The 86th session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee was held at IMO Headquarters in London (27 May – 5 Jun) under the chairmanship of Mr Neil Frank Ferrer (Philippines). The meeting was very well attended by 103 Member States, 2 Associate Members, 8 IGO’s and 33 NGO’s, including ICS.
The following is a report of significant outcomes; more information can be obtained, if required, from the ICS secretariat.
1. Piracy and armed robbery
A working group was formed under the chairmanship of Mrs Birgit Olsen (Denmark) to consider issues relating to piracy and armed robbery against ships.
The Committee endorsed the Best Management Practices (BMP) for ships operating off the coast of Somalia without any further amendment (issued as MSC.1/Circ.1332) and approved the revised circulars 622 and 623 providing guidance to states, and ships on the avoidance of piracy and armed robbery (issued as MSC.1/Circ.1333 and MSC.1/Circ.1334 respectively). Guidance was also developed and approved with respect to measures to be applied by fishing vessels and advice on action to be taken by ships crews and passengers in the event of hostage situations.
Considerable debate was given to the issue of firearms onboard ships and the use of military teams. ICS recommended that military teams should only be used in rare cases following risk assessment and at the request of the shipowner, and that furthermore it must be clear that the liability for any action by such teams lies with the military command and not the master of the vessel, a concern shared by a number of members as well as seafarer organisations. The principle established by the Committee at its 85th session that the employment of armed crews was an issue for flag States to determine in consultation with shipowners remained unaltered. The Committee noted that any policy on the use of firearms should take account of the rights and laws of port and coastal States with respect to ships carrying firearms or armed personnel entering their waters. Calls for the development of guidelines on the training of armed personnel were not taken up by the Committee, though it was recommended that further investigation of the subject could be undertaken at a later date.
Calls were made in both the working group and the plenary debate for guidance on ensuring the welfare of seafarers unfortunate enough to be attacked or taken hostage, including recommendations on post-release counselling and contact with families. Members were invited to bring submissions on this issue to the Committee at its next session and it is likely that seafarer organisations will develop guidance to this effect in the interim.
The IMO secretariat reported on the outcome of the International Contact Group on Piracy, which met on Friday 29 May in New York. Panama, the Bahamas, Liberia and the Marshall Islands announced the New York Declaration signed at the meeting, committing those flags to encouraging anti-piracy action amongst their fleets. Concern was raised with respect to the restricted membership of the International Contact Group, and that its meeting at the same time as a session of the Committee caused confusion and would work to the detriment of the Organization’s efforts to combat piracy which should take priority.
2. Maritime Security
The Committee considered a number of proposals relating to Maritime Security. Reports were received from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Singapore on their experiences in the implementation of the SOLAS XI-2 provisions and ISPS Code, and also the voluntary port facility security audit tools outlined in MSC.1/Circ.1192 and 1194. Both parities expressed satisfaction with the guidance provided in the circulars and the Committee urged members to apply them to their own port facilities. Iranian observations on the continued difficulties encountered by seafarers of certain nationalities to obtain shore leave and the need to remedy such occurrences were supported by ICS and ITF.
Consideration was given to the handling of failures identified during ISPS Code verification on the basis of submissions by Iran. One such “failure” considered by Iran concerned instances of ships entering ports operating to higher security levels than that of the facility itself, and a recommendation was made to clarify the scope and responsibilities of shipowners and companies with respect to raising the security level at their own behest. This proposal was strongly opposed by a number of industry organisations, led by ICS, on grounds that the safety and security of ships remained the prerogative of the master and that this principle should not be compromised, this view was supported in general by the Committee. The Committee urged members to continue to bring the results of experience gained and issues requiring resolution with respect to SOLAS XI-2 and ISPS implementation to its attention.
The submission by Belgium et al that identified a number of difficulties encountered with Continuous Synopsis Records, in particular the considerable variation in the document format applied was considered. It was agreed that the Committee did not have either the time or resources at this time to develop an appropriate circular but the need to observe the relevant provisions of resolution A.959(23) was emphasised. All Contracting Governments were urged to strictly apply SOLAS regulation XI-15 and the relevant guidelines covered by Resolution A.959(23) as amended, and invited to bring all cases where they felt the provisions had not been followed to the Committee’s attention at its next session. It was also agreed that the Committee would consider consolidating the Guidelines for the Maintenance of the Continuous Synopsis Record into a single MSC resolution at its next session.
3. Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT)
Discussion on LRIT issues was very wide ranging and addressed both technical and administrative aspects of the system. It is to be noted that the transitional arrangements agreed at MSC 85, as advised in MC(08)73, will expire on 30 June 2008 and there will be no extension to these arrangements.
Contracting governments were invited to report progress towards compliance with the system and whether or not their data centres (DCs) would be fully operational by 1July 2009. It was reported that 10 to 12 DCs are either currently being tested or are about to enter the test phase, however some other DCs that have applied to be tested are not expected to be operational before 1 July due to the lack of testing resources.
The Committee agreed a draft MSC circular (MSC.1/Circ.1163/rev.4) highlighting the varied LRIT preparations of contracting governments. Due to concerns raised it was agreed that the IMO secretariat would provide additional text amending the developed circular to urge Administrations conducting PSC inspections not to penalise ships that had made all appropriate effort towards compliance but remained non-compliant due to the Administration not having completed its own DC testing phase.
The USA stated that it expected to receive LRIT information from ships calling at its ports and within 1,000 miles of its coasts commencing on 1 July 2009. In a working group statement that appeared to slightly soften this stance, the USA further advised that it will apply realistic pragmatism to this expectation but that if it did not receive the required information, it would take that into account in determining the threat to its security and its responsibilities for port State control.
A number of delegations, including the Marshall Islands, advised that LRIT equipment supplied and fitted to a number of ships uses a 3rd party application service provider (ASP).
The Marshall Islands et al further advised that due to the involvement of a 3rd party ASP, which in their opinion was not consistent with the LRIT performance standards, ships fitted with such equipment will not be accepted as compliant by the Marshall Islands and similarly operated data centre(s). Germany stated that the particular LRIT equipment under discussion had been “type approved” by GL and was accepted by the German Administration and a number of other administrations, and that acceptance of this particular system by the EMSA/EU DC was anticipated. The Secretariat advised that approval of any particular shipboard LRIT system was a matter to be determined by individual flag States.
Noting the discussion between the Marshall Islands et al and Germany and that no conclusion or position had been taken by the Committee the Secretariat advised that, in addition to the issue of acceptance into an Administration’s DC from 1 July 2009, ships changing flag would be faced with a variety of continuity and compliance issues, including:
1. The existing shipboard LRIT equipment may be found to be fully compatible with the new DC and the existing conformance test certificate would remain valid – no consequential action required.
2. Despite the existing shipboard LRIT equipment being compatible with the new DC, a new conformance test report may be required.
3. The existing shipboard LRIT equipment would not be compatible with the new DC and replacement/additional shipboard LRIT facilities would be required and a new conformance test report would be required.
Ship operators are advised to confirm that LRIT equipment on board their vessels is acceptable to the data centre used by the ship’s Administration to minimise avoidable difficulties following 1 July. It should be recognised that there is a commercial element to the difference of views expressed on this issue between the German Administration and that of Marshall Islands et al.
It is of particular significance to shipping that there will be no extension to the transitional arrangements after 30 June. ICS sought assurances from all port States that their application of the LRIT system would be based on pragmatism that it would take into account that shipping has made great efforts to comply with the requirements for compliance testing and that shipping should not be penalised for the failures of Administrations to establish the required LRIT infrastructure. The following statement was made by ICS in this regard:
The ‘transitional arrangements for the completion of the establishment of the LRIT system’ agreed by MSC 85 will expire at the end of June and the LRIT system’s measures will be fully applied from 1 July 2009. We have expressed concern at previous meetings regarding the number of contracting governments that have yet to commence testing arrangements of their data centres. That situation still prevails and in an unspecified number of cases such testing will not be completed before full implementation of the system on 1 July. Furthermore in some cases financial or other arrangements have not been agreed between parties.
As a consequence of these failures the risk remains that ships, despite having made every effort to comply with their obligations under the LRIT system, may still be penalised and possibly even be detained for deficiencies and non‑compliance issues over which they have no control.
