annual report 2014-2015

Transcription

G.S.C.C. ANNUAL REPORT 2014 - 2015
1
FROM THE CHAIRMAN
Dear Colleagues,
It gives me great pleasure to present our 80th Annual Report in 2015. In the years since this
organisation was formed we have seen our way through the Great Depression, The Second
World War and a multitude of other significant events which have shaped the industry we work
in today.
The G.S.C.C. is constantly monitoring any changes, on an international and national level which
could affect the Shipping Industry.
We work together with a multitude of different organisations and play a very pro-active role in
analysing any new legislation and geopolitical event and where necessary commenting on the
consequences of such events or laws.
We still feel that there is an overload of new laws and legislation that, whilst well-meaning do
not actually better the lot of the seafarer, the environment or the shipping industry in general.
The world economy seems to be progressing positively even though there are many regional
problems which will need addressing. Will the lower oil and commodity prices stimulate trade or
will they blight the ever more demanding needs of the producer countries?
Within Europe, will we experience a GREXIT or a BREXIT and if so what are the consequences?
Can a zero interest rate environment continue for long or would a slight increase damage the
fragile growth of world trade.
Finally is China slowing down its growth path in order not to overtax its already strained shadow
Banking system or will it consolidate and mature its economic growth.
The world shipping industry is still going through a growth phase especially in tankers, gas
carriers and containerships with a slightly slower pace in Bulk Carriers and offshore vessels.
2
In fact, the totally opposite direction of Bulk Carrier and Tanker Freight Markets is creating an
interesting situation where Owners are trying, as much as possible, to convert Bulk Carrier orders
to Tanker orders. How this change will affect both markets in the long term is difficult to judge.
Within this environment we still have many large shipping companies under financial pressure,
many banks with sizeable non-performing loan books and a lot of shipyards with heavily
shrinking order books.
As a result of the above, the industry is in a position of some instability and not really willing or
able to enforce legislation which would increase its operating costs substantially.
The main legislative and political areas giving rise to such concerns are the following:
A. Ballast Water Treatment
It is difficult to find a clear and just solution for what is a deeply flawed IMO convention.
Developments in the U.S. are not proceeding swiftly enough in order to comply with approved
BWT system installation by 1st January 2016. This will lead to huge uncertainty for both existing
vessels that have to be retrofitted in the future as well as possible upgrading by the ‘early
movers’. Uncertainty also exists for the I.M.O. approved systems with respect to the type
approval procedures and sampling of treated ballast water, A particularly difficult decision has
to be made for vessels 15 years and older as of 1st January 2016. If these wish to trade in the
U.S. they would be obliged to retrofit U.S. and I.M.O. approved systems by 2017 and 2018.
These vessels would normally have had to retrofit by 2020 if only the I.M.O. timetable was to be
followed.
Despite the plethora of IMO approved systems, it has become apparent that many existing
vessels have neither the space nor the electrical generator power to support the BWT retrofits.
The system designers have shown their extremely limited practical knowledge of the ballast
system design and operation, for vessels in the existing fleet. This lack of knowledge renders
retrofit of most of the approved systems to be physically unrealistic.
B. Air Emissions
The industry’s move to low sulphur fuels has commenced with generally positive results. Caution
must be exercised regarding machinery damages, accelerated wear and main engine starting
issues which will only truly come to light about 2 years after first use of ULSFO and ULSMGO.
Vessels operating with these fuels must be closely monitored.
3
The demand for these fuels is leading some countries to explore supply to vessels on non-marine
grades with a flashpoint below 60 degC. This cannot be tolerated for most existing vessels. Both
SOLAS and Class stipulate the 60 degC minimum.
C.M.R.V.
It is highly regrettable that the EU and I.M.O. MRV’s will not be common. International
Shipping’s plea for a single standard has been disregarded in political circles leading to confusion
and increased workload for seafarers and shore staff. The practical side of measuring fuel
consumption has clearly demonstrated the inconsistency and potential for inaccuracies
incorporated in Bunker Delivery Notes, sounding tables and flowmeters. More work on common
standards for these measurements is vital.
D. EEDI Minimum Safe Power
Recent developments at MEPC produced a pragmatic interim solution to the minimum power
issue. Further work and corporation is required by all parties at I.M.O. in order to ensure that
safety and manoeuvrability are not sacrificed by EEDI’s push for lower engine outputs and
reduced speeds.
E. IACS Harmonized Common Structural Rules
Despite the huge efforts applied to date by both IACS and the shipping industry, much work still
remains to be done on H-CSR, in order to produce a clear and unambiguous rule set for both ship
yards and ship owners. Since the proposed working draft of the rules has been produced in
2014, numerous rule change proposals have been presented by IACS, without full scrutiny of all
the parties involved in H-CSR development. This is further complicated by the number of
comments in the H-CSR Knowledge Centre (KC) as well as the outcome of the IMO GBS group of
experts expected to be published soon.
The current state of affairs means that the first vessels to be constructed to the H-CSR standard,
are likely to be approved to a different set of rules to those built later when it is hoped that all KC
and GBS comments will be incorporated into the final G-CSR rules set.
F. Testing Of Water Tight Compartments
Recent developments as the IMO MSC in June 2015, have reinforced the belief by the shipping
industry that the original IMO SOLAS text should remain largely unaltered, thereby ensuring both
adequate structural and tightness testing for ballast faces.
G. Migrant Rescue
Merchant shipping has been drawn into this politically initiated issue. Shipping is neither the
cause nor the solution to these unfortunate and tragic events. Ships and their crews are not
4
trained or equipped to handle the large number of refugees which they are often called upon to
accommodate. Urgent pressure must be placed by the shipping industry on governments in
order to ensure that whilst merchant vessels will always come to the aid of persons in distress at
sea, there will exist a rapid procedure to hand over any refugees to the appropriate authorities
either afloat or ashore, with minimum delay to ships and migrants, whilst securing the safety and
well-being of ships’ crews.
Whilst the problem of piracy is not over and is still prevalent in West Africa as opposed to East
Africa a political or military solution has to be found because even the loss of one life is one too
many. Governments in West Africa have to take a more positive view to eradicating this piracy
or alternatively allowing vessels some form of protection.
The Greek fleet itself, taking account of these global changes is well into a qualitative
newbuilding renewal and at the same time a vigorous disposal programme of older less-efficient
tonnage.
With the help of Newbuilding and Secondhand Markets Greek companies are renewing their
fleets with large numbers of tankers, bulk carriers, containerships, gas carriers, car carriers and
offshore vessels.
This in turn is constantly reducing the average age as well as increasing the total deadweight.
The Greek Shipping Industry is still the standard bearer of wanting to build the highest quality,
most robust and energy-efficient, environmentally friendly vessels and as such urges world
shipyards and Classification Societies to help them achieve this goal.
To man this fleet of today and tomorrow we need a steady supply of seafarers able to work in an
ever more complex environment.
In this light we urgently stress the need for a healthy maritime education environment and urge
the Greek Government to support one of the Country’s most productive industries.
Without a young generation of seafarers we cannot guarantee the long term position of the
Greek Flag and all the employment opportunities that will arise.
The Greek maritime cluster is of paramount importance to Greece and should not be
detrimentalized in any manner.
5
Most importantly we hope that the critical situation in Greece resolves itself in a positive
manner. Whatever the outcome, the Government must not forget how vital a healthy Shipping
Industry is to Greece’s long-term future and we must take every step to encourage its continuity
devoid of any constitutional changes.
The G.S.C.C. itself maintains a good dialogue with the major international organisations such as
the I.M.O., Intercargo, Intertanko, I.C.S., BIMCO, the EU, National Governments, MEP’s in order
to remain up to date and in turn to express our views and positions.
Our close ties with the Union of Greek Shipowners are such that we present a united face of all
Greek Shipping on both the national and international level.
We are also appreciative of our close contacts and warm relationship with the International
Group of P & I Clubs and as such we have Club Chairmen and Directors on our council who keep
us closely informed of all developments, allowing us to make our views known to the Club
Managers in a timely manner.
Being in London gives us the privilege to maintain our long held ties with the Baltic Exchange,
U.K. Chamber of Shipping, Maritime London, I.C.S. Intercargo, and all other London based
organisations.
We believe London International Shipping Week is a very good way of highlighting all that is
positive in the U.K. Shipping Industry. However, it is felt that certain fiscal changes may not be in
the long term interest of the U.K. as a maritime hub.
Our relations with the major classification societies is also very close, not least due to the fact
that many council members also serve on National and International Class, and Technical
Committees and play a major role in the support of I.A.C.S. and its task. However this does not
stop us from trying to improve vessels construction standards.
Finally, I would like to thank our Member Offices, the Council and the Secretariat for their
invaluable support, which allows us to continue our work in fostering co-operation, trying to
avert misguided regulations and keeping our membership well informed.
I am particularly grateful to our vice-Chairmen, Constantinos Caroussis, John M. Lyras and Spyros
Polemis our Treasurer Diamantis Lemos, our Honorary Chairman Epaminondas Embiricos, and
Stathes Kulukundis, Dimitris Dragazis and Matthew Los for giving unstintingly of their time. My
special thanks to Stathes Kulukundis and his team John Hadjipateras, George Embiricos and
6
Filippos Lemos without whom our many documents including annual reports, monthly bulletins
etc would not be as professionally prepared as they are.
Our Secretariat of Konstantinos Amarantidis and Mrs Sylvana James must also be congratulated
for their hard work and professionalism in maintaining a smoothly run committee.
With kindest regards,
Haralambos Fafalios
Chairman
7
Contents
FROM THE CHAIRMAN ...................................................................................................................... 2
FLEET STATISTICS ............................................................................................................................ 11
A) The World Fleet ..................................................................................................................... 11
B) The Greek Controlled Fleet .................................................................................................... 11
DEVELOPMENTS IN GREECE ............................................................................................................ 12
Developments in the European Union ............................................................................................ 13
‘Mid-term review of EU maritime transport policy - Athens Declaration.................................. 13
Shipping Industry’s Contribution to the EU Economy................................................................ 15
State Aid Guidelines to Shipping ................................................................................................ 17
Cyber security............................................................................................................................. 18
EU Regulation on Ship Dismantling ............................................................................................ 18
GHG Emissions from Ships; Market Based Measures; Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
System (MRV) ............................................................................................................................. 21
European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF) / Implementation of the Sulphur Directive ....... 28
Alternative Fuels - LNG Study - Refueling Points ....................................................................... 30
EU Energy Efficiency Directive ................................................................................................... 30
Clean Air Package - Revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD).................... 31
EU; Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation - Ballast Water....................................................... 31
Proposed Repeal of the Exclusion of Seafarers from EU Directives........................................... 32
SCTW Recognition of the Philippines ......................................................................................... 33
Directive on Reporting Formalities for Ships Arriving at or Departing from EU Ports ............... 34
EU; Co-Ordination of Member-States at IMO ............................................................................ 35
Sanctions .................................................................................................................................... 35
European Ports Policy ................................................................................................................ 36
Port Reception Facilities (PRF) - Revision of the PRF Directive .................................................. 38
Places of refuge .......................................................................................................................... 39
Basel III ....................................................................................................................................... 40
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) ......................................................................... 41
8
Developments in the USA ............................................................................................................... 41
Ballast Water Management ....................................................................................................... 42
California: Marine Invasive Species Act ..................................................................................... 47
US Protectionism ........................................................................................................................ 47
Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA) ...................................................................................... 48
China ............................................................................................................................................... 48
Canals .............................................................................................................................................. 49
2010 HNS Protocol Guidelines .......................................................................................... 53
Wreck Removal Convention ............................................................................................... 54
CMI: York Antwerp Rules of General Average (YAR) .................................................. 54
IMO Technical and Operational Measures For The Reduction Of CO2 Emissions
From Ships – New Chapter Four Of Annex VI Of MARPOL/ EEDI-SEEMP ............. 55
Market Based Measures – Proposed IMO Data Collection Scheme ........................ 56
Quality Control of Marine Fuels ........................................................................................ 60
MARPOL ANNEX VI – Sulphur/Nitrogen Oxides Requirements – ECAs ................ 61
NOx Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 63
Implementation of The Hong Kong International Convention For The Safe And
Environmentally Sound Recycling Of Ships, 2009 ....................................................... 64
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast
Water and Sediments (BWM) ............................................................................................. 66
SOLAS Amendments to Mandate Enclosed-Space Entry and Rescue Drills ........ 71
Verification of the Weight of Containers ......................................................................... 71
SOLAS Amendments Approved to Make the IGF Code Mandatory ......................... 72
Dangerous Cargoes, Liquefaction, Nickel Ore Iron Ore ............................................. 73
E-Navigation ........................................................................................................................... 75
Cyber security matters considered .................................................................................. 78
SOLAS Regulation V/19 - Implementation of ECDIS .................................................... 79
Mandatory Polar Code ......................................................................................................... 80
Development of an international code of safety for ships operating in polar waters (Polar
Code) .......................................................................................................................................... 80
Piracy............................................................................................................................................... 81
Refugees – Rescue at Sea .................................................................................................. 85
9
Enterprise Income Tax ......................................................................................................... 87
ILO Minimum Monthly Basic Wage Figure for Able Seafarers .................................. 88
IMO Facilitation Committee ................................................................................................ 89
Shore Leave and Identity Documents .............................................................................. 90
THE COUNCIL (June, 2014 – June, 2016) ......................................................................................... 91
Secretariat ................................................................................................................................. 91
10
FLEET STATISTICS
A) The World Fleet
According to Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay data, as of March 2015, the world fleet of selfpropelled, sea-going merchant ships, greater than 1,000 gross tons (GT), stood at
52,001 ships of 1,311,906,161 gross tons, including 5,344 ships, of 196,795,247 gross
tons, on order.
B) The Greek Controlled Fleet
According to the same data, as of 10th March, 2015, Greek interests controlled 4,057
vessels of various categories, of 314,456,451 total deadweight (DWT) and
184,063,875 total GT. Compared with the previous year’s data, this represents an
increase of 156 vessels, of 23,609,319 DWT and 13,079,191 GT. The figures include
374 vessels, of various categories, of 38,039,275 DWT and 23,515,651 GT, on order
from shipyards. The above means that for the first time, the total carrying capacity
controlled by Greek parent companies has soared above 300m DWT during the year.
This represents an 8% increase from the 290.8m DWT in the Greek-owned fleet at
the same time last year. Greek interests have also increased their share of the world
fleet in all main shipping sectors, except chemical and product tankers, where there
was a net reduction in the fleet. The Greek fleet has increased its share of crude
tanker capacity to 26.6% from 24.9% a year ago; meanwhile, its share of the world
bulker fleet has grown to 16.9%, compared with 16.4% in 2014.
Overall, Greek-owned capacity has increased to 15.9% of the world fleet, up from
15.2% last year, and in terms of number of vessels, it has increased slightly to 7.6%
of the global fleet.
The past year saw a slight increase in the average age of the fleet, according to the
survey, but the average Greek-controlled ship, at 10 years of age, is still two and a
half years younger than the industry average.
When calculated in terms of dwt, the average age is reduced to just 7.9 years.
The fleet is at a record high. Leading companies are diversifying successfully into
more lucrative but more technically challenging new areas such as shuttle tankers,
containerships, gas carriers and offshore drilling.
The fleet registered under the Greek flag has increased in terms of ship numbers,
DWT and GT, now comprising 839 ships, of 47,185,619 GT and 80,472,189 DWT. It is
not as big an increase as it could have been, given the right circumstances, but, on
the other hand, it is satisfactory that the worst case scenarios did not materialise.
11
DEVELOPMENTS IN GREECE
The economic and social woes of Greece continue, as do the deliberations between
the Syriza-led coalition government, which emerged following the Greek national
elections on 25th January 2015, and the institutions (the so-called troika), on the
austerity measures that ought or ought not be imposed, so that a structured and
feasible EU bailout and repayment of the country’s debts can be agreed upon. Both
sides claim to have entrenched positions but both sides have yielded some ground in
their diplomatic exchanges. Meanwhile, at the time of writing, the results and indeed
the future of Greece remain unclear and uncertain.
With regard to the Greek shipping industry, in October 2014 the previous
administration and the country's shipowners reinstated an agreement on a voluntary
doubling of the amount collected in tonnage tax from Greek flag ships and the
payments of double the tonnage tax from foreign tax ships managed from Greece.
This is estimated to be worth an additional €420m ($529.5m) over the period 20142017. As is well known, the principles of the deal and the amounts, had been agreed
more than a year prior to October 2014, but the scheme was abolished in December
2013 when the nation’s then current finance minister, pushed through a surprise
and unconstitutional new law making the levy mandatory and raising the amount to
treble the tonnage tax. The agreement was welcomed but the move undermined the
trust between the two sides.
Under the new Government, the autonomous Ministry of Mercantile Marine was
absorbed into the ‘mega-Ministry’ of the Economy, Infrastructure, Shipping and
Tourism, which is also where the Hellenic Coast Guard was moved to. The Ministry is
headed by Mr. George Stathakis, while Mr Th. Dritsas is the alternate Minister of
Shipping. Although this arrangement is in fact a demotion of the status of the
shipping ministry, it is understandable under the circumstances. Furthermore, the
importance of the shipping industry as a pillar of the national economy has
repeatedly and publicly been acknowledged by the government, and assurances
have been given that the day-to-day autonomy of the shipping ministry will be
preserved.
The day to day operation of the Greek shipping administration has been affected by
the economic crisis and general uncertainty, but not to a serious degree. The
12
shipping industry’s presence in Greece is as strong as ever, despite tempting
proposals from third countries, both in the European Union and outside, to relocate
to such countries. The strong maritime community benefits the economy with an
inflow of foreign currency, with jobs, prestige and morale, whilst also doing its
utmost both privately and collectively to contribute to the country and the
community.
It should not be forgotten that all major national shipping communities enjoy some
kind of special status from their governments and, in several cases, these are much
more beneficial to their domestic shipping industries than is the Greek regime. It is
clear that political stability and legal certainty are necessary for Greek shipping to
survive the tough international competition.
Greek shipping is, and should be, above politics and its institutional framework
should be respected by all governments for the benefit of the country. Greece, in
addition to its ocean–going fleet, has the potential to develop into a logistics,
cruising, sea tourism and ship-repair hub in the region, but vision is needed for a
suitable, stable, operable and business-friendly system, without the imposition of
unnecessary bureaucracy.
In this context, it is welcome news that, according to the Minister, Mr. Stathakis,
“The government gave priority to strengthening the Greek flag, to the development
of Piraeus as a maritime centre, to maritime training, to shiprepairing and to coastal
services”.
The GSCC has excellent relations and tries to keep an open and continuous dialogue
with the shipping administration and the Hellenic Coast Guard, collaborating on
issues of current importance and interest to the shipping industry.
Developments in the European Union
‘Mid-term review of EU maritime transport policy Athens Declaration
The European Commission is working towards a mid-term review of its Maritime
Transport Strategy Communication of 2009. As regards the EU Shipping Policy, in
June 2014, the EU Transport Council set forward its opinion on the EU’s shipping
13
policy priorities for the next years because of this review. These Council conclusions
had been prepared by the EU Maritime ministers who had gathered for an informal
meeting in Athens – hence the “Athens Declaration”.
The shipping industry responded positively to the Declaration and found that it was
forward-looking, primarily because the priorities it highlights more or less
correspond to the priorities long-required by the industry. They include: a global
level playing field and competition with other maritime powers on an equal footing,
improved environmental performance without losing competitive edge, promotion
of maritime careers and improvement of the sector’s image, completion of the single
market for shipping and ports and, last but not least, continued EU leadership in
promoting free global trade and eradicating piracy.
The European Commission launched a public consultation on the above review and
the industry, through the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA),
submitted positive responses. In the context of the mid-term review, the EC has
commissioned studies on EU shipping in the global framework and also on Short Sea
Shipping. A document on the review exercise is expected to be released around July
2015.
There is also a mid-term review of the Transport White Paper, for which an EC online
consultation was carried out. The EP adopted its own initiative report and a
stakeholder event is scheduled for September 2015, with the outcome expected by
the end of 2015. It is estimated that there will not be a fully-fledged review but that
the new Commissioner will have the opportunity to put her priorities forward.
In theory, therefore, everything is as it should be. In practice, however, European
ocean-going shipping has faced, and is going to face in the future, unilateral regional
measures that put it to a disadvantage vis-à-vis their international competitors and
are damaging to the international shipping industry in general.
All in all, there is a feeling that the European shipping industry has to swim against a
persistent tide of unhelpful legislative proposals, hastily drawn up, in favour of
anything other than the shipping industry, if not downright opposed to it.
14
It is time for the EU to take steps to support the sector, starting with the official
continuation of the EU State Aid Guidelines for Maritime Transport, which have been
instrumental in the development of the EU fleet and the discontinuation of regional
measures.
The EU MRV regulation cannot now be stopped, but the legislators should take care
to align it fully with the future pertinent IMO agreement.
In the field of security, it is important that the EU maintains its naval presence in the
Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, while continuing to work on the escalating piracy
threat in the Gulf of Guinea. The general issue of migration must also be addressed,
especially in the Mediterranean Sea, where Search and Rescue operations are
necessary to prevent the loss of countless lives.
Finally, the ceaseless efforts to breach the ability of owners/operators to limit their
liability must stop and Member States must be allowed to continue to play an active
role, based on their technical expertise, in the IMO and the ILO,
The shipping industry, and, in particular, ECSA, along with other international
shipping organisations, is closely following developments at the European
Commission, European, Council and European Parliament, by responding to
consultations and questionnaires, seeking membership in various committees and
keeping an open dialogue.
Shipping Industry’s Contribution to the EU Economy
ECSA has recently circulated an Oxford Economics study on the economic value of
the EU shipping industry, which highlights the important contribution made to the
EU economy, based on new and more reliable data:
http://www.ecsa.eu/images/Studies/150220%20European%20Shipping%20Update.pdf
The study includes the following Infographic, to illustrate the economic value of the
EU shipping industry:
15
T
his study updates the main elements of Oxford Economics’ 2014 study entitled, ‘The
economic value of the EU shipping industry’.
Economic impacts estimated in this study

This study estimates the economic impact of the shipping industry across
three channels:
o the direct impact of the shipping industry itself;
o the indirect impact of shipping firms’ expenditure on inputs of goods
and services from their EU supply chain (such as port services, ship
repairs, insurance, and shipping-related financial and legal services);
and,
o the induced impact of spending by employees in the shipping industry
and its supply chain.
1.) Direct impact
16

In 2013, the EU shipping industry is estimated to have directly contributed
€56 billion to EU GDP and employed 615,000 people.

