The day ships became safer and seas cleaner
New guide to loss prevention initiatives
Liberian log stowaways
Familiarising passengers
US reporting rules
Louisiana crew claims
Short-loading at Paranagua, Brazil
The importance of steel preload surveys
Explosive Ukrainian scrap
Deviation - what is justified?
Nigerian 8 o'clock rule for tankers
Filipino crew retirement benefits
New York arbitration
Nicaraguan freight tax
Gypsy Moth update
Shipboard familiarisation for new crew
Safety management poster issued
Singapore training links
Residential course oversubscribed
Fire on board - who is in charge?
Hong Kong seminar
Welcome aboard
The day ships became safer and seas cleaner
1 July 1998 will probably be recorded in future maritime history books as the day when the world's ships became safer and the seas became cleaner. It was of course the final date on which almost all bulk carriers, tankers and passenger ships around the world had to be compliant with the new Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention, which includes the ISM Code.
However, according to press reports, the date has been a 'sword of Damocles' hanging over the industry. Would the shipowners obtain their Documents of Compliance and Safety Management Certificates in time? How many will still be non-compliant? How hard are Port State Control authorities going to hit non-compliant shipowners? Will non-compliant shipowners lose their insurance cover? Are there ways of avoiding or at least delaying compliance - by changing the flag of the ship or changing the management or ownership - to run on interim documents? These and many other questions seem to have dominated the debate leading up to the ISM Code implementation.
Such a negative, cynical and pessimistic analysis of views in the shipping industry is neither fair nor reasonable? We should all recognise 1 July 1998 as being an important date in maritime history - possibly one of the most important dates ever. It marks a watershed, a turning point, a day we can look back on and say that was when the industry started to get back on the rails. Indeed, 1 July 1998 should be welcomed as a day of celebration - when safety was finally given top priority.
The time has perhaps come when we should all take a step back and salute the IMO for its splendid initiative. The ISM Code is going to make an enormous contribution towards safer ships and cleaner seas. Safer ships and cleaner seas will mean more money in the shipowners' pocket due to reduced claims and more stable insurance premiums.
Rather than be worried and concerned, the shipowner which has properly implemented a Safety Management System (SMS) should find itself in a very strong position indeed - probably much stronger than before the ISM Code was introduced. As a natural consequence, a properly implemented SMS will lead to reductions in all types of accidents, hazardous occurrences, near misses and, inevitably, claims.
However, the benefits will not happen overnight as the whole ISM Code is linked to the idea of a cycle of continual improvement. If an accident does happen, we recognise what happened, we investigate and analyse why it happened, we implement corrective actions to learn from that experience and ensure that the incident does not reoccur and, finally, we check that the corrective action has been satisfactorily implemented and is working.
The documentation, records, reports and other evidence created within a properly structured SMS will be excellent evidence to demonstrate that a shipowner really is 'exercising due diligence' with regard to seaworthiness and really does care about safety and pollution prevention.But the courts, judges, arbitrators, government agencies, insurers and lawyers need to recognise and understand one very important point: we do not live in a perfect world. The operation of merchant ships is a hazardous and dangerous operation. If ship operators implement the ISM Code as it was intended - which includes producing reports of many accidents and near misses - they must not be penalised for this. Such action would be the death knell of the ISM Code and must be avoided at all cost.
North of England, like other Clubs in the International Group, is fully supportive of the ISM Code and Members must maintain valid certificates in order to ensure recovery of claim payments from the Association.
New guide to loss prevention initiatives
Accompanying this issue of Signals is the latest copy of North of England's guide to its unrivalled range of loss prevention initiatives entitled "Loss Prevention - The Profitable Course".
The Association is generally regarded as the industry leader in the field of loss prevention with its unique training courses, seminars and conferences and high quality publications. The guide updates earlier versions and explains what practical help is available to Members from the Association's Loss Prevention Department.
Though help is made available to all Members, it is recognised that different Members have very different requirements. Nevertheless, the implications of the Association's loss prevention programme have a direct bearing on every single Member.
Within the mutual, non-profit making system on which a P&I Club is built, all Members are insuring the risks and liabilities of all the other Members. Each Member thus has a vested interest in ensuring that not only do they minimise the accidents and claims in their own companies, but also in the companies of their fellow Members.The guide lists a wide range of training courses in P&I insurance and loss prevention, conferences and seminars, and an ever-growing range of loss prevention publications such as loss prevention guide books, posters, checklists and videos. Most of these can be used to compliment Members' efforts to comply with the training and familiarisation requirements of Section 6 of the ISM Code and also with STCW.