ICS urges Administrations to fully apply the recommendations of the draft MSC.1/Circ. that was prepared for consideration by the Committee. Furthermore when implementing shipboard LRIT inspection regimes, a pragmatic approach should be followed and the measures taken by ships in seeking to comply with these requirements should be adequately and fully recognised.
As on previous occasions the difficulty that some ships continue to experience during conformance testing in certain parts of the world or in certain circumstances was recognised. It was agreed that in such circumstances, Administrations should not consider this difficulty as a reason for declaring the ship to be unseaworthy or as a reason for delaying the ship in port until the conformance testing is satisfactorily completed, provided that suitable arrangements, agreed by the Administration, are made.
In addition to operational matters an extensive discussion took place between contracting governments on political and financial arrangements. On these issues little apparent progress was made. Such discussion included sometimes heated exchanges regarding polygons, the geographical charted shapes that define a contracting government’s area of responsibility for gathering LRIT data from ships, as well as animated discussion regarding the buying and selling of data collected from ships. The financial debate was polarised between primarily those states who anticipated being a net ‘seller’ of LRIT data and those who anticipated being a net ‘buyer’ of data. Not surprisingly those States who anticipated buying data sought a lower price than those selling LRIT information. Despite the urgency of reaching a solution to this issue the meeting was unable to agree mutually acceptable costs for such transactions. Some Administrations indicated that bilateral financial arrangements could be established with adjustments in pricing being made retrospectively once experience was gained with operating the system and information so gained was provided that would indicate an equitable and sustainable pricing structure. IMSO as the selected coordinator for the LRIT system was criticised by contracting governments for increases in the planned scale of charges for their services and in particular for the initial and annual auditing of DCs. In response IMSO advised that Administrations had specified the required LRIT coordination infrastructure and the costs involved were defined by this specification.
4. Satellite detection of ship’s automatic identification systems (AIS)
The Committee recalled that it had yet to provide guidance on this issue despite having previously discussed it in general terms, also noting that sub‑committee consideration of the matter was on hold until MSC 86 could reach a policy decision. In MSC 86/25/1, France explained that there was a need for additional AIS frequencies in order to facilitate the reception of AIS signals in all geographic areas and by satellite systems. The Committee was also advised that this issue was on the agenda of ITU’s World Radio-communication Conference 2011 (WRC II). France further advised that the developing technology was considered to complement rather than compete with LRIT as there was considerable scope for cross-checking and cross-verification between the two systems.
Several delegations, including ICS raised concern that the French proposal to seek additional AIS frequencies for satellite detection was premature for a number of reasons that included:
· The relationship of a space based AIS system with the developing LRIT system was unknown
· Integrity, confidentiality and security questions had not been satisfactorily addressed
· There was a risk of interference between the proposed new satellite AIS frequencies and existing emergency radio frequencies
· Unresolved questions remain regarding control of collected information
· The Committee had not addressed the fact that commercial satellite operators had reported (and demonstrated during MSC 85) a capability of detecting and collecting existing AIS signals without the need for modification or changes to existing ship’s equipment or for additional AIS frequencies
· There was no proven need or advantage to be gained by embarking on a project that had uncertain outcomes other than that of costing a lot of money
It was agreed that it would be premature for IMO to take a position on this issue but that support should be provided to the continuation of studies under the framework of the current ITU work. It was further noted that this remained an agenda item for the COMSAR and NAV Sub-Committees under the e-navigation work item. For this reason it was agreed that there was currently no need for a new work item on the topic.
5. Goal-Based Standards
The main issue of contention at this session was determining the most appropriate framework for the verification system to assess classification society rules for compliance with the IMO Goal Based Standards.
During the initial debate in plenary there was extensive discussion on the relative merits of implementing a full technical verification of classification society rules verses a detailed self assessment by the rule developer followed by a technical audit by IMO auditors. The decision of the Committee was to pursue the self assessment with audit option with an intermediate approach between a general process audit and full technical verification.