It is estimated that around four-fifths of posts, or 501,000 jobs, are based at
sea. It is tentatively estimated that around 44 per cent of these seafarers are
EU or EEA nationals.

Shipping is a high productivity industry: each worker is estimated to have
generated €85,000 of GDP, significantly above the EU average of €53,000.
2.) Indirect and induced impacts

The shipping industry indirectly supported an estimated €61 billion
contribution to GDP and 1.1 million jobs through its European supply chain in
2013.

The spending of wages by those employed in the shipping industry and its
supply chain supported an estimated €30 billion of GDP and jobs for 516,000
people.
3.) Total economic impact

Taking all of the impacts together, direct, indirect and induced, the total GDP
contribution of the European shipping industry in 2013 is estimated to have
been €147 billion.

For every €1 million the European shipping industry contributes to GDP itself,
it creates another €1.6 million elsewhere in the European economy.

The industry also supported employment for an estimated 2.2 million
people.
State Aid Guidelines to Shipping
In view of the above, it is perplexing that no clear decision has yet been taken for
either a continuation or a positive review of the 2004 State Aid Guidelines, which
cover European tonnage tax regimes, as well as other state aids to the maritime
sector. These have been up for review since 2012, having already previously been
implemented for seven years. Furthermore, a public consultation on the issue was
conducted in 2012 and its conclusion was in line with the above. Instead, the
Directorate General for Competitiveness (DG COMP) embarked on an indefinite and
general assessment of every aspect of the Guidelines, while also investigating
individually and meticulously the tonnage tax regimes of several Member States,
including the tonnage tax of Greece. These investigations included questionnaires,
letters and meetings with representatives of the shipping industry and Member
States and were very time consuming.
It is proven that the 1997 and 2004 Guidelines on State Aid to Maritime Transport
have produced very positive effects in those EU/EEA Member States that apply them
for the shipping industry, as well as the wider maritime cluster, and for the overall
economy of the European Union. It is essential, therefore, that the European
Commission should continue to provide a competitive European framework for
17
EU/EEA shipping, through a re-affirmation of the current Guidelines on State Aid to
Maritime Transport. Unfortunately however, no decision was taken and the
Commission’s familiarisation with the Guidelines came to nothing, since in October
2014 there was a change of key personnel. So the meetings have resumed with the
new head of unit in the DG COMP and others. ECSA has also prepared a laymans’
paper to explain the basics of the Maritime State Aid Guidelines, as well as an
overview of measures applied in third country jurisdictions that are the EU’s main
shipping competitors.
Cyber security
A proposal for a directive on cyber security (NIS Directive) identifies maritime
carriers as market operators of critical risk. However, on assessing the potential
implications of the NIS Directive on maritime carriers a number of concerns were
identified in relation to:


infrastructure that should comply with specific rules with regard to cyber
security and,
costs, administrative burden, competitiveness and compliance.
For these reasons, as well as for the reason that work has started at IMO on
initiatives at the international level, the shipping industry is making efforts to be
excluded from the Directive.
EU Regulation on Ship Dismantling
The EU Ship Recycling Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the EU and
entered into force on 30th December 2013. Its different articles will apply at different
stages, all detailed in article 32 of the Regulation. The official text of the Regulation
can be found here.
The new Ship Recycling Regulation will apply to large commercial seagoing vessels
flying the flag of EU Member States, and to ships calling at EU ports or anchorages
flying the flag of a third country. In order to ensure legal clarity and to avoid
administrative burdens, ships covered by the new legislation would be excluded
from the scope of the Waste Shipment Regulation (EC) 1013/2006.
The Regulation sets out a number of requirements for European ships, European
ship owners, ship recycling facilities willing to recycle European ships, and the
relevant competent authorities or administrations. It also requires the Commission
18
to adopt a number of acts implementing the Regulation (in particular the European
List of Ship Recycling Facilities Authorised to Recycle Ships Flying an EU Flag).
According to the new rules, the installation or use of certain hazardous materials on
ships will be prohibited or restricted. These hazardous materials include asbestos,
ozone-depleting substances, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and certain anti-fouling compounds and systems. Each new
European ship (or a ship flying a flag of a third country calling at an EU port or
anchorage) will be required to have on board an inventory of hazardous materials
(IHM) verified by the relevant administration or authority and specifying the location
and approximate quantities of those materials.
European ship owners will have to ensure that ships are only recycled in ship
recycling facilities included in the EU approved list. They will also have to ensure that
each end-of-life ship is appropriately prepared for recycling. In order to do this, they
will have to provide the necessary information about the ship to the ship recycling
facility, notify the intention to recycle the ship to the relevant administration,
provide an updated inventory of hazardous materials, and minimise the amount of
cargo residues, fuel oil and ship generated wastes remaining on board. They will also
have to provide a ‘Ready for Recycling’ certificate to the ship recycling facility which
will recycle their ship.
Prior to any recycling of a European ship, a Ship Recycling Plan will have to be
developed by the operator of the Ship Recycling Facility based on the information
provided by the ship owner. The plan will contain information about the ship,
essential for its safe treatment, and thus will facilitate the work of the ship recycling
facility. European ships will undergo surveys verifying compliance of the inventory of
hazardous materials with the requirements of the Regulation.
EU Member States' port authorities will be authorised to control European ships to
verify whether they have on board a ‘Ready for Recycling’ certificate or a valid
‘Inventory of Hazardous Materials’ (IHM), whichever is relevant.
In order to be included in the EU approved list, any ship recycling facility, irrespective
of its location, will have to comply with a number of requirements. The Commission
will assess the applications received from the ship recycling facilities located in third
19
countries. For facilities located in EU Member States, this assessment will be done by
national authorities and its result will be provided to the Commission. The ‘European
List’ will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the
website of the Commission at the latest thirty six months after the date of entry into
force of this Regulation (i.e. at the latest by the end of 2016). The Commission will be
able to regularly update the ‘European List’ in order to include or remove a ship
recycling facility from the List.
As mentioned above, many items within the Regulation will not be ‘applicable’ until
various criteria are met. For example, requirements for owners to use recycling
facilities on the ‘European List’ will not become applicable until six months after the
List includes sufficient capacity, i.e. at the earliest six months after the combined
maximum ship recycling output of the facilities on the European List is reached (2.5
million LDT/year) or 2019.
After the date of implementation:

Ships flagged by EU Member States must only go for scrapping at facilities on
the European List

Each new ship must carry an IHM (or by 2018)