Whereas the Association will continue in its endeavours to keep its loss prevention training courses and publications topical, relevant and up-to-date, it should not be thought that this is something new. What is believed to be the first North of England P&I Association loss prevention guide was published in 1878.
It was entitled 'Suggestions to Managing Owners and their Captains' and was edited by the founder of the first Indemnity Association - Mr J Stanley Mitcalfe. Much of the loss prevention advice being given by Mr Mitcalfe 120 years ago is equally relevant today.
Liberian log stowaways
It appears that in the Liberian port of Monrovia there exists a conspiracy between stevedores, watchmen and security personnel to smuggle stowaways on board ships, particularly those loading timber cargo. It is alleged that the dockers endeavour to prepare empty spaces between logs within the hold thus creating a space for stowaways to hide.
It is an extremely dangerous practice: not only are stowaways finding a way aboard with the assistance of a local network, they are then being positioned in a potentially lethal environment. Certainly the Association is aware that bodies of dead stowaways have been discovered in such conditions.
Members should always conduct stowaway searches prior to a ship leaving port and again shortly thereafter. Many are aware of the great difficulty involved in removing stowaways from a ship once they have succeeded in boarding their chosen ship. There are certain areas of the world where it is necessary to be especially careful and particular practices which masters must be aware of.
In Monrovia it is advisable to arrange for closer monitoring of the loading procedure and for officers and crew to be vigilant in ensuring only individuals board the ship who have authority to do so.
Familiarising passengers
On page 6 of this issue of 'Signals' are two articles drawing attention to the important issues of developing a safety culture on board ship with a particular emphasis on shipboard familiarisation for new joiners.
Whereas it is understandable that efforts are concentrated on the familiarisation of the ship's crew, it is clearly important to appreciate that familiarisation of other people who may find themselves on board ship is also extremely important.
There may regularly be supernumeraries joining a ship and possibly even passengers on board. Visitors to a ship will include ships' agents, port officials, surveyors and correspondents. The duty of care owed by a shipowner to each of these groups will vary depending on the circumstances.A passenger who sails with the ship can be assumed to have no experience of a ship compared, say, to a ship's agent, who will only be on board for a short time. It is the responsibility of a shipowner to ensure that everyone is informed as to their surroundings as much as is reasonably practicable.
The necessity of introducing a programme of familiarisation is clear when considering passengers.
It is wise when preparing for the carriage of passengers and supernumeraries to assume that they have never set foot on a ship before, and that absolutely everything, including the ship's movement, is unfamiliar. It is not safe to assume that passengers will act a little more carefully than they do on dry land.
Passengers must therefore be alerted to potential hazards. There are many ways to do this: safety announcements, information cards and appropriately placed fluorescent lighting are just a few. The various options must be tailored to each individual ship and to the number of passengers who would be on board, always remembering that the aim is to reduce the number of accidents.
US reporting rules
Members are reminded of the requirement under US law to promptly report a 'marine casualty' or 'serious marine incidents' occurring in US waters to the US Coastguard.
Failure to follow the reporting requirements may result in a civil penalty of up to US $25,000 being assessed. The reporting requirement expressly applies to foreign ships in US waters.
The regulations require that immediately after addressing safety concerns following a marine casualty or a serious marine incident, the owner, charterer, agent, master, operator or person in charge of the ship must notify the US Coastguard.
Marine casualties and serious marine incidents include loss of life, an injury that requires professional medical treatment beyond first aid, groundings, allisions, collisions and loss of main or auxiliary steering gear. They also include other occurrences adversely affecting the ship's seaworthiness such as fire, flooding, or gear failure, an occurrence causing property damage in excess of US $25,000, and a discharge of 10,000 or more gallons of oil - or a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance - in navigable waters or the environment of the US.
The Coastguard must be notified of the name and official number of the ship, name of the ship's owner or agent, locality in which the incident occurred, nature and extent of injury to persons and damage to property, and the nature and circumstances of the casualty. Within five days after the casualty a written report must be filed with the Coastguard.
In addition US law requires that the owner, managing operator, charterer, agent and/or master must also take steps to determine whether there is any evidence of alcohol or drug use by individuals directly involved in a marine casualty. The regulations outline the steps for collecting and handling urine and for blood and breath specimens, which must be submitted to an approved laboratory for analysis. Refusal of an individual to provide specimens may lead to action being taken against the subject.
