limits. Members using other
COFR guarantors should check with their providers to ensure their vessels will be in
compliance with the new OPA-90 limits as of 31 July 2009.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
In the United States, several federal agencies and laws have some jurisdiction over
pollution from ships in U.S. waters. States and local government agencies also have
responsibilities for ship-related pollution in some situations.
Background
The so-called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a system
under the US Clean Water Act to minimize pollution into US territorial waters (3nm).
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was introduced in the US in the early seventies, but within
the first year of enactment, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulated
that discharges arising from normal operation of a ship should be excluded from the
CWA and the NPDES system.
In 2003 this exclusion became subject to a lawsuit from environmental groups, with the
result that EPA was instructed to lift this exclusion and apply CWA and NPDES also to
ships.
The EPA has for this purpose prepared a generic document called the Vessel General
Permit (VGP) where all requirements are laid out, and which must be understood to be
additional requirements to international environmental regulations such as MARPOL.
EPA has also introduced a system for registration, where all vessels that need to be
comply must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the EPA.
With a size limit of 79 feet, 300 gross tons and 8m3 of ballast capacity, it is for all
practical purposes applicable to all commercial oceangoing vessels calling on US
territorial waters.
What is it?
The generic Vessel General Permit (VGP) sets requirements to 26 different effluent
streams following from normal operation of a vessel. The VGP also sets requirements to
logging, recordkeeping, inspections and training. It should be noted that many of the
requirements are so-called Best Management Practices, and do not give any fixed
requirements for processing or discharge.
It should also be noted that the requirement to for instance deck runoff is such a Best
Management Practice, where debris and deck spills should be minimized. But there is no
requirement that this water from deck be contained and processed, unless there is visible
contamination of the water.
In addition to the generic requirements, there are additional local requirements from
individual States. Based on input from the maritime industry, some of these local
requirements that were initially issued have been deleted. The VGP also contains
additional vessel type-specific requirements, but no such requirements are given for bulk
carriers.
A significant part of the VGP requirements relate to inspections and sampling, most of
which can be performed by the crew. Weekly and annual inspections, drydocking
inspections and quarterly sampling is specified in the VGP.
DNV may perform the drydocking inspection and issue corresponding report, although
this report may also be made by the owners. Non-scheduled drydockings will not be
required.
The inspections and sampling must be logged together with any findings and corrective
actions and the records to be kept onboard. Any non-compliance must be reported to the
EPA.
The EPA has advised that vessels are not required to conduct such inspections when they
are not within the 3nm territorial sea of the US, but vessels must be in compliance when
entering these waters. This means that a vessel must have conducted a routine inspection
within the last week or voyage, whichever is more frequent, and have had a
comprehensive annual inspection within the last year, prior to entering US waters.
Once a vessel has implemented procedures for compliance with EPA requirements, it
may be recommended to continue to follow those policies and practices necessary to
comply with all aspects of the VGP even if the vessel is not navigating US waters. This to
avoid confusion by the ship’s crew as to when the inspections should be conducted, and
is particularly relevant if the company choose to integrate the VGP inspection
requirements with the company’s current management and operational procedures.
Implementation of the VGP further requires the establishment of a training plan to ensure
that the crew is familiar with, and fully understand, the VGP requirements and their
integration into the onboard procedures. Records should be maintained to demonstrate
that the crew has attended appropriate training, which could be in the form of an
electronic course.
Guidance for operators Many of the VGP requirements will already be implemented in
the company’s management system and operating procedures, since they are already
required by current international or federal rules/regulations or are part of normal safety,
quality and environmental management systems and procedures.
However an operator should carefully consider the current extent of implementation of
the VGP requirements, and complete a review of all 26 discharge requirements, in order
to determine those that are applicable, and which of them are not covered within the
onboard procedures. Systems and procedures need then to be updated to include new
requirements.
The required inspection and training scheme, as well as recordkeeping should also be
implemented in the system.
As this is a new regulatory system, it remains to be seen how the system will be
implemented and how it will be enforced in practice. We can only advise to follow the
development closely. EPA has stated that the Agency will be focusing on compliance
assistance (as opposed to enforcement) during the first six months the Permit is effective.
It should be noted that any noncompliance with the requirements of the VGP constitutes a
violation of the Clean Water Act and may lead to prosecution.
 GENERAL

The first principle of successful ice navigation is to maintain freedom of manoeuvre.

Once a ship becomes trapped, the vessel goes wherever the ice goes. Ice navigation
requires great patience and can be a tiring business with or without icebreaker escort. The
open water long way round a difficult ice area whose limits are known is often the fastest
and safest way to port, or to the open sea when leaving a port.

Experience has proven that in ice of higher concentrations, four basic ship handling rules
apply:

1. keep moving - even very slowly, but try to keep moving;

2. try to work with the ice movement and weaknesses but not against them;
3. excessive speed almost always results in ice damage; and
4. know your ship's manoeuvring characteristics.

Warning: excessive speed is the major cause of damage to ships by ice.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPS OPERATING IN ICE

The propulsion plant and steering gear of any ship intending to operate in ice must be
reliable and must be capable of a fast response to manoeuvring orders. The navigational
and communications equipment must be equally reliable and particular attention should
be paid to maintaining radar at peak performance.

Light and partly loaded ships should be ballasted as deeply as possible, but excessive trim
by the stern is not recommended, as it cuts down manoeuvrability and increases the
possibility of ice damage to the more vulnerable lower area of the exposed bow. Engine
room suction strainers should be able to be removed easily and to be kept clear of ice and
snow. Good searchlights should be available to aid in visibility during night navigation
with or without icebreaker support.

Ships navigating in ice-covered waters may experience delays and, therefore, should
carry sufficient fresh water, supplies and manoeuvring fuel, especially vessels which use
heavy bunker fuel for main propulsion.

SIGNS OF ICE IN THE VICINITY

When steaming through open water, it may be possible to detect the approach of ice by
the following signs:

a. Ice blink: this is a fairly reliable sign and may be the first indication that an ice
field is in the vicinity. It can usually be seen for some time before the ice itself is
visible and appears as a luminous reflection on the underside of the clouds above
the ice. Its clarity is increased after a fresh snowfall. On clear days, ice blink is
 less apparent but may appear as a light or yellowish haze which would indicate
the presence of ice. Ice blink can sometimes be detected at night, either from the
reflection of moonlight, or from the ambient starlight in clear weather.
b. The sighting of small fragments of ice often indicates that larger quantities are not
far away.
c. Abrupt moderation of the sea and swell occur when approaching an ice field from
leeward.
d. In northern areas, and in Labrador and Newfoundland, the onset of fog often
indicates the presence of ice in the vicinity.

On a clear day there may be abnormal refraction of light causing distortion in the
appearance of features. Although the ice field will be seen at a greater distance than
would normally be possible without refraction, its characteristics may be magnified out
of all proportion – it may even appear as giant cliffs of ice in the far distance, with breaks
between them where the open water lies.

The following are signs of open water:

a. Water sky: dark patches on low clouds, sometimes almost black in comparison
with the clouds, indicate the presence of water below them. When the air is very
clear this indication is less evident. When iceblink is visible at night, the absence
of blink in some sectors of the horizon may indicate open water but cannot be
assumed to be water sky.
b. Dark spots in fog give a similar indication, but are not visible for as great a
distance as the reflection on clouds.
c. A dark bank on a cloud at high altitude indicates the presence of patches of open
water below, which could lead to larger areas of open water in the immediate
vicinity.

SHIPS NAVIGATING INDEPENDENTLY

Experience has shown that non-ice-strengthened ships with an open water speed of about
12 knots can become hopelessly beset in heavy concentrations of relatively light ice
conditions, whereas ice-strengthened ships with adequate power should be able to make
progress through first-year ice of 6/10 to 7/10 concentrations. Such ships are often able to
proceed without any assistance other than routing advice. In concentrations of 6/10 or
less, most vessels should be able to steer at slow speed around the floes in open pack ice
without coming into contact with very many of them.

Entering the Ice

The following notes on ship-handling in ice have proven helpful:

a. Do not enter ice if an alternative, although longer, open water route is available.
b. It is very easy and extremely dangerous to underestimate the hardness of ice.
c. Enter the ice at low speed to receive the initial impact; once into the pack,
increase speed gradually to maintain headway and control of the ship, but do not
let the speed increase beyond the point at which she might suffer ice damage.
Particular attention should be paid to applied power in areas of weak ice or open
leads, pools, etc. where the speed might increase unnoticed to dangerous levels if
power is not taken off.
d. Be prepared to go "Full Astern" at any time.
e. Navigation in pack ice after dark should not be attempted without high-power
searchlights which can be controlled easily from the bridge; if poor visibility
precludes progress, heave to in the ice and keep the propeller turning slowly as it
is less susceptible to ice damage than if it were completely stopped, blocks of ice
will also be prevented from jamming between the blades and the hull.
f. Propellers and rudders are the most vulnerable parts of the ship; ships should go
astern in ice with extreme care, and always with the rudder amidships. If required
to ram ice when brought to a halt, ships should not go astern into unbroken ice,
but should move astern only in the channel previously cut by their own passage.
g. All forms of glacial ice (icebergs, bergy bits, growlers) in the pack should be
given a wide berth, as they are current-driven whereas the pack is wind-driven.
Large features of old ice may be moving in a direction up-wind or across wind
according to the direction of the current.
h. Wherever possible, pressure ridges should be avoided and a passage through pack
ice under pressure should not be attempted. The ship may have to be stopped in
the ice until the pressure event is ended.
i. When a ship navigating independently becomes beset, it usually requires
icebreaker assistance to free it. However, ships in ballast can sometimes free
themselves by pumping and transferring ballast from side to side, and it may
require very little change in trim or list to release the ship, especially in high-
friction areas of heavy snow-cover.

a. Towing in ice: This procedure would only be undertaken in emergencies as there

is an inherent risk of damage to both vessels. The Commanding Officer of an
icebreaker who receives a request for a tow will judge whether or not the situation
calls for such extreme measures.

b. Anchoring in ice: Anchoring in the presence of ice is not recommended except in

an emergency, but if such anchoring is necessary, only the minimum amount of
cable should be used and the capstan/windlass should be available for immediate
use. The engines must be on standby, or kept running, if the start-up time is more
than 20 minutes. If the water is too deep to let go an anchor, the ship may be
stopped in fast ice (when the conditions permit). When off-shore in deep water, a
ship can usually safely stop in the drift ice without an anchor down when darkness
or poor visibility prevents further progress. The ship will then drift with the ice
and may be turned around by the ice, but will be quite safe if properly placed
before shutting down.
Chapter 22 – Operating in Ice
 SHIP HANDLING TECHNIQUES IN ICE

Manoeuvres in Different Ice Conditions

The first principle of successful ice navigation is to avoid stopping or becoming

stuck in the ice. Once a ship becomes trapped, it goes wherever the ice goes. Ice
navigation requires great patience and can be a tiring business, with or without icebreaker
escort. The longer open water way around a difficult ice area whose limits are known is
often the fastest and safest way to port or to reach the open sea.

NOTE : Do not underestimate the hardness of ice and its potential for inflicting damage.

Before Entering the Ice

For an unstrengthened ship, or for a ship whose structural capability does not match the
prevailing ice conditions, it is preferable and safer to take any alternative open water
route around the ice even if it is considerably longer. An open water route is always
better than going through a large amount of ice. Any expected savings of fuel will be
more than offset by the risk of damage, and the actual fuel consumption may be higher by
going through ice, even if the distance is shorter.

The following conditions must be met before a vessel enters an ice field:

a. Follow the route recommended by the Ice Superintendent via the Marine
Communications and Traffic Services Centre (MCTS). This route is based on
the latest available information and Masters are advised to adjust their course
accordingly if changes are recommended during the passage.
b. Extra lookouts must be posted and the bridge watch may be increased,
depending on the visibility.
c. There must be sufficient light to complete the transit of the ice field in
daylight or the vessel must be equipped with sufficient high-powered and
reliable searchlights for use after dark.
d. Reduce speed to a minimum to receive the initial impact of the ice.
e. The vessel should be at right angles to the edge of the pack ice at entry to
avoid glancing blows and the point of entering the ice must be chosen
carefully (see Figure 1 ), preferably in an area of lower ice concentration.
f. The engine room personnel should be briefed fully as to the situation and what
may be required of them, as it may be necessary to go full astern at any time,
and engine manoeuvres will be frequent as speed is constantly adjusted.
g. The ship should be ballasted down to ice draft, if appropriate, or to such a
draft that would offer protection to a bulbous bow, rudder, or propeller (as
applicable).
h. The ship should be fitted with an internal cooling system for use in the event
that the main engine cooling water intake becomes clogged with slush ice.
 Figure 1 : Correct Approach to Ice Field: Reduced Speed and Perpendicular
to Edge

After Entering the Ice

Once the ice is entered, speed of the vessel should be increased slowly, according to the
prevailing ice conditions and the vulnerability of the ship. If visibility decreases while the
vessel is in the ice, speed should be reduced until the vessel can be stopped within the
distance of visibility. If in doubt, the vessel must stop until the visibility improves. The
potential of damage by ice increases with less visibility. If the vessel is stopped, the
propeller(s) should be kept turning at low revolutions to prevent ice from building up
around the stern.

