SAFETY AT SEA
A Partnership In Maritime Evolution
by RAdm. A. E. Henn, USCG
A number of tragic casualties have
occurred in the past several years
which have caused the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) to go to general quar-
ters.
• A Need For Improvement
Of Maritime Safety
The time has come to assign re-
sponsibilities to those who are
charged with maritime safety and
environmental protection; time for
each of us to critically examine our
roles, and if need be, to alter those
roles and the way we do business.
The USCG is working with owners,
classification societies, other gov-
ernments, insurers and the entire
maritime community as a team, in a
partnership to continually strive for
a safe and clean marine environ-
ment. The U.S. is now predomi-
nantly a port state (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Approximately 95 percent of our
passenger cruise trade, 95 percent
of our cargo imports and 75 percent
of our crude oil pumped ashore in-
volve foreign flag vessels. Thou-
sands of vessels, flying the flags of
over 55 other governments, regu-
larly call at our ports every year. As
a port state, we are obligated to
protect our citizens and their envi-
ronment.
Picture the protection of life and
property at sea, and the protection
of the marine environment, as a
layered series of safety nets
stretched out below the entire mari-
time industry. These safety nets—
which include owners/operators,
classification societies, the flag state,
and the port state—represent the
segments of our community charged
with carrying out specific responsi-
bilities. These safety nets have been
created to keep a ship, its passen-
gers and crew, and its cargo out of
harm's way.
• Owner/Operators
The first and most important
October, 1993
safety net is that of the vessel's own-
ers and operators. Even the most
technologically-advanced vessel will
quickly deteriorate and become a
maritime menace if it is not ad-
equately maintained, crewed and
managed. Thus, we have come to
recognize that a company's manage-
ment practices, its maintenance
philosophy, and its institutional
commitment to maritime safety and
environmental protection are among
the most significant parts of the
equation.
The International Maritime
Organization's (IMO) Marine Safety
Committee (MSC) has taken note of
the importance of the maritime
community's infrastructure. The
Committee's International Manage-
ment Code for the Safe Operation of
Ships and for Pollution Prevention
(International Safety Management
{ISM} Code) provides a series of rec-
ommendations for the "appropriate
organization of management to en-
able it to respond to the need of
those on board ship to achieve and
maintain high standards of safety
and environmental protection." The
ISM Code identifies the functional
requirements of a company's Safety
Management System, which in-
cludes: procedures for maintaining
the vessel in accordance with rel-
evant international and flag state
requirements; procedures for report-
ing non-conformities; and proce-
dures to prepare for and respond to
emergency situations. I expect the
ISM Code to be adopted as a resolu-
tion by the IMO's Assembly in late
October 1993.
I endorse the aims of the ISM
Code, and have incorporated many
of its objectives in our own Maritime
Regulatory Reform agenda. In fact,
much of the ISM Code merely codi-
fies the operations and philosophies
which have been practiced by re-
sponsible marine operators for years;
the companies for whom safety has
always been "smart business." In
short, the ISM Code reaffirms that
vessel owners/operators bear the
ultimate responsibility to crew,
maintain and safely operate sea-
worthy vessels. Thus, when owner/
operators meet their responsibili-
ties, the remaining safety nets take
on an enhancement role rather than
an enforcement role.
• Classification Societies
The second safety net is the clas-
sification societies. They work with
underwriters, and act as the owner's
backup for maintaining a seawor-
thy ship. They are also responsible
to the owner for ensuring the ship
complies with the requirements of
their own classification rules. There
are 42 classification societies around
the world today, and of these, only
11 are recognized in the Interna-
tional Association of Classification
Societies. Even within the 11 recog-
nized classification societies, there
are the big eight, and probably only
five or so that most of us are com-
fortable with. Well, what of the
other 31 so-called classification so-
cieties? The ones I refer to as the
"tinker-toy" classification societies.
The ones that consist of two men
and a dog in a room with a tele-
phone; classification societies that
would "stamp a ham sandwich" if
they could make a dollar doing so.
The international community is so
concerned about the proliferation of
these "in name only" classification
societies that a new subcommittee
on Flag State Implementation has
been formed by the IMO.
• Flag State
The third safety net is the flag
state's administration. Since ship-
ping involves the public market
place, government control is enacted
through laws and regulations that
promulgate a level of safety in ac-
cordance with public expectations.
Administrations are responsible for
ensuring that the provisions of such
laws and regulations are met. In
this regard, the IMO embodies the
international public's expectations
and each flag administration is
charged with enforcing the provi-
sions of the IMO conventions. The
USCG acts as the flag state admin-
istrator for vessels flying the U.S.
flag. I am pleased to see the new
IMO Flag State Implementation
Subcommittee establishing guide-
lines for delegation of authority by a
Flag State to a body acting on its
behalf, and guidelines to assist flag
states in the implementation of IMO
instruments relating to the reduc-
tion of substandard ships. I believe
international cooperation like this
is critical, as there are far too many
flag state administrations shirking
their responsibilities.
• Port States
The fourth safety net is the port
state. As protection to its own citi-
zens and their environment, each
port state is autho-
rized to verify that
the provisions of
the conventions
are met. The ex-
tent and depth of
the examinations
performed varies
greatly with each
country. The port
state safety net
should only have to
review the condi-
tion of a ship. Its
role is to verify, not
certify.
However, I
must tell you the
RAdm. A. E. Henn
U.S. control verification program
continues to find too many deficient
vessels that have passed through
the first four safety nets undetected.
The U.S. sees a large cross section
of the shipping industry. For ex-
ample, last year 7,500 foreign flag
vessels made 60,000 port calls to
U.S. ports. Under our control verifi-
cation program, the USCG conducted
13,000 separate boardings and
boarded 6,600 foreign flag vessels.
The USCG found violations of U.S.
laws or international regulations on
36 percent of the boardings. Cargo
transfer or vessel movement con-
trols were imposed during 12 per-
cent of the boardings. And in 300
cases, about two percent of our
boardings, the foreign vessel was
detained pending correction of the
violation.
Looking a bit closer at foreign flag
tank ships, 1,600 foreign flag tank
ships entered U.S. ports last year.
These vessels accounted for more
than 12,000 port calls. Our exami-
nation of these vessels found numer-
ous violations of SOLAS and USCG
(Continued on page 39)
Figure 2
PERCENTAGE OE BOARDINGS
A VIOLATION WAS FOUND
37
Digital Wave Publishing