New York law firm, De Orchis Walker & Corsa assisted with this article. Members requiring further information on reporting requirements should contact the Association.
Louisiana crew claims
The Association has previously advised Members of the danger surrounding crew claims arising in Louisiana in the US. In another recent case, a Filipino crew member was injured in Louisiana, disembarked and received medical treatment in a local hospital before being repatriated. However, as compensation under the terms of the governing crew contract (POEA) was about to be finalised, the plaintiff attorneys filed suit on behalf of the injured crew member for an exorbitant sum.
Members should once again take note that great care should be taken with ill or injured crew who require medical treatment anywhere in the US, particularly in the south. Indeed, the Association should be advised immediately in order that it can instruct Club correspondents, otherwise the master may wish to contact correspondents direct. The correspondents can then take the necessary steps to contact the crew member in hospital and attempt to minimise exposure to plaintiff lawyers, or those employed by them.
An increasing number of American attorneys are establishing international networks to liaise with repatriated crew members who may wish to consider initiating proceedings in the US. Members should keep this in mind when considering any personal injury or illness incident, and should notify the Club of all such instances.
Short-loading at Paranagua, Brazil
The Association has been advised by local representatives of problems encountered by owners in short loading of bulk agricultural commodities at the port of Paranagua, Brazil.
Ships' figures frequently differ from shore figures by more than 1%. When the master then attempts to clause mates' receipts and bills of lading, he is met with extreme resistance by shippers, who immediately apply to the local civil court for a 'Writ of Prevention' demanding the immediate delivery of clean documents. The result of the application to the court is always in shipper's favour resulting in owners having no option but to comply with the court order.The situation leaves owners in a very vulnerable position and local representatives have advised that there are only limited steps owners can take. These include ensuring original mates' receipts and bills of lading are claused in the first instance, which will assist in proving that documents issued at a later stage were done so under duress. Also, should bills of lading be signed by agents, the master should ensure his letter of authorisation contains a specific demand for the inclusion of the remarks into the bill.
Masters should only sign all mates' receipts on completion of loading to ensure that a remark covering the percentage of the short-loaded quantity ascertained can be inserted in all mates' receipts and not only the last ones presented.
Owners may also wish to give consideration to requesting customs to undertake a draught survey on completion of loading. The surveys are important because they are considered official and can be used as evidence in court.
Although the measures will not prevent shippers obtaining a "Writ of Prevention", they are important means of producing evidence to show at a later date that the shore loading figures were incorrect and to protect owners' potential claims against shippers.
Hatch covers and entrances to holds should be sealed prior to departure and shippers, stevedores, agents and charterers should be formally invited to accompany the sealing. It is of course important to follow this matter through to the discharge port and arrange for an official unsealing of the hatches and entrances and invite receivers to attend.
Official shore records covering the discharge quantity should also be obtained as such evidence may be presented to the local court in Paranagua to counter the 'Writ of Prevention'.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be a move by local courts to alter the bizarre situation which robs the master of his fundamental right to clause mates' receipts and bills of lading. If Members encounter such problems they should contact the Association as soon as possible.
This information was supplied by William van Herp & Frumento Filho, Associados Ltda. A more detailed article can be obtained from the Association on request.
The importance of steel preload surveys
The Association regularly arranges steel preload surveys on finished and semi-finished steel products. Recent advice from representatives in the Black Sea area show the importance to Members of such surveys.
Each year a large number of steel products are exported from Ilychevsk, Ukraine. To increase storage facilities the port recently undertook work on 'Storage Number 10' to broaden the area that adjoins the sea. The work has resulted in steel cargo for export being stacked in close proximity to the sea. Cargo in the front line is only 3-6 metres away from the water and in stormy weather is naturally exposed to the effects of brine.
Moreover, the side of the storage area facing the sea is not protected by any kind of barrier which would afford some limited protection to the cargo. Surveyors conducting random silver nitrate tests on this cargo confirm a strong positive result indicating contamination by chlorides.
As ships arriving at Ilychevsk often load from different storage areas of the port, it is likely that some cargo may come from Storage Number 10 and will be affected by salt water prior to loading.To protect the carrier's position it is therefore extremely important that a thorough preshipment inspection of the steel products, together with silver nitrate tests are performed.
Members fixed to load steel products from Ilychevsk should be extra vigilant about contacting the Association to arrange a pre-shipment survey.