When navigating in ice, the general rule is:

 use the pack to its best advantage. Follow open water patches and lighter ice areas
even if initially it involves large deviations of course.
 in limited visibility, beware following an open water lead at excessive speed, it
may be the trail of an iceberg.

Do not allow the speed to increase to dangerous levels when in leads or open pools within
an ice field, or when navigating open pack conditions.

Turning in Ice

Changes in course will be necessary when the vessel is in ice. If possible course changes
should be carried out in an area of open water or in relatively light ice, as turning in ice
requires substantially more power than turning in water, because the ship is trying to
break ice with its length rather than with its bow, turns should be started early and make
as wide an arc as possible to achieve the new heading. Care must be taken even when
turning in an open water area, as it is easy to underestimate the swing of the ship and to
make contact with ice on the ship's side or stern: a glancing blow with a soft piece of ice
may result in the ship colliding with a harder piece (see Figure 2).

The ship will have a strong tendency to follow the path of least resistance and turning out
of a channel may be difficult or even impossible. Ships that are equipped with twin
propellers should use them to assist in the turn. . In very tight ice conditions, a ship
sailing independently may make better progress by applying full power and leaving the
rudder amidships. This allows her to find the least resistance without any drag from the
rudder in trying to maintain a straight course by steering.

Warning: Avoid turning in heavy ice – seek lighter ice or open water pools.

If it is not possible to turn in an open water area, the Master must decide what type of
turning manoeuvre will be appropriate. If the turn does not have to be sharp then it will
be better to maintain progress in ice with the helm over. When ice conditions are such
that the vessel's progress is marginal, the effect of the drag of the rudder being turned
may be sufficient to halt the vessel's progress completely. In this case, or if the vessel
must make a sharp turn, the star manoeuvre will have to be performed. This manoeuvre is
the equivalent of turning the ship short round in ice by backing and filling with the engine
and rudder. Masters will have to weigh the dangers of backing in ice to accomplish the
star manoeuvre, against any navigational dangers of a long turn in ice. Care must be
taken while backing on each ram that the propeller and rudder are not forced into
unbroken ice astern.

Figure 2: Danger in Turning in an Ice Channel

Backing in Ice

Backing in ice is a dangerous manoeuvre as it exposes the most vulnerable parts of the
ship, the rudder and propeller, to the ice. It should only be attempted when absolutely
necessary and in any case the ship should never ram astern. In recent years “double-
acting" ice strengthened vessels have been developed which are designed to break ice
while moving astern in order to protect their bulbous bows, but only this type of specially
designed vessel should attempt such manoeuvres.

The ship should move at dead slow astern and the rudder must be amidships (Figure 3). If
the rudder is off centre and it strikes a piece of ice going astern, the twisting force exerted
on the rudder post will be much greater than if the rudder is centred. In the centre
position, the rudder will be protected by an ice horn if fitted.

If ice starts to build up under the stern, a short burst of power ahead should be used to
clear away the ice. Using this technique of backing up to the ice and using the burst ahead
to clear the ice can be very effective, but a careful watch must be kept of the distance
between the stern and the ice edge. If a good view of the stern is not possible from the
bridge, post a reliable lookout aft with access to a radio or telephone.

Warning: Avoid backing in ice whenever possible. If you must move astern, do so with
extreme caution at dead slow.

Figure 3: Backing onto Ice: Rudder Amidships. Dead Slow Astern.

Precautions to Avoid Becoming Beset

The easiest way to avoid being beset is to avoid areas of ice under pressure. Ice can be
put under pressure in several ways. The most common pressure situation occurs when
open pack ice closes because of prevailing winds, but it may also occur when tides,
currents, or on-shore breezes blow ice onto the shore.

Pack ice that has been under pressure for some time will deform, overriding as rafts or
piling up as ridges or hummocks. Appearances are deceiving as the sail on a ridge or
hummock may be only 1 to 2 metres above the ice cover but the keel could be several
metres below.

Warning: Any ship that is not strengthened for operating in ice should avoid floes that are
rafted or ridged.

The danger from becoming beset is increased greatly in the presence of old or glacial ice,
as the pressure on the hull is that much greater.

When in pack ice, a frequent check should be made for any signs of the track closing
behind the ship. Normally there will be a slight closing from the release of pressure as the
ship passes through the ice, but if the ice begins to close up completely behind the ship it
is a strong sign that the pressure is increasing (Figure 4).

Similarly, if proceeding along an open water lead between ice and shore, or ice in motion
and fast ice, watch for a change in the wind direction or tide as the lead can close quickly.
 Figure 4: Pressure in Ice Field Closes Track Behind Vessel

Freeing a Ship Beset

To free a beset vessel, it is necessary to loosen the grip of ice on the hull, which may be
accomplished in several ways, or it may be necessary to wait for conditions to improve:

a. Go ahead and astern at full power while alternating the helm from port to
starboard, which has the effect of levering the ice aside. Care must be taken when
going astern to ensure that no ice goes through the propeller(s), or if the vessel
frees itself that it does not make sternway into any heavy ice. In vessels with twin
propellers, they should be alternated with one ahead and one astern for a few
minutes, then each changed to the opposite direction, slewing the stern from side
to side to create a wider opening in the ice astern.
b. Alternate the ballast to port and to starboard to list the ship and change the
underwater shape. This method should only be done with knowledge of the
possible consequences of an exaggerated list if the ship comes free quickly.
c. Alternate filling and emptying of the fore and after peak tanks is a safer
manoeuvre than using the ballast tanks, but it is usually only effective in changing
the trim for the bow to get a better angle of attack on the ice ahead, or for the
propellers to be given a better grip by greater submersion. It can also be effective
in extracting from a ridge, by raising the bow so that the ship slides backwards as
the bow is raised.
d. In smaller ships it may be possible to swing weights over the side suspended on
the ship's cranes or lifting gear to induce a list and break the ship free. This
method should only be used with knowledge of the possible consequences if the
ship comes free quickly (see (b) above).
Figure 5: Ice under pressure will close the track behind the vessel
Ramming

Ramming is particularly effective when attempting progress through ice that is otherwise
too thick to break continuously.

Warning: Ramming should not be undertaken by vessels that are not ice-strengthened and
by vessels with bulbous bows. Ice-strengthened vessels, when undertaking ramming,
should do so with extreme caution.

For ships that can ram the ice it is a process of trial and error to determine the optimum
distance to back away from the ice edge to build up speed. The optimum backing distance
will be that which gives the most forward progress with the least travel astern. It is
always necessary to start with short rams to determine the thickness and hardness of the
ice. All ships must pay close attention to the ice conditions, to avoid the possibility of
lodging the ship across a ridge on a large floe. Floes of old ice which may be distributed
throughout the pack in northern waters, must be identified and avoided while ramming.

Ramming must be undertaken with extreme caution because the impact forces caused
when the vessel contacts the ice can be very high. For ice-strengthened vessels these
forces may be higher than those used to design the structure and may lead to damage.
However, if the ramming is restricted to low speeds, the risk of damage will be greatly
reduced.

Berthing

Berthing in ice-covered waters can be, and usually is, a long process particularly as no
tugs are available. When approaching a berth in ice-covered waters it is desirable (even if
this is not the normal practice) to have an officer stationed on the bow to call back the
distance off the wharf or pier because a variation in ice thickness (not observed from the
bridge) can result in a sudden increase or decrease in the closing speed of the bow and the
wharf.

There are a multitude of considerations depending on ship size and berth type, but the
aim should be to bring the ship alongside with as little ice as possible trapped between the
ship and the dock face. It may be accomplished by landing the bow on the near end of the
dock and sliding along the face (similar to landing the bow on the wall entering a lock in
the Seaway), or by bringing the bow in to the desired location, passing a stout spring line,
and going ahead slowly so that the wash flushes the ice out from between the dock and
the ship (Figure 6). Frequently it is necessary to combine the two techniques (in ships of
sufficient manoeuvrability it is possible to clear ice away from the wharf prior to
berthing). Care must be exercised not to damage the wharf by contact with the vessel, or
by forcing ice against pilings. The ship itself can be damaged by forcing unbroken floes
of hard ice against the unyielding facing of a solid berth.

Figure 6: Berthing: Flushing out ice with wash while bow is fixed with a spring line
Once the ship is secured, all efforts must be made to keep the ship alongside and not to
allow ice to force its way between the ship and the dock. If the dock is in a river or in a
strong tidal area there is nothing that will keep the ship alongside if the ice is moving.
The prudent thing to do is to move the ship off the dock before the situation deteriorates.
The ice conditions can change quickly when alongside a wharf and, for this reason, it is
desirable to keep the engine(s) on standby at all times.

Warning: Keep the engine(s) on standby at river berths or strong tidal areas where ice is
in motion

Towing in Ice

Towing in ice on a long wire is possible, although the strain on the tow line is much
greater than in an open water tow as the tug or icebreaker is subject to the sudden
acceleration/deceleration of icebreaking. The situation can be alleviated somewhat if
there is an icebreaker making a track ahead of the towing icebreaker. There is a long
tradition of this sort of work in the Baltic, though, where icebreakers are specially
designed with a notch in the stern and heavy winches and cables to enable the bow of the
towed ship to be brought up against the stern of the icebreaker and secured. This towing
method is known as close coupled towing and is considered an efficient method of
towing in uniform ice conditions.

Towing in ice was common in the 1970s and early 1980s in the Beaufort Sea, by anchor-
handling supply boats or icebreakers when repositioning drill ships and platforms.
Experience has shown that towing in ice requires specialized skills in towing and ice
navigation, coupled with appropriate purpose-designed equipment. The towing
equipment must be robust and must allow frequent changes in towline length. The use of
shock-absorbing springs or heavy surge chains is recommended. Bridle arrangements
must optimise manoeuvrability to allow the towing vessel and tow to be navigated around
heavy ridges and ice floes.

It is the recommended practice that the connection between vessels should incorporate a
weak link, usually a lighter pendant, which will fail before the tow-line or bridle. In
difficult ice conditions the towline should be kept as short as possible to avoid having the
towing-wire pass under the ice floes, due to the weight of the wire and the catenary
formed by a longer line. In freeing a beset tow, the towing vessel can shorten the tow-line
to provide some propeller wash to lubricate the tow, but care must be exercised to avoid
damaging the tow with heavy ice wash. Towing in ice is a special application not to be
undertaken without the benefit of training and experience.

Speed

In all attempts at manoeuvring or avoiding ice, it must be remembered that the force of
impact varies as the square of the speed. Thus, if the speed of the ship is increased from 8
to 12 knots, the force of impact with any piece of ice has been more than doubled.
Nevertheless, it is most important when manoeuvring in ice to keep moving. The
prudent speed in a given ice condition is a result of the visibility, the ice type and
concentration, the ice class, and the manoeuvring characteristics of the ship (how fast it
can be stopped).
 CLOSE-RANGE ICE HAZARD DETECTION

Although a careful lookout will help the ship avoid large ice hazards (such as icebergs),
there is still a need for the close-range detection of ice hazards, such as small icebergs
and old ice floes. Close-range ice navigation is an interactive process, which does not
lend itself to traditional passage planning techniques.

Two groups of equipment aid in close-range hazard detection: visual (searchlights and
binoculars) and radar (both X- and S-band marine radars and the newer enhanced ice
radar systems).

Use of Radar for Ice Detection

Radar can be a great asset in ice navigation during periods of limited visibility, but only if
the display is properly interpreted. Ice makes a poor radar target beyond 3 to 4 nautical
miles and the best working scale is in the 2 to 3 nautical mile range. Radar signal returns
from all forms of ice (even icebergs) are much lower than from ship targets, because of
the lower reflectivity of radar energy from ice, and especially snow, than from steel.
Detection of ice targets with low or smooth profiles is even more difficult on the radar
screen, although the radar information may be the deciding factor when attempting to
identify the location of these targets under poor conditions, such as in high seas, fog, or in
heavy snow return. For example, in close ice conditions the poor reflectivity and smooth
surface of a floe may appear on the radar as a patch of open water, or signal returns from
sea birds in a calm sea can give the appearance of ice floes. In an ice field, the edge of a
smooth floe is prominent, whereas the edge of an area of open water is not. The navigator
must be careful not to become over-confident in such conditions.

In strong winds the wave clutter in an area of open water will be distributed uniformly
across the surface of the water, except for the calm area at the leeward edge.

Ice within one mile of, and attached to, the shore may appear on the radar display as part
of the land itself. The operator should be able to differentiate between the two if the
receiver gain is reduced. Mariners are advised not to rely solely on radar for the detection
of icebergs because they may not appear as clearly defined targets. In particular, mariners
should exercise prudence when navigating in the vicinity of ice or icebergs. The absence
of sea clutter also may indicate that ice is present. Although ridges may show up well on
the radar display, it is difficult to differentiate between ridges, closed tracks of ships and
rafted ice, as all have a similar appearance on radar.