Existing ships have 2 more years to carry an IHM.
This means that newbuildings will need an IHM no later than 31 December 2018,
whereas ships going for recycling will need an IHM as soon as any EU List is
published. The list itself is not expected before 31 December 2016.
EU guidance (FAQs) on the interpretation of the requirements related to the
inclusion of recycling facilities is still under consideration. An additional set of FAQs
on the establishment of the IHM is under preparation.
Recently, in a press release titled “Judiciousness needed to promote sustainable
recycling of ships worldwide”, trying to ameliorate the effects of what is a piece of
premature, unilateral and potentially disastrous legislation for European shipping ,
ECSA called for a swift ratification of the 2009 IMO Hong Kong Convention (HKC),
which 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 Hong Kong Convention places clear obligations on all
20
operators and on all IMO parties to make sure that ship recycling does not entail any
unnecessary risks to human health, safety and the environment. Unfortunately, the
ratification efforts have stalled due to the entry-into-force criteria of the Convention,
which require both major Flag States and Recycling States to commit to the HKC,
leading to a regrettable attitude of wait and see whereby both sides bide their time
in anticipation of the other side’s move. ECSA therefore supports the European
Commission and Member States in pushing all IMO Member States to ratify the HKC.
More importantly, ECSA believe that the EU Ship Recycling Regulation, adopted in
2013, can become a valuable tool in bringing the world’s biggest ship recycling yards
closer to HKC standards, by allowing them to apply for inclusion on the ‘European
List’ , where EU flagged ships can be dismantled.
The Commission needs to set in place an inclusive procedure which would allow all
yards to apply for inclusion on the list. It would thus provide them with a strong
incentive to change and improve their practices, bringing them closer to the HKC
quality levels.
The position paper can be found here
Controversial items include:
Financial Incentive Mechanism – Whilst the incentive mechanisms under
consideration remain unrealistic, there is still a strong possibility that they will be
implemented to the detriment of the shipping industry;
List of Yards – It will be noted that despite the importance of gaining clarity as to the
terms underpinning the list of yards under the European Regulation, progress has
been extremely slow, and the potential remains for it to be extremely disruptive to
the recycling market and the success of the Hong Kong Convention
Inventory of Hazardous Materials – Full guidance on compliance with the regulation
requirements for IHM is required.
GHG Emissions from Ships; Market Based Measures;
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System (MRV)
In June 2013, the European Commission proposed a strategy for progressively
integrating maritime emissions into the EU's policy for reducing its domestic GHG
emissions. With several amendments, this strategy was adopted by the European
Parliament in April 2014.
This strategy consists of three consecutive steps:
21
1.
2.
3.
Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of CO2 emissions from ships;
GHG reduction targets for the maritime transport sector;
Further measures, including Market-Based Measures (MBM).
The first step of the strategy consisting in the design of a MRV system of CO2
emissions for ships exceeding 5,000 GT on all voyages to, from and between EU
ports applicable from January 2018 was realised on 19 May 2015, when the EU MRV
Regulation of 29 April 2015 was published in the Official Journal of the EU.
Regulation (EU) 2015/757 on the MRV of CO2 emissions from maritime transport,
and amending Directive 2009/16/EC. As expected, two EU MRV subgroups have
been established within ESSF, one dealing with ‘Verification and Accreditation’ and
the other dealing with ‘Monitoring of cargo and fuel consumption’.
The regulation lays down rules for developing a monitoring plan and submitting the
emissions report for ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, which arrive at, within or
departing from ports under the jurisdiction of an EU member state, regardless of
ship’s flag. Companies are also required to provide certain other aggregated annual
information, such as data to determine the ships' energy efficiency.
A valid document of compliance issued by an independent verifier must be carried on
board all ships the activities of which have fallen under the shipping MRV Regulation
during the previous year when visiting EU ports. These ships may be subject to
inspection by Member States' authorities.
For ships that cannot comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements, the
regulation includes penalty provisions such as an expulsion order.
Future schedule and summary of the regulation are as follows:
1 Jul 2015: Entry into force of EU MRV;
End of 2016: Development of detailed technical rules by the European Commission;
31 Aug 2017: Due date for submitting monitoring plans for fuel consumption to a
verifier;
1 Jan – 31 Dec 2018: Monitoring of the fuel consumption for reporting period of
2018;
30 Apr 2019: Due date for submitting emissions report on reporting period of 2018
to a verifier;
30 Jun 2019: Due date for keeping valid document of compliance on board
*Afterward, the annual emission report is to be submitted by similar procedure.
22
Scope (Article 2)
This regulation applies to ships above 5,000 gross tonnage in respect of CO 2
emissions released during their voyages from their last port of call to a port of call
under the jurisdiction of EU Member State and from a port of call under the
jurisdiction of EU Member State to their next port of call.
Liability for shipowners or any other organisation or person, such as the manager or
the bareboat charterer companies (hereinafter referred to as "company") (Article
4,6,11,18).
(i) By 31 August 2017, companies shall submit to the verifiers a monitoring plan for
each of their ships indicating the method chosen to monitor and report CO2
emissions and other relevant information;
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (i), for ships falling under the scope of this
regulation for the first time after 31 August 2017, the company shall submit a
monitoring plan to the verifier no later than two months after each ship's first
call in a port under the jurisdiction of EU Member State;
(iii) From 2019, by 30 April of each year, companies shall submit to the Commission
and to the authorities of the flag States concerned, an emissions report
concerning the CO2 emissions for the previous entire reporting period for each
ship, which has been verified as satisfactory by a verifier. The reporting period
means one calendar year during which CO2 emissions have to be monitored and
reported. For voyages starting and ending in two different calendar years, the
monitoring and reporting data shall be accounted under the first calendar year
concerned.
(iv) By 30 June of the year following the end of a reporting period, ships shall carry
on board a valid document of compliance.
Monitoring plan (Article 6,7)
The monitoring plan shall contain at least the following elements:
(i) The identification and type of ship, including its name, IMO identification
number and port of registry;
(ii) The name of the company and the address, telephone and e-mail details of a
contact person;
(iii) A description of CO2 emission sources on board the ship, such as main engine,
auxiliary engines, gas turbines, boiler and inert gas generators, and fuel types
used;
23
(iv) A description of the procedures, systems and responsibilities used to update the
list of CO2 emissions sources over the reporting period;
(v) A description of the procedures for monitoring the fuel consumption of the ship;
(vi) Single emission factors used for each fuel type.
Monitoring data (Article 9,10)
Companies shall monitor the following parameters for each ship and for each
calendar year on an annual basis:
(i) Amount and emission factor for each type of fuel consumed in total;
(ii) Total aggregated CO2 emitted within the scope of the regulation;
(iii) Total distance travelled;
(iv) Total time spent at sea;
(v) Total transport work (by multiplying the distance travelled with the amount of
cargo carried);
(vi) Average energy efficiency.
Companies shall also be required to monitor the following parameters on a pervoyage basis:
(i) Port of departure and port of arrival including the data and hour of departure
and arrival.
(ii) Amount and emission factor for each type of fuel consumed in total.
(iii) CO2 emitted.
(iv) Distance travelled.
(v) Time spent at sea.
(vi) Cargo carried.
(vii) Transport work (by multiplying the distance travelled with the amount of cargo
carried).
The Companies shall include the following information in the emissions report:
(i) Data identifying the ship and the company.
(ii) The identity of verifier who assessed the emissions report.
(iii) Parameters for monitoring in accordance with paragraph (5).
Liability for verifier (Article 13,15,17)
24
(i) The verifier shall assess the conformity of the monitoring plan with
requirements laid down in this regulation. Where the verifier's assessment
identifies non-conformities with those requirements, the company concerned
shall revise its monitoring plan accordingly and submit the revised plan for final
assessment by the verifier before the reporting period starts;
(ii) The verifier shall assess the conformity of the emissions report with
requirements laid down in this regulation and whether the CO2 emissions and
other relevant information included in the emissions report have been
determined in accordance with this regulation and the monitoring plan.
Furthermore, the verifier shall identify potential risks related to the monitoring
and reporting process by comparing reported CO2 emissions with estimated
data, based on ship tracking data and characteristics such as the installed engine
power. Where significant deviations are found, the verifier shall carry out
further analyses;
(iii) Where the emissions report fulfils the requirements set out in the regulation,
the verifier shall issue, on the basis of the verification report, a document of
compliance for the ship concerned.
Qualification for verifier (Article 14,16)
(i) The verifier shall be independent from the company or from the operator of a
ship and shall carry out the activities required under this regulation in the public
interest.
(ii) Verifiers shall be accredited for activities under the scope of this regulation by
the European Commission.
Penalties (Article 20)
(i) EU Member States shall set up a system of penalties for failure to comply with
the monitoring and reporting obligations set out in Articles 8 to 12 and shall take
all the measures necessary to ensure that those penalties are imposed. EU
Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 1 July 2017.
(ii) Where ships have failed to comply with the monitoring and reporting
requirements for two or more consecutive reporting periods, the competent
authority of the EU Member State of the port of entry may issue an expulsion
order which shall be notified to the Commission, EMSA, the other EU Member
States and the flag State concerned. As a result of the issuing of such an
expulsion order, every EU Member State shall refuse entry of the ship
concerned into any of its ports.
Publication of information and commission report (Article 21)
(i) By 30 June each year, the Commission shall make publicly available the
information on CO2 emissions reported in accordance with the regulation.
25
(ii) Where disclosure of a category of aggregated data would exceptionally
undermine the protection of commercial interests, a different level of
aggregation of that specific data shall be applied, at the request of the company,
so as to protect such interests. Where application of a different level of
aggregation is not possible, the Commission shall not make that data publicly
available.
(iii) The Commission shall publish an annual report on CO2 emissions and other
relevant information from maritime transport, including aggregated and
explained results. The Commission shall assess every two years the maritime
transport sector's overall impact on the global climate though non-CO2-related
emissions or effects.
International Cooperation (Article 22)
This regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2015.
In Article 22 of EU MRV, it is stipulated that where an international agreement on a
global MRV system for greenhouse gas emissions is reached, the Commission shall
review this regulation and shall, if appropriate, propose amendments to this
regulation in order to ensure alignment with that international agreement.
For such occasions, the deliberation of IMO's MRV scheme (Data Collection System)
is expected to be accelerated in order to finalise the discussion towards January
2018 when EU MRV becomes effective. As such, it was decided to hold the
intersessional working group this September at MEPC68.
The approval for the verifiers by the European Commission will be launched in the
early part of 2017. ClassNK intends to go forward in order to ensure that it could be
accredited as a verifier under EU MRV, and continue to offer the updated
information on EU MRV.
Other relevant information to be reported includes the distance sailed, the time
spent at sea and at berth, the scope for connecting to mains electricity while at
berth, the ship energy efficiency i.e. cargo information and other shipping
performance indicators.
The shipping industry, including the GSCC, has repeatedly and emphatically stated
that any mandatory requirements on MRV for the international shipping sector must
be agreed upon at the IMO level, as this is the only way of securing a globally
26
harmonised system. Furthermore, the aim of the IMO MRV would be to genuinely
monitor the CO2 reductions and not as a basis for an MBM.
The EU decision to adopt the MRV regulation once again pre-empts the work of IMO.
Furthermore, it also includes controversial provisions for the submission of data by
ships on ‘transport work’ which, together with data on fuel consumption, must be
verified by third parties such as classification societies prior to submission to the
European Commission, creating an unhelpful administrative burden.
Of particular concern however, is the European Commission’s annual publication of
the commercially sensitive information such as ship name and company identifiers,
with the intention of facilitating comparisons of the supposed efficiency of individual
ships – which is very likely to be at odds with the actual fuel efficiency or CO2
emitted. In short, the EU Regulation contains most of the elements which many IMO
Member States had indicated they wished to reject when they began the
development of a global system.
Prior to the last session of the IMO MEPC, ICS, BIMCO and INTERCARGO, issued the
following press release:
SHIPPING INDUSTRY DISAPPOINTED BUT NOT SURPRISED BY TODAY’S EP VOTE ON
REGIONAL CO2 MEASURES
Following the recent vote in the European Parliament, adopting a regional EU
Regulation on the MRV of individual ship emissions of CO2, the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS), BIMCO and Intercargo issued the following statement:
Today’s vote was expected, being based on the political agreement reached between
the EU institutions at the end of last year.
However, the shipping industry is still disappointed by the Parliament’s confirmation
of the EU decision to pre-empt the current International Maritime Organization
(IMO) negotiations on a global data collection system on shipping’s CO2 emissions by
adopting a unilateral, regional Regulation on the MRV of individual ship emissions –
27
which will also apply to non-EU flag ships trading to Europe – in advance of IMO
completing its work.
Until now, with the industry’s support, the IMO negotiations have been progressing
well, but there is a danger that the EU initiative will be seen by non-EU nations as an
attempt to present them with a fait accompli. The EU Regulation includes
controversial elements, such as the publication of commercially sensitive data on
individual ships – an idea which had previously been rejected by the majority of IMO
governments during a meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee in
October
2014.
At the IMO, negotiations on additional measures to help reduce CO2 continue at the
MEPC in two weeks’ time. It will be vital for EU Member States to explain how the
new EU Regulation can be implemented in a way which is fully compatible with
whatever might be agreed by IMO for global application, in the interests of avoiding
the unhelpful complication of a separate regional regime.
The shipping industry associations reiterate that the latest IMO Green House Gas
Study, published in 2014, found that international shipping had reduced its total CO 2
emissions by more than 10% between 2007 and 2012, despite an increase in
maritime trade.
European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF) /
Implementation of the Sulphur Directive
The European Commission established the ESSF on 25 September 2013, inter alia, to
assess the developments towards compliance with the IMO 0.1% sulphur content
requirement in marine fuel, which entered into force in SECAs from 1 January 2015.
The Forum is chaired by the Commission and operates with a Plenary session and six
non-permanent Technical Subgroups:
(i) the use of scrubbing technology;
(ii) the use of marine LNG as alternative fuel;
(iii) research and innovation;
(iv) evaluation of available financing opportunities;
(v) implementation of the Sulphur Directive, and
28
(vi) competitiveness.
The European Sulphur Directive entered into force in the existing European
Emissions Control Areas (ECAs) on 1 January 2015, and currently no serious problems
have been reported.
However, as more deadlines approach, there is a very real risk that owners may
make irrevocable investments in equipment/modifications only to encounter
technical problems and not be able to comply after all.
The shipping industry therefore urged the EC and the Member States to clarify how
they aim to effectively enforce the Sulphur Directive in a harmonised and fair
manner, both for deep sea and short sea vessels calling at EU ports in the ECA zones,
as well as for ships transiting through them, while clearly defining any limited
transitional arrangements for special cases. They also asked for clear guidelines on
scrubbers and alternative marine fuel.
Nitrogen Emissions
The Baltic Sea countries under the auspice of HELCOM have finalised (but not
submitted) a submission to IMO on the designation of the Baltic Sea as a NECA.
A submission to IMO for a Baltic NECA has been discussed between the EU
Commission and EU Member states internally and there has been no agreement on a
coordinated position amongst Baltic States – a roadmap is being considered.
The North Sea countries are in the process of assessing the opportunity to have a
similar submission to IMO on the designation of the North Sea as a NECA. The IMO
MEPC66 meeting agreed on a compromise amendment to MARPOL Annex VI
stipulating that TIER III requirement for newbuild ships will be based on the date of
adoption by the IMO of future new NECAs – 2016 remaining the reference year for
currently existing NECAs.
The North Sea seems to be moving at a faster rate than the Baltic. The North Sea
NECA Consultation Group met on 10 February 2015 in Oslo with the purpose of
further discussing the opportunity to designate the North Sea as a NECA.
29
Alternative Fuels - LNG Study - Refueling Points
In April 2015 the European Commission presented the preliminary results of a study
on the perception of the risks and opportunities of LNG as a shipping fuel. The
results show that stakeholders recognise the environmental advantages of LNG as a
shipping fuel, but are still uncertain as to whether they offer a clear business case. At
the meeting held during the European Shipping Week, the European Commission
discussed with LNG industry stakeholders the outcomes of the study.
The study takes into account the overall EU policy aiming at reductions of emissions
from shipping and looking for alternative energy sources, in view of growing
constraints on the use of heavy fuels. It also summarises recent legislation: Firstly,
the Directive on sulphur content in marine fuels (2012/33/EU ) which allows the
use of LNG as an alternative fuel to comply with more stringent emission standards.
Secondly, the Directive on deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure
(2014/94/EU ) which aims at ensuring minimum coverage of LNG refuelling points
in main maritime and inland ports across Europe by 2025 and 2030 respectively, with
common standards for their design and use. In connection with the latter, the
shipping industry had argued that the infrastructure should be in place by 2020 to
coincide with the entry info force date of the sulphur directive.
EU Energy Efficiency Directive
The EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) was published on 10 March 2015
and introduces Energy audits and energy management systems. All EU States will
have to implement the Directive requirements by 05 December 2015. Shipping
should have been exempted but discrepancies have been observed on how to deal
with maritime transport in the implementation process by EU Member States. The
shipping industry argues that the use of SEEMP and ISO 14001 standards should be
sufficient to comply with the Directive auditing requirements and consequently
exempt shipping from taking any additional measures.
30
Clean Air Package - Revision of the National Emissions
Ceilings Directive (NECD)
Through the closely monitored revision of the NECD, the Commission is attempting
to incentivise reduction of NOx and SO2 emissions as well as the emission of
particulate matters (PM2.5) from shipping.
The Directive had hitherto established a national ceiling for emissions at national
level. The current proposal on national emissions ceilings has proved more
controversial, and there is a gap emerging between what Parliament and Council
might view as an acceptable outcome.
With respect to the notable designation of NECA in Europe, the Commission may
intend to foster initiatives by MS through the revision of NEC Directive. Reportedly,
as no agreement is expected to be made in first reading, the Commission may
withdraw its proposal and come back at a later stage with a reviewed proposal
including, inter alia, additional ‘incentives’ for MS to reduce national NOx emission
level by offsetting shipping emissions. Such developments should be seen in the
context of the current discussions between MS on the designation of the North Sea
and the Baltic Sea as NECAs. In the EP the work is continuing.
The ENVI Committee published the draft report of the Rapporteur on 23 March. The
Vote in the ENVI Committee is expected on 15-16 July 2015 and in the EP Plenary as
from September 2015. The idea of introducing such offsetting scheme where landbased emissions are compensated by shipping to reduce national emission is
strongly opposed.
EU; Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation - Ballast Water
The Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species was published in the Official
Journal of the European Union on 4 November 2014 and entered into force on 1
January 2015. This Regulation seeks to address the problem of invasive alien species
in a comprehensive manner so as to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem
services, as well as to minimise and mitigate the human health or economic impacts
that these species can have. The Regulation dictates that a large proportion of
invasive alien species are introduced unintentionally into the Union and therefore it
is crucial to manage the pathways of unintentional introduction more effectively.
31
The European Commission has now put together a draft list of key IAS that can
supposedly be introduced through a shipping-related pathway (ballast water or
biofouling). Based on this draft list, the Commission is to put forward a formal
proposal for the list of key IAS by the end of the year. The European Commission (DG
ENV) is currently establishing an expert group to provide advice on implementation
of the IAS Regulation. Inter alia, the expert group is to include representatives of
companies and associations. The shipping industry will argue that shipping should be
exempted until the D-2 standard is fully implemented. The IMO Ballast Water
Convention has still not entered into force. At least, following the decisions of
MEPC68, shipowners can now have increased confidence that, when the Convention
enters into force, ships which have installed ‘first generation’ equipment in
accordance with existing IMO approval Guidelines will not be unfairly penalised. It
seems that there is also increased confidence that the future IMO type approval
process, for the expensive new treatment systems required, will be more robust as a
result of the new IMO Guidelines which are now being developed.
Possible Review of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD)
A Commission report on experience gained with the application of the ELD over the
past 11 years is expected to be issued in June or July. This report will be the basis for
discussion in the Council and the EP. The outcome of this discussion will provide a
basis for the EC to decide on the need for a revision of the ELD. Developments are
being monitored, in an effort to keep the current regime whereby ship-source
pollution should be dealt with in accordance with the relevant applicable IMO
Conventions on liability & compensation for pollution damage.
Proposed Repeal of the Exclusion of Seafarers from EU
Directives
Following more than five years of discussion, a public consultation and an
assessment, the European Commission has adopted a legislative proposal
Commission proposal to repeal existing exclusions of seafarers from five different
Directives, i.e. those relating to transfer of undertakings, collective redundancies,
information and consultation, European Works Council and insolvency.
However, ECSA, the shipowners representative, and ETF managed to reach a joint
agreement amending the Commission’s original legislative proposal. This agreement
32
was then presented to both bodies involved with transfer of undertakings, collective
redundancies, information and consultation, European Works Council and
Insolvency.
Council and the European Parliament. The Council adopted a general approach in
December 2014 taking the joint agreement fully into account. Discussions in the
European Parliament commenced on 22 January 2015, on the basis of the draft
report of Rapporteur Elisabeth Morin-Chartier. The Rapporteur also based herself on
the joint agreement, with a small exception relating to the Directive on European
Works’ Councils. On 1.4.2015, the European Employment and Social Affairs
Committee (EP EMPL) endorsed the Rapporteur’s report with some amendments.
The revised report is fully in line with the joint voting recommendations from
ECSA/ETF.
Consequently, on 15 April, the social attachés met in the Social Working Party to
discuss the Rapporteur’s report, as adopted by the EP EMPL Committee. The EP and
Council agreed on a compromise text in trialogue on 6 May. The text respects the
joint ECSA/ETF agreement that seafarers’ rights were already covered by dedicated
national legislation, by agreements between the social partners, and by the Maritime
Labour Convention. It argued that bringing seafarers within the scope of the EU
labour directives would create additional bureaucracy and lower the
competitiveness of the shipping sector.
SCTW Recognition of the Philippines
A potentially serious situation arises from the ongoing issue of the EU threatening to
withdraw STCW recognition of the Philippines which would mean that some 15,000
Masters and Officers currently employed onboard EU Member States’ vessels would
be unable to continue working.
By way of explanation, Directive 2001/25 on the minimum training level of seafarers
gives the European Commission the task of assessing training and certification
systems in third countries, in order to verify whether they comply with the
requirements of the STCW Convention. This EU wide recognition allows Member
States to recognise certificates issued by third countries. The Commission has
entrusted the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to conduct inspection visits,
33
to compile all relevant information on the implementation of the Convention. EMSA
audits in the Philippines have taken place against this background.
During 2013-2014 the Philippine authorities took various pertinent measures with
the result that the European Commission acknowledged the progress made by the
Philippines and gave them additional time to correct the outstanding deficiencies. In
return, the Philippines have to report on progress made at regular intervals. In
October, a new EMSA inspection took place in the Philippines. This inspection
acknowledged the progress made but also listed the outstanding issues that need to
be solved too. DK, NL, NO and DE have sent experts to assist the local authorities in
making progress.
Directive on Reporting Formalities for Ships Arriving at or
Departing from EU Ports
From 1st June 2015, ships calling at EU ports have the option to transmit reporting
formalities in electronic format.
EU Directive 2010/65/EC[i] on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or
departing from EU ports requires Member States to “accept the fulfillment of
reporting formalities in electronic format and their transmission via a single window
as soon as possible and in any case no later than 1 June 2015”.
The Directive aims at streamlining administrative procedures in the maritime
transport sector by simplifying the reporting of formalities and standardising their
transmission in electronic format.
However, the shipping industry has been voicing concerns at an apparently slow and
varying implementation of the Directive in the EU’s Member States. When setting up
their National Single Windows, Member States were not required to set up
compatible systems This has lead to a lack of clarity for shipowners on what
information they should report to each Member State, and how to deliver the
information.
34
In order to clarify the situation, key organisations representing European maritime
interests have sent a questionnaire to the Member States as regards i.a. the data
that has to be transmitted, the format, and possible transitional measures.
EU; Co-Ordination of Member-States at IMO
The European Commission and more recently the EU, have proposed in the past that
they should become Members of the IMO. Faced by opposition from Member States
and legal constraints to their accession, the issue has abated but not gone away.
However, the European Commission’s efforts to co-ordinate the Member States’
positions on IMO issues have never ceased. Up to 2013 the EU co-ordination on IMO
issues has been covered by a Commission staff document, issued in 2005, entitled,
“Procedural framework for the adoption of Community common positions for IMO
related issues and rules governing their expression in the IMO”. Several Member
States have made many reservations against this non-legislative document.
Subsequently, in April 2013, the European Commission informed Member States of
“emerging changes” – a result of adapting to the requirements of the Lisbon Treaty
to the EU coordination process and the scope of EU competence issues addressed in
the IMO. Under the changes, EU Member States can now only make reservations on
positions on issues considered to be within the competence of the Commission, and
are prohibited from speaking up individually at the IMO and expressing their own
views concerning such positions.
The shipping industry strongly opposes the principle of en-bloc EU voting at the IMO,
on the grounds that it convolutes the democratic process of the IMO and devalues
the maritime expertise of Member States. The industry’s opinion has been
repeatedly expressed.
Sanctions
Following the annexation of the Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia a ban on cruise services and
blacklisting of some ports was imposed as well as problems with passing the Strait of Kerch. A
review of blacklisting is expected in June 2015, as well as EU Guidelines on sanctions on trade
with Russia.
The prolongation of a partial suspension of sanctions on trade with Iran ends on 30/06/2015
when a decision is expected.
35
European Ports Policy
In May, 2013, the European Commission published the long-awaited Ports Package
III. This followed two previous attempts by the Commission to liberalise port services
that were both rejected by the European Parliament due to political pressure against
the package, in particular by the trade unions and various European coastal regions.
This package includes a communiqué, “Ports: an engine for growth” and a proposal
for a regulation on “Establishing a framework on market access to ports services and
financial transparency of ports”.
Significantly, this package does not include provisions on the adequacy of port
reception facilities and does not propose the freedom to provide port services as far
as cargo handling and passenger services are concerned. Port reception facilities
(PRF) will therefore still be addressed in a review of the PRF Directive. In the context
of the general modernisation of State aid rules, the Commission was due to clarify
the rules applicable to port infrastructure financing by the end of 2013. Also, in the
context of the general modernisation of State aid rules, the Commission is expected
to clarify the rules applicable to port infrastructure financing.
The European Commission, in an effort to avoid repeating the mistakes of previous
failed attempts in 2003 and 2006, when its proposals were ultimately rejected,
adopted a more cautious approach on its third charge. This led to the above
piecemeal approach that was supposed to fare better than the two previous ones,
but still encountered strong reactions from MEPs and ultimately led to the
suspension of the legislative procedure in March last year.
The Council adopted a General Approach on 8 October 2014. The text agreed upon is
a seriously weakened version of the original Commission proposal. The EP has
started to work on the file again. A first discussion took place in early May and the
Rapporteur’s draft report was made public at the end of May. He recommends the
omission of all references to market access rules.
36
In brief, ECSA states that while they understand the Commission’s wariness and
caution, they, nevertheless, remain convinced that an EU ports reform package
should be more ambitious than the current proposal, which only addresses some of
the real problems faced by port users in EU ports.
More specifically, EU shipowners ask MEPs to push for a balanced market access
chapter in the Regulation, as restrictive practices and legal obstacles continue to
hamper access to services in several EU ports. Far from advocating an unbridled
liberalisation of the port services market, shipowners, are in favour of a reasonable,
more measured approach, based on the principle of openness. This liberalisation
would not eliminate restriction on the grounds of safety and other considerations. It
would merely ensure that they are applied in a justifiable, proportional and
transparent manner.
Shipowners also ask MEPs not to exclude any port services from the text under
consideration. Cargo-handling and passenger services, absent from the initial
proposal, are the most significant part of port call costs. Hence, they should be
included in and covered by an EU ports Regulation. Moreover services already
included in the proposed text, such as pilotage, towage and mooring, should remain
firmly within the scope of the Regulation, and, for safety or public service reasons,
should not be dismissed, as the proposal already includes the necessary provisions to
take these aspects into account in an appropriate manner.
Financial transparency for port funding is another major issue in this proposal and
shipowners see no reason why the rules thereon should only apply to major
European ports.
Finally the EU shipping industry not only supports the design of a mechanism that
ensures that users are heard by the managing bodies of port and port service
providers, but also highlights the need for independent supervision of port managing
bodies as a counterweight to their natural monopoly.
The paper concludes that the current proposal, whatever its final form, only
addresses a selection of port-related topics. Other issues, such as the simplification
of administrative procedures, the completion of the internal market for shipping and
the use of pilotage exemption certificates are part and parcel of a comprehensive EU
37
port policy. Given the essential role ports play as gateways for global and intra-EU
trade, they firmly believe that the EU should pursue its efforts aimed at a more
efficient EU ports system with unwavering determination.
ECSA's input can be found here
Port Reception Facilities (PRF) - Revision of the PRF
Directive
Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities was supposed to have been
implemented by the end of 2002, but many ports have yet to comply. In response,
the European Commission decided to review the existing Directive.
,In addition to inadequate facilities, the problems faced, are well known and include:
-
Compulsory delivery ashore of all waste (including small quantities) even
when it can be demonstrated that ships have sufficient onboard capacity to
proceed to the next port;
-
Dismissed Waste Management Plan;
-
Waste segregated onboard - No waste segregation available ashore;
-
Difficulties in obtaining exemption certificates for regular services and
execution of exemption;
-
Application of the fees - disincentive for ships to discharge ashore;
compulsory charging irrespective of delivering waste to the port facilities and
irrelevant charging based on ships’ GT;
-
Administrative problems, such as the absence of reporting standardised
forms.
The review followed the usual route, i.e. an EMSA workshop, an assessment on the
economic and environmental impacts, and a stakeholder online consultation.
However, last summer, it was announced that the long-lasting revision process of
the Port Reception Facilities Directive had been postponed by the Commission
services. This decision resulted from the fact that due to a dysfunction of the
Commission’s internal procedures, the impact assessment was not strong enough to
be brought to the review of the Commission Impact Assessment Board.
38
The Commission DG MOVE has reinitiated the impact assessment process of the PRF
Directive. In this context, the European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF) agreed to
the establishment of a new technical subgroup on Port Reception Facilities. This
subgroup will provide expert input to the REFIT exercise and the long-awaited
revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive. Up to now some preliminary
conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation of the PRF Directive were
presented by the EC consultant. In addition, the Commission presented the planned
revision of Annex II PRF Directive, to align with MARPOL Annex V and IMO Circulars
644 and 645, and to support the CIMS (Common Information and Monitoring
System).
Places of refuge
In Europe, the existing measures on paces of refuge are contained in the European
Community Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information System (Directive 2002/59/EC
as amended by Directive 2009/17/EC (“the VTM Directive”)).
Among other things, the VTM Directive provides that non-availability of a place of
refuge may have serious consequences in the event of an accident at sea. Member
States should therefore draw up and implement plans whereby ships in distress may,
if the situation so requires, be given refuge in their ports or any other sheltered area
in the best conditions possible. Where necessary and feasible, these plans should
include the provision of adequate means and facilities for assistance, salvage and
pollution response (Article 20). Moreover, these plans and procedures are to be
established by the competent authority on the basis of IMO Resolutions A.949(23)
and A.950(23). In this way, the VTM Directive imports the list of criteria in the IMO
POR Guidelines, which is to be given due consideration when deciding on providing a
place of refuge.
As a result of these provisions, EU Member States may not issue an outright refusal
of a place of refuge but instead are obliged to perform an initial assessment on the
basis of certain parameters prior to making a decision on accommodating a ship in
distress.
Significantly, the EU VTM Directive also states that the safety of human life and the
environment are the overriding concerns, and issues of financial security, whilst
important, are of secondary concern.
39
Despite the above provisions there is a dearth of places of refuge, and consequently
in 2013, a dedicated “Cooperation Group on places of refuge” was established to
discuss operational and legal issues connected to places of refuge. The Group
comprises Member States and its main focus is on operational and technical issues.
Recently further progress was made with the drafting of Operational Guidelines on
Places of Refuge by Member States, in cooperation with DG MOVE. A meeting with
the industry was held in Brussels in January 2015. The draft Guidelines are being
revised in the light of the comments made by stakeholders. A new version is
expected to be issued soonest. The Guidelines will be a living document, which will
be modified in the light of experience gained.
Basel III
"Basel II- III" is a set of reform measures, developed by the Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision, to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management
of the banking sector in reaction to the financial crisis. Specifically, Basel III dates
from December, 2010 and is implemented in different phases between 2013 and
2019.
The implementation of Basel III in Europe is done through the Capital Requirements
package (CRD4 package consists of Regulation 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36).
The package entered into force on 1st January, 2014. Some of the new provisions will
be phased-in between 2014 and 2019.
Basel III/CRD 4 sets new rules with regard to the financing of ships. It puts forward
higher credit risk protection requirements for shipping as compared with real estate.
Basel III Shipping is facing unfair discrimination and regulatory disadvantages
deriving from the application of the EU capital requirements legislation (Capital
Requirements Regulation 575/2013, implementing Basel III Convention) due to rules
on exposure secured by ship mortgages.
40
National Associations have asked to send letters on the problem to national banking
authorities. ECSA has sent letters to the responsible EU bodies and contributed in
March 2015 to the consultation on revisions to the standardised approach for credit
risk the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision undertook.
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
EMSA published its Work Programme_2015.pdf which besides describing the wellknown tasks of EMSA and the purpose of its activities in the fields of maritime safety,
security and pollution prevention and response, it also gives information about what
is in the pipeline – i.e. development and review of existing tasks and new tasks
which, according to political decisions, may be entrusted to EMSA.
Developments in the USA
There were no major developments in the US from a regulatory point of view during
the year, although concerns remain about the regulation on the treatment of ballast
water, the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and various sanctions. Anticipated
difficulties regarding the implementation of Annex VI of MARPOL and, in particular,
regarding ECAs, have not materialised, although the USCG is enforcing compliance
with the regulation very vigorously and has issued fines for non-compliance.
Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the absolute sulphur content of fuel
oil used onboard ships does not exceed the limits stipulated under Regulation 14.4
of MARPOL Annex VI. In addition, it is advisable that clear entries are made in the Oil
Record Book whilst also ensuring that Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs) are in good
order as documentary proof of the vessel’s compliance with the requirements. For
ships using separate fuel oils to comply with the ECA requirements, proper
changeover procedures for entry into an ECA should be carried out and recorded in
accordance with Regulation 14.6 of MARPOL Annex VI. Eye watering fines, in respect
of oily water separators continue to be issued at regular intervals.
The second Obama term of office, did not produce critical proposals on
environmental issues, as was predicted by some.
41
Ballast Water Management
Following the conclusion of the May 2015 session of the IMO MEPC, the
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) voiced its fears that the unilateral stance
taken at the meeting by the United States, regarding the progress on ballast water
implementation problems, may actually have the opposite effect.
ICS believes that at the conclusion of the MEPC session, shipowners can now have
increased confidence that, when the Convention enters into force, ships which have
installed ‘first generation’ equipment in accordance with existing IMO approval
Guidelines will not be unfairly penalised. ICS said it was also increasingly confident
that the future IMO type-approval process, for the expensive new treatment systems
required, will be more robust as a result of the new IMO Guidelines which are now
being developed.
The roadmap agreed by IMO Member States shows that at last there is widespread
recognition that it is unreasonable to expect shipowners to invest millions of dollars
per ship without any certainty that the treatment equipment will not have to be
completely replaced in a matter of years, and that ships will not face sanctions due
to circumstances beyond their control.
“However, ICS fears that the potential impact of the progress made by IMO was
partially undermined by the United States placing a formal reservation on the
outcome. ICS and indeed the entire industry suspects the problems that exist with
respect to the separate US approval regime still make it unlikely that flag states
which have not yet ratified the IMO Convention will wish to do so in the immediate
future given that shipowners under their flags, which trade to the United States,
could still be unfairly penalised.
The US regulations require all ships that discharge ballast water into US waters
within 12 miles of the coast, to use a treatment system approved by the United
States Coast Guard (USCG). However, because (at the time of writing) no systems
have yet been fully approved, ships already required to comply with the US
regulations have either been granted extensions for fitting the required treatment
systems or else have been permitted to install a USCG authorised Alternate
Management System (AMS), in practice a system type-approved in accordance with
the current IMO Guidelines.
42
However, an AMS will only be accepted for operation for five years, after which time
a fully USCG approved system must be installed. But the USCG does not guarantee
that an AMS will be subsequently granted full approval. Hence shipowners that may
have installed an AMS in good faith, at a cost of between US $1-5 million per ship,
might then have to replace the system completely after only 5 years. This is a
particular concern for operators that have installed ultra-violet systems. There are
over 50 treatment systems approved under the current IMO regime, but worryingly
fewer than 20 manufacturers have so far indicated their intent to submit their
systems for US approval.
As was helpfully identified in a submission to IMO by Canada (which is a Party to the
BWM Convention), the conflicting IMO and US requirements, when combined with
the lack of systems fully approved by the USCG, could produce an impossible
situation in which some ships might not be able to operate in US waters when the
IMO Convention enters in force.
In March 2015, ICS and the Round Table of international shipping associations had a
high level meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in Washington
DC, in order to highlight these critical issues. In co-operation with the Chamber of
Shipping of America, ICS will continue to liaise closely with the US authorities on
finding solutions to this very serious problem. The GSCC, while supporting the round
table efforts, has also made an individual effort to highlight the problem, and has
argued that while it and other problems exist, Member States should refrain from
signing the Convention.
The background is as follows. The Coast Guard's Final Rule on the Standards for
Living Organisms in Ship’s Ballast Water Discharged in US Waters, was issued on
March 23, 2012 in the Federal Register, Volume 7, No. 57 and became effective 90
thereafter, i.e., on June 21, 2012. A copy of the Final Rule is available at
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/html/2012-6579.htm.
The US Coast Guard regulations regarding ballast water management, set forth in 33
C.F.R. Part 151 and 46 C.F.R. Part 162, establish a standard for the allowable
concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships in waters of
the United States, consistent with the International Maritime Organization’s
43
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water
and Sediments (“BWM Convention”), which is not yet in effect. Pursuant to the
regulations, all commercial vessels, US and foreign flag, that are equipped with
ballast tanks and that operate in the waters of the United States must employ one of
the following ballast water management methods, with certain exceptions described
below:

Install and operate a ballast water management system (BWMS) that has
been approved by the Coast Guard;

Use only water from a US public water system as ballast water. Vessels using
water from a US public water system must meet certain tank cleanliness
requirements and use such water exclusively;

Perform complete ballast water exchange in an area 200 nautical miles from
any shore prior to discharging ballast water, unless the vessel is required to
employ an approved BWMS in accordance with the attendant
implementation schedule. An alternate management system ("AMS") may
also be used provided it was installed on the vessel prior to the date that the
vessel is required to comply with the BWMS installation schedule;

Do not discharge ballast water into waters of the United States;

Discharge all ballast water to a facility onshore or to another vessel for
purposes of treatment.
Crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade and vessels that operate exclusively
within one Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone are exempt from the ballast water
management requirements, as well as reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In addition, non-seagoing vessels, vessels that take on and discharge ballast water
exclusively in one COTP Zone, and seagoing vessels that operate in more than one
COTP Zone, do not operate outside the EEZ, and are less than or equal to 1,600 gross
register tons or less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons are exempt from the ballast
water management requirements. However, these vessels must still comply with all
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
As noted above, the ballast water exchange method will be allowed only until the
implementation deadlines for BWMSs. After the applicable implementation date,
the option to conduct mid-ocean exchange as ballast water management method is
limited to those vessels that are not required to employ an approved ballast water
management system. However, the Coast Guard may allow the use of ballast water
exchange as a contingency in the case of an emergency. With few exceptions, the
44
alternative methods discussed above are not seen as practicable for most vessel
operations.
A vessel’s compliance date varies based on the date of construction and ballast
water capacity, and whether the Coast Guard issues an extension as discussed
below. All new vessels constructed on or after December 1, 2013, regardless of
ballast water capacity, must comply on delivery. Existing vessels with a ballast water
capacity between 1500 and 5000 cubic meters must comply by the first scheduled
drydocking after January 1, 2014. As such, many vessels are already subject to the
Coast Guard’s requirements for BWMSs. Existing vessels with a ballast water
capacity less than 1,500 cubic meters or greater than 5,000 cubic meters must
comply by the first scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016.
Ballast water treatment must be conducted using either a Coast Guard typeapproved system or a system type approved by another Administration which the
Coast Guard has accepted, referred to Alternate Management System (“AMS”). At
this time, there are no BWMSs type-approved by the Coast Guard and there are
more than 50 AMSs that have been accepted by the Coast Guard. A vessel with an
AMS installed may use that ballast water management system for a period of five
years beyond the date when the vessel would otherwise be required to comply with
the Coast Guard ballast water discharge requirements noted above.
Although AMSs are approved by other Administrations in accordance with the IMO’s
guidelines for approval of BWMSs, known as the G8 Guidelines, it is not guaranteed
that they will be type-approved by the Coast Guard, which uses a different testing
protocol. The Coast Guard’s testing protocol, called ETV or Environmental
Technology Verification, is based on the G8 Guidelines, but includes more stringent
requirements, such as independent testing and an emphasis on quality control and
assurance. The IMO is also undergoing review and possible revisions to the G8
Guidelines at the request of a number of Administrations.
With regard to the Great Lakes, all non-recreational vessels, US and foreign flag, that
are equipped with ballast tanks and that operate beyond the EEZ during any part of
their voyage prior to entering the Great Lakes or Hudson River must meet the ballast
water management requirements outlined above. Vessels operating solely within
the Great Lakes and the Canadian EEZ, and that are less than or equal to 1,600 gross
register tons or less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons ITC, are exempt from the
45
ballast water management requirements. Additionally, vessels utilising BWMSs must
also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing in addition to treating their
ballast water in certain cases where the vessel operates outside the EEZ and more
than 200 nm from any shore prior to it entering the Great Lakes.
The ballast water management regulations allow the Coast Guard to grant
extensions to the compliance of the implementation schedule for up to five years
from the vessels’ scheduled implementation date. However, supplemental
extensions may be approved for good cause. Applications for extensions must be
made at least 12 months before the vessel’s scheduled implementation date and
supplemental applications must be made at least 90 days prior to the end of the
extension period.
In addition to the Coast Guard’s ballast water management regulations, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) includes ballast water management
requirements in its Vessel General Permit (“VGP”). The Coast Guard’s and the EPA’s
numeric ballast water discharge limits are the same, and the ballast water
management methods are similar. However, the EPA is not granting extensions, and
extensions granted by the Coast Guard are not binding on the EPA for the purposes
of the VGP. Unlike the Coast Guard requirement for type approvals, the EPA
requires the use of “Best Available Technology,” which includes the AMSs. As a
result, the EPA has published an Enforcement Response Policy on December 27,
2013 stating that if a vessel which has received an extension from the Coast Guard, is
not in compliance with the VGP’s ballast water numeric discharge limit, and is
otherwise in compliance with all other provisions of the VGP, EPA will consider such
violations of the numeric discharge limit as a “low enforcement priority.”
A number of states have also implemented additional or more stringent ballast
water management requirements than those mandated by the Coast Guard and the
EPA. Twenty-five states have submitted specific ballast water management
requirements applicable to state waters, in addition to the requirements in the
VGP. Vessels operating in these states must comply with state specific
requirements.
46
California: Marine Invasive Species Act
Specifically with regard to California, in addition to the federal requirements,
California’s Marine Invasive Species Act includes additional ballast water
management requirements for vessels over 300 gross tons. Vessels must use one of
the following ballast water management options:

retain all ballast water;

conduct ballast water exchange;

use an approved alternative treatment method; or

discharge ballast water at the same location where the ballast water
originated.
Vessels arriving from outside the Pacific Coast Region and vessels with ballast water
originating from an EEZ outside the Pacific Coast Region must exchange ballast water
more than 200 nm from land in waters at least 2,000 m deep. Vessels arriving from
within the Pacific Coast Region with ballast water from the Pacific Coast Region must
exchange ballast water more than 50 nm from land in waters at least 200 m deep.
Notably, unlike federal ballast water management regulations which do not require a
vessel to deviate from its voyage or delay the voyage in order to conduct ballast
water exchange, California does not provide for such an exemption for vessel
deviation. Vessels arriving at California ports must therefore conduct ballast water
management in accordance with California regulations regardless of whether such
management would result in deviation or delay of the voyage.
Vessels must also submit a Ballast Water Treatment Supplemental Reporting form
upon departure from a California port or place, along with the US Coast Guard
Ballast Water Reporting Form, annual California Ballast Water Treatment Technology
Reporting and Hull Husbandry Reporting Forms.
US Protectionism
At the end of December 2014, President Obama approved amendments to the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act and the Deepwater Port Act, which require
the US Secretary of Transportation to develop a programme to promote the carriage
of US LNG exports on US vessels by giving priority to applications for deepwater
export terminals to those which propose to utilise U.S flag ships. This despite the fact
47
that the United States does not currently have any national flag LNG carriers that
serve international deep sea trades.
The ICS has pointed out that, “by linking the carriage of LNG to terminal approvals,
the intention would seem to be that applications by energy exporters which refer to
the use of ships that have a US interest – perhaps featuring the use of American
crews – will be given preferential treatment, which does not seem to be in the spirit
of accepted free trade principles. At first sight, the practical implications of the
amendments may seem limited since they currently only apply to deepwater
facilities. Nevertheless, the seemingly protectionist sentiment behind them is of
concern, given that efforts continue to be made within Congress to extend this
unhelpful provision to the approval process for shore based facilities, under the
supervision of the Department of Energy. There is a worry, moreover, that this could
set an unhelpful precedent which could prove very important should the US
eventually permit the export of crude oil, which at some point in the future is an
increasing possibility. There is also a danger that the approach being taken by the US
could be emulated by other nations. In March 2015, the ICS Chairman therefore
wrote to the US Maritime Administrator urging the US Administration to discourage
any further attempts in Congress to introduce such changes, and take the concerns
of U.S trading partners into account as it develops its programme to promote the use
of U.S flag ships.”
Chamber of Shipping of America (CSA)
The CSA continues to represent the shipping industry’s interest in the United States,
and information on developments is provided in their monthly reports to the
International Chamber of Shipping, extracts of which the GSCC secretariat passes on
to its member offices.
China
There is concern about China’s new policy on scrapping and subsidies for
newbuildings. Large subsidies are now being given to Chinese owners if they scrap
inefficient ships and replace the same tonnage with newbuildings at Chinese yards.
Given the size of China this could have consequences for the market, where there is
already an oversupply of ships versus cargoes. The situation is difficult because, in
fact, China does not contravene WTO obligations.
48
China also seems to be getting serious regarding environmental issues, which is a
positive development, however it has a tendency of introducing new rules suddenly,
and these are not always very clear.
Canals
In the past, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) was severely criticised by the industry
for taking it by surprise in springing increases of tolls and restructuring. It is a sign of
progress that in May the CPA published its final official proposal outlining changes to
the structure and quantum of tolls to be introduced when the major project to
expand the Panama Canal is finally completed (probably in 2016), following more
than two years of dialogue with the industry. Even more so, as it appears that quite a
lot of the industry’s comments were taken onboard.
The Suez Canal Authority’s (SCA) announced in a timely manner, its decision not to
increase tolls for ships transiting in 2015. This is very welcome since, in recent years,
the SCA has also tended to announce regular toll increases without consultation and
with little advance notice. The SCA has announced that work has started to deepen
the existing canal in some places, and to create an additional channel which will run parallel to
the existing canal, for 72km of its length. The intention is to increase vessel transits to 85 per
day, to speed up transit time and to allow vessels of up to 66ft in draft. In addition, investment in
the ports and areas surrounding the canal is being encouraged, so as to create a wider logistics
hub.
IMO – International Developments
Over the past year, significant international regulations have been implemented or
have progressed towards implementation. These include reduction of air emissions,
ballast water treatment requirements, the revised Annex VI of MARPOL, the revised
STCW, the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, etc. At IMO, the limelight was on
passenger ship safety, migrants and refugees, the Ebola virus disease, piracy, as well
as the adoption of the mandatory Polar Code. There were no proposals for new
controversial regulations, but serious implementation problems are yet to be resolved,
particularly in connection with the Ballast Water Convention, the associated US
regulations, and the implementation of the Sulphur regulations. The technological
solutions in response to the environmental requirements are dizzying in number and
complexity, thus making selection very difficult indeed. The shipping industry is
sailing in unchartered waters.
49
This is the 50th year of the establishment of IMO, and there is a general feeling that
some changes need to be made. At IMO, its Council, meeting for its 113th session,
agreed on a number of recommendations for action following a public consultation in
which IMO sought widespread input on the administrative burdens that may result
from compliance with IMO instruments. The consultation gathered data from a broad
spectrum of stakeholders. IMO recognises that some administrative requirements
contained in IMO instruments may have become unnecessary, disproportionate or
even obsolete, and is committed to reducing their impact.
The final report of the consultation was presented to the Council, which agreed to
consider the development of a draft Assembly resolution, to reflect some of the
recommendations from the report, and took forward a number of the
recommendations. In particular, the Council agreed:

That the Organization should consider a clear policy target for universal
acceptance of electronic recording of information, as a full alternative to paper
versions, taking into account implementation and enforcement criteria and
security protocols;

To encourage the responsible committees to review pertinent administrative
requirements, with a view to reducing administrative burdens;

That the Organization should take account of the possible impact of an
accumulation of administrative requirements, in particular in the consideration
of proposals for developing new, or amending existing, mandatory
instruments, and continuously to take account of such possible impact in
developing new, or amending existing, mandatory instruments;

That the Committees should take account of the possible indirect impact of
non-mandatory instruments in the consideration of proposals for developing
new, or amending existing, non mandatory instruments; continuously to take
account of such possible indirect impact in developing new, or amending
existing, non-mandatory instruments.
Further information will be made available on IMO’s website at:
www.imo.org/OurWork/rab/Pages/default.aspx
In addition to the IMO’s self-examination, there is growing concern throughout the
shipping industry that something might be wrong with the quality and quantity of
some recent regulations. All too often, the industry has seen regulatory proposals by
governments and especially by the EU, being taken forward without any real evidence
that the IMO principle of compelling need has been observed, when assessed against
the economic impacts and the actual benefits delivered. The ICS estimates that the
cost to the global shipping industry of implementing new environmental rules is
expected to amount to over US $500 billion over the next decade, something which
was definitely not fully considered when these rules were adopted by IMO. A case in
point is the adoption of the Ballast Water Management Convention and the
subsequent implementation problems.
During the course of 2015, ICS is therefore planning to submit a proposal to the IMO
Council, suggesting a new approach towards the development of future regulations. In
particular, ICS will suggest that far more emphasis should be given, when rule
50
changes are proposed, to full and proper regulatory impact assessments, which take
greater account of the economic sustainability of maritime transport. ICS will also
suggest that more attention might be given by IMO Member States to the practicality
and timescale allowed for the implementation of new regulations.
The current IMO rule making process depends almost exclusively on an interested
Member State making a proposal to the appropriate IMO Committee for a ‘new work
item’. But according to ICS, the ‘compelling need’ for a new proposal is rarely given
more than cursory scrutiny by other Member States, and it is telling that proposals for
new work items are very rarely subsequently rejected. Maritime safety and
environmental protection are of the utmost importance, but future regulations should
be consistent with the philosophy of the United Nations with respect to sustainable
development, which is that the environmental, social and economic pillars of
development are all inextricably linked. The future regulatory process at IMO
therefore needs to reflect this.
The IMO Member State Audit Scheme will become a mandatory scheme from 1
January 2016. To date, 86 Member States have so far volunteered for audit,
representing 50% of the Membership of the Organization, and 71 audits have been
conducted, including 63 Member States, two Associate Members, five dependent
territories and a second audit of a Member State.
Election of Secretary-General
The present incumbent, Mr. Koji Sekimizu, ends his four-year term as SecretaryGeneral on 31 December 2015, and, for personal reasons, does not wish to stand for
re-election. Subsequently, by the established deadline of 31 March 2015, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has received the nominations of six
candidates, nominated by their Governments for the position of Secretary-General of
IMO. The election for the post will be held at the 114th session of the 40 member
strong IMO Council, which meets from 29 June to 3 July 2015. The nominations
received are listed below, in alphabetical order, by candidates’ surname:
Candidate
Mr. Andreas Chrysostomou
Mr. Vitaly Klyuev
Mr. Ki-tack Lim
Dr. Maximo Q. Mejia, Jr.
Mr. Andreas Nordseth
Mr. Juvenal Shiundu
Government
Republic of Cyprus
Russian Federation
Republic of Korea
Republic of the Philippines
Kingdom of Denmark
Republic of Kenya
Insurance
Winding Up of IOPC Fund, 1971
Following a controversial decision, in October 2014, to wind up the 71 Fund, the final
meeting of the former Member States of the 1971 Fund was held at IMO headquarters
on 17 April 2015. Following that meeting, a special session was held to commemorate
the 36 years of operation of the 1971 Fund. At its peak the 1971 Fund had 77 Member
States. It dealt with more than 100 incidents including the “Haven” (Italy 1991), the
“Aegean Sea” (Spain 1992), and “Braer” (United Kingdom 1993). Over a 36-year
51
lifespan, the 71 Fund paid some £331 million in compensation. The 71 Fund closed to
new incidents in 2002, when Member States denounced it in favour of the 1992 Fund.
The main reason was to increase the compensation levels available.
The 92 Fund today covers over 100 Member States. The innovation of a bespoke
compensation system for victims of oil spills, established by the 1969 CLC and 71
Fund Conventions and their successors, is a tribute to the responsible attitude of the
shipping industry. At its bedrock, is the ability of shipowners to limit their liability, in
consideration of prompt payment to the victims of pollution.
This is why the winding up of the 1971 Fund by the end of 2014 was met with
concern by the GSCC, the International Group of P&I Clubs, IUMI, ICS and the
many governments that had called for the winding up to be postponed, while incidents
remained pending, i.e. where interim payments made by Clubs were disputed by the
Fund, and the cases remained unresolved.
The case for postponement had not been helped by the news that the English High
Court had found against the Gard P&I Club in its proceedings against the 1971 Fund,
in relation to the “Nissos Amorgos” incident. The High Court found that there was no
legally enforceable contract between the Gard Club and the Fund, by which the Fund
would be required to reimburse the Club for any interim payments that had been made
to claimants in excess of the shipowner’s limit of liability. The Court also held that,
had such a contract existed, it would not have fallen within the exceptions to the
Fund’s immunity from suit in the UK and, accordingly, the Courts of England and
Wales had no jurisdiction over the Club’s claim against the Fund.
However, although the English High Court had found that there was no legally
enforceable contract, the judgment recognised that there was a “consecutive payment
arrangement” between the Clubs in the International Group and the Fund. It was
noted in the judgment that there had been a mutual expectation (i.e. on the part of both
the Gard Club and the Fund) that this arrangement would be followed in the “Nissos
Amorgos” case, and that any payments over the CLC limit and up to the Fund limit
would rest with the Fund. The Judge’s concluding remarks were totally in line with
the shipping and insurance industries’ position that the prompt compensation of
claimants in major incidents has depended to a great extent on the co-operation that
exists between the IG Clubs and the Fund, and that the continuing successful
operation of the 1992 CLC/Fund regime could be jeopardised if those parties were to
insist on their strict legal rights.
The IG made a formal statement at the conclusion of the discussion, regretting the
outcome, and noting that if the IG Clubs were minded to even consider making
interim payments, this would be on terms that there is a legally binding and
enforceable agreement in place, to reimburse sums to the Club paid in excess of the
shipowners’ limits, coupled with a waiver by the Fund of the right to rely on
immunity from suit.
This could have serious consequences, because if the text of the CLC and Fund
Conventions were strictly followed, shipowners, through their P&I Clubs, would pay
the limitation amount into court, and the court would decide the claims and then pay
the amounts due to the claimants. In a major incident with multiple claims, this could
52
cause serious delay in providing compensation, potentially resulting in significant
hardship for claimants, when they could already be in difficult circumstances.
2010 HNS Protocol Guidelines
In 2013, the IMO Adopted Reporting guidelines on the submission of HNS
contributing cargo, for the implementation of the 2010 Protocol on Hazardous and
Noxious Substances (HNS).
Specifically, the guidelines on HNS reporting were developed and adopted at a two
day workshop convened jointly by the Secretariats of IMO and the International Oil
Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds), and held at IMO in October 2012. The
guidelines were aimed at facilitating the submission by States to the SecretaryGeneral of contributing cargo data for the purposes of article 20(4) and (6) of the
2010 HNS Protocol.
The guidelines were expected to help in overcoming one of the main obstacles
preventing States from ratifying the Protocol, namely the difficulty of complying with
this reporting requirement, particularly in view of the enormous variety of HNS
substances that are potentially subject to the reporting requirement.
In November 2013, the 101st Session of the IMO Legal Committee endorsed a
proposal to reconstitute the HNS Correspondence Group, in order to maintain
momentum concerning efforts to promote entry into force of the Convention, facilitate
co-ordination and dialogue amongst states, and to assist the IOPC Funds in their task
to facilitate the entry into force. With the 2007 Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention
coming into force in April 2015, the 2010 HNS Convention was also mentioned at the
meeting, as the remaining gap in the international liability and compensation regime.
The Correspondence Group will report at the next session of the committee.
At the last session of the IMO Legal Committee in April 2015, the Committee
encouraged Member States to ratify and bring the Convention, which to date remains
ungratified, into force, as soon as possible. The 2010 HNS Convention would fill the
remaining gap in the global liability and compensation regime for international
shipping.
The work of the HNS Correspondence Group and the IOPC Funds to support
implementation was welcomed, in particular, the creation of the HNS Protocol Blog
(http://hnsprotocol.wordpress.com) as a forum for States and observer delegations to
exchange ideas, best practices, and to collaborate on solutions to promote the
Convention and facilitate its entry into force.
The HNS Correspondence Group was formally re-established, with a mandate to
continue its work as a forum for exchange of information, and to provide guidance
and assistance on issues regarding the implementation and operation of the
Convention. The Group was also asked to develop a user guide to the 2010 HNS
Convention ("Understanding the HNS Convention"); HNS scenarios; and a draft
resolution on implementation and entry into force of the 2010 HNS Convention.
53
Wreck Removal Convention
As of 6 June 2015, the Bahamas became the 22nd Contracting State to the Nairobi
International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (WRC).
The Convention, which entered into force in April this year, places strict liability on
owners for locating, marking and removing wrecks deemed to be a hazard and makes
State certification of insurance, or other forms of financial security for such liability,
compulsory for ships of 300 gross tonnage and above. The 22 Contracting States now
represent 37.64% of world merchant shipping tonnage.
Pursuant to Article 12 of the WRC:
“The registered owner of a ship of 300 gross tonnage and above and flying the flag of
a State Party shall be required to maintain insurance or other financial security, such
as a guarantee of a bank or similar institution, to cover liability under this Convention
in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or
international limitation regime, but in all cases not exceeding an amount calculated in
accordance with article 6(1)(b) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for
Maritime Claims, 1976, as amended.”
It is also a requirement to obtain a certificate from a WRC State Party, attesting to
such insurance. This means that in practice, all ships have to be provided with
certificates. All International Group Clubs agreed to issue Blue Cards so that
Members may apply for a WRC certificate. Certificates are to be obtained from the
State in which a ship is registered, providing the State is party to the Convention.
Such certificates are to be issued or certified by the appropriate authority of the State
of the ship’s registry. Ships registered in countries that are not parties need to obtain a
certificate from a relevant authority in a State Party to the convention that agrees to
issue them.
CMI: York Antwerp Rules of General Average (YAR)
The York Antwerp Rules of General Average (YAR), which allocate the costs of
dealing with a maritime casualty among the parties that benefit from the ship and
cargo being saved, were last reviewed in 2004 to strong opposition by the shipowning
organisations. As a result, most contracts of carriage still incorporate the 1994
version.
The Comité Maritime International (CMI) is currently carrying out a general review
of the YAR, aiming to draft a new set of rules which ‘will meet the requirements of
the ship and cargo interests and their respective insurers’, with a view to adoption at
the 2016 CMI Conference.
There is little appetite within the industry for a comprehensive overhaul of the present
system of General Average, or indeed new rules. However, the review has now passed
the halfway stage, with work on the preparation of a draft text for the proposed new
set of YAR due to begin. Work has been focused on making practical improvements,
for example on financial issues (commission, interest, currency of adjustment), and on
areas that have been controversial in the past, including the rules concerning salvage,
and the wages and maintenance of crew at a place of refuge. Throughout the
discussions, ICS has taken the position that a compelling need must be demonstrated
for any changes proposed, and that such changes must deliver clear improvement on
54
the present system if a new set of Rules is to be supported. Discussions will continue
at a CMI Colloquium taking place in Istanbul in June 2015.
Environment - Safety
IMO Technical and Operational Measures For The Reduction Of CO2
Emissions From Ships – New Chapter Four Of Annex VI Of MARPOL/
EEDI-SEEMP
The IMO’s so-called Technical and Operational Measures to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from international shipping, which apply to all ships of 400
gross tons and above, entered into force on 1 January 2013. The pertinent amendment
to the MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships,
added a new Chapter 4 on Regulations, covering the energy efficiency for ships,
which makes 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.
Under regulation 19, the Administration may waive the requirement for new ships of
400 gross tons and above to comply with the EEDI requirements1. This waiver may
not be applied to ships above 400 gross tons for which:

The building contract is placed four years after the entry into force date of
Chapter 4;

The keel is laid or is at a similar stage of construction four years and six
months after the entry into force;

The delivery is after six years and six months after the entry into force or

The major conversion of a new or existing ship is four years after the entry
into force date.
As with other IMO regulations, a ship’s flag state is ultimately responsible for
ensuring that it is compliant with EEDI. Compliance is demonstrated by the issuance
of an International Energy Efficiency Certificate (IEEC) by a verifier (maritime
administration or classification society). Verification is conducted in two stages. A
preliminary verification is done based on the ship design and a final verification test is
carried out during a sea trial. The entire process involves the close involvement of the
shipowner, shipbuilder, and verifier at each stage of the ship development.
An “on-time” deployment of the EEDI applies to the design standards to ship orders
placed on or after January 1, 2013 and to ships delivered after January 1, 2015
regardless of their order date. A three-step phase-in of the EEDI occurs in five-year
increments: 10% greater efficiency for ships delivered between 2015 and 2019, 20%
1
This clause was added to provide flexibility to developing countries that were
concerned about upgrading their shipbuilding industry in time to provide ships, which
could satisfy EEDI requirements. The first guaranteed year for deployment of EEDI
compliant ships would be 2019.
55
for ships delivered between 2020 and 2024, and 30% for ships delivered after 2025.
Future ship efficiency improvements are determined relative to a baseline average
efficiency of ships built between 1999 and 2009.
The IMO MEPC Committee continued its work on further developing guidelines to
support the uniform implementation of the regulations on energy-efficiency for ships.
The MEPC adopted the 2014 Guidelines on survey and certification of the Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), updating the previous version to include, for
example, identification of the primary fuel for the calculation of the attained EEDI for
ships fitted with dual-fuel engines using LNG and liquid fuel oil.
Further development of energy-efficiency guidelines for ships
The May 2015 Session of the MEPC continued its work on further developing
guidelines to assist in the implementation of the mandatory energy-efficiency
regulations for international shipping and:
•
adopted amendments to update the 2014 Guidelines on survey and
certification of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), and
endorsed their application from 1 September 2015, at the same time
encouraging earlier application;
•
adopted amendments to the 2013 Interim Guidelines for determining
minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships
in adverse conditions, for the level-1 minimum power lines assessment
for bulk carriers and tankers, and agreed on a phase-in period of six
months for the application of the amendments and
•
adopted amendments to update the 2014 Guidelines on the method of
calculation of the attained EEDI for new ships.
Details have been widely circulated by all the classification societies, shipyards, etc.
and work is on-going at IMO. Questions remain regarding the robustness of ships, the
number and complexity of yet untried technologies, and even the risk of accepting the
waiver of some administrations and building non-compliant ships, given the efforts of
some administrations and organisations for the EEDI to be used as a rating tool of a
vessel.
Third IMO GHG Study 2014 approved
The May 2015 MEPC approved the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 click Third IMO
GHG Study 2014, providing updated estimates for greenhouse gas emissions from
ships.
The Third IMO GHG Study 2014 estimates that international shipping emitted 796
million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2012, against 885 million tonnes in 2007.
This represented 2.2% of the global emissions of CO2 in 2012, against 2.8% in 2007.
However, the “business as usual” scenarios continue to indicate that those emissions
are likely to grow by between 50% and 250% in the period to 2050, depending on
future economic and energy developments.
Market Based Measures – Proposed IMO Data Collection Scheme
Discussions on Market-Based Measures (MBMs) which had been on the agenda of
every single MEPC since MEPC 56 (July 2006), came to a halt in May 2013,
56
officially due to “time constraint”, but in reality due to inconclusive and prolonged
discussions, led by China and India about a separate issue; the implementation of
technology transfer measures to developing countries which, as mentioned above,
forms part of MARPOL amendments already adopted and for which a resolution was
adopted at the session. There is also the stumbling block of the determination of
developing countries, Brazil, Chile, China, India etc. to acknowledge and incorporate
the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) in any
discussion on GHG reduction measures, and the importance of the IMO remaining in
accord with the UNFCCC process.
Over the years, various proposals have been considered, ranging from contribution
schemes for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from international shipping (to be
collected and transferred to a fund), emissions trading schemes, to schemes based on
the actual ship's efficiency both by design and operation.
A shipping industry contribution/tax has also been discussed in the context of the
UNFCCC. Specifically, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 17) in
Durban (28th November to 9th December, 2011) formally launched a Green Climate
Fund (GCF) with the aim of generating US$100 billion per annum by 2020 to support
climate change mitigation and the adaptation of projects in developing nations. This is
seen by some as a “tit for tat” way of keeping developing nations at the table during
the high level climate change negotiations, or even as a source of income for cashstrapped governments.
At the moment, the UNFCCC seems content to monitor the activity of the IMO (and
ICAO) rather than make specific proposals on global transport. However, if the Green
Climate Fund ever becomes a reality, the possibility remains that shipping might
eventually be expected to make a large cash contribution.
In many countries, the UNFCCC negotiating positions are being led by environment
and climate change ministries that may have little understanding of shipping.
Moreover, the richer (so called Annex I) nations attending the Paris Conference have
the problem of fulfilling the commitments they made, at the Copenhagen Conference
in 2009, to provide US $100 billion a year to the Green Climate Fund by 2020.
Throughout 2015, in advance of the Paris Conference, the message must be given to
Governments that the shipping industry should not be treated as a ‘cash cow’, and that
IMO is the forum best placed to deliver further meaningful CO2 emission reductions
from international shipping.
The IMO and the International Chamber of Shipping participate in the UNFCCC
Climate Change Conferences and try to explain the industry’s position, highlighting
the technical and operational measures that have already been taken, and the fact that
there is every incentive for shipping companies to reduce their fuel consumption and
thus their CO2 emissions.
Although discussions on MBMs, both at the IMO and at the UNFCCC, appear to have
stalled in April 2014, at MEPC 66, the development of a data collection system for
ships’ fuel consumption was considered, as well as how to identify the core elements
of such a system. The strongly expressed and unanimous view of the shipping
industry was that this system should be both simple and pragmatic, and the
administrative burden for ship owners and Flag Administrations on data collection
should be kept as low as possible.
57
It was agreed that data derived from existing sources mandated by MARPOL and
other IMO conventions be used, such as Bunker Delivery Notes (BDN) and Oil
Record Books.
The information collected may include:

The identity of the ship (IMO number and Flag State Administration);

The shipowner and operator (name, address and principal place of business);

Technical characteristics of the
reference/design speed, EEDI, etc.;

Total annual fuel consumption per fuel type and

Total annual transport work (tonne-miles) or transport work proxy, e.g.
distance or service hours.
ship,
e.g.
DWT,
engine
power,
There were different views on whether such data should include “transport work”
(tonne-miles) or should use only a surrogate of such transport work such as “distance”
or “service hours”. There was no decision on these matters, as further work should
take into account the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options.
MEPC 66 reviewed four options presented as possible mechanisms (core elements)
for assessing the energy efficiency of ships in operations and it was generally agreed
that these four options should be tested with the data collected. In this respect, MEPC
66 agreed that a centralised database should be established for the purpose of data
collection, and it is preferable for this database to be hosted by the IMO.
A decision was not made regarding the frequency of reporting, but the preference was
that data should be reported on an annual basis. However, Flag Administrations and
organisations were encouraged to submit data on a voluntary basis, thus facilitating
the testing of the various proposed options to assess the energy efficiency of ships in
operation.
With regard to the way forward, it was decided that a correspondence group, which
could carry on the matters addressed by this session’s working group, should be
established, to enable MEPC 67 to take decisions based on more in-depth analysis.
In 2014, the MEPC agreed, in principle, to develop a data collection system for ships
and, having agreed on the general description of the data collection system for fuel
consumption of ships, agreed to the re-establishment of an intersessional
correspondence group, to develop full language for the data collection system for fuel
consumption, that can be readily used for voluntary or mandatory application of the
system. The core elements of the data collection system include; data collection by
ships, flag State functions in relation to data collection, and the establishment of a
centralised database by the Organization.
The May 2015 session of the MEPC agreed on text for further development of a data
collection system to analyse the energy efficiency of ships. The MEPC agreed text
for its further development to be the full language for the data collection system for
fuel consumption of ships, which can be readily used for voluntary or mandatory
application of the system. In this regard, the Committee noted that a purpose of the
data collection system was to analyse energy efficiency, and for this analysis to be
effective, some transport work data needs to be included, but at this stage the
appropriate parameters have not been identified.
58
The proposed text refers to ships of 5,000 GT and above collecting data, to include
the ship identification number, technical characteristics, total annual fuel consumption
by fuel type and in metric tons and transport work and/or proxy data yet to be defined.
The methodology for collecting the data would be outlined in the ship specific Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP).
Data would be aggregated into an annual figure and reported by the
shipowner/operator to the Administration (flag State), which would submit the data to
IMO for inclusion in a database. Access to the database would be restricted to
Member States only and data provided to Member States would be anonymized to the
extent that the identification of a specific ship would not be possible.
The MEPC agreed to recommend to the IMO Council the holding of an intersessional
working group to: further consider transport work and/or proxies for inclusion in the
data collection system; further consider the issue of confidentiality, consider the
development of guidelines identified in the text and to submit a report to MEPC 69.
The MEPC also considered a submission from the Marshall Islands, calling for a
quantifiable reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions from international
shipping. During the discussion, the Member States whilst expressing gratitude to the
Marshall Islands for the submission, the Committee took the view that the priority at
this stage should be to continue its current work, in particular, to focus on further
reduction of emissions from ships through the finalisation of a data collection system.
The Marshall Islands proposal could then be further addressed at an appropriate future
session of the Committee.
As repeatedly reiterated, the GSCC believes and strongly contends that shipping is
already the most carbon-efficient form of commercial transport by far, and that the
amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL, i.e. the technical and operational measures,
will help shipping to reduce its CO2 emissions per tonne/mile of cargo carried by 20%
by 2020, compared to 2005. Moreover, fuel costs provide every incentive for fuel
efficiency and ship design.
However, if a market-based measure to reduce CO2 emissions is developed by the
IMO or by a region, then the GSCC, along with international shipping associations,
believes that it should be a simple levy rather than an emissions trading scheme, and
that revenues generated by such a scheme should be proportional to the shipping
industry’s share of worldwide CO2 emissions.
As regards the IMO data collection, a global scheme that would collect reliable CO2
emissions data from ships engaged in international trade, would again validate
shipping’s environmental credentials, provided that such a scheme does not place an
unnecessary and additional administrative or operational burden on the ships; i.e. in
order to facilitate international implementation, it should be as simple as possible,
and, preferably, it should use data monitored and recorded according to existing
procedures on board ships. The collection of a ship’s activity, either on an individual
per voyage basis or aggregated, gives no indication as to the individual ship’s
performance capability or efficiency.
Furthermore, it strongly supports ICS and many IMO Member States who remain
strongly opposed to the use of such a mechanism as a means for eventually
establishing a mandatory system of operational efficiency indexing for application to
individual ships, the ultimate purpose of which would be to penalise vessels on the
59
basis of a theoretical and arbitrary operational rating. This is because there is a
significant danger that this will lead to serious market distortion. For example, the
fuel consumed by two identical ships during two similar voyages will vary
considerably due to factors such as currents, ocean conditions and weather. Similarly,
fuel consumed by individual ships, particularly those in tramp sectors, may vary
considerably from one year to the next dependent on trading patterns and the nature of
charters, over which the ship operator has little control. In the interests of maintaining
the primacy of IMO, ICS suggested in its 2014 submission that the question of
additional measures should be left open until a mandatory CO2 emissions reporting
system had been established, tested, and the results fully analysed, providing reliable
data to inform any further development.
The development of a system for the monitoring and reporting of ships’ emissions at
IMO have been further complicated by the fact that, in December, the EU Council of
Environment Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission
reached agreement on the text of an EU Regulation on the Monitoring, Reporting and
Verification (MRV) of ships’ CO2 emissions, which was adopted early this year (See
European developments), and which requires ships to provide information on cargo
carried, which has proved controversial within the IMO discussions. In fact, the EU
Regulation also includes controversial provisions for the submission of data by ships
on ‘transport work’ which, together with data on fuel consumption, must be verified
by third parties such as classification societies prior to submission to the European
Commission, creating an unhelpful administrative burden. Ships will also have to
carry a document of compliance, presumably subject to EU Port State Control, and
will be subject to sanctions for non-compliance. Of particular concern, however, is
that the (commercially sensitive) information submitted will then be published
annually by the European Commission, along with ship name and company
identifiers, with the intention of facilitating comparison of the supposed efficiency of
individual ships – which is very likely to be at odds to the actual fuel efficiency or
CO2 emitted. In short, the EU Regulation contains most of the elements which many
IMO Member States had indicated they wished to reject when they began the
development of a global system.
Quality Control of Marine Fuels
In April 2014 at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 66th meeting of its
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 66), MEPC 66 considered an
industry paper, strongly supported by the GSCC, inviting national administrations and
port authorities to consider taking action to examine ways of strengthening the
implementation of the current provisions of Regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI
and to improve the control of marine fuels prior to delivery on to ships. MEPC 66
acknowledged the concerns expressed about bunker quality and agreed to consider the
issue further, inviting submissions to the next session. Industry associations did
submit a joint paper to MEPC 67 which set up a correspondence group to develop
draft guidance on quality-assurance for fuel oil delivered for use on board ships, and
to consider the adequacy of the current legal framework in MARPOL Annex VI in
relation to fuel oil quality. The group reported to MEPC 68 in May 2015.
60
MARPOL ANNEX VI – Sulphur/Nitrogen Oxides Requirements – ECAs
Also, at MEPC 66 in April 2014, it was decided to initiate a study for the assessment
of the availability of fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 0.50%, which is to be
used by all ships, on a global basis, from 2020.
The assessment is required by Regulation 14.8 of MARPOL Annex VI. The
Regulation does not indicate when the study should be initiated, but that it needs to be
concluded by 2018.
MEPC 66 agreed with a submission by the US, BIMCO, INTERTANKO and the
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), that the first step would be to establish
a correspondence group. This group would be tasked to develop terms of reference for
a group of experts which would then be tasked to carry out the assessment. The
correspondence group was asked to identify the necessary resources, contracting with
third-parties that might provide assistance, to ascertain how the group of experts
should coordinate these third parties activities.
The Amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI Regulations, to reduce harmful
emissions from ships even further, entered into force on 1st July 2010. The next major
dates for the phased-in implementation of these amendments are:

2015 - ECA limit reduced to 0.1% sulphur;

2020 - Global limit to 0.5% sulphur, but a review in 2018, with authority to
delay implementation, will determine whether this is achievable;

2025 - Global limit to 0.5% sulphur, notwithstanding the result of the 2018
review.
Specifically, in accordance with the 2008 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, ships
trading within the North America, North Sea and Baltic Sea Emission Control Areas
(ECAs) are required to use distillate fuel (gas oil) with a sulphur content of less than
0.1%, or an alternative option, i.e. Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (‘scrubbers’) or the
use of alternative fuels with low sulphur content, such as LNG.
The 2015 deadline arrived but due to questions of cost, reliability, the uncertain
environmental performance of scrubbers, and the lack of widely available LNG
bunkering facilities, as well as the inability of existing ships to burn LNG, the vast
majority of ships was forced to use distillate fuel. On several occasions, the GSCC has
issued advice on the risks associated with switching fuel and on ECA requirements in
general.
The United States is vigorous in the enforcement of these regulations, but in the
European Union enforcement is patchy. The shipping industry has proved its
commitment to compliance and, with the exception of some initial problems due to
non-availability of required fuels, it has been a smooth transition.
Given the costs involved, the shipping industry has asked for a harmonised
enforcement of the regulations by Port State Control (PSC). As a result, the Paris
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Port State Control, which includes
Canada and Russia as well as EU Member States, issued guidance on enforcement in
advance of the January implementation date. The Paris MOU made it clear that PSC
enforcement will also take place outside of the ECAs, for example in the
Mediterranean, in the first port of call following transit through an ECA. However, it
61
will be vital for the maintenance of fair competition that implementation occurs
throughout the Paris MOU region in a consistent way. The Paris MOU has also
confirmed that, unless there are clear grounds to suspect non-compliance, inspection
will normally be confined to checking Bunker Delivery Notes rather than sampling
fuel. However, in the event of clear grounds for a more detailed inspection, there are
still not harmonised PSC procedures yet for taking samples from ships’ tanks. The
European Commission is also developing supplementary inspection procedures,
which will include specific targets to be applied by EU Member States, with a
proportion of ships also being subject to bunker sampling
The deadline for the global implementation of the 0.5% sulphur limit is 2020 or 2025,
depending on the results of an IMO study on fuel availability. In October 2014,
MEPC 67 authorised an early study in order to give the industry time to respond if the
signals are that there will be problems. The study would also be broadened to include
the status of development and availability of abatement technology and alternative
fuels.
It should be noted that under the revised EU Sulphur Directive, the 0.5% cap will
apply in the EU EEZ regardless of the outcome of the IMO study.
ICS advises that a global 0.5% sulphur limit, if implemented in 2020, would
significantly increase the cost of fuel. The overall world refining capacity is limited
and cannot be expected to increase significantly in the short term. The refining
industry needs to make immediate and massive investments, however this does not
appear to be likely.
IMO is mandated to complete a study on fuel availability before the end of 2018. The
shipping industry has consistently argued that the IMO study should be completed
sooner rather than later, since it will be far too late for governments to take any
meaningful action to improve availability if the results are not released until only a
year before the global cap is due to be implemented. However, IMO Member States,
led by the EU and the United States, have persistently refused to advance the dates of
the study, presumably fearing – incorrectly – that earlier completion would be used by
the shipping industry to promote postponement until 2025. It is true that it would
clearly be in the financial interests of shipowners to delay the implementation of the
sulphur cap for as long as possible, and questions remain about the benefits that will
be derived from low sulphur fuel being burnt on the high seas where very few people
live. However, ICS recognises that the decision in 2008 to adopt the global sulphur
cap was primarily a political one, with the EU having threatened unilateral action if
the IMO had failed to deliver. The principal concern of ICS therefore, is to ensure that
low sulphur fuel will be available at an affordable price.
With IMO approval, and as permitted by Annex VI of MARPOL , sulphur ECAs have
so far been established in the North Sea and the Baltic, and within 200 miles of the
coast of the United States and Canada. For the majority of ships trading in ECAs, this
means using distillate fuel which is at least 50% more expensive than the residual fuel
that most ships would otherwise burn. Indeed, since January 2015, the percentage cost
differential between distillate and residual fuel has been increasing. While the
immediate impact has been partially mitigated by the dramatic fall in crude oil prices
in 2014, the new ECA limits are regarded as possible to change, and the current
reduced cost of low sulphur bunkers is unlikely to be a long term trend. At some point
in the future, it is possible that China may eventually decide to establish ECAs,
62
perhaps in the Pearl River Delta and around Shanghai. Japan may also eventually
follow. But for now, the ECAs only exist in North West Europe and North America.
In 2020, however – unless IMO decides to postpone – an additional global cap will
also apply, so that the maximum permitted sulphur content in fuel, in all waters
outside of ECAs, will be reduced to 0.5%.
The strict enforcement of ECA requirements by the United States has been mentioned
elsewhere, as well as the high fines for non-compliance (i.e. civil penalties of up to
US $100,000 a day), but the serious crime in the US is to be caught providing false
information to the Federal authorities. This is a criminal offence, attracting the
possibility of multimillion dollar fines and even imprisonment. If a ship has been
found to have supplied false information, the US Department of Justice can be
expected to throw the book at the operator. The European Commission, however,
does not have authority to stipulate penalties for non-compliance which is a matter for
individual EU Member States; and the severity of national penalties in Europe is
understood to vary greatly. The question of penalties, and how they can be applied
with respect to any alleged non-compliance with MARPOL that might occur outside
of national waters, is expected to be resolved during 2015.
NOx Emissions
Progressive reductions in NOx emission limits from marine diesel engines installed on
ships after 1st January 2000 are included in the MARPOL Annex VI requirements.
Since 2008, marine diesel engines installed on ships between 1st January 1990 and 31st
December 1999 are required to comply with the Tier I emission limit, if an Approved
Method for that engine has been certified by an Administration and is commercially
available.
Depending on engine speed, the Tier I NOx standards range from approximately 10 to
17 g/kWh. The Tier II standard represents a 20% NOx reduction below Tier I, and the
Tier III standard represents an 80% NOx reduction below Tier I.
Note that the North American ECA and the Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands ECA
have also been designated for NOx control.
Although a Correspondence Group Report had recommended that technology existed
to allow the NOx Tier III standard to be enforced in designated ECAs by the original
date of 1st January 2016, a proposal by the Russian Federation amending the
regulation with a new effective date of 1st January 2021 was approved by MEPC 65 in
October 2013.
This approval was strongly opposed by the United States, inter alia, and in April 2014
at MEPC 66, a compromise was reached, with the adoption of a revised Regulation
13.5 of MARPOL Annex VI. The revised Regulation retains the 1st January 2016 date
for existing ECAs designated for NOx control, and sets the earliest application date of
any new ECA for NOx control as the date of that area’s adoption, for those ships
constructed after that date.
The consequences of the decision are:
63