Article provided by Dias Company Ltd.
Explosive Ukrainian scrap
The Association is aware of instances where ships have fixed to load steel scrap in the Ukraine, only to find that the cargo delivered contains objects such as oxygen cylinders and live bullets and shells.
It is reported that there have been explosions during loading of steel scrap at Kerch. Hazardous cargo is also known to have been shipped from Nikolayev.
Steel scrap is a low-value cargo and the quantity loaded is determined by draft surveys. Until now such cargoes have not been subject to inspections during the course of loading. The cargo is usually drawn from a big pile of scrap stacked on the quay.Members should exercise great caution when fixing to load steel scrap from the Ukraine. The Association shall be pleased to provide further advice and assistance should Members have any questions.
Deviation - what is justified?
When a loaded ship is diverted during a voyage it is said to have deviated and a deviation may have far reaching consequences. It may have an effect not only on the contract under which the ship is employed but also on owner's P&I cover.
If the deviation is unreasonable or unjustified, the consequences can be serious. This article explains what may amount to a deviation, indicates at least some of the factors that will determine whether or not it may be justified and highlights some of the consequences of it being unreasonable or unjustified.
It sometimes happens that while a ship is en route from one port to another it becomes necessary to interrupt the voyage temporarily and call at another port or place. That port may be along the course of the original voyage or it might require the ship to sail some distance out of her way.
It might be that there is, for example, an urgent need to land a sick or injured crewman. There might be some other emergency or pressing reason. It might on the other hand simply be more convenient for the owner. It might, for example, just be cheaper for the owner to carry out a crew change at an intermediate port than at the one to which the ship is supposed to be sailing.
What is the owner's obligation with regard to prosecuting the voyage? Where the ship has cargo on board the voyage from load port to discharge port must be prosecuted without unnecessary delay or deviation. The ship must take the most direct, safe route. Where the ship is otherwise employed under a charterparty, the owner will be obliged to follow the charterer's lawful orders.
What then will amount to a deviation? Any failure to comply with the basic obligation may amount to a deviation. Leaving the direct or normal route or failing to comply with charterer's instructions may amount to a deviation.
However a deviation can also arise simply where there is delay in fulfilling that basic obligation. A ship therefore need not necessarily leave the route for there to be a deviation. A deviation may arise if the ship simply slows down or stops en route.Only if the deviation is unreasonable or unjustified will there be negative consequences for the owner. Some deviations are specifically permitted. For example, the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules state explicitly that deviations to save life or property at sea are justified. This is clearly a matter of policy as it would be undesirable to penalise owners for acting to save life or property.
Certain deviations, in certain circumstances, may also be permitted in the relevant contract, such as the bill of lading or charterparty, although in practice these tend to be limited in scope.
Otherwise the question of reasonableness and justification is one that will depend upon the relevant surrounding circumstances. Because it will be a question of fact, it is impractical to attempt to give any detailed guidance on what circumstances may make a deviation reasonable and justified. It would in any event be undesirable to try to offer here even a list of examples of what deviations would be justified or unjustified because so much depends on the specific circumstances.
It can however be said that if a ship deviates for owner's benefit alone or for reasons that are not connected with the contractual voyage, the deviation is unlikely to be justified. More generally, if the need to deviate or delay could have been anticipated at the beginning of the voyage, the deviation is unlikely to be reasonable.
In practice a ship should have on board sufficient stores, provisions and bunkers, and be adequately manned and equipped to complete the voyage without deviation or delay. Nevertheless it may still be reasonable, for example, for the ship to deviate to take additional bunkers in circumstances where it would not in any event have been possible for the ship to complete the whole voyage, even when bunkered to capacity, without taking further bunkers during the voyage.
A deviation is unlikely to be reasonable or justified if the motivation behind it is simply that it is more convenient for owners, or if it is economically more advantageous.
If the ship does deviate, what are the consequences? In the absence of agreement from the other parties concerned, at the very least, the deviation may amount to a breach of contract, exposing owners to a claim for damages. Depending upon the circumstances, the deviation may also amount to a repudiation of the contract. When the ship is employed under a charterparty, charterers may not only have a right to claim damages but may also be able to treat the charterparty as having been brought to an end by the deviation.
So far as liability for cargo is concerned, if the ship deviates unreasonably then the ability to rely upon the exclusions, exemptions and limitations on liability in the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, or otherwise contained in the bill of lading will be lost. The ability to defend a cargo claim may therefore be seriously prejudiced and it will not necessarily matter that the cargo liability may not have arisen as a result of the deviation.