The effectiveness of marine radar systems will vary with power and wavelength. The
optimum settings for the radar will be different for navigating in ice than for open water.
As the radar reflectivity of ice is much lower than for ships or land, the gain will have to
be adjusted to detect ice properly. Generally, high-power radars are preferred and it has
been found that radars with 50 kW output provide much better ice detection capability
than 25 kW radars. Similarly, 3-centimetre radars (x-band) provide better ice detail while
10-centimetre radars (s-band) show the presence of ice and ridging at a greater distance -
it is therefore recommended that both wavelengths be used.
Warning: Marine radar provides an important tool for the detection of sea ice and
icebergs. However, do not rely solely on your radar in poor visibility as it is not certain
that radar will detect all types and sizes of ice and it will not differentiate old ice from
first year ice.

Ice Navigation Radars

Conventional marine radars are designed for target detection and avoidance. Enhanced
marine radars provide a higher definition image of the ice that the vessel is transiting
through and may help the user to identify certain ice features. There are various
shipboard marine radar systems enhanced and optimized for ice navigation. Figures 7 to
10 compare images from a conventional x-band radar and an enhanced x-band ice
navigation radar used on board a icebreaker. In the ice navigation radar, the analog signal
from the x-band radar (azimuth, video, trigger) is converted by a modular radar interface
and displayed as a 12-bit digital video image (1024x1024).

In the enhanced marine radar, the coastline is more clearly defined; icebergs are visible at
greater distances, as are the smaller bergy bits and growlers. In the standard radar, sea
clutter affects the ability to see smaller targets near the vessel. X-band radars will
produce clearer images of the ice at short ranges, such as under 4 nautical miles, when set
to a short pulse. The shapes of ice floes, the ridges and rafted ice and open water leads are
also more distinct in an ice navigation radar, particularly when using the short radar pulse
length.

Figure 7: Standard X-band Radar Image Figure 8: Enhanced X-band Radar Image

Figure 9: Standard X-band Radar Image Figure 10: Enhanced X-band Radar Image
Experiments with cross-polarized radar have demonstrated that it is possible to enhance
radar displays for better detection of old and glacier ice. Advances are also being made in
shipboard systems which use passive microwave radiometers to measure the natural
emissivity of the ice (the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation),
producing radar-like displays which may be colour-enhanced to distinguish between open
water and various ice types.

Icebergs

Icebergs normally have a high freeboard and, as such, they are easy to detect visually (in
clear conditions) and by ship's radar. In poor to no visibility, radar must be relied upon.
The radar return from an iceberg with low freeboard, smooth surface, or deep snow cover
is less obvious, particularly if surrounded by bright returns from sea or ice clutter.
Depending upon their size, aspect and attitude, icebergs may be detected at ranges
between four and 15 nautical miles or even further for very large high profile icebergs,
detection ranges diminishing in fog, rain, and other conditions affecting the attenuation of
radar return. Icebergs may not appear as clearly defined targets but the sector of the radar
display directly behind the iceberg may be free of clutter. Iceberg radar targets will
sometimes cause a “radar shadow" on the far side, in which other targets will not show. It
is sometimes possible to identify an iceberg target lost in the clutter by this shadow
extending away from the observer. A large iceberg with a long and gently sloping aspect
may not provide enough reflective surfaces to show at all on radar, so it should never be
assumed that just because there are no targets in view there are no icebergs around.

Warning: Do not rely solely on marine radar to detect ice, particularly glacial ice.

Observation will reveal the shadow to increase in size on approach to the iceberg, and to
swing around as the angle between the ship and the iceberg changes. However, care
should be taken in using this technique as the returns from pack ice can obscure the return
from the iceberg.

As the vessel gets closer to the iceberg, the size of the radar target reduces and may in
fact disappear when very close to the iceberg, in which case only the shadow will remain
to warn of the iceberg's presence. For this reason it is important to plot any iceberg
(which has not been sighted visually) that the vessel may be approaching, until the point
of nearest approach has passed.

Bergy Bits

From time to time pieces of ice break off, or calve, from an iceberg. The larger pieces are
known as bergy bits, and the smaller pieces are known as growlers. Whereas the iceberg
moves in a direction that is primarily the result of current because of its large keel area,
the growlers and bergy bits are primarily wind driven, and will stream to leeward of the
iceberg (Figure 11). While this is the general case, the effects of strong tidal currents may
alter this pattern. However, for reason of the wind influence on bergy bits and growlers it
is advisable, if possible, to move to windward of icebergs to avoid bergy bits and
growlers.

Passing distance from the iceberg is a function of the circumstances, but always bear in
mind that:

1. the closer the ship passes the more likely the encounter with bergy bits, and
2. a very close pass should be avoided because the underwater portion of the iceberg
can protrude some distance away from the visible edge of the iceberg at the sea
surface.

The visual sighting of bergy bits depends on good visibility, and surrounding conditions
of low sea state or fairly smooth sea ice. In windy conditions, the presence of bergy bits
can be indicated by spray flung upwards by the waves striking the ice, while the ice itself
remains invisible as the waves break over it. The differentiation of bergy bits (in waters
where they are present) from open water or from a smooth first-year ice cover is
relatively easy with radar, if the height of the bergy bit is sufficient for its return to be
distinguished from the ice or water returns. The radar display should be checked carefully
for radar shadows which may identify bergy bits with less height differential, or when the
ice or water background is more cluttered.

Detection of bergy bits by radar is difficult in pack ice, especially if there is any rafting,
ridging, or hummocks which cause backscatter and also may produce shadows that can
obscure a bergy bit. Detection is particularly difficult if the surroundings are open pack
ice, because radar shadows behind low bergy bits are small and are difficult to
discriminate from the dark returns of open water between ice floes. As with icebergs,
bergy bits should be avoided, but passing distances can be relatively closer, because the
underwater portion of bergy bits is unlikely to extend as far to the side as for icebergs.

Figure 11: Navigating Around an Iceberg and Bergy Bits

Growlers

Growlers, because of their low freeboard and smooth relief, are the most difficult form of
glacial ice to detect (both visually and on radar) and, therefore, are the most hazardous
form of ice. Very little of a growler appears above the water surface because of the low
freeboard of the ice and waves may completely cover it. Unless recently calved, water
erosion will have made the surface of a growler very smooth, making it a poor radar
target. In open or bergy water with good weather conditions visual detection of growlers
is possible at two or three nautical miles from the vessel. In rough weather and heavy
swells, a growler may remain submerged through the passage of two or more swells
passing over it, making detection by any method even more difficult. Detection (on radar
or visually) can be as little as 0.5 nautical miles from the vessel, if at all. It is important to
keep a constant check on radar settings, particularly the tuning control (on manually
tuned radars), to ensure that the radar is operating at maximum efficiency. Varying the
settings can be useful, but care must be taken to ensure that the radar is retuned after any
adjustment. It sometimes helps to sight a growler visually then tune the radar for
maximum return.

Warning: growlers are almost impossible to detect by radar. They pose an immense threat
to ships. Constant visual and radar monitoring must be maintained in any area where
growlers are expected.

For a growler in an ice cover, it may be possible to detect it visually in clear conditions
(because it is often transparent, green, or dark in appearance), but it is often not possible
to discriminate it from surrounding ice clutter on marine radar. As the exact location of
each growler cannot be identified for certain amongst ice floes, care must be taken to
determine a safe speed through the ice-covered area when navigating by radar.

Old Ice Floes

Detection of old ice floes is primarily visual, because differentiation between first-year
and old ice on marine radar is not possible. Travel through old ice can be reduced by
using ice analysis charts to avoid areas of high concentrations of old-ice. However,
mariners must watch for old ice even in areas where it is not identified on ice charts.
Visual identification is possible up to one to two 2 nautical miles from the ship in good
weather. Old ice can be distinguished from first-year ice by more rounded and weathered
surface, light blue colour, higher freeboard, and a well-defined system of melt-water
channels.

Visibility

Operating in restricted visibility is inevitable in, or near, ice-covered waters, either

because of precipitation, fog or darkness. Travel through ice may, however, continue at
night or in fog and visibility is often reduced by blowing snow during the winter.

All possible effort must be made to minimize the chances of collision with ice in poor
visibility and the requirements of the regulation for preventing collisions at sea also
apply. These efforts should include:

 maintenance of a constant visual and radar lookout;

 use of searchlights at night (which may be counter-productive in fog or
precipitation through reflected glare);
 reduction of speed before entering any ice field in poor visibility and not
increasing speed before the threat has been determined;
 reduction of speed in any ice situation where the ratio of glacial and old ice to
first-year ice indicates a significant increase in the chance of collision with
hazardous ice;
 location of icebergs, bergy bits, and growlers on marine radar before they are
obscured by sea or ice clutter, and tracking of these targets on ARPA (Automatic
Radar Plotting Aid);
 switching between ranges to optimize the radar for iceberg detection when
navigating in pack ice;
 use of radar to detect icebergs and bergy bits by observing their radar shadows in
mixed ice cover; and
 recognition of the difficulty of detecting glacial and old ice in open pack ice with
marine radar when little or no radar shadow is recognizable.

Many escorts occur in fog, when the escorted vessel must follow the icebreaker and
maintain the required distance by radar. If the icebreaker suddenly slows or its position is
lost on the radar screen, a collision may occur. It is important in these situations to
maintain VHF radio contact and constant monitoring of the radar distance between
vessels.
 Figure 12: The use of searchlights when transiting ice at night is essential

PASSAGE PLANNING

Passage planning for routes in ice-covered waters is based on standard navigational

principles for passage planning . The presence of sea ice along the planned route adds
importance to the traditional practice of passage planning, necessitating the continual
review of the entire process throughout the voyage.

Passage planning takes place in two phases,

a. Strategic, when in port or in open water, and

b. Tactical, when near or in ice-covered waters.

Both Strategic and Tactical Planning involve four stages:

 Appraisal
 Planning
 Execution
 Monitoring.

The Strategic phase may be considered small-scale (large area) and the assumption is that
the ship would be outside ice-covered waters, and days or weeks from encountering ice.
The Strategic phase may be revised several times before the Tactical phase is
commenced. The Tactical phase may be considered large scale (small area) and is
constantly being revised as the voyage unfolds.

Passage planning for open water is a fixed process in which most, if not all, the
information is gathered before the ship leaves the dock. The localised nature of some of
the information for passage planning in ice means that information may become available
only as the ship moves into waters. The amount and extent of information is a function of
the voyage type, so the more difficult voyages, such as early or late season, are supported
with more resources, such as icebreakers, more frequent reporting of current ice
conditions, and the appropriate ice forecasts. Passage planning in ice-covered waters is an
evolving process that demands a flexible approach to the planning and execution.

Bridge Manning

It is recommended that, because of the hazards of navigating in ice-covered waters,

lookouts should be increased when in or near an area of ice. Navigation in ice can be very
strenuous and Masters should be careful not to overextend themselves, even if it means
doubling the Officers of the Watch on the bridge or stopping the vessel at night to receive
adequate rest. This applies not only for those on the bridge, but for engine-room staff
who may be called upon for long periods of manoeuvring, clearing suctions, etc.

Strategic Phase

Appraisal

This procedure involves the use of all information sources used in open water passage
planning, plus any others that can be obtained to give the most complete picture of the ice
conditions possible.

Planning

Strategic planning is a forward-looking exercise to assess the ice conditions that the
vessel is likely to encounter along the length of its planned route. Strategic planning
relies on weather forecasts and available publications on the ice climatology of the region
to be encountered in addition to standard nautical publications. This exercise may be
planned over a period of hours, days, or even months depending on the route, destination
and the nature of the ice environment to be encountered.

The Master will develop a route to the destination based on the information obtained in
the Appraisal phase, and have this laid off on the appropriate charts. The principles
involved will be the same as in open water passage planning. The plan should be
developed with the following limitations of the elements of the Ice Navigation system in
mind:

 availability of ice information;

 diminished effectiveness of visual detection of ice hazards in late season or winter
voyages; and
 increased difficulty of detecting ice hazards in combined conditions of open ice
and reduced visibility.

Additional information to be marked on the chart could include:

  the anticipated ice edge, areas of close pack ice and the fast ice edge;
 any areas of open water where significant pack ice may be expected, such as east
Greenland ice in the vicinity of southern Greenland;
 safe clearance off areas known to have significant concentrations of icebergs
 any environmentally sensitive areas where there are limitations as to course,
speed, or on-ice activities.

Execution

Once the planning of the passage has been completed, the tactics for its execution can be
decided upon. The estimated time of arrival for the destination can be developed based on
the ice conditions expected along the route. Take into account any expected reductions in
speed or large deviations in course for reduced visibility, passages in consolidated ice,
areas of higher concentrations of old ice, and delays in waiting for information. The point
at which it is considered necessary to ballast down to ice draft and to reduce speed should
also be considered.

Consider when extra lookouts will be required or when watches are likely to be doubled
for entering ice or approaching areas of low visibility or high numbers of icebergs/bergy
bits/growlers.