A working group was convened under the chairmanship of Captain Patrick Little (USA). The main element of the group’s work was the revision of the draft guidelines on verification to reflect the decision of the Committee. Part A of the guidelines (the verification process) was re-written to reflect the change to an audit approach based on sampling rather than detailed verification with part B detailing the self assessment required of the submitting classification society.
Due to the technical complexity of the subject matter it was agreed that the qualifications of auditors should remain essentially the same as for the previously proposed Group of Experts.
The draft SOLAS amendments were further discussed together with potential funding mechanisms for audits and any potential effects on IMO instruments other than SOLAS.
The Committee made the following decisions following its consideration of the working group report.
1. A draft MSC resolution containing amendments to SOLAS regulations II-1/A-2 and II-1/A-1.3.10, which will make the GBS for bulk carriers and oil tankers mandatory, was approved with a view to adoption at MSC 87.
2. A draft MSC resolution on adoption of the “International goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers” was approved with a view to adoption at MSC 87
3. Approved in principle a draft MSC resolution on Adoption of the Guidelines for Verification, with a view to adoption at MSC 87 after considerations of improvements to the verification process. (It is to be noted that there was tacit agreement that the bulk of the work would remain as is and that only firm proposals for improvement by submission of papers would be considered).
4. The Committee noted the group’s proposals regarding financing and financial aspects of verification. No final agreement was reached on this aspect and further work will be necessary to achieve consensus at MSC 87.
5. It was agreed that the finalisation of the draft MSC circular on the Ship Construction File would be considered at MSC 87 by which time the outcome of an industry project on this topic should be available.
The Committee agreed to re-establish the GBS Working Group at MSC 87 to finalise the Ship Construction File and address anticipated issues raised in submissions to the session.
6. ECDIS
The Committee recalled that the proposed amendments, for the mandatory carriage of ECDIS in SOLAS regulation V/19 developed by NAV 54 had been approved by MSC 85. China advised that it could not support the requirements as the existing ENC database was insufficiently developed and in their view the system was not sufficiently reliable. Other concerns of China included the current economic climate and the high cost and operational difficulties associated with retrofitting ECDIS. China proposed that the ECDIS implementation schedule should be reconsidered. This view was supported by a number of delegations; however a majority of the Committee supported the previously agreed dates for implementation and the measure was adopted. The mandatory ECDIS carriage requirement is to apply to ships on international voyages as follows:
· Passenger ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after I July 2012
· Tankers of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2012
· Cargo ships, other than tankers, of 10,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after I July 2013
· Cargo ships, other than tankers, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 10,000 gross tonnage constructed on or after I July 2014
· Passenger ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards constructed before I July 2012, not later than the first survey on or after I July 2014
· Tankers of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety equipment survey* on or after 1 July 2015
· Cargo ships, other than tankers, of 50,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after I July 2013, not later than the first survey on or after I July 2016
· Cargo ships, other than tankers, of 20,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000 gross tonnage constructed before I July 2013, not later than the first survey on or after I July 2017
· Cargo ships, other than tankers, of 10,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 20,000 gross tonnage constructed before I July 2013, not later than the first survey on or after I July 2018
It should be noted that administrations may exempt ships from the application of the requirements above when such ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years from the implementation date specified.
7. STCW
The Committee agreed to establish an intersessional STW meeting to run from 7 to 11 September 2009. This meeting, followed by STW 41 (11 to 15 January 2010) will finalise the revised text of the revised STCW Convention and Code. The Committee was advised that following consultations between IMO and ILO a diplomatic conference will be convened in Manila in June 2010 to adopt the revised STCW Convention and Code.
8. Prohibition of blending operations on board at sea
Supporting the decision of the BLG Sub-Committee that the blending of bio-fuel cargoes at sea should be banned, the Committee agreed a draft MSC-MEPC circular concerning the prohibition of blending operations at sea. The circular goes further than that proposed by the BLG Sub-Committee in prohibiting the onboard blending of MARPOL regulated cargoes rather than just referring to bio fuels. The Sub-Committee will further consider this matter and the Committee agreed that mandatory provisions prohibiting the practice should be developed. It is anticipated that the MEPC Committee will give further consideration to the term ‘sea voyage’ for possible clarification.