Perhaps even more importantly from a Member's point of view, a deviation may have an adverse effect on P&I cover. Rule 19(17)(B) of the Association's Rules provides that a Member shall have no recovery from the Association where the Member becomes liable in consequence of a deviation.
Cover will only continue unprejudiced where a Member gives prior notice of the deviation to the Managers of the Association. Otherwise a Member should inform the Managers as soon as possible after it becomes aware that a deviation not previously authorised has taken place and the Managers need to confirm that cover is unaffected. The Directors of the Association also have a discretion to provide cover for a liability if the Member had reasonable grounds for believing that no deviation was to be or had been made.
The next issue of 'Signals' will provide some practical suggestions on how owners can best protect themselves if they are involved in a deviation situation.
Nigerian 8 o'clock rule for tankers
A recently reported case about a previously little known rule in Nigeria contains useful lessons for both owners and charterers. The case, involving the ship "Eurus", which went to the Court of Appeal and which has recently received an amount of publicity, involved something known as the 8 o'clock Rule.
Under rules imposed by the Department of Petroleum Reserves in Nigeria, shipments of oil loaded up to 08:00 hours on the first day of the month are treated as having been loaded, and bills of lading issued accordingly, on the last day of the previous month. At the time that the dispute in this case arose, both charterers and owners were unaware of the existence of this Rule.
Charterers gave orders for Notice of Readiness to be given at 11:00 hours on 31 January. This would have resulted in loading completing after 08:00 on 1 February. The bill of lading would then have been dated in February. Instead, the Master tendered Notice of Readiness earlier and loading was completed before 08:00. As a result the bill of lading was treated as having been issued in January.
The price that charterers had to pay when buying their cargo was determined by the date of the bill of lading. Oil prices were higher in January than in February and therefore charterers had to pay more.
The charterparty contained an indemnity clause under which owners were to be responsible for losses suffered by charterers as a result of owner's failure to comply fully with charterer's lawful instructions. Charterers relied on this provision to claim in arbitration the excess that they had paid for their cargo. On appeal the claim failed because it was held that the loss was not foreseeable, neither party having been aware of the rule, and as such did not fall within the indemnity clause as worded.
On this particular occasion the owner was lucky to avoid liability. If the same thing were to happen again, the owner would be unlikely to be as fortunate. With the publicity that the 8 O'clock Rule has received as a result of this case, another loss such as that suffered by the charterers would probably now be regarded as foreseeable.
What the case therefore illustrates graphically is the importance of owners following charterer's lawful orders and instructions closely. Charterer's orders should be ignored only at owner's peril. It is on the other hand important for charterers to ensure that the orders that they give are as clear and precise as possible.
It is also clear from this case that an indemnity clause will need to be worded in a very careful manner in the context of the charterparty as a whole, if it is to have the effect of producing a liability for a loss that is not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. That said, it is nevertheless still not clear whether such a result can be achieved at all easily.
Filipino crew retirement benefits
"We have read with interest an article in issue 31 of Signals covering two recent cases involving Filipino crew. While we have found that the information presented is correct, we would query whether an employer is required to pay an employee retirement benefits if he has been employed for more than one year". Janet Clemo, Pandiman. Philippines.
The Association apologises for the inaccuracy contained in the statement relating to the recent claim by a crew member in the Philippines for retirement benefit.
For a crew member to be entitled to separation pay/retirement benefits under the Labor Code, he or she must be a regular employee. In this case, the crew member claimed that as he had rendered at least one year's service to the shipowner, he was such an employee. However, as stated in the subject article, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the employment was based on a series of contracts and was never on a continuous term. Any claim under the Labor Code was therefore rejected.
We trust that this clarifies the situation, but look forward to any comments other readers may have.
New York arbitration
On page 4 of 'Signals' issue 31, April 1998, an article appeared providing a 'Warning on New York arbitration'. The following letter has been received from the President of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc in New York, who clearly believes that the article was unfair.
"Dear Sirs
The article "Warning on New York arbitration" which was published in the April 1998 issue of SIGNALS did a great disservice to your members by elevating the disappointment of a losing party to an attack on a whole system for resolving maritime disputes. You condemned the system without giving any specifics of the case to which you were referring and, in fact, flatly refusing to reveal which case you were discussing. By so doing, you did not give your members the benefit of deciding for themselves if the decision was "extremely unjust" and whether the cost of the arbitration was so extravagant.