Monitoring

Monitoring of the route should continue until the ice-covered areas are reached. As the
ship approaches ice-covered waters, the quality and quantity of ice information improves,
which increases the accuracy of estimates for times of arrival and may perhaps indicate a
change in route.

The strategic evaluation may be redone, once or several times, on approach to the ice,
depending on the amount of new information received.

Tactical Phase

If no detailed ice information is available before reaching the ice-covered area, the ship
may be limited to the strategically planned route rather than a tactical one. All efforts
should be made to obtain detailed information on ice conditions, particularly when
consolidated ice is likely to be encountered, where high concentrations of old ice are
expected or in highly mobile ice.

Appraisal

The gathering of tactical information is based mainly (but not exclusively) on the
acquisition of ice observation and analysis charts. The reception of these charts depends
on the ship being fitted with a facsimile machine capable of being tuned to the required
frequencies. Additional inputs consist of marine radar (X and S-bands), visual
observations, and processed radar imagery.

Planning

Planning may be as for open water on large-scale charts, but also, if further information
has been obtained, this may involve a track planned on a small-scale chart. Planning with
additional information entails laying off the route to take the best advantage of optimum
ice conditions, including:

 finding open water leads;

 finding first-year ice leads in close ice or old ice fields;
 avoiding areas of ridging; and
 avoiding areas of pressure or potential pressure.

Once the track has been laid out, it has to be transferred to large-scale charts and checked
for adequate water depth. The two sources have to be reconciled so that the best route is
also a safe route. Once the route has been laid out it may indicate the need for further
information.

Execution

Once the route has been determined, estimated times of arrival can be revised. Any
change in weather conditions, particularly visibility or wind direction and speed, should
be considered before executing the plan, as they are important for estimating pressure
areas or where open water leads may be located.

Monitoring

Progress should be monitored on the chart by conventional means and ice navigation can
continue.
Chapter 23 – Safety Management
Chapter 24 – Damage Stability
Chapter 25 – Weather Routeing
Ship’s Weather Routeing
Example of what could happen when ship responses to sea and swells are not properly
taken into account

 The inquiries into the tragic loss of the Derbyshire have blamed the
unpredictability of weather and sea as the culprit. While it is true that rough
 weather was the proximate cause of the Derbyshire sinking, a more fundamental
question remains unanswered. How did the ship get into the situation in the first
place and what was the vessel’s condition at the time? Why did the master of the
Derbyshire not have access to information that might have caused him to make a
different decision?

 It is astounding that modern advances in weather forecasting and satellite

communications provide unprecedented amounts of weather information to ship
masters, yet ships – and seafarers’ lives – continue to be lost at an appalling rate,
and hundreds of containers are washed overboard every year due to heavy
weather. So the question we should be asking is, why have the advances in
computer technology, marine weather forecasting, ship design and satellite
communications failed to reduce significantly the danger of heavy weather
damage at sea? With all these high-technology resources available to us, cannot
we find a better way to protect the lives of ships, cargoes and seafarers from the
ravages of heavy weather? Or shall we just continue to plod along in the
traditional way, accepting the weather as one of the unavoidable risks of doing
business and letting the lawyers and insurance companies sort it all out after the
disaster occurs.

All Weather Routing Services Are Not Equal

 More than 50% of weather routing services are ordered by charterers to

monitor their chartered vessel for speed claims. As a result, there are a few
“good enough” weather routing companies with minimal technology to
perform post voyage analysis. Accuracy of the wind and wave forecasts is not
a top concern. The criteria for routing and speed claims are still based on
Beaufort Wind Force Scale invented in the 1800s, regardless of the size of the
ship and loading condition reacting to varying forecast wave height period and
direction.

 Traditional shore-based weather routing services operate on the principle of

“storm avoidance”. The so-called route analyst typically plans a route using a
set of generic speed reduction curves to predict ship position to avoid storms
as depicted by the lows on surface pressure charts. After trying out several
candidate routes, the recommended route is sent in a brief email/telex to the
ship requesting the service and updates when workload permits or requested
again by the ship. Was the duty analyst too busy to send a telex to warn the
crew on Derbyshire the approaching Typhoon Orchid, or was he aware of the
swell generated by the Typhoon may have already propagated much beyond
the forecast track indicated by the wind radius and Typhoon eye?

Weather Routing Does Not Take into Account Ship Responses

 A ship slows down due to one of two reasons, involuntary speed reduction due to
increased resistance from onset of wind and wave, and voluntary speed reduction
due to navigation hazards or fear of heavy weather damage resulting from
 excessive ship motion, slamming or boarding seas. The weather routing advisor
must take both of these into account when estimating dead reckoned ship
positions in relation to the movement of weather systems. Otherwise, the best
route perceived by the unknowing route analyst could lead to a dangerous
situation. Would the master of the Derbyshire still take the action to outrun
Typhoon Orchid if he had known that his vessel would be slowed down due to
severe motions caused by advancing waves ahead of the eye of the storm? If the
route analyst does not have the tools to accurately predict the ship speed, and then
is the route recommendation to avoid the storm still valid?

 Ship weather routeing is a procedure whereby an optimum route is developed

based on the forecasts of weather and seas and the ship’s characteristics for a
particular transit. Within specified limits of weather and sea conditions, the term
optimum is used to mean maximum safety and crew comfort, minimum fuel
consumption, minimum time underway, or any desired combination of these
factors.

 the ship routeing agency, acting as an advisory service, attempts to avoid or

reduce the effects of adverse weather and sea conditions on a ship by issuing
initial route recommendations prior to sailing.

 Recommendations for track changes while underway (diversions), and weather

advisories to alert the master with respect to approaching of unfavourable weather
and sea conditions which cannot be effectively avoided by a diversion. Adverse
weather and sea conditions are defined as those conditions which will cause a
significant speed reduction or time loss, for example speed reduction by one third
or lesser speed reduction causing a loss of at least 6 hours transit time.

 The initial route recommendation is based on a survey of weather and sea

forecasts between the point of departure and the destination and takes into account
the hull type, speed capability, cargo, and loading conditions. The ship’s progress
is continually monitored and, if adverse weather and sea conditions are forecast
along the ship’s current track, a recommendation for a diversion is normally
transmitted to the ship.

The greatest potential advantage of this ship weather routeing exists when:

 The passage is relatively long, generally about 1500 miles or more.

 The waters are navigationally unrestricted so that there is a choice of routes.
 Weather is a factor in determining the route to be followed.
 Study over a long period shows that if weather routeing is done:
 The actual number of hours delayed due to heavy weather decreased by 80%.
 The number of structural damage claims due to heavy weather decreased by 73%,
while the cost of claims declined by 29%.
 Cargo damage claims due to heavy weather decreased by 87%.
 The use of this advisory service in no way should relieve the master of
responsibility for prudent seamanship and safe navigation. There is no intent by
 the routeing agency to inhibit the exercise of professional judgement, capabilities
and the prerogatives of the masters.
 Today, ship weather routeing uses modern weather forecasting techniques and
computer procedures to provide optimum routes. With the advent of extended
range forecasting and the development of selective climatology, ship weather
routeing has been possible. The effective communication system has helped in
transmission of timely advisories.
Ship and cargo considerations

 Ship and cargo characteristics have a significant influence on the application of

ship weather routeing. Ship size, speed capability, and type of cargo are important
considerations in the route selection process prior to sailing and the surveillance
procedure while underway. These ship characteristic factors help to identify the
degree of vulnerability to potential adverse conditions and the ship’s ability to
effectively avoid the adverse weather and seas diversion.

 Generally, ships with higher speed capability and less cargo encumbrances will
have shorter routes and be better able to maintain near normal “speed of
advance” than ships with lower speed capability or cargoes which may generate
unfavourable ship motions resulting from wind and sea conditions.

 Ship performance curves (speed curves) are used to estimate the ship’s speed of
advance while transiting the forecast sea states. The curves indicate the effect of
head, beam, and following seas of various significant wave heights on ship’s
speed.

 With the aid of the speed curves it is possible to determine just how costly a
diversion will be in terms of the required distance and time.

Important environmental factors

 Elements of the atmosphere and ocean that may produce a change in the status of
a ship transit considered in ship routeing are wind, seas, and fog, ice, and ocean
currents.

Wave Analysis
Wave Height
Synoptic weather considerations

 Ship routeing should be directed to avoiding or limiting the effect of weather and
seas associated with extra-tropical low pressure system in the mid or higher
latitudes and the tropical systems in low latitudes by route selection and diversion.
Mid-latitude low pressure systems generally present more difficult problem to
ship routeing than tropical cyclones. This is primarily due to the fact that major
ship traffic is sailing in latitudes of the migrating low pressure system s and the
amount of potential exposure to intense weather systems, especially in winter, is
much greater.

Special weather considerations

 In addition to the synoptic weather considerations, there are special environmental

problems that can be avoided by using proper routeing. Ships generally avoid
areas of dense fog with low visibility. Fishing vessels in these areas provide an
added hazard to safe navigation. Icebergs are a definite hazard, along with hazard
of floating ice.

Vessel Optimization and Safety System (VOSS)

 All the technological advances have been incorporated into the Vessel
Optimization and Safety System (VOSS). It is an onboard passage planning tool
and a sea keeping expert advisory system. It is based on the premise that deck
officers, given the training and tools, can do a better job of weather routing their
ship and minimizing heavy weather damage while maintaining schedule.
  VOSS software is custom tailored to each vessel class in order to provide accurate
predictions of the ship sea keeping and speed keeping capabilities in any sea state.
The “prudent seamanship” standard is defined as a “safe operating envelope,” in
terms of agreed upon ship response limits. The VOSS sea keeping advisory
module shows the effect of changing heading and speed on vessel roll, pitch,
accelerations, slamming, boarding waves, bending moment/shear forces on
critical frames, An optimization algorithm is also implemented to minimize the
fuel cost for given arrival times without exceeding the safe operation envelope.

 While the current technology is not perfect and more progress can be made, it is
possible to utilize the advances in weather forecasting, satellite communications
and computer technology to enhance the safety and efficiency of ship operations.

Ship Performance Optimisation System (SPOS)

Chapter 26 – Various Ship Plans; Dry-
Docking
 Chapter 27 – COLREGS
COLREGS (Interpretations & Explanations are given in Italics)

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 COLREG 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 COLREG 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.

Technical provisions

The COLREG 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.

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREG) are
published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and set out the "rules of the
road" to be followed by ships and other vessels at sea.
A slightly different set of navigation rules, called the "Inland Navigation Rules", applies
in the inland waters of the USA; the standard publication of these rules in the USA
includes both the international and inland rules.

The Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea was

adopted by the IMO member countries on 20 October 1972 and the regulations were
brought into force on 15 July 1977. The regulations have subsequently been revised in
1981, 1987, 1989, 1993 and 2001. The 1972 regulations replaced the Collision
Regulations first adopted in 1960.

The regulations are made of five parts A-E and four annexes I-IV.

Summary of the rules

The rules are specified in great detail in the regulations and the serious student is
encouraged to seek the definitive document. However the rules are summarized below.

Part A - General

1. Application

(a)These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected
therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.
(b)Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an
appropriate authority for roadstead, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected
with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as
closely as possible to these Rules.
(c)Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by
the Government of any State with respect to additional station or signal lights, shapes or
whistle signals for ships of war and vessels proceeding under convoy, or with respect to
additional station or signal lights or shapes for fishing vessels engaged in fishing as a
fleet. These additional station or signal lights, shapes or whistle signals shall, so far as
possible, be such that they cannot be mistaken for any light, shape or signal authorised
elsewhere under these Rules.
(d)Traffic separation schemes may be adopted by the Organization for the purpose of
these Rules.
(e)Whenever the Government concerned shall have determined that a vessel of any
special construction or purpose cannot comply with the provisions of any of these Rules
with respect to the number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well
as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signalling appliances, such vessel shall
comply with such other provisions in regard to the number, position, range or arc of
visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-
signalling appliances, as her Government shall have determined to be the closest possible
compliance with these Rules in respect of that vessel.

2. Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew
thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the
neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or
by the special circumstances of the case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers
of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of
the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid
immediate danger.

In other words, if needed it is better to forget about all these rules when only another
manoeuvre can bring the ship out of danger. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT,
ESPECIALLY AS A MASTER, THAT Rule 2 SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN
ISOLATION BUT EVERY RULE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH RULE 2.

3. General Definitions

For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:

(a) The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including
non-displacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a
means of transportation on water.

Therefore the smallest boats have to comply with the COLREGS. Non-displacement
crafts designate mainly the High Speed Crafts (HSC) such as hovercrafts and hydrofoils.

(b) The term “power-driven vessel” means any vessel propelled by machinery.
(c) The term “sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling
machinery, if fitted, is not being used.

Or a sailing vessel which has her engine running is a power-driven vessel.

(d) The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls
or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel
fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict
manoeuvrability.

Vessels which are considering themselves engaged in fishing have to carry special day
marks, which are not very conspicuous, and at night special lights which are more
visible. In case of doubt better to consider that the observed vessel is fishing. The
behaviour of these crafts (slow speed, erratic manoeuvres) is often a better indication
that they are effectively impaired by fishing operations.

