Getting to grips with changes to Solas
Many countries risk getting into a bureaucratic tangle as
they move to implement IMO-backed security procedures. The
implications of the new security code must be swiftly addressed
at administration, company and shiplevel
Top representatives of member states of the International
Maritime Organisation are in London this week to get to grips
with how to amend to Solas chapters V and XI, and develop the
new mandatory International Code for the Security of Ships and
of Port Facilities, which will be commonly known as the ISPS
Code.
The impact of September 11 has been so overwhelming that
shipping, the so-called ‘invisible industry’, is being
affected in the extreme.
In the past, the industry has shown how it self-regulates at
moments of change and introduction of new legislation, and the
present situation should be no exception.
The IMO assembly has agreed to convene a Diplomatic
Conference on Maritime Security in December 2002. There, new
regulations to enhance ship and port security and prevent ships
being used as weapons, or as a target for terrorist attacks,
will be approved under the tacit amendment procedure. This means
that, instead of an amendment entering into force once it is
accepted by a specified number of countries, it goes into effect
unless objections have been received by a certain date from,
say, a third of contracting governments, or governments
responsible for half the world's tonnage.
This system has greatly speeded up the amendment process.
Pending the IMO outcome, member states agreed to refrain from
unilateral measures and procedures.
More than £1.5m ($2.2m) in funding is being administered by
the technical co-operation division of IMO, with the aim of
designing a programme to help governments address this vital
issue.
In the past, IMO has faced fierce external criticism over the
time it takes to ratify and implement conventions, but this
time, the awareness and common interest to face and find an
internationally agreed solution to the menace of terrorism has
determined the rapid progress of the exercise.
Before work began, it was agreed that the process would
develop on a fast track, meaning that as soon as the changes
were approved in the diplomatic conference, full implementation
should be expected no later than 2004. It is reported that some
interests, including the US, had pressed for implementation by
mid-2003.
While the IMO has already begun addressing this issue
internationally through conferences and seminars, several
countries have taken the initiative of making their national
maritime communities aware of the forthcoming legislation, by
holding presentations on the subject.
Panama has been one. Capt Orlando Allard, the country’s
ambassador to the IMO, has been among the most active in
spreading the message, from which it has quickly become clear
that all the administrations will have to create an internal
organisation to deal with all the requirements of the new code.
Once the new rules are in place, the manpower, infrastructure
and resources would need to be ready in an administration so
that each security plan for each ship registered is approved. It
will be most important to have such plans approved together with
a ship’s new documents of registration, so that all the
documents are signed, sealed and delivered to new owners without
delay and in time for sailing.
Indeed, the implications for administrations look quite
complex. They will have perhaps to create a new department or
division ensuring that it has the maximum security in place —
after all, the administrations will have in their hands details
of all their national ports, registered companies and ships with
their personnel security plans, together with the mechanism for
annual revision and verification.
Administrations should also be aware of the commercial
pressure on shipowners and cargo interests.
While there is often criticism of open registers in the media
and public forums, there are certain states that have no
communication at all with the ships registered with them.
There are cases when owners have tried on numerous occasions
to contact their national registers — not open ones — and
have had enormous difficulties finding people that could “speak
the same shipping language”.
Obviously, sometimes what it is perfectly legal in one
country, is problematical in another. But if harmonisation and
fast track is the goal, the IMO should perhaps create a Pilot
Plan so every single member state can organise its security
department, so uniformity of steps, implementation and
procedures for the new ISPS can be laid down.
As mentioned, countries may have to ensure that national
security, and maritime security and other specialist departments
concede to their administrations freedom to act, in order to
comply with the code. Perhaps it is time for administrations to
start thinking seriously about all the obstacles their internal
and national legislation will impose, and the mechanisms to
remove those obstacles.
On the crewing front, just a few years ago, shipowners
welcomed the idea of having to employ one less crew member,
namely the radio officer.
In the present climate, the option of appointing an existing
member of the crew to be security officer on top of his or her
usual duties is unacceptable.
The figure of the security officer onboard is not unknown in
the cruise industry; however, the ships engaged in general trade
do not have such a figure on board, although it is most likely
this will become indispensable once the ISPS code is in force.