A ship built before 2016, designed for Tier II standards, will not be
constrained in its operation in any ECA designated for NOx (NECA);

A ship built after 2016, designed for Tier II only, will not be allowed to
operate in any NECAs designated before the date of construction of that ship.
They are however “existing” ships in relation to any new NECAs designated
after that date and their operation would not be constrained in such areas;

A ship built after 2016, designed for Tier III, will be allowed to operate in
NECAs already designated before the date of construction of that ship. They
are however “existing” ships in relation to any new NECAs designated after
that date and could thus operate in Tier II mode in such areas.
Implementation of The Hong Kong International Convention For The
Safe And Environmentally Sound Recycling Of Ships, 2009
The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships, 2009 (HKC) which was adopted in 2009 by IMO at a diplomatic
conference held in Hong Kong, S.A.R., is still very far from entering into force.
Within the new Convention, regulations cover the design, construction, operation and
preparation of ships so as to facilitate safe and environmentally sound ship recycling.
Also included is the establishment of an appropriate enforcement mechanism for ship
recycling, incorporating certification and reporting requirements, without
compromising the safety and operational efficiency of ships, or the operation of ship
recycling facilities, in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
Under the HKC, ships bound for recycling will be required to carry an Inventory of
Hazardous Materials (IHM), 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 IHM.
Additional surveys during the life of the ship and a final survey prior to recycling, will
also be required. Work is still ongoing regarding the development of threshold values
and exemptions applicable to the materials to be listed in Inventories of Hazardous
Materials. During the April 2014 session of the MEPC, it was agreed that further
work was needed on asbestos and radioactive materials. The Correspondence Group
was tasked with the finalisation of the development of threshold values and the
preparation of amendments to the 2011 Guidelines for the Development of the
Inventory of Hazardous Materials (Resolution MEPC.197(62)) accordingly, with the
aim of reporting to MEPC 67.
Prior to delivery to recycling facilities, there is a requirement for the cleaning of cargo
tanks and cargo pump rooms of oil tankers to a condition ready for gas-freeing, in
accordance with IMO guidance. It should be noted that this new provision will only
require the tanks to be prepared for gas-freeing and that there is no presumption that
ships will arrive in a gas-free condition.
Ship recycling yards will be required to provide a "Ship Recycling Plan", based upon
the particulars and inventory of each ship, to specify the manner in which each ship
will be recycled. Parties will be required to take effective measures to ensure that ship
recycling facilities under their jurisdiction comply with the Convention.
The Convention will enter into force 24 months after the date on which it has been
ratified by 15 States, representing 40 per cent of world merchant shipping by gross
tonnage. Furthermore, the combined maximum annual ship recycling volume of those
States, during the preceding 10 years, must constitute not less than 3 per cent of their
combined merchant shipping tonnage.
64
In October 2012, the 64th Session of the MEPC issued Guidelines for the Survey and
Certification of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention and Guidelines for the
Inspection of Ships under the Hong Kong Convention. These two sets of guidelines,
together with the four sets of other guidelines previously adopted, (i) Guidelines for
Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling, (ii) Guidelines for the
Authorization of Ship Recycling Facilities, (iii) Guidelines for the Development of the
Inventory of Hazardous Materials (currently under review) and (iv) Guidelines for the
Development of the Ship Recycling Plan, complete the development of all guidelines
referred to in the text of the Hong Kong Convention. Acknowledging that the
Convention will not be ratified soon, the IMO hopes that the adoption of the
guidelines can now assist ship-recycling facilities and shipping companies to
commence introducing voluntary improvements to meet the requirements of the
Convention.
Acknowledging the same fact, in 2007, the shipping industry introduced its own
“interim Guidelines” recommending actions which shipowners might feasibly take
when selling vessels for recycling.
Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling in Bangladesh – Phase I
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Government of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh are jointly implementing a project entitled “Safe and
Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling in Bangladesh – Phase I” (in short SENSREC
Project – Bangladesh).
The project, aimed at improving the safety and environmental standards within the
country’s ship-recycling industry, consists of five work packages covering the
following:
-
Two studies assessing the economic and environmental impact of the ship
recycling industry in Bangladesh;
-
An assessment of the prevailing conditions and needs for environmentally
sound hazardous waste management, including the compilation of a hazardous
waste inventory, hazardous waste assessment report and the preliminary
infrastructure design and site selection for a hazardous waste storage,
treatment and disposal facility;
-
Recommendations on strengthening the Government’s One-Stop Service, in
which all the various ministries with a responsibility for ship recycling (e.g.
Industries, Environment, Labour, Shipping) offer a single point of contact for
related matters;
-
A review and upgrade of existing training courses on occupational health,
safety and environmental issues and piloting of the new training material; and
-
The development of a detailed project document for a possible follow-up
project to implement the recommendations of phase I.
In the long term, the project will assist the industry eventually to meet the
requirements of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and
Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention), so
that the Government of Bangladesh may be in a position to accede to the Convention.
The principal funding for the project comes from the Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (Norad), while the Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and
65
Stockholm Conventions (BRS) also supports the project, having mobilised some EU
funding towards the work package related to the management of hazardous materials,
which is partly being implemented by BRS.
The project is expected to be managed within a budget of US$1,516,275, from
January 2015 (phase I) for a period of 18 months. This amount includes the BRS
funds of US$273,603. The project is being executed by the Marine Environment
Division of IMO, in partnership with the Ministry of Industries of Bangladesh. The
Bangladeshi Ministry coordinates the input from the different stakeholder ministries
within the country, whilst IMO collaborates with other relevant UN agencies
including BRS, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), to ensure the successful delivery of
the project.
A local project management office, responsible for the day-to-day implementation of
the local project activities, is hosted within the premises of the Ministry of Industries
and is staffed with a National Project Manager and an Administrative Assistant
IMO, the Government of Bangladesh, Norad and BRS have been working towards the
establishment of this project for a number of years. It demonstrates a major
commitment from the Government of Bangladesh to improve safety and
environmental standards within this vital industry.
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM)
Adopted in 2004, the Ballast Water Convention was controversial from the beginning,
having introduced fixed, retroactive, compliance dates for the first time, on the
assumption that technology would catch up. To date, 44 countries have ratified the
Convention, so whilst the entry into force criterion as regards the number of ratifying
states has been met, the tonnage criterion has not (32.86%, whereas 35% is required).
Only one country with a substantial fleet needs to ratify the Convention for it to enter
into force 12 months later. The GSCC, together with the majority of international
shipping organisations, and even Member States that have already ratified the
Convention, are trying to delay its entry into force, until several very serious issues
are resolved. The main obstacles for ratification seem to be a lack of approved and
proven technologies with a good track record and, specifically for EU countries, a
lack of a harmonised testing procedure for BWM systems.
In this respect, it is welcome that the November 2013 IMO Assembly adopted a
Resolution on the application of the Convention, to ease and facilitate its smooth and
pragmatic implementation. It is a recommendation and therefore not legally binding
for signatories or other IMO Member States. It is, however, highly unlikely that any
IMO Member State would apply the original Convention text instead of the revised
schedule stated in the Assembly Resolution, given the unanimity of the adoption of
the Resolution and the absence of any comments or reservations.
Assembly Resolution A.1088 (28) adopted in December 2013, recommends that
governments should:
1. Implement the Convention based on the entry into force date of the Convention;
2. Consider All vessels constructed before entry into force as existing vessels.
66
Existing vessels are to install a Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) at the
first renewal survey (IOPP Certificate under Annex I of MARPOL) after entry into
force of the Convention.
The MEPC also agreed on two further BWM Convention issues:
1) A trial period for Port State Control and sampling. Port State Control (PSC) will
refrain from detaining a ship, or taking criminal actions, in the event that a BWMS
does not meet the discharge standards. This will allow time for PSC to determine
which sampling and testing techniques work in practice and will also allow the
industry to identify any further problems associated with the operation of different
type-approved BWMS. However the United States has reserved its position, meaning
that the USCG may not grant such a grace period.
2) To increase the transparency of the type-approval process and the adoption of
amendments to both the type-approval certification documents, as well as the
guidance to administrations on the type-approval process. With these amendments
accepted, the revised documents will mean that more information is provided to the
industry and to owners, regarding the capabilities of BWMSs, as well as the ranges
and limiting conditions in which BWMSs can operate.
However, problems still remained, and at the beginning of 2014 the industry
organisations made a detailed submission to IMO, in order to propose solutions to
concerns that are inhibiting the ratification of the Convention by more IMO Member
States. These issues include (a) the lack of robustness of the current IMO typeapproval process for the expensive new treatment equipment that ships will be
required to install on board, (b) the criteria to be used for sampling ballast water
during Port State Control inspections, and (c) the need for ‘grandfathering’ of existing
type-approved equipment that has already, in good faith, been fitted by shipowners.
The October 2014 IMO’s Environment Committee addressed measures to assist in
accelerating the entry into force and implementation of the BWC, by adopting
resolutions to address issues surrounding the type-approval of BWMSs and guidance
for Port State Control inspections. They were immediately hailed by the shipping
industry as “significant progress” on what had been proving challenging topics to
resolve.
The MEPC Resolution on ‘Measures to be Taken to Facilitate Entry Into Force of the
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water
and Sediments, 2004’ aims to address concerns that the testing system for approval of
BWMSs needs to be sufficiently robust and consistent so that any systems approved
will meet the standards set out in the BWM treaty.
The Resolution agrees that the technical standards and approval testing procedures in
the Guidelines for Approval of BWMSs (G8) will undergo a comprehensive review.
A Correspondence Group was established to initiate the review.
The Resolution also agrees that “early movers”, in other words shipowners that have
already installed type-approved ballast water management systems prior to the
application of the revised Guidelines (G8), should not be penalised and that Port
States should refrain from applying criminal sanctions or detaining the ship, based on
sampling during a trial period.
67
Also adopted by an MEPC Resolution were ‘Guidelines for Port State Control
Inspection for Compliance with the BWM Convention’. The Guidelines note that
every effort should be made to avoid any undue delays to the ship.
The MEPC also agreed a plan and terms of reference for a proposed study on
implementation of the ballast water performance standard described in regulation D-2
of the BWM Convention. This specifies the water quality for discharge, related to the
specified maximum concentrations of viable organisms. The study would include
stakeholder surveys and collection of data on the similarities and differences in
existing practices relating to type-approval and testing of BWM systems, and
practices relating to analysing the performance of BWM systems after installation on
board ships. The final study report is to be submitted to MEPC 69 which is scheduled
for early 2016.
The 68th session of the MEPC was held from the 11th to the 15th of May 2015. The
following principal decisions were taken.
Re Resolution MEPC.253(67) on “Measures to be Taken to Facilitate Entry Into
Force of the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004”.
In response to an ICS paper submitted to the IMO MEPC 68/2/16 seeking
clarification of Resolution MEPC.253(67) regarding the intent and full meaning of the
term “should not be penalized” used in operative paragraph 3 of the Resolution as
follows:
[MEPC] “AGREES that shipowners that have installed type-approved ballast water
management systems prior to the application of the revised Guidelines (G8), should
not be penalized”
The understanding is contained within a document titled “Roadmap for the
Implementation of the BWM Convention” which reads as follows:
Non-penalisation of early movers.
Shipowners who have installed, prior to the application of the revised Guidelines
(G8), ballast water management systems (BWMS) approved in accordance with the
Guidelines (G8) (MEPC.174(58)), should not be required to replace these systems due
to the application of the revised Guidelines (G8), with systems approved in
accordance with the revised Guidelines (G8).
Shipowners who have installed, maintained and operated correctly BWMS approved
in accordance with the Guidelines (G8) (MEPC.174(58)) should not be required to
replace these systems, for the life of the ship or the system, whichever comes first,
due to occasional lack of efficacy for reasons beyond the control of the shipowner and
ship's crew.
Early movers should not be penalized (sanctioned, warned, detained or excluded)3
solely due to occasionally exceeding the D-2 standard following use of a BWMS
approved by an Administration under Guidelines (G8) (MEPC.174(58)) if:
1. The ship has a correctly installed BWMS approved in accordance with Guidelines
(G8) (MEPC.174(58));
68
2. The approved ballast water management plan is followed, including the
operational instructions and the manufacturer's specifications for the BWMS;
3. The BWMS has been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions; and
4. The self-monitoring system of the BWMS indicates that the treatment process is
working properly.
The principles above do not pertain to other actions of the Port State pursuant to
articles 9.3 and 10.3 of the Convention concerning protection of the environment,
human health, property and resources.
The Port State, Flag State and shipowner should work together to agree on the most
appropriate solution to allow for the discharge of ballast water found to be noncompliant.
The way forward.
7. The Committee is invited to develop Guidance on contingency measures, including
consideration of the role of the ballast water management plan.
8. The Committee is invited to expand the trial period associated with the Guidance
on ballast water sampling and analysis (BWM.2/Circ.42) into an experience building
phase of an appropriate length.
9. Towards the end of the experience building phase, the Committee may be invited to
commit to undertaking a review of the BWM Convention, taking into account the
need to ensure non-penalization for early movers.
10. The Committee is invited to communicate any implications of the nonpenalization approach on Port State Control.
11. Documents MEPC 68/2/14, MEPC 68/2/16, MEPC 68/2/17, MEPC 68/2/20, the
outcome of the ‘Study on the implementation of Regulation D-2 of the BWM
Convention’ and any other relevant documents such as MEPC 67/2/11, should be
considered in conjunction with this roadmap.
The IMO Secretariat highlights paragraphs 8 and 9 above where, as part of the agreed
roadmap, the trial period is to be extended into an experience gathering phase, at the
end of which MEPC may be invited to review the BWM Convention.
Review of Guidelines (G8).
MEPC re-established the Correspondence Group on the review of Guidelines (G8).
The Group will:
1. Continue the review of Guidelines (G8), focusing on the issues identified in
paragraphs 14 and 16 of document MEPC 68/WP.8, taking into account any
available data provided from the ‘Study on the implementation of the ballast
water performance standard described in Regulation D-2 of the Convention’
and any other relevant information provided during the timeline of the review;
2. Develop and use an interface for incoming data of the Study; and
3. Submit a report to MEPC 69.
69
A particular point of note from the Plenary discussions is that the MEPC supported
the view of the Correspondence Group that, in principle, the revised Guidelines (G8)
should provide mandatory guidance. However, MEPC stated that the review of the
Guidelines (G8) should be finalised before deciding on their possible mandatory
status.
Understanding of Resolution A.1088(28) in Areas where Ballast Water Exchange
is not Permitted.
MEPC concurred with the understanding that the intentions of Resolution A.1088(28)
also apply for ships operating in sea areas where ballast water exchange, in
accordance with Regulations B-4.1 and D-1 of the BWM Convention, is not possible.
Additionally the Ballast Water Review Group established at MEPC 69 will:
1. Define the term "same location" in the context of regulation A-3 of the BWM
Convention; and
2. Develop guidance for exemptions under Regulation A-4 of the BWM
Convention, regarding assessment of ports or locations of the "same risk
area" focussing on short sea shipping.
Status of the Convention.
MEPC was advised that the number of Contracting Governments to the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments,
2004 (BWM Convention) is currently 44, representing 32.86% of the world's
merchant fleet tonnage.
In the meantime, the shipping industry cannot recommend that further Member States
ratify the BWM Convention until confidence-building measures on resolving
implementation concerns have been set in place. The GSCC has recommended this
course of action to several Member States.
The above status quo is very satisfactory, but the United States threw a spanner in the
works by making a formal reservation that it will not adhere to the new schedule.
As explained in the ‘US Developments’ section, this stance of the United States
would force the international shipping industry to spend millions of dollars on
BWMSs that may not achieve US type-approval and will therefore need to be
replaced within in a short period of time. The BWM Convention is bound to enter into
force soon, if not in 2016. Shipowners that have not already done so, will be required
to spend between US$1m and US$5m to install a BWMS on each of their ships, in
accordance with the schedule established in Assembly Resolution A.1088(28). It is
estimated that there are 50,000 ships that will need to be fitted with BWMS over a 5
year period.
However, this may also create an impossible situation for ships that trade to the
United States, where a unilateral national regulation is already in force. The US
regulation ultimately requires all ships that discharge ballast into US waters (12 miles)
to treat the ballast water through a US Coast Guard (USCG) approved BWMS.
Currently there are a number of BWMS in the USCG testing and approval process,
but none have yet received their type approval. The Round Table (RT) of the shipping
industry has urged the USCG to approve as many ballast water management systems
as possible, as soon as possible, and to provide a pragmatic schedule for the
70
installation of such equipment. Further meetings between the RT and senior leaders of
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-emphasised these points.
So far, there are 54 BWMS approved under the IMO regime, but worryingly only 17
manufacturers have indicated an intent to submit their system for USCG approval and
testing. There is no guarantee that systems submitted will gain approval under the
stringent US testing regime; consequently, when the IMO BWM Convention enters
into force, ship operators trading to the US will be forced to fit a BWMS that may
never achieve USCG type approval. If the system installed does not obtain USCG
approval, it will have to be replaced within 5 years in order for the vessel to be able to
continue trading in the US. A shipowner who, in good faith, wants to comply with
international and national ballast water management requirements, therefore faces an
unacceptable position of possibly having to invest twice in a BWMS through no fault
of his or her own.
SOLAS Amendments to Mandate Enclosed-Space Entry and Rescue
Drills
From 1 January 2015, Amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention by Res.
MSC.350(92) entered into force. New SOLAS Reg. III/19.3.3 and 19.3.6, which
relate to enclosed space entry and rescue drills, have been added. Such drills are to be
held on board the ship at least once every two months and should cover:

the checking and use of personal protective equipment required for entry;

the checking and use of communication equipment and procedures;

the checking and use of instruments for measuring the atmosphere in enclosed
spaces;