(e) The word “seaplane” includes any aircraft designed to manoeuvre on the water.
(f) The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some
exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is
therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
Theoretically a vessel which has in engine stopped and which is drifting is not considered
as Not Under Command (NUC), but large commercial vessels which for instance cannot
safely anchor near the coast, are more and more using this method of waiting for a berth
or further orders, at times quite far off at sea. It can take a long time to warm up their
engine, and therefore they consider themselves as NUC.

(g) The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from
the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules
and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term “vessels
restricted in their ability to manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable
or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while
underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel
and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

Most of these vessels are warning other ships by frequent calls on the VHF.
A few countries, like Germany, are now recommending the ships that are embarking a
pilot to carry the lights and day marks of the above vessel. This is a sound practice,
which should be extended to all pilot boarding areas.

(h) The term “vessel constrained by her draught” means a power-driven vessel which,
because of her draught in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water, is
severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

Too often small crafts vessels are not paying enough attention to this point, perhaps
because they are themselves not restricted by shallow water, and are claiming priority
against loaded tankers, bulk carriers. It must be remembered that these large vessel can
have a draught of 23 metres and more, which implies a water depth of up to 30 metres to
navigate safely.

(i) The word “underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore,
or aground.
(j) The words “length” and “breadth” of a vessel mean her length overall and greatest
breadth.
(k) Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed
visually from the other.

This is quite important to remember for the application of many of the following rules.

(l) The term “restricted visibility” means any condition in which visibility is restricted by
fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes.
(m) The term “Wing-In-Ground (WIG) craft” means a multimodal craft which, in its
main operational mode, flies in close proximity to the surface by utilizing surface-effect
action.

Part B - Steering and sailing

Section I (for any visibility)

4. Application

The rules apply in any visibility (e.g. in sight or in restricted visibility).

5. Look-out

Every vessel must at all times keep a proper look-out by sight (day shape or lights by
eyes or visual aids), hearing (sound signal or Marine VHF radio) and all available means
(e.g. Radar, ARPA, AIS, GMDSS...) in order to judge if risk of collision exists.

This rule has as consequence that all solo sailing for long trips is against the COLREGS
as there is no look-out when the skipper is sleeping. Apparently the risk is tolerated, but it
remains that most authorities insist on a proper look-out, and check it was effectively
carried out after an incident. In spite of this the look-out duties are more and more
neglected on many ships. [9-11-2005: I have seen on internet this remark was sometimes
commented by yachtsmen, at times with anger as it goes against the practice of sailing
alone. However since then technology offers almost a solution with the AIS. This rather
inexpensive piece of equipment will do a lot to protect a sleeping yachtsman by warning
the OOW that a sailing boat has nobody checking the navigation. ] On large commercial
vessels the officer of the watch (OOW) is often busy with administrative duties, and no
extra look-out is posted by day light. On other ships, such as the fishing boats, other
works are preventing any decent look-out.

A hearing look-out is seldom carried out on large ships where unfortunately the bridge
doors are kept closed with the eventual look-out remaining inside.

'All available means' mainly designates a look-out, to which also a poor attention is often
paid on large vessels, some OOW trusting excessively the 'guard rings' features of the
radar. Keeping this is mind is quite important for small crafts which can wrongly assume
that they are easily detected by the navigating on larger vessels. The largest commercial
vessels can have a total crew complement of only 18 persons or less, on coasters they can
be as few as 4 on board, each of them with a lot of duties, which include a paperwork
increasing every year but also the GMDSS Radio communication equipment. Modern
wheelhouses are now fitted with one or several computers which are inviting the OOW to
keep himself busy with some typing work when he assumes that an occasional look
outside and on the radar PPI will be enough to detect the eventual other crafts. This,
added to the other detection problems, can make that the OOW is totally unaware of the
presence of some small yachts on a collision course with his vessel.
6. Safe speed

Any vessel must proceed at a safe speed, which she can to take action to avoid collision
and able to stop within the distance for the prevailing conditions (including the visibility,
weather, traffic condition, background lights, her manoeuvrability and draft in relation
with the available water).

When radar is in use, also consider if there is any limitations of the equipment, range
scale in use, weather and other interference, weak targets, targets density and movement,
and use radar to judge the visibility is much accurate for objects nearby.

This rule addresses the safe speed of all vessels, but has only a small impact on their
effective speed, even in restricted visibility. If however a collision occurs, the court will
anyway check if the speed was adapted to the circumstances.

7. Risk of Collision

Vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision, including the
use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or
equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (e.g. ARPA, AIS).

If the distance of any vessel is reduced and her compass bearing does not change much or
a large vessel or towing vessel at close distance or if in doubt, risk of collision shall be
deemed to exist.
In case of doubt the rules recommend to assume that a risk of collision occurs and to act
accordingly. A steady relative bearing is the best way to assess a risk of collision. On
large ships these bearings are quite easy to observe, the same is not true on small vessels
which do not follow a steady course allowed by a gyro-compass and an automatic pilot.
Nevertheless they should do the utmost to check the bearing of an approaching vessel. If
a bearing compass is not available, one practical way is to steer the craft as steady as
possible and try to align an approaching vessel with two fixed object on board (stay,
mast...). If the vessel remains roughly close to this alignment, a risk of collision is
present.

8. Action to avoid collision

Actions taken to avoid collision should be:

– positive
– obvious
– made in good time

Alterations of speed are not frequent in collision avoidance, except at times by navy
vessels. Again commercial vessels, due to their limited crew, are most of the time not
ready to slow down. On many types of ships, a change of fuel is also needed to reduce the
speed of the engine, and such a change takes up to twenty minutes. Besides a change of
speed is not quickly observed by another vessel, either visually or by radar. Therefore a
large change of course, at least 30°, is the best way to show your own intention to give
way.

c) If there is sufficient sea-room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective
action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is
substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

Not easy to achieve in dense traffic. That is also why the watch keeper must always be
aware of all the other ships around his own.

A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe
passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take
early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe of the other vessel.

Here and further the concept of 'impeding' is evoked while it does not mean at all that it
means a change of priority. Probably one of the most controversial COLREG. It means
that in case of collisions both vessels could be blamed in court. Hardly a consolation if
people are hurt or killed in an incident.

(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not
relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision
and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the
Rules of this part.

In other words, a vessel supposed not to impede the passage of another one always
remain under the obligation not to impede in spite of any further development, such as a
manoeuvre of the not-to-be-impeded vessel. This is quite important for small sailing
crafts, as they could be often in such a situation when crossing a TSS or a deep draft
channel.

(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply
with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to
involve the risk of collision.

Here the 'part' means thus all the steering and sailing rules and refers back to all the
other meeting Rules, thus diminishing the meaning of the two first paragraphs as a ship
who should not be impeded has to give way anyway if so prescribed by the other Rules.
As said here above, perhaps just to make sure that both OOW, if they survived, will be
punished in court. This makes us believe than the COLREGS have been devised more by
lawyers than by seafarers.

9. Narrow channels

A vessel proceeding along a narrow channel must keep to starboard.

Small vessels or sailing vessels must not impede (larger) vessels which can navigate only
within a narrow channel.
Ships must not cross a channel if to do so would impede another vessel which can
navigate only within that channel.

a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near
to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and
practicable.

For sure a small craft should not try to navigate in the middle of large vessels on parallel
courses. Overtaking manoeuvres appear very simple but often lead to bad surprises at the
last moment. Besides the large vessels could be suddenly compelled to give way. If they
come too close to the small craft this later can always try to escape to shallower waters.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the
passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

All small crafts must take good notes of this rule, but again we have the ambiguity
'impeding' vs. 'priority'.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel
navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.

Once more they should not 'impede' but keep full priority.

(d) A vessel shall not 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
latter vessel may use the sound signal prescribed in Rule 34 (d) (4 short blasts) if in
doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel.

Thus, if a small craft hears these 4 short blasts, it better keeps out of the way of the other
ship.

(e) This paragraph addresses the sound signals to be sent by an overtaking vessel and is
seldom used, even less by small crafts which are seldom overtaking large vessels, and
whose whistle will not be heard anyway.

(g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow
channel.

Quite obvious. For a small craft it is the equivalent of suicide. In case of loss of headway
due
to a lack of wind or trouble with the engine, better for the craft to let it self drift outside
the channel.

10. Traffic separation schemes

Ships must cross traffic lanes "as nearly as practicable" at right angles to the direction of
traffic. This reduces confusion and enables that vessel to cross the lane as quickly as
possible.

a) This rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization and does
not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other rule.

Unfortunately the deep draft recommended routes are not included, however the deep
draft vessels using these routes can be considered as not to be impeded as per Rule 9.

(b) Any vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

(i) proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that
lane;

Small crafts will seldom use a TSS as they are allowed to use the shorter inshore routes,
which is also safer for them. Unfortunately some of them do, and do not even bother to
follow the right lane which is a totally irresponsible and dangerous behaviour.

(ii) as far as practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone;
(iii) normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining
or leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of
traffic as practicable.

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but if obliged to do so
shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of
traffic flow.

Small crafts should even more avoid crossing a TSS, especially one with narrow lanes or
one with already an heavy crossing traffic of ferries.

(d) (i) A vessel shall not use an inshore traffic zone when she can safely use the
appropriate traffic lane within the adjacent traffic separation scheme. However, vessels of
less than 20 meters in length, sailing vessels and vessels engaged in fishing may use
the inshore traffic zone.

As stated here above, inshore traffic zones are almost always shorter, better sheltered
and small craft run less risk to be caught in the middle of the manoeuvres of large ships.
(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (d) (i), a vessel may use an inshore traffic zone when
en route to or from a port, offshore installation or structure, pilot station or any other
place situated within the inshore traffic zone, or to avoid immediate danger.

(e) A vessel other than a crossing vessel or a vessel joining or leaving a lane shall not
normally enter a separation zone or cross a separation line except:
(i) in cases of emergency to avoid immediate danger;
(ii) to engage in fishing within a separation zone.
(f) A vessel navigating in areas near the terminations of traffic separation schemes shall
do so with particular caution.

(g) A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid anchoring in a traffic separation scheme or
in areas near its termination.

(h) A vessel not using a traffic separation scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as is
practicable.

Therefore small crafts also should not sail too close from these TSS.

(i) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a
traffic lane.
(j) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the
safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

Many watch keepers are now simply considering that they have priority when following a
TSS. Anyway this rule makes senses, as pleasure sailing in a TSS is the equivalent of
jogging on a motorway.

(k) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the
maintenance of safety of navigation in a traffic separation scheme is exempted from
complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation.

(l) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the
laying, servicing or picking up a submarine cable, within a traffic separation scheme, is
exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the
operation.

Section II (for vessels in sight of one another)

11. Application

The following rules 11-18 apply to vessels in sight of one another. (Section II does not
apply if in restricted visibility, which is covered under Section III)

This Rule thus excludes all the cases when the visibility is restricted, when a vessel detect
another one by radar observation only. This can be a source of problem as a small craft
will see a large vessel much sooner than it will be itself seen. White sailing yachts with
white sails are no conspicuous in poor visibility, and when breaking waves (white horses)
are present (from a wind force 5). The small craft should always assume it had not been
seen until some action of the other vessel shows otherwise. A VHF call on channel 16
(with direct transfer to another channel for communication) is still the most efficient way
to call a large commercial vessel. Unfortunately fishing boats and ferries cannot be
trusted to have a permanent watch on this channel.
Visual detection at night can also be a problem as the navigation lights of small crafts
are often very weak. One good practice to attract attention is to lighten the sails with a
powerful portable lamp.

12. Sailing vessels

Two sailing vessels approaching one another must give-way as follows:

Port gives way to Starboard. When each has the wind on a different side, the vessel
which has the wind to port must give way;
Windward gives way to leeward. When both have the wind on the same side, the vessel
which is windward must give way to the vessel which is leeward;
Unsure port gives way. If a vessel, with the wind on the port side, sees a vessel to
windward and cannot determine whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or the
starboard side, they must give way.
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of
collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:
(i) when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port
side shall keep out of the way of the other;
(ii) when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep
out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;
(iii) if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot
determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on starboard
side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.
(b) For the purpose of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side
opposite to that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel,
the opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried.
Sailing yachtsmen will for sure master this rule perfectly.

13. Overtaking

The overtaking vessel must keep well clear of the vessel being overtaken.

a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of part B, sections I and II, any vessel
overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

This is quite important to remember as even the most un-manoeuvrable vessels should
give way when overtaking, but in most cases these will not be the fastest.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from
a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with
reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the
stern light of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

Although the Rules does not specify what happens when a priority crossing vessel
became an overtaking vessel, but well the contrary in (d), in some case it can be very
difficult for a slow vessel to give way to starboard for a very fast ship coming from that
direction, especially if the slow ship is passing too close ahead of the crossing one. She
should make an almost 90 change of course toward the approaching priority vessel,
while that one, taking advantage of her speed, could decide to give way by coming to
port. A very dangerous situation may arise. But if the sea room and the other traffic
allow, if the give-way vessel comes to port it first goes away from the approaching vessel,
but also could make of her an overtaking vessel with a smaller change of course. Before
executing this manoeuvre, the watch-keeper must be almost sure that he shall not have to
come to starboard again for incoming traffic.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall
assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

This should support the above suggestion, but still too many vessels overtaking under a
great angle on starboard are not that keen to consider themselves as the give-way ship.
Not so long ago a collision of the kind involving a passenger ship occurred near Hong
Kong.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the
overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the
duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

Luckily this rule clarifies many ambiguous situations.