9. MSDS for oil cargoes and bunkers
A new MSC resolution (MSC.1/Circ.1303) for material safety data sheets (MSDS) for MARPOL Annex I oil cargo and fuel oils was agreed with an effective date from I July 2009. This resolution is the result of work over a prolonged period and urges Governments to direct their port State control officers to accept MSDS meeting the Recommendations in lieu of the Recommendations of resolution MSC.150(77). In order to provide clarification the Committee also agreed an MSC Circular that includes the following advice:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of SOLAS regulation VI/I, ships carrying oil or fuel oil, as defined in regulation I of Annex I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, shall be provided with Material Safety Data Sheets, based on the recommendations developed by the Organisation, prior to the loading of such oil as cargo in bulk or bunkering oil fuel.”
From the above extract it is clear that ships should from 1 July 2009 only accept MARPOL Annex I oil cargo or oil bunker fuel following receipt of a valid MSDS. It should be noted that DNV is requiring, as part of their fuel testing programme, a copy of the MSDS to be attached to the packaging of a sample for appropriate handling during transit. A ship without the required MSDS for its cargo and/or bunkers loaded after 1 July 2009 will be not in compliance with SOLAS Chapter VI.
10. Devices to prevent the passage of flame into cargo tanks
As expected the Committee approved a new circular (MSC.1/Circ.1324) regarding the Revised Standards for the design, testing and locating of devices to prevent the passage of flame into cargo tanks in tankers. Serious concern had previously been expressed by industry that the related decisions of the BLG Sub-Committee were not based on information that reflected the experiences of shipowners and operators and such concern was repeated in the recent ICS Chemical Carrier Panel meeting. Despite repeated requests for meaningful information from members to substantiate such concerns, no such evidence was provided and consequently no challenge to this circular was possible.
11. LSA – Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats
The Committee approved decisions taken by the DE Sub-Committee regarding
Draft amendments to the Life Saving Appliance (LSA) Code and new requirements for on-load release hooks.
As an interim measure, until the new release hooks become available the Committee agreed that fall preventer devices could be used to prevent further accidents and consequently approved guidelines for the use of ’fall preventer devices’ (FPD’s). (MSC.1/Circ.1327)
The Committee approved a new circular clarifying SOLAS regulation III/19 that provides guidance on lifeboat launching, confirming that the crew are not required to be onboard davit-launched lifeboats when launching during drills (MSC.1/Circ.1326).
As well as addressing an inconsistency in the wording of MSC.1/Circ.1206 raised by ICS et al the Committee gave careful consideration to opposing submissions by Norway and ICS regarding the advisability of mandating this circular. Norway considered that mandating the guideline was appropriate as the circular has been in force for some time and ILAMA the NGO representing LSA manufacturers had provided a list of manufacturers to DE 52. ICS gained majority support in opposing this view and in particular drew attention to the lack of information regarding a global maintenance network for lifeboats which was considered by DE 50 to be an essential prerequisite before further mandating the circular. Despite a clear majority of delegations supporting ICS in opposition of the Norwegian proposal and the identification of additional reasons for maintaining the voluntary status of the circular, the Chairman decided to ask the DE Sub‑Committee to again consider this matter and to advise MSC 87 to enable a final decision to be taken.
12. MSC.1 circulars
The Committee approved 37 circulars at this session. In addition to those circulars noted above, Members’ attention is drawn to the following which may be of particular interest to vessel operators:
- MSC.1/Circ.1304 – relating to the application of SOLAS III/7, the provision of infant lifejackets on passenger ships.
- MSC.1/Circ.1318 – Guidelines for maintenance and inspections of fixed carbon-dioxide fire-extinguishing systems.
- MSC.1/Circ.1320 – Guidelines for the drainage of fire-fighting water from closed vehicle and ro-ro spaces and special category spaces of passenger and cargo ships. (Note: the formula for the calculation of drainage provision sizing has been amended)
- MSC.1/Circ.1321 – Guidelines for measures to prevent fires in engine-rooms and cargo pump-rooms.
- MSC.1/Circ.1330 – Guidelines for the maintenance and repair of protective coatings.
- MSC.1/Circ.1331 – Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways.
D H Tongue Marine Manager