A new security officer for a new ship will have to be fully
trained and will have to have full access to ship plans and
blueprints in order to know what he or she is dealing with. They
will have to have experience, as well as perhaps special
training for conflicts and delicate situations.
It is not only the security officer who will have to be
trained. All the crew will have to participate in a
re-education, and evaluation of ship practices, to ensure that a
vessel is safe and perfectly sealed from any outsiders before
leaving a port and that everything is according to the ship’s
security plan.
Needless to say, the aim of every shipowner is to have his
ship tied up in port the least possible time. But it has come to
pass that crew must comply with the ISM code demands, and with
the demands of the ISPS code regarding security.
In the case of newbuildings, would the shipyard be considered
a port? Would the shipyard have rules to ensure safe delivery of
the vessel, and would they have to have risk assessment and
security plans?
And if we start thinking of the bodies that could be acting
as security organisations, are we going to create another IACS
entity? Are we going to start giving to third parties
responsibilities and attributes of a government? Is the industry
prepared to face the uncertainty and perhaps mistakes of dealing
with amateurs designated as experts on security?
Before criticising this worthy exercise and before the
shipowners take out their calculators and start cursing the new
regulations, it is important to work out the best way to get
trained. But perhaps the multimillion dollar question at present
is, who will be in charge of training every single officer,
seafarer and those in related professions? And how are
administrations in the open registries going to get their
governments to support and fund such new responsibilities?
Changes to the Solas Convention
Chapter V: mainly on regulations over bridge equipment.
Chapter XI: the title of this chapter will change to Special
Measures to Enhance Maritime Safety and Security. The chapter
will be divided into two: Chapter XI-1, Special Measures to
Enhance Maritime Safety; and Chapter XI-2, Special Measures to
Enhance Maritime Security.
Impact on the industry will be wide. For instance:
Administrations
All administration would have to comply with these mandatory
requirements:
- Establishment of threat levels (I, II or III)
- Certification and approval of the port, of all the
companies whose ships are registered under their flag and
registry, and assessment of the security plan of every ship
they have registered under the flag
- Surveys and certification of the security plan
- Security plans approval and certification for ports,
companies and ships
- Certification and training of ship, port and company
security officers
- Recognised security organisations
- Control and declaration of security
- Provision of information
- Determination of applicability of regulations to national
ports, based on state assessment — establishment of
alternative and equivalent requirements for ports
Ports
It is expected that ports that receive ships engaged in
international voyages have in place the following:
- Port facility security assessment
- Port facility security plan
- Port facility security officer
- Certification and review of security plan
- Capability to conform to threat Levels 1, 2 and 3
- Passengers, ship’s crew and port personnel
identification
- Training of personnel
- Declaration of security
Ships
All ships over 500 grt engaged on international voyages, once
SOLAS is amended and the ISPS Code is approved, would have to
comply with the following:
- Ship security assessment and plan
- Master’s discretion for ship security
- Ship security alarm
- Records of all activities regarding security
- Continuous synopsis record
- Appointment of ship security officer
- Ship identification — permanent markings on the hull of
the ship, visible at dark
- Training of the ship security officer and ship’s crew
- Certification and declaration of security
- Lighting and security equipment when vessel is in port or
in anchorage
- Capability to conform to the threat levels 1, 2 or 3
Companies
Most important features are:
- Security assessments
- Periodic review of plans
- Training of personnel and the newly appointed security
officers
- Seek all the certifications required
- Share information and ensure that the synopsis records of
the ship are kept
- Supervision of ships security assessments
- Creation and Implementation of the security plans
- Supervision of ships security plans
- Obtention of the required certification
The new International Code for the Security of Ships and of
Port Facilities (ISPS Code) would have two parts; Part A would
be mandatory, and would have the following features:
-
- Responsibilities of contracting governments
- Declaration of security
- Obligations of the company — information
- Ship/Port security assessments
- Ship/Port security plans — records
- Ship/Port/Company security officer assignment and
responsibilities
- Training and drills
- Survey and certification
© 2002 Maria Dixon - ISM Shipping Solutions Ltd.
Published in Loyds List, with permission from
the Author