14. Head-on situation

When two power-driven vessels are meeting head-on both must alter course to starboard
so that they pass on the port side of the other.

a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses
so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall
pass on the port side of the other.

Which means passing red to red, or one whistle on the US rivers, obviously the safest way
to cross each other? Inland shipping in Europe is also displaying a special signal on
starboard side if they wish to carry out the opposite meeting, green to green. On the high
sea this opposite manoeuvre (to port = green to green) makes sense only if carried out
well in time to increase a small nearest approach to starboard (less than one mile). At a
distance of up to 8 miles or more, giving a few degrees to port can achieve such a safe
meeting green to green. But this attempt should be carried out only once, and if there is
the slightest doubt that it is not agreed with, or understood, by the other vessel, the
normal meeting red to red should be carried out at once, bringing the ship decisively to
starboard.

(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly
ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a
line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other
vessel.
However attention must be paid to the very large ships. The distances between their
masthead lights is so large, that even a very small crossing angle to which this rule
should apply, could be mistaken for a crossing situation.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume
that it does exist and act accordingly.

Nevertheless too many watch keepers are too slow to act accordingly. Most of them
forget that a long during but tiny change of course some 5 miles away affects less the
speed and mileage than a short but ample one at 3 or 2 miles.

15. Crossing situations

When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the
starboard side must give way.

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel
which has the other one on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if
the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

This last recommendation is one which is the most often neglected, mainly by fast vessels,
but also by yachts and other pleasure craft. The Radar facility ARPA is partly
responsible for this as it gives a false sense of security to the watch-keeper using this
instrument in good visibility. When a give-way ship pass close ahead of the priority
vessel, it completely forgets that the other ship may have herself to come suddenly to
starboard for another ship, even if that one is still some distance away. When the priority
ship does so, a high risk of collision arises entirely due to the negligence of the give-way
vessel. Fast ferries, but mainly the ones carrying only freight and no passengers, are
notorious for attempting this dangerous manoeuvre.

Small motor boats are doing the same, forgetting further more that they cannot eve be
seen from the bridge of many container vessels, and that any engine breakdown will have
them crushed by the bow.

What is then the minimum safe distance of crossing ahead? I would say at least one mile,
and even two or more if the give-way ship is not very fast or if there is much traffic. In
any case a crossing at less than 5 cables (950 meters) ahead of a priority ship must be
totally avoided.

16. The give-way vessel

The give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

17. The stand-on vessel

The stand-on vessel may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-
way vessel is not taking appropriate action.

a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course
and speed.

This rule is almost permanently transgressed by ferries coming out of a harbour close to
a main waterway as they keep speeding up until they reach their cruising speed.
Obviously they have to do so otherwise they could remain indefinitely inside. It remains
that this behaviour makes it very difficult for the main traffic to assess a risk of collision
well in time. Most ferries are dealing with the problem nicely by adjusting their course to
the main traffic in a way that they do not compel a slow ship to make a drastic change of
course toward the shore. But still they are a few ferry navigators who claim their priority
when it is convenient for them, ignoring the risk in which they involve their passengers.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her action alone, as
soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not
taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

Then the next question is then 'When does it becomes apparent?' as they are so many
opinions about a safe manoeuvring distance. This was lately and badly illustrated by the
legal dispute which followed the open ocean collision between the give-way bulk carrier
'Ya Mawlaya', and the priority tanker 'New World'. Several crew members died on the
'New World', and initially an US judge put all the blame on the 'Ya Malawya'. But the
lawyers of this late keep fighting contest the jurisdiction and evoke this rule. Practically
small crafts should assume very early that the give way vessel is not taking appropriate
action.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself
so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she
shall take action as will best aid to avoid collision.

For small craft it means simply heading away from the give-way vessel. When they are on
her port side, coming to a parallel course can be good enough, heading to her stern
being the least acceptable option. But if they are on her starboard side they should take
into account that the give way vessel can choose on the last moment to start a starboard
avoidance manoeuvre, for them or for an other vessel, an much more room must be given
using a drastic U-turn if deemed necessary.

(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with
subparagraph(a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall,
if he circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her port side.

That was unfortunately illustrated near the South coast of Spain by a Taiwanese
container vessel which finally gave way to port to a Spanish give-way RO-RO which was
crossing too close ahead (Rule 15). At that moment the RO-RO also came to starboard, a
collision occurred and the RO-RO sank quickly, taking several crew members down with
her.

(d) This rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the
way.

18. Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except in narrow channels, traffic schemes, and when overtaking (i.e. rules 9, 10, and 13)

A power-driven vessel must give way to:

– a vessel not under command;
– a vessel restricted in ability to manoeuvre;
– a vessel engaged in fishing;
– a sailing vessel.

A sailing vessel must give way to:

– a vessel not under command;
– a vessel restricted in ability to manoeuvre;
– a vessel engaged in fishing.

A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way
of:
– a vessel not under command;
– a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre.

Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to
manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage
of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.

A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard
to her special condition.

Easier to say than to do. There is a limit to slowing down the engine, as it can affect the
manoeuvrability and leave the deep draft ship powerless to fight the strong currents often
met in shallow water.

A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid
impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she
shall comply with the Rules of this Part.

f) i) A WIG craft when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface shall keep well
clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their navigation
ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the rules of this part

Except where Rules 9(Narrow channel), 10(TSS) and 13(Overtaking) otherwise require:
While for Rule 13 this is very clear what the legislator had in mind, the same is not true
for Rules 9 and 10 a these ships only should not impede, while they retain their priority
as per Rule 8(f)(iii).

Here it must be noted once again that vessels embarking a pilot can now be considered
as a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as the German authorities are now
recommending them to carry the corresponding day marks and lights. Recreational
sailing should anyway keep clear of any pilot boarding or anchorage area.

It should be noted that in some areas, such as the North sea, vessels can be constrained
by their draught even when not carrying these signals, because they are only temporary
restricted by the presence of a nearby bank. Small commercial vessels, such as coasters
but as big as RO-RO, can be reluctant to carry such signals designed to be carried by
large vessel. But a small craft can quite often sail over a shoal where a coaster with a
draft of 6 meters cannot risk going, therefore the skipper of the small craft should think
twice before requiring its priority in such circumstances.

Section III (for restricted visibility)

19. Restricted visibility

(a) Rule 19 applies to vessels (not in sight of one another) in or near of restricted
visibility waters.

Logically of the other Rules do not apply in case of bad visibility as the ships are not in
sight of each other. Thus the priorities defined in Section II are not valid any more just as
if they are now other way that visual observation to detect if a ship is fishing, sailing or
NUC. The COLREGS have little provision for the use of the radar, but in the short future
the introduction of an 'Automatic Identification System (AIS) could change all this and
force a drastic revision of the Rules. Small crafts safety could be strongly enhanced by
the AIS as finally it will allow the large ship to detect and identify their eventual priority
status at a great distance. In the meantime we can only be happy that the Ruler added
'near' in this Rule, otherwise ships would have to jump from one set of Rules to the other
depending on their visibility, and likely at different times for two ships close to a visibility
border.

(b) All ships shall reduce to a safe speed for the condition of visibility (see Rule 6). A
power-driven vessel shall standby her engine for immediate use or stops (particularly for
a large ocean going vessel may take long time to get her engine ready to use).

The small crafts should not rely too much on this. Most commercial vessels are keeping
full speed in fog, and the use of the engines is not usually considered as an option to
avoid a collision, as already explained here above. Slowing down is not always practical
as it extends the duration of the transit through in a dangerous area, increasing the
fatigue and the stress of the few available watch keepers. Most often manoeuvre are also
much easier with a certain speed. Nevertheless in some very high traffic areas it is the
only viable option.
At best the commercial vessels have an engineer stand-by who could limit the damage to
the engine if an emergency stop is badly needed.

Therefore in restricted visibility more than ever, the small crafts should do the utmost to
keep out of the way of the large vessels. And if this is not possible, they should at least do
the utmost to be best detected by their radar. This is a real problem with small sailing
boats built with little metallic parts. They are detected by the radar at a range of 5 to 3
miles only, at time less. At one mile they disappear again because they are too close or
lost in the clutter. It leaves only a little window for the OOW of a large container ship to
detect them, assess they risk of collision and act accordingly. To enhance detection, one
good radar reflector hanging as high a possible is a must. Several are even better, the
last models are quite cheap (30$) and can be nicely applied against the mast.

(c) All ships shall comply with the Section I of this Part (e.g. Rule 5.lookout, 6.safe
speed, 7.risk of collision, 8.action to avoid collision, 9. Narrow Channel & 10. TSS) for
the visibility condition.

This includes the assessment of a safe speed, taking into account among others the radar
performances of the ship, but again few commercial vessels really adhere to this Rule.

(d) Take early and substantial action to avoid collision if detecting another vessel by use
radar alone (not in sight), but:-
1. any change of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam should be avoided except
for a vessel being overtaken (e.g. determined by radar plot),
2. any change of course toward a vessel abeam or abaft the beam should be avoided.
when hear any unknown fog signal of another vessel apparently forward should reduce
the speed to minimum or make all way off (stop all water speed by astern engine) and
navigate with extreme caution unless risk of collision not exist (e.g. determined by radar
plot, but aware of small crafts may not able be detected or mis-identified in busy waters).
This Rule is rather efficient and easy to follow as long as only two ships are involved.
Unfortunately many times a risk of collision exists with several vessels at once, and
manoeuvring for one of them can brings more ships to a collision course. That is why the
OOW must always keeps in mind a global picture of all the potentially dangerous targets
in a radius of about 6 miles, and this needs a real skill which can only built with a
practice that fewer and fewer of the actual casual officers have. Therefore, the additional
presence of small crafts can creates a situation so complex that it is beyond the abilities
of some watch keepers. One more reason for these craft to avoid dense traffic areas
during poor visibility.

(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every
vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the fog signal of another vessel, or
which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation with another vessel forward of her beam,
shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course (or avoid
being pushed into shallow water by the current). She shall if necessary take all her way
off and in any event navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over.
Practically I have been involved in such a drastic slow down only a very few times after
some 20 years at sea. However the worse experience of the kind did not occur in the busy
waters of West Europe or Japan, but off Los Angeles during a foggy Sunday. Hundreds of
pleasure crafts were criss-crossing the waters off the coast, among them high speed boat
with apparently no radar facility, but anyway rushing at some 20 knots in spite of a
visibility of 150 meters only. While we were almost stopped, we observed on the radar
some targets nearing our bow at high speed, and making a sharp turn at the very last
moment, either after they had finally seen our bow, or heard our powerful fore whistle.
Nevertheless small crafts should not rely too much on their ability to swing quickly away
from danger, or on the good will of large vessels, not even on their fore whistle as on
some ships it is not installed, or not functioning. Besides, stopping the vessel is not really
safe either as it was tragically illustrated by the 'British Trent' off the Belgian coast. The
tanker completely stopped as required by the Rules, but in spite of this she was hit by the
Korean bulker 'Western Winner' still sailing at some speed in dense fog and close to the
pilot station. Several crew-members died on the British vessel which caught fire. Had the
tanker kept some headway, it could have tempted an escape manoeuvre at least to lessen
the force of the impact. Furthermore, the close compliance with the COLREGS was not
even rewarded on the legal front. Lawyers from the 'Western Winner' prevented the
boarding of an investigating party in Flushing and, as far as I know, the court of Bruges
finally declined jurisdiction on the accident which happened entirely within Belgian
waters.

Part C - Lights and shapes

20. Application

Rules concerning lights apply from sunset to sunrise.

21. Definitions

Gives definitions for various types of light. 'Sidelights' means a green light on the
starboard side and a red light on the port side.

22. Visibility of lights

Lights must be visible as follows:

In vessels of 50 metres or more in length:

– a masthead light, 6 nautical miles;

– a sidelight, 3 miles;
– a towing light, 3 miles;
– a white, red, green or yellow all-around light, 3 miles.
– In vessels between 12-50 meters in length;
– a masthead light, 5 miles;
– a sidelight, 2 miles;
– a stern light, 2 miles;
 – a white, red, green or yellow all-round light, 2 miles.

In vessels less than 12 meters in length:

– a masthead light, 2 miles;

– a sidelight, 1 mile;
– a towing light, 2 miles;
– a white, red, green or yellow all-around light, 2 miles.
– 23. Lights displayed by power-driven vessels underway
– A power-driven vessel underway must display:
– a masthead light forward;

If over 50m length a second masthead light aft and higher than the forward one;

– sidelights;
– a stern light.