That arbitration awards can only be appealed under very narrow grounds under the US Arbitration Act, which was enacted in 1925 and codified in 1947 as Title 9 of US Code, is nothing new. Finality of arbitral decisions is a virtue which has been recognised by the British Parliament first in 1979, when it made amendments to the Arbitration Act of 1950, and more recently in the Arbitration Act of 1996. Users of arbitration and Defence Clubs have found that having cases drag for years and years in appeals can cost more than a case is worth. Cases can take 10 to 14 years to resolve in London and cost hundreds of thousands of Sterling Pounds. As a result, many users of the system can attest that they have obtained decisions in London which they thought were "extremely unjust" as well but which they did not or could not appeal because it did not make economic sense.
Although there is technically no appeal on the grounds of error of fact or law under the "Act", in a recent decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that it could overturn an award where the arbitration clause provided that a reviewing court had the power to vacate, modify or correct any award "where the arbitrators' findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, or where the arbitrators' conclusions of law are erroneous". If you believe that the recourse of appeal is so desirable, therefore, you can always recommend to your members that they include such wording. You need not write off New York arbitration for that reason.
The "Association's New York lawyers" are correct in advising that there is no requirement for arbitrators to issue a reasoned decision under the "Act". However, New York maritime arbitrators, especially if the arbitration is conducted under the rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators usually write a fully reasoned award which is published unless the parties request at the beginning of the arbitration that it not be published.
With respect to allegedly high arbitrators' fees, many arbitrators now disclose their hourly fee. Some arbitrators, especially if they are practising attorneys, charge higher hourly rates. When one compares the cost of arbitrating a case with hearings of several days in New York with one in London, however, one is bound to find out that New York is generally much less expensive and more efficient. To summarily reject a whole system of arbitration which provides fair, efficient resolution of maritime disputes shows poor judgement and is a disservice to your members.
Lucienne C Bulow
Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc, New York
President"
The editor would welcome any other observations on this important issue.
Nicaraguan freight tax
The Association has been advised that the Nicaraguan Government is attempting to re-impose a 3% freight tax and the Nicaraguan Steamship Agents' Association has been in discussions with the Government concerning its implementation.
This may lead to confusion as some agents are collecting the tax and paying it, and some agents may be holding the collected sums pending a decision by the Government on whether the tax is to be imposed. Some agents may not even be collecting the tax. Members should be aware of this situation and make certain that the precise position is confirmed by their agent in advance of the call of the ship.
Gypsy Moth update
Following a recent enquiry from a Member who was to trade from a Far East Russian port to the US, the Association took the advice of correspondents on the US west coast (Messrs Lamorte Burns) on the current position and regulations of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) towards the problem of infestation by Gypsy Moth.
As many Members will already be aware, the US and Canada have both instigated ship inspection programmes for ships calling from Gypsy Moth areas such as the eastern seaboard of Russia. The inspections are an attempt to prevent the artificial spread of Asian Gypsy Moth (AGM). This programme in the US is under the supervision of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Although the US authorities have their own indigenous North American Gypsy Moth population to contend with, the Asian Gypsy Moth creates a greater risk as the female of the species is capable of flying up to 25 miles. The AGM feeds on larch and other conifers as well as on elder and willow trees. Oaks and other hardwood trees are also known to be at risk.
The US and Canada are naturally concerned about the risk to their native forests and large timber industries.
The AGM flight period is roughly between July and September in Far Eastern Russian ports. Attracted by the lights on ships the AGM may lay eggs on the superstructure or the AGM larvae may be blown short distances to land on ships. APHIS has asked shipping interests not to charter ships that call in Russian Far East ports during the high-risk egg-hatching period. Any ship that arrives during this period that is found infested will be ordered to leave US waters immediately. Although APHIS has no regulation to prevent the entry of AGM high risk ships, the Plant Pest Act grants the authority to order infested ships to leave US waters.
Local representatives have advised that high-risk ships (those arriving in the high-risk period), will have to produce a certificate from the State Plant Quarantine Service of Russia before being allowed to berth. Once alongside the berth an inspection of the ship is carried out to look for egg masses. If a single mass is found the ship is allowed to go out to sea, scrape away the mass and return to berth for re-inspection. If multiple masses are found, the ship is not allowed to call at US ports. These procedures are duplicated in Canada.