the checking and use of rescue equipment and procedures; and

instructions in first aid and resuscitation techniques.
Verification of the Weight of Containers
Following a proposal to the IMO Maritime Safety Committee, made, in November
2014, by ICS and the World Shipping Council (WSC), and supported by the
International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) MSC 94 adopted changes to
the SOLAS convention that will require verification of container weights as a
condition for loading packed export containers aboard ships. Mis-declared container
weights have been a long-standing problem for the transportation industry and for
governments as they present safety hazards for ships, their crews, and other cargo on
board, workers in the port facilities handling containers, and on roads. Mis-declaration
of container weights also gives rise to Customs concerns.
The approved changes to the Convention will enter into force in July 2016. In order to
assist supply chain participants’ and SOLAS Contracting Governments’
implementation of the container weight verification requirement, MSC also issued a
MSC Circular with implementation guidelines.
The same MSC session also approved an MSC Circular on the IMO/ILO/UNECE
Code of Practice for the Packing of Cargo Transport Units (TU Code). The new CTU
Code, which will replace the current IMO/ILO/UNECE Guidelines for packing of
CTU, had already been approved by UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe) and was approved by the ILO (International Labour Organization) in
71
November 2014. The CTU Code provides information and guidance to shippers,
packers and other parties in the international supply chains for the safe packing,
handling and transport of CTUs.
SOLAS Amendments Approved to Make the IGF Code Mandatory
The recent MSC adopted the draft International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases
or other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code), and also adopted amendments to make the
Code mandatory under SOLAS. Associated amendments to the 1978 and 1988
Protocols were also adopted.
The IGF Code will provide mandatory provisions for the arrangement, installation,
control and monitoring of machinery, equipment and systems using low-flashpoint
fuels, focusing initially on liquefied natural gas (LNG), to minimise the risk to the
ship, its crew and the environment, having regard to the nature of the fuels involved.
The Code addresses all areas that need special consideration for the usage of lowflashpoint fuels, based on a goal-based approach, with goals and functional
requirements specified for each section forming the basis for the design, construction
and operation of ships using this type of fuel.
The initial focus of the Code is to address the use of LNG fuel on ships in addition to
gas carriers, in response to growing interest in this low sulphur alternative to oil.
However, the possible use of distillate oil with a flashpoint of less than 60°C is also
expected to be addressed under the IGF Code. It is also anticipated that provisions
will be developed for the use of other alternatives that are now being explored such as
methanol.
In order to ease compliance with the low sulphur fuel requirements of MARPOL
Annex VI, the United States and Canada had proposed to IMO, during 2014, that the
availability of distillate fuel could be increased by simply lowering the minimum
permitted flashpoint of oil used as bunker fuel. Under the SOLAS Convention this is
currently set at 60°C. But it has been suggested that the permitted minimum
flashpoint could be reduced to something comparable to conventional diesel, perhaps
just above 50°C. This is a controversial proposal because of the dangers that could
exist if oil with a lower flashpoint was exposed to the high ambient temperatures often
existing in ships’ engine rooms (particularly in hotter geographical regions) causing
fuel to vaporise and create flammable mixtures which can build up in unattended
machinery spaces and ignite. Experience on vessels such as chemical tankers has also
demonstrated that low flashpoint cargoes can present very serious risks if there is
even the slightest deviation from established procedures.
In November 2014 however, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee agreed to review
the original rationale for setting the minimum flashpoint at 60°C. Moreover, in March
2015, the IMO Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment recommended that
consideration of all fuels with minimum flashpoints below 60°C (potentially
including fuel oil) should fall under the scope of the new IGF Code. Exploring the use
of fuel with a flashpoint below 60°C within the framework provided by the IGF Code
is supported by the industry provided that there is full consideration of the possible
additional risks and subsequent development of appropriate mitigation measures.
Adoption of SOLAS amendments
72
The 94 session of the MSC adopted the following amendments, with an expected
entry into force date of 1 July 2016:
•
Amendments to add a new SOLAS regulation XI-1/7 on Atmosphere testing
instrument for enclosed spaces, to require ships to carry an appropriate portable
atmosphere testing instrument or instruments, capable of measuring concentrations of
oxygen, flammable gases or vapours, hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide, prior
to entry into enclosed spaces. Consequential amendments to the Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (1979, 1989 and 2009
MODU Codes) were also adopted. The MSC also approved a related MSC Circular
on Early implementation of SOLAS regulation XI-1/7 on Atmosphere testing
instrument for enclosed spaces; and
•
Amendments to update the International Code on the Enhanced Programme of
Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (2011 ESP Code),
including revisions to the minimum requirements for cargo tank testing at renewal
survey and addition of a new paragraph on rescue and emergency response equipment
in relation to breathing apparatus.
Dangerous Cargoes, Liquefaction, Nickel Ore Iron Ore
On the cargo front, the threat of rapid liquefaction of cargo with catastrophic results
has continued after incidents in 2013. At least two recent total losses are suspected to
be a result of liquefaction. At the start of 2015, the 2006-built 56,009 dwt “Bulk
Jupiter,” sank off the coast of Vung Tau, Vietnam, just a day before the 1984-built
2,327 dwt “Cemfjord” foundered off the coast of Scotland. The “Bulk Jupiter”was
carrying bauxite, while the “Cemfjord” had a cargo of cement. As liquids, both
cargoes are hazardous to ships. The accident investigations findings are not expected
until later this year, but insurers have already raised concerns that rapid liquefaction
may well have caused both incidents. For the “Bulk Jupiter”in particular, the IMO’s
categorisation of bauxite cargoes has come into question. The issue was that the “Bulk
Jupiter”was carrying a cargo that is classified as a C-type cargo under the
International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (IMSBC code). This is the least
dangerous category from a liquefaction point of view. However, there have been
warnings from protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs that these could easily be placed
in the dangerous category under certain conditions. This raises the issue of shippers
being ignorant or careless and whether the list of cargoes in the A, B and C categories
in the IMSBC code needs to be reassessed.
The main legislation governing the safe carriage of solid bulk cargoes is the IMSBC
Code, which became mandatory on January 1, 2011, under the SOLAS Convention.
However, accidents, i.e. fires, explosions and especially bulk cargo liquefaction, have
been plaguing the shipping industry for several years, and have caused many
fatalities. Following the unabated rise in global commerce, the shipment of goods that
are dangerous, or potentially dangerous, is becoming increasingly common.
The IMSBC Code, was amended by resolution MSC.318(89), incorporating
amendment 01-11, and more recently by resolution MSC.354(92), incorporating
amendment 02-13, which entered into force on 1 January 2015.
To keep pace with the expansion and progress of industry in recent years, the Code
has undergone many changes, including:
73
•
Fully updated individual schedules for solid bulk cargoes;
•
New individual schedules for such cargoes as nickel ore, alumina hydrate,
aluminium smelting and re-melting by-products, clinker ash, coal tar pitch, coarse
iron and steel slag, crushed carbon anodes, grain screening pellets, granulated
nickel matter, granulated gypsum, ilmenite, sand, silicon slag, torrefied wood
and solidified fuels recycled from paper and plastics
At MSC 93, in April 2014, it was noted that, since the actual Code entered into force,
a number of casualties, which have resulted in the loss of many seafarers' lives,
involving ships carrying cargoes addressed by the Code, have been reported.
The amendments to the IMSBC Code are praiseworthy and, as it stands, if strictly
applied, the code would probably prevent many incidents. However, problems that
arise include the deliberate or accidental mis-declarations occur, shippers sometimes
refuse independent surveys, surveyors are unavailable in remote ports and pressure on
masters is applied. It must also be stressed that such problems are not confined to
Asia, with bulk carrier operators reporting that the water content of iron ore cargoes is
being similarly mis-declared by shippers in Latin America and, especially, in Brazil.
The situation is unacceptable and the dangers persist. Problems include human error,
inaccurate data, or intentionally modified information, such as falsified moisture
content figures. The cause may be corruption and/or intimidation at the port of
loading.
It is important to be aware of who has legally taken the responsibility for ensuring that
the cargo is safe for carriage, and who will be held liable should something go wrong.
That is a matter for contractual arrangement under charters, cargo documentation and
sale contracts as well as for Carriage Conventions (such as the Hague-Visby Rules)
and other International Regulations such as SOLAS, the IMSBC and the HNS
Convention.
It also should not be forgotten that the overriding concern and duty is always towards
safety, and that a Master will never be legally prevented from taking such steps as are
necessary to ensure the safety of the crew and the vessel.
The GSCC has tried to highlight the issue and has supported the efforts of the IMO,
INTERCARGO, ICS, P&I Clubs and Classification Societies to keep shipping offices
advised of developments and aware of risks.
The IMO’s CCC 1 has draft amendments related to HME substances for review by
MEPC 68 and consideration of adoption by MSC 95. Key amendments submitted for
consideration of adoption include:
1.
Updated provisions for cargoes that may liquefy including revised requirements
for ships specially constructed or fitted for confining potential cargo shift.
2.
Revised schedules for the following cargoes:
ALFAFA ALUMINA HYDRATE
CLINKER ASH, WET COAL
COAL SLURRY COKE BREEZE
FLUOSPAR FLY ASH, WET
ILMENITE CLAY ILMENITE (UPGRADED)
74
IRON ORE IRON ORE PELLETS
METAL SULPHIDE CONCENTRATES
MINERAL CONCENTRATES
PEAT MOSS SAND, HEAVY MINERAL
SULPHUR (formed, solid) WOOD PELLETS
3.
New individual cargo schedules for the following cargoes:
ALUMINIUM FLUORIDE AMORPHOUS SODIUM SILICATE LUMPS
BORIC ACID CHEMICAL GYPSUM
COPPER SLAG GLASS CULLET
IRON AND STEEL SLAG AND ITS MIXTURE
IRON ORE FINES IRON OXIDE TECHNICAL
IRON SINTER
MANGANESE COMPONENT FERROALLOY SLAG
MANGANESE ORE FINES
SCALE GENERATED FROM THE IRON AND STEEL MAKING
PROCESS
SPODUMENE (UPGRADED)
WOOD PELLETS CONTAINING ADDITIVES AND/OR BINDERS
WOOD PELLETS NOT CONTAINING ADDITIVES AND/OR BINDERS
ZINC SLAG ZIRCON KYANITE CONCENTRATE
4.
Revised test procedures for obtaining the Transportable Moisture Limit (TML) of
iron ore fines
5. Addition of a matrix of bulk cargo shipping names in English, Spanish and French
for the cargo schedules in the Code.
E-Navigation
E-navigation is defined as “the harmonised collection, integration, exchange,
presentation and analysis of marine information on board and ashore by electronic
means to enhance berth to berth navigation and related services for safety and
security at sea and protection of the marine environment.”
The work conducted by the Organisation during the past decade has led to the
identification of specific user needs and potential e-navigation solutions.
75
76
See also:
Framework for the implementation process for the e-navigation strategy
Strategy for the development and implementation of e-navigation
The IMO Correspondence Group on e-Navigation is following a work programme
based on a coordinated approach to implementing an e-Navigation strategy.
Norway and the Norwegian Coastal Administration have been entrusted by IMO to
coordinate the work of developing a proposal for a strategic implementation plan for
the global e-navigation concept which was presented to IMO in 2014. e-Navigation
Strategy Implementation Plan
The Strategy Implementation Plan will be based on user needs, functions,
architecture, and Gap, Risk and Cost/Benefit analyses. The human element, quality
and reliability, harmonisation, standardisation and legal requirements are at the center
of the e-Navigation work. User needs have been identified and serve as a reference for
the entire process, which include definitions of functions on board and ashore, and
architecture.
This work is conducted by the IMO sub-committees HTW and NCSR. The rationale
is that during recent years, there have been substantial changes in the global shipping
environment, with increasing dependence on an interconnected global economy. One
way of meeting the consequential challenges is the development of an e-Navigation
concept.
A study conducted by the International Union of Marine Insurance shows that the
number of groundings and collisions are increasing, as are the costs associated with
them. Sixty per cent of these accidents are reportedly caused by direct human failure
(source: The Nautical Institute), although it may sometimes be the case that failure
can also be attributed to failure of the larger “system” within which mariners work.
There is a clear and compelling need to equip the master of a vessel and those ashore
responsible for the safety of shipping with modern, proven tools to make maritime
navigation and communications more reliable and user friendly.
If implemented, nearly 100,000 SOLAS ships worldwide and 169 IMO Member
States will be affected by e-Navigation. The concept will influence a wide range of
services in the maritime sector, including ports, administrations, search and rescue,
training institutions and industry.
Further to the e-Navigation SIP which was approved in the May 2015 session of the
MSC, a number of tasks have been identified for development and completion during
the period 2015 to 2019. The MSC approved Guidelines on Harmonisation of test
beds reporting, aimed at harmonising the way the results of testb eds are reported to
the Organization.
77
The Sub-Committee endorsed the draft MSC circular on Guideline on Software
Quality Assurance and Human Centred Design for e-navigation, with a view to
approval by the MSC in June 2015.
The guideline encourages a disciplined and structured approach in the development
and management of e-Navigation systems, with particular focus on Software Quality
Assurance (SQA) and Human Centred Design (HCD) that includes Usability Testing
(UT).
See also:
A future concept for ship reporting
IALA - FAQ about e-navigation
e-Navigation folder
Thus, on paper, the goal of e-Navigation appears simple enough – to develop a
strategic vision for the integration of existing and new navigational tools, in particular
electronic tools, in an all embracing system that will contribute to enhanced
navigational safety.
However, the ICS which has participated in the development of the concept since its
inception at IMO, writes that there is growing concern that it has yet to deliver
tangible benefits to the wider shipping industry. Furthermore, it fears that without
continued IMO leadership of e-Navigation, there is a very real danger that a global
approach will fail and that the project’s momentum will be dispersed into a variety of
uncoordinated regional initiatives, with the potential risk that e-navigation could be
implemented differently, for example, in the Baltic region, the Singapore and Malacca
Straits, and in North America. Each of these regions could end up with ‘local’
integrated maritime communication and data systems with related requirements for
ships that are not properly harmonised beyond the host region. This could result in
ships being required to have different systems for different regional e-Navigation
services.
The objectives identified by IMO for e-Navigation include a ‘means for standardised
and automated reporting’. This is strongly and universally supported. If this goal
could be delivered and demonstrated to benefit the industry, both ashore and at sea,
the resulting easing of administrative burdens would generate more widespread
support for e-Navigation, and appreciation of its potential.
Cyber security matters considered
A new item for IMO initiated by the Facilitation and Maritime Safety Committees
concerns consideration of cyber security matters, and will work on this matter in
consultation with other United Nations bodies and relevant international organisations
such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Up to now the MSC Committee considered a proposal to develop voluntary guidelines
on cyber security practices to protect and enhance the resiliency of cyber systems
supporting the operations of ports, vessels, marine facilities and other elements of the
maritime transportation system and agreed to coordinate its future work on this matter
with the Facilitation Committee.
78
The MSC also agreed that cyber security was an important and timely issue but that
the Organisation should not take unilateral action on this matter without consultation
with other United Nations bodies and relevant international organisations such as the
ITU. Member States and observer organisations were invited to consider the issue and
submit proposals to the next session of the Committee.
SOLAS Regulation V/19 - Implementation of ECDIS
The amended SOLAS Regulation V/19 requires ships engaged on international
voyages to be fitted with Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS)
according to the following timetable.
Source: http://www.ecdis-info.com/ecdis_regulations.html
It should be noted that administrations may exempt ships from the application of the
above-mentioned requirements when such ships will be taken permanently out of
service within two years from the implementation date specified.
An amendment to the existing Regulation V/19.2.1.4 was also adopted, to reflect that
ECDIS is an acceptable alternative to nautical charts and nautical publications, yet
retaining the proviso that in a number of cases it could be appropriate to use only
nautical charts and nautical publications. Such cases include ships not on international
voyages; ships exempt from the carriage requirements because they were to be taken
out of service permanently; and cargo ships on international voyages but below the
agreed tonnage limit.
In view of reported difficulties encountered with Port State Control and accidents
caused by deck officers’ unfamiliarity with the ECDIS equipment on board vessels,
the MSC approved a circular, ECDIS - Guidance for good practice, which
incorporates and updates previously issued circulars relating to ECDIS, including
advice on addressing operating anomalies, maintenance and training, which
previously had been endorsed by the Sub-Committee on Navigations,
Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR).
Another development is that although there are currently two ECDIS performance
standards: Resolution A.817(19) from 2006 and Resolution MSC.232(82) from 2009,
there are indications that IEC and IHO have begun initial preparations for a further
ECDIS performance standard associated with the requirements of e-Navigation.
Is should also be noted that several recent accident reports of the UK Marine Accident
Investigation Branch (MAIB) have identified that the inappropriate use of ECDIS was
79
a significant contributory factor in particular accidents. MAIB is currently collecting
information from industry regarding experience gained in the use and operation of
ECDIS with the aim of identifying practical operational experience to advise the
accident investigators.
Mandatory Polar Code
Development of an international code of safety for ships operating in polar
waters (Polar Code)
IMO has adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar
Code) and related amendments to make it mandatory under both the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
The Polar Code and SOLAS amendments were adopted during the 94th session of
IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in November 2014; the environmental
provisions and MARPOL amendments were adopted during the 68th session of the
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in May 2015.
The expected date of entry into force of the SOLAS and MARPOL amendments is 1
January 2017, under the tacit acceptance procedure. It will apply to new ships
constructed after that date. Ships constructed before 1 January 2017 will be required
to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by the first intermediate or
renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018.
Because it contains both safety and environment-related provisions, the Polar Code
will be mandatory under both SOLAS and the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
The Polar Code is intended to cover the full range of shipping-related matters relevant
to navigation in waters surrounding the two poles – ship design, construction and
equipment; operational and training concerns; search and rescue; and, equally
important, the protection of the unique environment and eco-systems of the polar
regions.
The Code would require ships intending to operating in the defined waters of the
Antarctic and Arctic to apply for a Polar Ship Certificate, which would classify the
vessel as Category A ship - ships designed for operation in polar waters at least in
medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions; Category B ship (a ship
not included in category A), designed for operation in polar waters in at least thin,
first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions; or Category C ship (a ship
designed to operate in open water or in ice conditions less severe than those included
in Categories A and B).
The issuance of a certificate would require an assessment, taking into account the
anticipated range of operating conditions and hazards the ship may encounter in the
polar waters. The assessment would include information on identified operational
limitations, and plans or procedures or additional safety equipment necessary to
mitigate incidents with potential safety or environmental consequences.
Ships would need to carry a Polar Water Operational Manual, to provide the Owner,
Operator, Master and crew with sufficient information regarding the ship's operational
capabilities and limitations in order to support their decision-making process.
80
The chapters in the Code each set out goals and functional requirements, to include
those covering ship structure; stability and subdivision; watertight and weather-tight
integrity; machinery installations; operational safety; fire safety/protection; life-saving
appliances and arrangements; safety of navigation; communications; voyage planning;
manning and training; prevention of oil pollution; prevention of pollution from
noxious liquid substances from ships; prevention of pollution by sewage from ships;
and prevention of pollution by discharge of garbage from ships.
Particular ice-class standards to the exclusion of other long-established standards that
deliver equally acceptable performance relevant to the location, time of year and the
operating conditions.
The importance of Arctic nations respecting the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and relevant IMO Conventions and Codes has been
emphasised. The UNCLOS regime of ‘transit passage’ with relation to straits used for
international navigation should take precedence over the rights of coastal states to
enact unilateral measures against international shipping. Until recently this issue
might have seemed rather academic, as did the question of nations using ‘straight
baselines’ to determine their territorial sea. But as remote Arctic sea routes become
accessible, these issues are becoming more important.
The developments at the Arctic Council have also been followed, and the
development of co-operation agreements on maritime search and rescue and
emergency pollution response were welcomed.
The increased interest in arctic shipping prompted the European Commission to get
involved by issuing two Communications in 2008 and 2012 respectively, in which the
potential for sustainable development in the Arctic region was touched upon. The
Commission thus lays the foundations of a future comprehensive EU policy for the
Arctic region and further to the Council’s request, will present proposals for the
further development of an integrated and coherent Arctic Policy by December 2015.
Piracy
At the beginning of June, the International Maritime Bureau had the following
warnings:
South East Asia and Indian Sub-Continent
Indonesia: Tanjung Priok – Jakarta, off Bintan Island, off Karimun Island and
Belawan anchorage and surrounding waters. Pirates/robbers normally armed with
guns/knives and/or machetes. Generally be vigilant in other areas. Many attacks may
have gone unreported. Pirates/robbers normally attack vessel during the night. When
spotted and alarm sounded, the pirates/robbers usually escape without confronting the
crew.
The Indonesian Marine Police have advised all ships intending to anchor to do so at/
near the following areas where Indonesian Marine Police will conduct patrols for
greater protection.
1.
Belawan:
03:55.00N-098:45.30E
2.
3.
4.
Dumai:
Nipah:
Tanjung Priok:
01:42.00N-101:28.00E
01:07.30N-103:37.00E
06:00.30S-106:54.00E
81
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Gresik:
Taboneo:
Adang bay:
Muara Berau:
Muara Jawa:
Balikpapan:
Bintan Island:
07:09.00S-112:40.00E
04:41.30S-114:28.00E
01:40.00S-116:40.00E
00:17.00S-117:36.00E
01:09.00S-117:13.00E
01:22.00S-116:53.00E
01:21.00N-104:29.00E
Ships are advised to maintain strict anti-piracy watch and measures and report all
attacks and suspicious sightings to the local authorities and IMB Piracy Reporting
Centre. The IMB PRC will also liaise with the local authorities to render necessary
assistance.
Malacca Straits: Although the number of attacks have dropped substantially due to the
increased and aggressive patrols by the littoral states authorities since July 2005, ships
are advised to continue maintaining strict anti-piracy/robbery watches when transiting
the Straits. Currently, there are no indications as to how long these patrols will
continue.
Singapore Straits: Vessels are advised to remain vigilant and to continue maintaining
adequate anti-piracy/robbery watch and measures. Pirates/robbers attack ships while
underway or while at anchor especially during the night.
South China Sea: Although attacks have been reduced significantly in the vicinity off
Anambas/Natuna/Mangkai islands/Subi Besar/Merundung areas, vessels are advised
to continue to remain vigilant. A number of product tankers have been reported
hijacked off the coast of Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore in the South China Sea.
Bangladesh: Robbers targeting ships preparing to anchor. Most attacks reported at
Chittagong anchorages and approaches. Attacks in Bangladesh have fallen
significantly over the past few years because of the efforts by the Bangladesh
authorities.
Africa and Red Sea
Nigeria (Lagos): Pirates/robbers are often well armed, violent and have attacked,
hijacked and robbed vessels/kidnapped crews along the coast, rivers, anchorages,
ports and surrounding waters. Attacks reported up to about 170nm from coast. Pirates
have hijacked vessels for several days, ransacked and looted the crew and ship
properties and stolen its cargo, usually gas oil. Crewmembers have been injured and
kidnapped during the attacks. Generally, all waters in Nigeria remain risky. Vessels
are advised to be vigilant, as many attacks may have gone unreported.
Benin (Cotonou): Although the number of attacks has dropped significantly, these
waters remain an area of concern. Past attacks have showed that the pirates/robbers in
this area are well armed and violent. In some incidents, vessels have reported being
fired upon. Vessels have been hijacked and forced to sail to unknown locations where
ship’s property and cargoes have been reported as stolen (gas oil). Crewmembers
have been injured during some of these incidents. Joint patrols by Benin and Nigerian
Authorities have resulted in a drop in the number of attacks. However, vessels are
advised to continue to be vigilant and maintain strict anti-piracy/robbery watches and
measures.
Togo (Lome): Even though the reported attacks have decreased, these waters remain
an area of concern. Pirates/robbers in the area are well armed, violent and dangerous.
82
Attacks have occurred at anchorages as well as off shore and usually at night. Some
attacks resulted in vessels being hijacked for several days and ransacked and part
cargo stolen (gas oil).
Ivory Coast - Abidjan: Attacks have decreased but these waters remain an area of
concern.
The Congo: Pointe Noire
Egypt: Attacks reported at Suez and Alexandria anchorages.
Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Somalia/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean: Attacks related to Somali
pirates have reduced. However, the risk of being approached or attacked still exists.
Vessels are advised and encouraged to remain vigilant and comply with all BMP4
procedures. The threat of these attacks still exists in the waters off southern Red Sea/
Bab el Mandeb, Gulf of Aden, including Yemen and the northern Somali coast,
Arabian sea/off Oman, Gulf of Oman and off the eastern and southern Somali coast.
In the past vessels have been attacked off Kenya, Tanzania, Seychelles, Madagascar,
Mozambique as well as in the Indian ocean and off the west and south coasts of India
and west Maldives. Incidents have also been reported close to the east African
coastlines.
Somali pirates tend to be well armed with automatic weapons and RPG and
sometimes use skiffs launched from mother vessels, which may be hijacked fishing
vessels or dhows, to conduct attacks far from the Somali coast. Masters and ship
owners are encouraged to follow the latest BMP procedures and ensure that the vessel
is hardened prior to entering the High Risk Area. While transiting through these
waters it is essential to maintain a 24-hour visual and radar watch. Early sightings/
detection enable an accurate assessment, keeping in mind the warnings and alerts for
the area, allowing the Masters and PCASP to make informed decisions to keep clear
of small boats, dhows, fishing vessels and if necessary take evasive actions, increase
speed, request assistance as needed.
Masters are reminded that fishermen in this region may try to protect their nets by
attempting aggressively to approach merchant vessels. Some of the fishermen may be
armed to protect their catch and they should not be confused with pirates.
South and Central America and the Caribbean Waters
Ecuador: Guayaquil. Attacks stopped but ships advised to be vigilant.
There seems to be general agreement that, although not stable, the situation in Gulf of
Aden has improved. However, there has been an increase in attacks in Gulf of Guinea.
At least 41 attacks against ships took place in West Africa during 2014, with others
possibly going unreported. Many have taken place in Nigerian waters, but some have
occurred as far afield as Angola and Sierra Leone.
The situation in Singapore and the Malacca Strait is also a source of concern.
The extension and broadening of the ATALANTA mandate for two years was
decided on 21 November 2014 and the UN mandate was similarly extended. This was
welcomed by the shipping industry which felt the need to emphasise the need to
continue the anti-piracy fight notwithstanding the drop in successful attacks.
On 16 March 2015 the European Council adopted the Gulf of Guinea Action Plan
2015-2020. This complements the Gulf of Guinea Strategy which was adopted in
83
March 2014. The Action Plan aims to enhance the capabilities of the coastal states of
the Gulf of Guinea to tackle the complex and wide ranging challenges of maritime
insecurity, organised crime and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
activities.
As with the Strategy, adopted on 17 March 2014, this Action Plan reasserts the
importance which the European Union attaches to continuing the close cooperation
with partners across Western and Central Africa, in taking all appropriate measures to
combat maritime crime, including piracy and armed robbery at sea, illegal fishing,
smuggling of migrants and trafficking of human beings, drugs, and arms, and to
address the underlying causes to foster long-term security and stability in the region.
The European Council underlines that the Action Plan aims at providing support both
at the regional and national levels, to the ongoing efforts of the Economic Community
of West African States (ECOWAS), the Economic Community of Central African
States (ECCAS) and the Gulf of Guinea Commission (GGC), as well as to the
signatory states to the Code of Conduct concerning the repression of piracy, armed
robbery against ships, and illicit maritime activity in West and Central Africa, adopted
at the June 2013 Heads of State Summit in Yaoundé, Cameroon. The implementation
of the Action Plan is intended to reinforce intra-regional cooperation as well as to
increase the level of coordination among the EU and its Member States, and
international partners.
The problem is that in contrast to Somalia, the littoral states of the Gulf of Guinea
have functioning governments, sensitive of their sovereign rights and do not accept
heavy handed actions. Nigeria has even started detaining ships for the presence on
board of unarmed security guards.
The shipping industry is therefore concentrating its efforts in trying to secure the
continuation of European, UN, etc. naval presence in the Indian Ocean and diplomatic
efforts in the Gulf of Guinea. The safety of terminals in the area is also of concern
and, in this connection, it is felt that the oil industry should make more of an effort.
There ae also concerns concerns with respect to the on-going attacks in the Singapore
and Malacca Straits, and in particular difficulties relating to the classification of
incidents by Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed
Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) distorting the security picture in the
region.
Action Plan to Address Sustainability of a High Level Counter Piracy
Forum
Unfortunately, many influential States view the Contact Group on Piracy off the
Coast of Somalia as having fulfilled its mandate, and that consequently it is possible
that the group will be put into abeyance or wound up at its next session (7-8 July
2014). It will be noted that, in the particular case of Somali piracy, this could have an
impact of the sustainability of capacity building initiatives ashore and that this could
result in a future resurgence of the pirates. Furthermore suggestions have previously
been made, given the continuation of piracy in other regions of the world, that the
mandate of the CGPCS could be expanded to that of a global forum, to ensure that
transferable mechanisms could be appropriately applied, and that knowledge should
be shared.
84
The ICS advises that whereas the primary goal of Somali pirates has been to hijack
ships and their crews in order to obtain ransom payments, the majority of incidents in
West Africa have been motivated by theft (including entire oil cargoes) and many
have been characterised by disturbingly high levels of violence, with some seafarers
having tragically been killed. However, cases of kidnapping for ransom have also
become more common. In October 2014, updated Guidelines were published jointly
by ICS, BIMCO, Intercargo and INTERTANKO, providing comprehensive advice on
avoiding and deterring armed attacks in the region. The revised Guidelines also take
account of new regional maritime security initiatives in West Africa, in particular the
Maritime Trade Information Sharing Centre for the Gulf of Guinea, located in Ghana,
which is providing a focal point for information on countering maritime crime in the
region. The 121 incidents in South East Asia in 2014, reported to the ICC
International Maritime Bureau, are also of great concern. While some were relatively
minor thefts, many crews have been threatened with weapons. Furthermore, at least
21 ships, mostly small coastal tankers, have apparently been hijacked in order for
their cargoes to be stolen. The challenge of policing the thousands of islands from
which the robbers are able to operate in the region is recognised, but there is a
growing feeling that the authorities in Indonesia and Malaysia must do far more to
clamp down on the criminal gangs involved. Throughout 2014, although there were
no reports of successful attacks by Somali pirates, their activity was still being
observed in the Indian Ocean. In March 2015, however, an Iranian fishing vessel was
reportedly detained by irregular forces. The descent of Yemen into civil war in early
2015 is adding to the uncertainty. The need for ships to be vigilant and remain fully
compliant with the industry’s Best Management Practices (BMP 4) therefore remains
unchanged. The reduction in Somali attacks has been attributed to the combined
success of precautionary measures taken by shipping companies, including BMP 4,
the continued use of private maritime security companies, and the vital protection
provided by military assets in the region.
The GSCC welcomes the reduction in piracy incidents in the Gulf of Aden and Indian
Ocean areas owing to the factors mentioned above, but endorses the call for continued
vigilance and continued anti-piracy naval presence in the region.
The GSCC is naturally most concerned at the worsening piracy situation in West
Africa, and supports regional and international efforts to address the situation there.
Governments, as well as the shipping industry, cannot allow criminals to prevail and
must not rest until the goal of eliminating piracy at sea, wherever it may occur, has been
accomplished.
It is the responsibility of governments to establish and enforce security in their
territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone and on the High Seas. This may entail
deploying naval assets to guard the waters against actual, or threats of, criminal acts at
sea and includes giving these forces sufficiently robust mandates to take all necessary
actions in conformity with international conventions and the spirit of UN Security
Council Resolutions.
Refugees – Rescue at Sea
The United Nations High commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says that during
2015 so far (data up to 6 May 2015), some 60,000 men, women and children have
braved the open sea in the Mediterranean, in a desperate bid to find safety in Europe.
More than 1,800 have perished in the attempt.
85
There is also an emerging situation in the South East Asia, as many thousands of
persecuted migrants from Myanmar are seeking to escape to Malaysia and Indonesia
by sea in overcrowded and unsafe crafts provided by people smugglers.
It is likely that 2015 will reach a record high for illegal migration at sea, putting lives
at risk and placing a huge strain on rescue services and on merchant vessels. The ageold principles of rescue on the high seas are being stretched to breaking point. In the
event that merchant ships become involved there are very likely to be issues about the
willingness of coastal states to arrange prompt and predictable disembarkation.
UNHCR says that, according to estimates from coastal authorities and information
from confirmed interdictions and other monitoring, more than 207,000 people crossed
the Mediterranean in 2014. This onslaught of migration by sea, often in unsafe
vessels, is not a random occurrence. It is being organised and orchestrated by people
who trade and traffic the lives of others.
There is a legal framework in place to make this a crime – the Protocol against the
Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which is an annex to the UN
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The organised, international
crime, in the Mediterranean needs to be addressed, with collective action by all
concerned to detain, arrest and prosecute people smugglers. What is needed is more
funding and the collaboration among several bodies and UN agencies, such as the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the United Nations Refugee Agency, the
International Organization for Migration, INTERPOL, the African Union, the
European Union and European Commission and the Economic Commissions for
Africa and for Europe.
At the beginning of April, ICS and ECSA (with the ITF and ETF seafarers’ unions)
sent a widely publicised joint letter to EU leaders calling for action to address the
Mediterranean crisis, with an emphasis on the need for all EU Member States to
increase state backed Search and Rescue resources. This followed the ending of the
Italian ‘Mare Nostrum’ operation in 2014 and its replacement by Operation Triton,
which is within the mandate of the EU border agency, FRONTEX,
At the end of April, however, events moved very quickly after the loss of around 800
lives when a fishing boat carrying migrants sank off the coast of Libya, placing a
global media spotlight on the urgent need for action. EU leaders held an emergency
Summit, while foreign ministers agreed a ‘10 point plan’ which included measures to
tackle the people smugglers, the tripling of resources for the EU Triton operation, and
the commitment of EU Member States to deploy additional vessels and aircraft.
The EU measures agreed still appear to fall short of the scale and mandate of ‘Mare
Nostrum’. It is understood that Triton’s resources can be deployed in international
waters when called upon by national Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres, but it
remains doubtful whether they can rapidly reach areas near the Libyan coast, where
most incidents tend to occur.
In addition to humanitarian concerns, the situation is of particular concern to shipping
companies and crews because while ships will always adhere to their legal obligations
and respond to distress calls they are clearly unsuited for large scale rescue
operations, which may put the ship, the crew and the refugees at risk.
86
It must be understood by governments that it is unreasonable to have to rely on
merchant ships to respond to this crisis and the provision of adequate SAR resources
is necessary.
The GSCC has tried to highlight this and has kept the membership informed,
circulating ICS’s guidance on Large Scale Rescue Operations at Sea, and the updated
version, Rescue at Sea: A guide to principles and practice as applied to refugees and
migrants, which was prepared jointly by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The guide is intended for
masters, shipowners, government authorities, insurance companies, and other
interested parties involved in rescue-at-sea situations. It provides guidance on relevant
legal provisions, on practical procedures to ensure the prompt disembarkation of
rescued persons, and on measures to meet their specific needs, particularly in the case
of refugees and asylum-seekers.
Shipping companies should be reminded that in the event of problems disembarking
people rescued at sea, both the UNHCR and IMO may be able to help.
The MSC 91, of November 2012, adopted amendments to SOLAS regulation III/17-1,
which entered into force in July 2014, requiring ships to have plans and procedures
ready for the recovery of persons from the water, as well as related guidelines for the
development of plans and procedures for the recovery of persons from the water.
There is also a related MSC resolution on the implementation of SOLAS regulation
III/17-1 to ships to which SOLAS chapter III does not apply.
Enterprise Income Tax
The last SPC noted that China’s State Administration of Taxation (SAT) had
introduced a new regulation clarifying that, as of 1 August 2014, non-resident
enterprises are subject to corporate income tax on any international transportation
service sourced from China (i.e. a voyage charter to a Chinese company).
The Committee noted that although foreign enterprises were eligible to apply to
reduce or waive the tax if there was an applicable double taxation treaty in place
between their country and China, there were some areas in which further clarification
was required. These included the following questions:

The status of ships working under commercial agreements agreed before 1
August 2014;

The tax liability of vessels on long term time charter to a Chinese charterer,
but not calling at Chinese ports;

Whether the new requirements apply where neither the owner or charterer is
Chinese, but the ship calls in China.
The SPC was instructed to gather further information on the issues faced by
shipowners, with a possible view to making contact with the Chinese SAT to
encourage the publication of guidance on these questions.
However, having received little further information from members, the Secretariat has
assumed that sufficient clarification has been gained on the above questions, or that
shipowners are liaising with the Chinese authorities locally in order to address any
87
outstanding issues. It is therefore understood that further ICS involvement in this
issue is unnecessary.
Members will be invited to confirm that no immediate further ICS action is required.
ILO Minimum Monthly Basic Wage Figure for Able Seafarers
The ILO Minimum Wage for Able Seafarers will increase, from 1 January 2015,
from US$ 585, basic, per month to US$ 592, with a further increase to US$ 614
scheduled from 1 January 2016. This follows the agreement reached, in February
2014, by the ILO Joint Maritime Commission (JMC) in Geneva. The JMC
comprises employers’ representatives co-ordinated by ICS and seafarers’ union
representatives co-ordinated by the International Transport Workers’ Federation
(ITF).
The International Chamber of Shipping explained that level of the increase in part
reflects the fact that when the ILO Minimum Wage was previously reviewed in 2011,
the schedule of increases then agreed was somewhat lower than that suggested by
ILO data on living costs at that time, with seafarers’ unions acknowledging the severe
pressures placed on employers created by the 2009 downturn. However, although
difficult trading conditions continue, the new agreed level of the ILO minimum wage
should help to provide some stability for employers, with no further changes expected
until at least 2017.
The ILO Minimum Wage is now referenced in the ILO Maritime Labour Convention,
although it is still only recommendatory, and not directly relevant to other seafarer
grades,
It should be emphasised that the ILO minimum wage is substantially higher than that
paid for comparable work ashore in developing countries. Moreover, the actual
minimum wage is significantly higher, typically 50% more, once overtime hours
(fixed at a minimum of one and a quarter times basic pay) and other mandatory ILO
requirements, such as payments for leave entitlements, are taken into account. It is
also only a minimum. Most ratings from developing countries receive significantly
more, while officers receive substantially more, with differentials between officers
from OECD and developing nations continuing to narrow.
The shipping industry is unique in that it has a recommended global minimum wage,
which is revised periodically by the ILO Joint Maritime Commission (JMC) in
Geneva. The JMC comprises employers’ representatives co-ordinated by ICS and
seafarers’ union representatives co-ordinated by ITF.
ICS and ITF will be returning to Geneva next year to begin consideration of possible
adjustments after 2017. ICS is strongly committed to the principle of the ILO
Minimum Wage, which is now referenced in the ILO Maritime Labour Convention.
While it is still only recommendatory, and is not directly relevant to other seafarer
grades, it has strong moral authority and is particularly important for employers in
88
developing countries. It may also be relevant to other collective bargaining
negotiations, including those which take place in the International Bargaining Forum.
The ILO Minimum Wage is substantially higher than that paid for comparative work
ashore in developing countries. Moreover, the total wage enjoyed by most seafarers is
significantly higher once overtime hours (fixed at a minimum of one and a quarter
times basic pay) and other mandatory payments such as leave entitlements are taken
into account. The total wage paid to an Able Seafarer will typically be at least 50%
more than the basic. Most ratings from developing countries that serve on ships
trading internationally receive significantly higher wages than that recommended by
ILO. Ships’ officers, furthermore, receive substantially higher pay, and differentials
between officers from OECD and non-OECD nations continue to narrow.
IMO Facilitation Committee
ICS participated in the 39th Session of the IMO Facilitation Committee (FAL) from
22-26 September 2014.
As reported in SPC(14)31, the most notable development of the Committee’s session
was the finalisation of amendments to the FAL Convention, with the text of the
Convention now set for approval at the next meeting in 2016 (no FAL meeting is
scheduled for 2015).
It will be recalled that the proposed inclusion of ‘visa number’ within the Crew List,
Passenger List and Disembarkation Card has been a controversial issue throughout the
review process. In the final instance, IMO agreed (with ICS support) that “visa
number, if appropriate” would not be included within the information that port states
may require in the Crew List or Disembarkation Card. However, and despite the
opposition expressed by a significant minority of delegations (including ICS), it was
also decided that “visa number, if appropriate” would be inserted in the similar
provision relating to the information that can be required in the Passenger List.
Whilst it would have been preferable to have no mention of ‘visa number’ within the
FAL Convention, ICS’s successful opposition to the proposed amendment to the
Crew List should be considered an achievement given the number of states that spoke
in favour of this amendment at earlier meetings.
The other controversial issue during the review has been the proposed inclusion of a
date by which time contracting governments must have established systems for the
electronic exchange of information. With ICS support, the Committee agreed to a
mandatory implementation date of 3 years after the date of adoption of the new
amendments.
FAL 39 also approved the addition of a new output to the Committee's 2016-2017
biennial agenda permitting the development of guidelines on the facilitation aspects of
protecting the maritime transport network from cyber threats, and invited papers in
advance of FAL 40 in 2016. (It is expected that the navigational aspects of
89
cybersecurity will be covered by MSC, and ICS is liaising with BIMCO which is
leading on this subject.)
Shore Leave and Identity Documents
Throughout the 20th century, it was common practice for seafarers to be permitted to
enter the territory of the many countries they visited for the purpose of taking shore
leave or to travel to their vessel, without needing to apply for a personal visa in
advance, provided that they held a seafarers’ identity document. This even included
the Soviet Union, and very often seafarers would not even need to carry a passport.
There was a general recognition by governments that seafaring was a special
profession, and that seafarers who had been confined at sea, perhaps for several
weeks, should be permitted to come ashore with minimal hindrance.
However, in many countries this attitude has come to an end, partly due to growing
concerns about illegal immigration but also as a result of security concerns following
the terrorist attacks in 2001. However, ICS is a little more hopeful that progress can
now be made towards improving the facilitation of shore leave and crew transfers for
the world’s 1.5 million merchant seafarers. This follows important recommendations
by an ILO tripartite meeting of employers, seafarers’ unions and governments, held in
Geneva in February 2015, at which ICS co-ordinated shipowners’ representation. The
ILO meeting considered possible adjustments to the Seafarers’ Identity Documents
Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO 185), and outlined a pathway that could bring about
improvements to the welfare of seafarers while addressing the legitimate security
concerns of governments. ILO 185 requires ratifying nations to issue resident
seafarers with Seafarers’ Identity Documents (SIDs) and to facilitate the entry of
foreign seafarers holding SIDs (conforming to an agreed format) into their territory
for the purposes of shore leave, transfer and transit. However, since its adoption in
2003, the Convention has failed to achieve widespread implementation, in large part
because the technical standards adopted have been superseded by new technologies.
The ILO meeting in February brought together governments and the ILO Social
Partners in order to consider these issues and to make formal recommendations to the
ILO Governing Body on options that might help to bring about the further ratification
and more widespread implementation of ILO 185. Most notable among the
recommendations agreed was a proposal that the technical specifications for
Seafarers’ Identity Documents, within the annexes to ILO 185, should be updated in
order to bring them into line with technologies already used by governments. In
practice, this would mean the inclusion within SIDs of a facial image biometric and a
digital signature, both stored on a contactless chip, making SIDs interoperable with
the infrastructure used by most countries to issue e-Passports and to verify them at
their borders. The principal concern of ICS with respect to ILO 185 has always been
that it should help to ensure seafarers’ access to shore leave and their ability to join or
leave a vessel in a foreign country. But technical issues have clearly prevented
widespread implementation by governments. In addressing some of these issues, the
ILO meeting’s recommendations have hopefully outlined a potential way forward that
could make it easier for governments to ratify and implement this important
Convention. The recommendations will be considered by a future meeting of the ILO
Governing Body which will consider whether the proposed measures should be taken
forward.
90
THE GREEK SHIPPING CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE
THE COUNCIL (June, 2014 – June, 2016)
Haralambos J. Fafalios
Chairman
Constantine Is. Caroussis
Vice-Chairman
John M. Lyras
Vice-Chairman
Spyros M. Polemis
Vice-Chairman
John A. Angelicoussis
Member
Nicholas A. Comninos-Xylas
Member
Dimitris C. Dragazis
Member
George E. Embiricos
Member
John M. Hadjipateras
Member
Alexandros K. Kedros
Member
Stathes J. Kulukundis
Member
Diamantis J Lemos
Treasurer/Member
Filippos P. N. Lemos
Member
Maria P. Lemos
Member
Matheos T. Los
Member
Efthimios E. Mitropoulos
Member
George K. Mouskas
Member
Anthony P. Palios
Member
Michael G. Pateras
Member
Andreas A. Tsavliris
Member
Secretariat
Konstantinos Amarantidis, Director
Sylvana James
91

annual report 2014-2015

Transcription

Similar documents

By: Chester C. Cokaliong THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT AS

Alea jacta est

ordering instructions mail order

Wheel Packaging Standard 2011

Order Form

FS 1000 Owners Manual

Church Hill Classics ®

Passenger ship safety since 1912

IMO Guidelines for Vessels with Dynamic Positioning Systems

AAAWA Newsletter 2015 June