A hovercraft must also display an all-round flashing yellow light.

A power-driven vessel of less than 12 meters may display only an all-round white light
and sidelights.
A power-driven vessel of less than 7 meters whose maximum speed does not exceed 7
knots may display only an all-round white light.

24. Lights for vessels towing and pushing

25. Lights for sailing and rowing vessels
26. Lights for fishing vessels
27. Lights for vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre
28. Lights for vessels constrained by their draught
29. Lights for pilot vessels
30. Lights for vessels anchored and aground

A vessel at anchor must display an all-round white light or one ball and at the stern and at
a lower level than the first light, an all-round white light
31. Lights for seaplanes

Part D - Sound and light signals

32. Definitions of whistle short blast (1 second) and prolonged blast (4-6 seconds).

33. Equipment

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.

34. Manoeuvring and warning signals, using whistle or lights

The signals are used when vessels are in sight of one another
35. Sound signals to be used in restricted visibility

The signals are used when vessels are in restricted visibility.

36. Signals to be used to attract attention

37. Distress signals

Part E - Exemption

38. Exemption

Any vessel (or class of vessel) provided that she complies with the requirements of the
International Regulations for the Preventing of Collisions at Sea, 1960, the keel of which
is laid or is at a corresponding stage of construction before the entry into force of these
Regulations may be exempted from compliance therewith as follows: (a) The installation
of lights with ranges prescribed in Rule 22, until 4 years after the date of entry into force
of these regulations.

(b) The installation of lights with colour specifications as prescribed in Section 7 of

Annex I to these Regulations, until 4 years after the entry into force of these Regulations.

(c) The repositioning of lights as a result of conversion from Imperial to metric units and
rounding off measurement figures, permanent exemption.

(d)
(i) The repositioning of masthead lights on vessels of less than 150 meters in length,
resulting from the prescriptions of Section 3 (a) of Annex I to these regulations,
permanent exemption.
(ii). The repositioning of masthead lights on vessels of 150 meters or more in length,
resulting from the prescriptions of Section 3 (a) of Annex I to these regulations, until 9
years after the date of entry into force of these Regulations.

(e) The repositioning of masthead lights resulting from the prescriptions of Section 2(b)
of Annex I to these Regulations, until 9 years after the date of entry into force of these
Regulations.

(f) The repositioning of sidelights resulting from the prescriptions of Section 2(g) and
3(b) of Annex I to these Regulations, until 9 years after the date of entry into force of
these Regulations.

(g) The requirements for sound signal appliances prescribed in Annex II to these
Regulations, until 9 years after the date of entry into force of these Regulations.

(h) The repositioning of all-round lights resulting from the prescription of Section 9(b) of
Annex I to these Regulations, permanent exemption.
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 sound signal appliances
ANNEX IV - Distress signals
1. The following signals used or exhibited either together or separately, indicate distress
and need of assistance:

(a) a gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of about a minute;

(b) a continuous sounding with any fog-signalling apparatus;
(c) rockets or shells, throwing red stars fired one at a time at short intervals;
(d) a signal made by radiotelegraphy or by any other signalling method consisting of the
group ．．．－ － － ．．．(SOS) in the Morse Code;
(e) a signal sent by radiotelephony consisting of the spoken word “Mayday”;
(f) the International Code Signal of distress indicated by NC;
(g) a signal consisting of a square flag having above or below it a ball or anything
resembling a ball;
(h) flames on the vessel (as from a burning tar barrel, oil barrel, etc);
(i) a rocket parachute flare or a hand flare showing a red light;
(j) a smoke signal giving off orange-coloured smoke;
(k) slowly and repeatedly raising and lowering arms outstretched to each side;
(l) the radiotelegraph alarm signal;
(m) signals transmitted by emergency position-indicating radio beacons
(n) approved signals transmitted by radio-communication systems, including survival
craft radar transponders.

2. The use or exhibition of any of the foregoing signals except for the purpose of
indicating distress and need of assistance and the use of other signals which may be
confused with any of the above signals is prohibited.

3. Attention is drawn to the relevant sections of the International Code of Signals, the
Merchant Ship Search and Rescue Manual and the following signals;
(a) a piece of orange-coloured canvas with either a black square and circle or other
appropriate symbol (for identification from the air);
(b) a dye marker.
Chapter 28 - Hong Kong Convention –
Re-Cycling of Ships / Green Passport
Hong Kong Convention - Recycling of ships

The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships, 2009, was adopted in May 2009.

It is aimed at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their
operational lives, do not pose any unnecessary risk to human health and safety or to the
environment.

The Convention was adopted at a diplomatic conference held in Hong Kong, China, from
11 to 15 May 2009, attended by delegates from 63 countries.

The new Convention intends to address all the issues around ship recycling, including the
fact that ships sold for scrapping may contain environmentally hazardous substances such
as asbestos, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others. It will
address concerns raised about the working and environmental conditions at many of the
world's ship recycling locations.

The text of the ship recycling Convention has been developed over the past three years,
with input from IMO Member States and relevant non-governmental organizations, and
in co-operation with the International Labour Organization and the Parties to the Basel
Convention.
Regulations in the new Convention cover: the design, construction, operation and
preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound recycling, without
compromising the safety and operational efficiency of ships; the operation of ship
recycling facilities in a safe and environmentally sound manner; and the establishment of
an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship recycling, incorporating certification and
reporting requirements.

Ships to be sent for recycling will be required to carry an inventory of hazardous

materials, which will be specific to each ship. An appendix to the Convention will
provide a list of hazardous materials the installation or use of which is prohibited or
restricted in shipyards, ship repair yards, and ships of Parties to the Convention. Ships
will be required to have an initial survey to verify the inventory of hazardous materials,
additional surveys during the life of the ship, and a final survey prior to recycling.

Ship recycling yards will be required to provide a "Ship Recycling Plan", to specify the
manner in which each ship will be recycled, depending on its particulars and its
inventory. Parties will be required to take effective measures to ensure that ship recycling
facilities under their jurisdiction comply with the Convention.

A series of guidelines are being developed to assist in the Convention's implementation.

Entry into force criteria

The Convention shall be open for signature by any State at the Headquarters of the
Organization from 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2010 and shall thereafter remain open
for accession by any State. It will enter into force 24 months after the date on which 15
States, representing 40 per cent of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, have either
signed it without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval or have deposited
instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary General.
Furthermore, the combined maximum annual ship recycling volume of those States must,
during the preceding 10 years, constitute not less than 3 per cent of their combined
merchant shipping tonnage.

Resolutions adopted by the conference

The conference also adopted six resolutions as follows:

Resolution 1: Expression of appreciation to the host Government;
Resolution 2: Contribution of the Parties to the Basel Convention and the
International Labour Organization in the development of the
Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and
Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009;
Resolution 3: Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance;
Resolution 4: Future work by the Organization pertaining to the Hong Kong
International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally
Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009;
Resolution 5: Early implementation of the technical standards of the Hong
Kong International Convention for the Safe and
Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009; and
Resolution 6: Exploration and monitoring of the best practices for fulfilling
the requirements of the Hong Kong International Convention
for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships,
2009.

What is the Inventory of Hazardous (IHM) Materials?

Once the ship recycling convention enters into force, any ships which are greater than
500 gt will be required to maintain an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM). This
inventory identifies, locates and lists out all hazardous and potentially hazardous material
onboard a vessel. Once the IHM has been reviewed by class, a Statement of Compliance
(Green Passport) will be issued under the Hong Kong Convention.

The Inventory of Hazardous Materials (also known as the Green Passport) is a key
requirement of the Ship Recycling Convention. It is designed to aid safer and more
environmentally sound recycling of ships.

By approving and verifying an Inventory of Hazardous Materials for your vessel, we can
help you to comply with the Convention and enjoy a number of additional through-life
benefits.
What is the Inventory of Hazardous Materials?

The Ship Recycling Convention, adopted in May 2009, aims to improve standards of
safety and reduce environmental pollution resulting from the recycling of ships.
The Convention will require ships to have an Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM).
This is essentially an inventory of materials present in a ship’s structure, systems and
equipment that may be hazardous to health or the environment. The IHM was previously
called the Green Passport under the 2003 Guidelines on Ship Recycling.

Invaluable tool

A ship’s IHM is maintained throughout its life. Prior to recycling, details of additional
hazards in stores and wastes are added, and the document can then be used to help the
recycling yard formulate a safer and more environmentally sound plan for
decommissioning the ship.

As well as being an invaluable tool for the ship recycling facilities, the IHM also helps to
raise staff awareness of the materials onboard a ship that may require special handling.

IHM verification

Lloyd’s Register was the first classification society to issue an independently verified
Green Passport, in 2004. We provide an IHM (Green Passport) approval and verification
service for both newbuilds and existing ships.

IHM for new-builds

The IHM for new-builds is compiled by the shipyard and verified by Lloyd’s Register
during the normal construction survey process.

IHM for existing ships

If your ship is already in service, you compile the necessary information yourself using
an interactive template that we supply. This is completed by a ship superintendent or by
senior ship’s staff, with advice from our dedicated IHM approval offices.
Once the completed inventory is submitted to us for approval, we will arrange for a
surveyor to verify that the inventory is a reasonable representation of the hazardous
materials on board ship.

Additional benefits

As well as facilitating safer and more environmentally sound dismantling of ships, the
IHM provides a formal summary of hazards, which can help to promote better hazard
management onboard your ship, enhancing safety and enabling better long-term liability
planning.
It can also aid your financial planning by promoting a better awareness of the changing
value of assets due to more stringent dismantling requirements, and of potential onboard
hazard liabilities.

The IHM will help you demonstrate your company’s commitment to improving
environmental standards. It provides measurable and achievable objectives for ISO 14001
certified companies and may also help to boost your reputation in the market.

Summary of benefits

 Helps ensure compliance with the Ship Recycling Convention.

 Promotes better hazard management, enhancing onboard safety enabling better
long-term liability planning.
 Promotes better overall environmental awareness.
 Provides measurable and achievable objectives for ISO 14001 certified
companies.
 Aids safer and more environmentally sound decommissioning of your ship at the
end of its life.
 May help to enhance your reputation in the market.
 Assists financial planning through better awareness of the changing value of
assets and of onboard hazard liabilities.

What if my ships are not going to be recycled?

 Once the convention enters into force, Part 1 of the IHM which is hazardous
materials contained in ship structure or equipment list has to be developed within
5 years in the case of vessels being built before the convention comes into force.
 However, the Green ship owner has the option to obtain the IHM by an expert, for
their existing ships, as early as now.

How about SOC?

 SOC is a Statement of Compliance. Once the IHM has been developed, it needs
to be submitted to Class for obtaining a SOC which is also known as Green
Passport.

"Green Passport" for Ships

Environmental issues took centre stage at IMO during the 48th session of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). Delegates from more than 80 countries
discussed a range of topics relating to the protection of the marine environment from
pollution by ships. The work progressed in several key areas, including ship recycling,
ballast water management and greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Draft IMO
Guidelines on ship recycling were discussed in detail, with a view to producing a final
draft for adoption by the IMO Assembly in 2003.
The document called "Green Passport" for ships is envisaged to accompany the ship
throughoutits working life and contain an inventoryof all materials
potentiallyhazardousto human health or the environment, used in the construction of a
ship. Produced by the shipyard at the construction stage and passed to the purchaser of
the vessel, the document would be in a format that would enable any subsequent changes
in materials or equipment to be recorded. Successive owners of the ship would maintain
the accuracy of the Green Passport and incorporate into it all relevant design and
equipment changes, with the final owner delivering it, with the vessel, to the recycling
yard.

The draft guidelines note that, in the process of recycling ships, virtually nothing goes to
waste. The materials and equipment are almost entirely reused. Steel is reprocessed to
become, for instance, reinforcing rods for use in the construction industry or as corner
castings and hinges for containers. Ships' generators are reused ashore. Batteries find
their way into the local economy. Hydrocarbons on board become reclaimed oil products
to be used as fuel in rolling mills or brick kilns; light fittings find further use on land etc.
Furthermore, new steel production from recycled steel requires only one third of the
energy used for steel production from raw materials. Recycling makes a positive
contribution to the global conservation of energy and resources and, in the process,
employs a large, if predominantly unskilled, workforce. Properly handled, ship recycling
is, without question, a "green" industry.
Chapter 29 - Global Warming &
Kyoto Protocol
Shipping And Climate Change - How Does Shipping Contribute To Climate
Change?

New research suggests that the impact of shipping on climate change has been seriously
underestimated and that the industry is currently churning out greenhouse gases at nearly
twice the rate of aviation.

Shipping, although traditionally thought of as environmentally friendly, is growing so

fast that the pollution it creates is at least 50 per cent higher than previously thought.

Global shipping activity has increased by three percent per year for the last three decades
and this rate of growth is projected to increase. If fuel use remains unchanged, shipping
pollution will increase substantially, potentially doubling from 2002 levels by 2020 and
tripling by 2030. Global warming pollution from ships is therefore a substantial problem.