To avoid the risk of being refused entry to US and Canadian ports Members should exercise caution when trading to Far Eastern Russian ports.
- Further information can be obtained from the Association or its correspondents in the US and Canada.
Shipboard familiarisation for new crew
Many shipping companies have made the implementation of shipboard familiarisation programmes, for personnel joining any ship, an important part of their on-board safety efforts for many years.
However, the STCW 95 Convention and the ISM Code which became mandatory for most ship types on 1 July 1998 make particular reference to the importance of shipboard familiarisation.
The STCW 95 Convention states under Section A-VI/1 Mandatory minimum requirements for familiarisation and basic safety training and instruction for all seafarers - Familiarisation training states
'1 Before being assigned to shipboard duties, all persons employed or engaged on a seagoing ship other than passengers, shall receive approved familiarisation training in personal survival techniques or receive sufficient information and instruction, taking account of the guidance given in part B, to be able to:
.1 communicate with other persons on board on elementary safety matters and understand safety information symbols, signs and alarm signals;
.2 know what to do if:
.2.1 a person falls overboard,
.2.2 fire or smoke is detected, or
.2.3 the fire or abandon ship alarm is sounded;
.3 identify muster and embarkation stations and emergency escape routes;
.4 locate and don lifejackets;
.5 raise the alarm and have basic knowledge of the use of portable fire extinguishers;
.6 take immediate action upon encountering an accident or other medical emergency before seeking further medical assistance on board; and
.7 close and open the fire, weathertight and watertight doors fitted in the particular ship other than those for hull openings.'
Under Section 6 of the ISM Code - Resources and personnel sub-paragraph 6.3 states 'The company should establish procedures to ensure that new personnel and personnel transferred to new assignments related to safety and protection of the environment are given proper familiarisation with their duties. Instructions which are essential to be provided prior to sailing should be identified, documented and given.'
Clearly a major emphasis has been placed on the importance of shipboard familiarisation and the Association takes this opportunity to remind shipowners of the vital need for such familiarisation training. The person on board ship designated as responsible for all matters pertaining to safety, or the shipboard safety officer, should arrange and co-ordinate safety familiarisation tours for all new joiners. Safety tours should involve a trip around the ship pointing out the location of safety equipment and giving advice on its use. All potential hazards should be highlighted to the new joiner as should the location of muster stations, emergency stations, alarm points, fire fighting equipment and breathing apparatus.
The safety familiarisation tour should be carried out as soon after the personnel join a ship as is practicably possible. Any visitors to the ship and particularly supernumeraries should be given a safety tour which has been suitably adapted to meet the necessary requirements of that person, but should at least include identification of muster and embarkation stations, emergency escape routes, emergency alarm positions and advice on what that person should do in the event of an emergency.
Under the terms of the ISM Code the familiarisation of the crew with the safety management system (SMS) and their individual related duties is an important part of the maintenance, continuity and effective performance of the SMS.
A shipping company may consider several methods to ensure familiarisation of the crew with the SMS including:
- sending seafarers information on the SMS prior to them joining the ship
- provide shipboard induction familiarisation
- requiring seafarers to complete a guided programme detailing the important aspects of the SMS
- allowing a 'hand-over' period between seafarers joining and leaving the ship.
These methods of familiarisation, which are by no means exhaustive, are intended as a simple guide to methods of improving shipboard familiarisation and of course it will be dependent on each company's procedures and operation on how they are best placed to ensure suitable shipboard familiarisation is arranged. The importance of this shipboard familiarisation cannot be overstated.
Safety management poster issued
The latest poster in North of England Safe Work Accident Prevention poster (SWAPP) series highlights the rights and wrongs of safety management at sea.
Safety is of paramount importance and should be borne in mind before any task is attempted. It is essential that a shipping company develops a safety culture on board ship where all staff appreciate the importance of safety.
The senior officers on board ship, in particular, must be totally committed to the safety culture and must be seen actively to promote and support its development. Everyone on board should actively promote safety.Shipboard safety management can be enhanced by management meetings, the establishment of the safety committee on board ship, the election of a dedicated shipboard safety officer, safety representatives and thorough work planning and good on-board communications.
The on-board safety culture should begin as soon as any person joins a ship. New joiners should be issued with the relevant safety equipment and should be taken on a guided safety familiarisation tour by somebody in authority on board ship. It is no longer acceptable for people to join a ship and be asked simply to begin work immediately and not undergo this important familiarisation process.