A study by a group of industry experts released in February 2008 concluded that:

 Annual carbon dioxide emissions from world shipping reached 1.12 billion tonnes
in 2007, about 3.5 percent of total global carbon emissions. The report also
showed that growing international seaborne trade and related fuel consumption
will raise CO2 emissions from ships by 30 percent to 1.475 billion tonnes by 2020.
 Shipping emissions are rising rapidly but are not accounted for in the international
Kyoto Protocol on global warming, because of the complexity of attributing these
emissions to individual States.

Types Of Air Pollutants From Ships

Ships emit a number of different air pollutants. The ship emissions with the greatest
relevance to climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Sulphur Oxides (SOx).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O)

Unlike some of the other pollutants associated with shipping, the atmospheric effects of
CO2 and N2O emissions are relatively well understood in the sense that CO 2 and N2O are
long-lived direct greenhouse gases that mix well in the atmosphere. Direct greenhouse
gases are those that directly absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation. Indirect greenhouse
gases are gases involved in processes that increase the concentration of direct greenhouse
gases.

How is CO2 generated on board ships? It is a generated by the mixture of fuel quality and
main engine combustion. A mixture of low quality fuel combined with high combustion
temperature will lead to high generation of CO2.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

NOx are an ozone precursor (i.e. indirect greenhouse gas), meaning they lead to the
formation of ozone (O3), which is a direct greenhouse gas.

How is NOX generated on board ships? It is generated from the main engine exhaust and
is a function of the quality of combustion and the temperature in the combustion chamber
- higher the combustion temperature, higher the generation of NO X.

Sulphur oxides (SOx)

SOx emissions can have significant impacts on local and regional air quality. They also
have direct and indirect effects on the climate. The direct climate impact of SOx
emissions is due to the role SO2 in the formation of sulphur aerosols. The indirect effects
are due to the increase in the number of particles resulting in increased cloud droplet
number densities and the formation of ‘ship tracks’; linear clouds that appear downwind
of ships as a result of ship emissions (much like contrails behind aircraft).

How is SOX generated on board ships? It is generated by burning fuel that has high
sulphur content.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

VOC can be both direct and indirect greenhouse gases. Relevant VOC associated with
shipping include CH4 and hydrocarbons. It also indirectly leads to warming via its role in
contributing to O3 formation. Other VOC like hydrocarbons can also lead to O 3 formation
through a series of complex chemical reactions.

How is VOC generated on board ships? This happens mainly on crude oil tankers during
loading operations when a large amount of hydrocarbon vapours are released into the
atmosphere.

Table below provides a summary of the direction of the forcings associated with shipping
emissions. The evidence suggests the four major climate impacts associated with
shipping are the increase in CO2, the increase in O3 from NOx emissions, and the
increase in sulphur aerosols.

Net contribution of shipping to Climate Change - Emissions from shipping

In order to assist in policy formation, several studies have attempted to quantify fuel
consumption and direct greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The most
recent and comprehensive of these studies was concluded in 2007.

The results from this study suggest that in 2001, the internationally registered fleet was
responsible for approximately four per cent of world fossil fuel use, three per cent of CO 2
emissions, thirty per cent of NOx emissions and seven to nine per cent of global SOx
emissions.
The study concluded that the high levels of NOx and SOx ship emissions relative to fuel
use is due to the low quality of marine fuel and relative lack of effort to control ship non-
CO2 emissions compared to other forms of transport.
This can be seen by comparing the emissions per unit of fuel use between road, aviation
and shipping on a global basis in the Figure below.

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
NOx SO2 PM

ROAD AVIATION SHIP

As the Figure shows, the ratio between fuel use and NOx, SO 2 and Particulate Matter
(PM) emissions is far higher for shipping than either road or air transport.

What Has Un Done About It?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO). Its role is to assess a range of information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or

FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth
Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The treaty is aimed at stabilizing
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
The treaty as originally framed set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for
individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions; it is therefore considered
legally non-binding. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has a legally
binding character.

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The protocol was developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol was an agreement negotiated by many countries in
December 1997 and came into force on February 16, 2005.

Participating countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have committed to cut
emissions of not only carbon dioxide, but of also other greenhouse gases

The goals of Kyoto were to see participants collectively reducing emissions of

greenhouse gases by 5.2% below the emission levels of 1990 by 2012.

Climate Change And Shipping - What To Expect In Future?

The slowing and reversing of climate change has, quite rightly, been identified as the
defining challenge of our era.

An IMO climate gas study has been completed. The findings of this exercise provide the
MEPC with the factual and objective information it needs to make well-informed, sound,
workable and balanced decisions, inter alia, on the development of both short-term and
longer-term measures to address CO2 emissions from ships. Such long-term measures
include improvement of specific fuel consumption; energy efficiency design of new-build
ships; use of onshore power supply for ships in port; use of wind power; strict limitations
on leakage rates of refrigerant gases; vessel speed reductions; measures to improve traffic
control, fleet management and cargo handling operations; and possible market-based
mechanisms.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee approved amendments to MARPOL

Annex VI, which were earlier scheduled to enter into force in March 2010 but are now
scheduled to enter in July 2010. The shift in deadline was decided on 7th October 2008 at
58th Session of MEPC:

 Review of the NOX Technical Code - after entry into force of Annex VI, in July
2005, IMO agreed on the need to undertake a review of the Annex and the
associated Technical Code, to take account of current technology and the need to
further reduce emissions from ships. The review was concluded in April 2008.
The revised NOX Technical Code 2008 will become effective as part of the
amendments.
 New fuel standards - The MEPC session also discussed the development of new
fuel standards by the International Standards Organisation as a parallel initiative
 to the Annex VI revision. The ISO has agreed to produce the fuel specification
before July 2010.
 Cleaner burning distillate fuels - A revision of existing marine pollution laws,
broadly fall into two phases. The first will see cleaner burning distillate fuels
substituted for sulphur-high fuel oils in SOX Emission Control Areas (SECA) –
informally known as ‘Special Areas’. This will see a progressive reduction in
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. This means ships in the middle of the ocean will be
able to burn fuels higher in sulphur content until 2020, when sulphur limits also
fall heavily to 0.5 percent.
 Stricter laws in ECA - The IMO measures will sharply curb harmful sulphur
emissions by 2015. A key part of the legislation, approved by the IMO, relates to
the tightening of harmful sulphur dioxide emissions. The IMO has agreed to
impose sulphur limits in the ECA. The limits applicable in SECA 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. The tightening is needed to
slash sulphur emissions in coastal areas, which SECA aim to protect, where they
have proven to be a major health hazard in heavily populated areas. Some two-
thirds of the 50,000-strong world fleet's movements are in coastal areas.
 Increase in number of ECA Areas in future - The 0.1 figure for the SECA is very
significant because one is fairly sure the number and range of SECA will be quite
extensive in the future. There are currently only three ECA - in the Baltic, North
Sea and East and West Coast of USA. It is expected that these will likely expand
significantly to include other coastlines in the future.

ROLE OF PORT STATE CONTROL (PSC)

Another change that, although not part of the amendments, is nevertheless worthy of
mention and that is the role of Port State Control.

There is a reason that the PSC worldwide comes heavily with regard to enforcing air
pollution legislation. As mentioned earlier, shipping was excluded from inclusion in the
UNFCCC because ships do not stay in one place. It is therefore not possible to relate
ship emissions to a country’s account of total air emissions. Hence, the Flag State cannot
be held responsible for MONITORING its ship’s air emissions that can be included in its
account of total emissions. However, ships of any nationality, plying in a country’s
waters do become a cause of concern for the country’s air emission profile. The only
mechanism to monitor such emissions thus rests with the PSC. It is only wise to expect in
future the PSC around the world will become more stringent with regard to monitoring
air emissions from ships in face of the forthcoming amendments scheduled to come into
force by July 2010.
Chapter 30 - Recent Amendments to
IMDG Code
IMDG CODE

IMDG Code Amendment 36-12 - overview of changes from Amendment 35-10

IMDG Code Amendment 36-12 may be used from 1 January 2013 (subject to national
administration adoption) and is mandatory from 1 January 2014. There are new UN
Numbers up to 3506 and some new packing instructions, as well as many detailed
changes to the chapters and the Dangerous Goods List entries.

There are also significant changes to:

Stowage and Segregation

 Part 7 has been completely reorganised according to job function. Chapters 7.1
and 7.2 contain general stowage and segregation rules.
 Chapter 7.3 is now about loading goods into a CTU. Chapters 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7
apply to container ships, RO-RO ships, and general cargo.
 Ships and ship borne barges, respectively. As before, a ship may comprise several
types of stowage space and the appropriate chapters refer to how each space is
used.

Sources of heat

 The various requirements for 'away' from all or any sources of heat, shaded from
radiant heat or direct sunlight (except for calcium hypochlorite), sparks (except
for UN 1327 HAY) and flame, are replaced by a general “Protected from sources
of heat”, the meaning of which is given in 7.1.2. This includes being at least 2.4 m
from heated ship structures and for packages on deck, not in CTUs, to be shaded
from direct sunlight. Depending on the substance and the planned voyage, it may
be necessary to reduce an on-deck CTU's exposure to direct sunlight.

Foodstuffs

 Segregation from foodstuffs (which is now defined in 1.2.1) has changed. 'Away
from' foodstuffs and ‘Separated from’ foodstuffs are no longer mentioned.
 Generally, a class or sub-risk of 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, 7 and 8, plus a few specific entries
in the DGL, shall not be in the same CTU as foodstuffs.
 However, some class 6.1 or 8 items, plus a few specific entries in the DGL, will
be allowed in the same CTU as food, provided they are at least 3 m apart, without
needing competent authority approval.
 On container and RO-RO ship spaces, no segregation requirements exist between
CTUs because of food. Currently classes 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, 7 and 8 need it.
 In conventional stowage spaces, class 6.2 will still require segregation value 3
from food, but now reducing to 2 if either is in a closed CTU; the other classes
and DGL-specific items remain as segregation value 2, but reducing to 1 if one
item is in a closed CTU, or 0 if both are in closed. The current relaxation to
segregation value 1 for class 8 and class 6.1 Pg III is removed.
  Rules for segregation from odour-absorbing cargoes are not changed by this.

Limited quantities

 When in limited quantities, class 8 packing group II liquids in glass or similar

inners also need rigid intermediate packaging. Other substances in LQ in fragile
inners will need suitable intermediate packaging when in shrink- or stretch-
wrapped trays. Three UN Numbers of class 1.4S explosives may be consigned as
limited quantities, but are still subject to the rules of section 4.1.5.

Explosives

 Fireworks, UN 0333-7 now need a classification reference issued by the

competent authority.
 There are now only five stowage categories for explosives, and these are not the
same as the present 01 to 05. If explosives are to be put into a CTU it must be a
closed CTU for class 1. All explosives on deck must be in a closed CTU. The
stowage categories 01 (the least restrictive) to 05 relate to whether they are also
allowed under deck, whether in closed CTUs or otherwise.
 All explosives of a particular division and compatibility group are allocated the
same stowage category.

Summary of changes in Amendment 35-10

When does Amendment 35-10 become mandatory?

Amendment 35-10 of the IMDG Code is valid for use on 01 January 2011 and is
mandatory from 01 January 2012.

On 21 May 2010, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee at its eighty-seventh session

adopted the amendments to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code
contained in Resolution MSC.294 (87). Contracting governments may apply the new
requirements, in part or in whole, on a voluntary basis from 1 January 2011. Compliance
with the amendments to the IMDG Code becomes mandatory on 1 January 2012.

Of the many changes to the IMDG Code, those of particular interest include:

 A number of new entries for calcium hypochlorite (UN 3485, 3486 and 3487,
Class 5.1). This commodity has led to a number of severe fires on board vessels.
 A new entry for iodine (UN 3495, Classes 8 and 6.1).
 A new entry for nickel metal hydride batteries (UN 3496, Class 9). Several fires
and explosions have originated in packages of nickel metal hydride batteries.
 A new limited quantities mark.
 An amendment to the marine pollutant mark.
 A new chapter 5.5 “Special Provisions” covering the “Special provisions
applicable to fumigated cargo transport units (UN 3359)”.
There are many detailed changes to the Dangerous Goods List and to most chapters.
Below are some of the significant additions and changes:

Additional items in the Dangerous Goods List

There are 16 new UN numbers going up to 3496, with explosives going up to 0509.

What are the key changes as per IMDG Code 35th Amendment?

 Training: Security training added.

 Classification: New definition for Mixtures and Solutions.
 Changes in Organic peroxide table.
 Additions in segregation groups.
 16 New UN No. s and total 19 new entries.
 Major changes in prohibited goods.
 Vehicles are hazardous with exceptions by meeting certain conditions.
 Special provisions for transport of metal hydride batteries.
 Limited quantity has new mark and LQ containers need to have placards.
 Retention of documents.
 Requirement of Display of PSN on containers.
 Fumigated Units : All provisions combined in a new Chapter.
 Segregation of explosives and goods of extreme flammable section is removed.
 Criteria for container tracking & monitoring equipment is included.