Recipients of the SWAPP poster series are reminded that it is the intention of the Association to enable Members to rotate the posters on a regular basis such that the safety message can be varied in an attempt to provoke interest and encourage compliance with best practices.
Singapore training links
The first of this year's overseas five day training courses was held at the Harbour View Dai-ichi Hotel, Singapore from 4 - 8 May.
Delegates attended not only from Singapore but also Hong Kong, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. The training course was run in conjunction with the Singapore Shipping Association, the support and encouragement of which was much appreciated.
In addition to a team from the Association's Newcastle and Hong Kong offices and South Tyneside College, contributions to the course were also made by local speakers Steven Chong of Rajah & Tann, Paul Aston of Holman Fenwick and Willan and Steven Hazelwood of Ince & Co.While in Singapore, the Association's loss prevention manager, Phil Anderson, was also invited by the Singapore Shipping Association to address its members on the topic of "Loss Prevention and the Role of the P & I Clubs" at a luncheon meeting.
The Association will continue its training in Singapore in September when it will take up an invitation by the Singapore College of Insurance to run a two-day course on P & I insurance.
Residential course oversubscribed
The first five-day residential course was held in May 1993. Since that time it has become a regular feature on North of England calendar with most of the places being taken before the next course is advertised. Early bookings are based on the personal recommendations of previous years' participants.
The 1998 residential course was again held at the 14th century Lumley Castle in June. Unfortunately a large number of potential delegates who left it late to register had to be disappointed for the course was again heavily oversubscribed.
Those who did get their registration forms in early enjoyed a memorable week of hard work as well as some good social events when they could relax.
In addition to UK-based delegates, there were participants from New Zealand, Spain, Canada, Qatar, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Japan, Cuba, The Netherlands, Ukraine, the USA, Croatia, Russia and Greece - a truly international gathering.In the end-of-week assessment, 26 out of 28 delegates achieved a pass with distinction which is an excellent achievement.
Fire on board - who is in charge?
North of England P & I and its associated hull and machinery mutual MSMI co-sponsored an important international conference on 14 - 16 May 1998 which brought together fire-fighters with representatives from the maritime industry to debate the important issue of who is in charge in an emergency situation on board ship when shore-based fire-fighters attend.
The conference was held on board the ferry MS Admiral of Scandinavia on a return voyage from Newcastle upon Tyne to Ijmuiden, Amsterdam.Ship fires and other emergency incidents involving ships in port, or offshore but within reach of shore-based fire brigades, can present particular problems from a command point of view. This conference explained the latest research on command decision making and its application in the international and inter-cultural environment found on board ships.
It also considered the views of fire officers, ship captains, harbour masters and other interested parties in respect of the chain of command and also who should hold the overall authority for managing such incidents.
A prominent panel of international speakers made presentations over the two days of the conference raising a wide range of views as to where the overall responsibility for command of an emergency situation lies. Many of those views have been collected together in a 158 page bound set of speakers' papers. A limited number of copies of those papers are available from the Loss Prevention Department of the Association for £25 per set inclusive of postage.
Hong Kong seminar
On Tuesday 28 April the Association was pleased to welcome a significant number of Members and other delegates from the Hong Kong shipping community to its loss prevention seminar held at the Furama Hotel.
Speakers were drawn from both the Newcastle and Hong Kong offices as well as South Tyneside College and covered subjects as wide ranging as P & I Underwriting in the Millennium, Maritime Education in light of the STCW revisions and the relevance of the ISM Code to claims handling.
A limited number of copies of the speakers' prepared papers are available from the Associations' Hong Kong office.
Welcome aboard
Peter Scott
Peter worked as a port agent in New Zealand for nine years before coming to the UK to study for an LLM in maritime law during 1986. He subsequently trained with the law firm Clyde & Co and qualified as a solicitor. For the last four and a half years Peter has worked for the non-group Club Ocean Maritime Mutual.
Graham Pilkington
Graham joined the FD&D Department in March 1998. Having obtained an LLB at Melbourne University, Australia and qualified as a solicitor, Graham then qualified as a solicitor in England in 1984. He joined Constant & Constant, London shipping law firm in 1985 and was a partner there for eight years.
Lesley Dixon
Lesley joined the FD&D Department in May 1998 having previously worked in the aviation and commercial litigation department at London law firm, Field Fisher Waterhouse. She obtained a BA (Honours) degree from Newcastle University.