New guide to loss prevention tools
New loss prevention guide on Port state control
Treating smoke inhalation
Russians get tough on improperly declared medicines
Yemen stevedore claims
Cargo securing manuals - a reminder
Californian pilots - a new risk for owners
Unhappy day for shipowners
Recovering legal costs in the US
Ports of refuge - a new approach needed
Masters decisions and charterer's orders
New COLREGS poster
New poster on raising a fire alarm
Fraudulent certificates - the real cost
University recognition for P&I distance learning course
Loss prevention in Hell
ISM seminar in Germany
Residential course - last chance
The ISM Code - is it working?
New Guide to loss prevention tools
The range of training courses, loss prevention publications and support material offered by North of England P&I to Members continues to grow almost monthly. To keep Members abreast of the full range of loss prevention tools available to them, the Association has produced a new brochure - a copy of which accompanies this issue of Signals.
North of England's philosophy towards loss prevention is that it does not attempt, or profess, to undertake Members' loss prevention programmes for them - that is for the Members and their own staff to fulfil. What the Association can do is to provide certain 'tools' which will help Members to implement their loss prevention programmes.
The tools take the form of training courses, loss prevention guides, posters, videos and checklists. Intelligently and imaginatively used, they will help build and complement a working safety management system. However, as with any tools, they will only ever be as good as those who use them. The master, officers and crew - as well as the management and staff ashore - must be motivated to want to use the tools to build a safer future.
Members are encouraged to advise the Association if they identify other loss prevention tools they may require.
New loss prevention guide on Port State Control
Port state control is the topic of the latest addition to North of England's highly popular series of loss prevention guides.
Governments have long had an interest in the condition of foreign-flag ships calling at their ports, but the origins of port state control as we know it today can probably be traced back to 1978. That was the year when a number of states in northern Europe agreed to exchange information on the foreign ships calling at their ports.
The agreement was formalised in 1982 when the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU) was signed by 14 European states. Since then the Paris MOU has grown and a further five MOUs or agreements have been signed by other groups of states around the world.
There were no internationally adopted rules for port state control until 1995 when the IMO adopted a resolution on the procedures to be followed. However these procedures, amended in 1999, are not mandatory and only offer guidance to port states and their inspectors.
In 2000, Intercargo published a guide on port state control; although aimed at cargo ships it is also useful for other ship types. North of England has now published a revised version of this guide for its members as part of the Club's series of loss prevention guides. Supported by flow charts, checklists and other aids to memory, the guide describes port state practice as it stands today. Advice is also given on how to manage inspections.
The guide has two main aims. The first is to improve the inspection performance of ships through a better understanding and awareness of port state control practice. The second is to look for any lack of consistency, varying performance and poor practice by Port State Control officers in conducting inspections. To seek feedback and attempt to quantify the situation, an inspection reporting form that can be returned to Intercargo forms part of the guide.
Copies of the guide will be sent to all Members and entered ships. Members may obtain additional copies of this and other loss prevention guides from the loss prevention department at the special members' rate of £10 a copy.
Treating smoke inhalation
One of the main dangers of a fire is the inhalation of smoke and/or fumes. Breathing in smoke, gases or toxic vapours can be lethal, so a rescue attempt should not be attempted without using breathing apparatus and following correct procedures. Smoke or fumes which have accumulated in a confined space will quickly overcome anyone who is not wearing such equipment. A fire also presents the additional hazard of unsafe surroundings.
Any person who has been enclosed in a confined space during a fire should be assumed to have inhaled smoke. Further, smoke from burning plastics, foam padding and synthetic wall coverings may contain poisonous fumes. Casualties should also be examined for any other injuries which might have been sustained as a result of the fire.
Smoke is a bigger killer than fire itself, it is low in oxygen and may contain toxic fumes from burning materials. The normal effects of smoke inhalation are an irritation of the air passages causing spasm and swelling, resulting in rapid, noisy distressed breathing with coughing and wheezing. This will possibly be accompanied by unconsciousness, burning in or around the nose or mouth and soot around the nose and mouth.
If it is safe to so do, the casualty should be removed from the danger area and taken into fresh air. If the casualty is unconscious, open the airway and check breathing and, if necessary, resuscitate them. The casualty should then be placed in the recovery position and provided with oxygen if available. Medical advice by radio should be sought where appropriate.
A person who finds themselves in a smoke filled room should get their nose as low as possible and crawl towards a safe exit.
Russians get tough on improperly declared medicines
Russian customs authorities are again taking a hard line on declaration and storage of medicines on board, particularly in the ports of Novorossiisk and Tuapse.
Masters are required to give a drug list to the customs officers and insert a remark in the general declaration about medicines on board. However, there have been several situations when the master has signed the general declaration 'no drugs' having already presented a drug list to the authorities. This may seem like an insignificant contravention, but it leads to the master being fined directly.
Customs officers carry out an accurate examination of all medicines, both in the ship's medical locker and in the master's safe, in order to check whether all substances subject to drug control have been declared by the ship on arrival. Frequently undeclared medicines are found, which allows the authorities to start an action against the master for drugs smuggling. This usually results in detention of the master and other officers considered to be involved until the customs investigation is complete.
In accordance with the 1998 Customs Law, the official investigation lasts for 15 days, after which the Transport Prosecutor decides whether the matter is to be considered criminal and determines the appropriate punishment. The majority of cases are found not to be criminal and a penalty up to US$50 is imposed directly against the master. This is clearly a nominal expense when compared with the cost of the delay of the ship and the possible changing and repatriation of ship's officers.
It is thus recommend that Members give the following instructions to masters before ships arrival at Russian ports.
- To be attentive when preparing the drug list and general declaration before arrival in Russia.
- To check carefully medicines on board in accordance with the International Medical Guide For Ships by the World Health Organisation, and declare those containing drugs.
- To keep the process of inward formalities under permanent control.
- If the master has any concerns when completing the drugs declaration, clarify all questions with customs officers during inward formalities
- To keep all medical substances subject to control in the master's safe during the whole period of handling operations in port.
- To ensure that any drugs, previously undeclared, but subsequently found on board by crew after the inward formalities, are declared not later than 24 hours from the date of arrival.
- To immediately contact the Association or its local correspondent should any problems be experienced.
Yemen stevedore claims
There are a growing number of claims against Member's ships from local stevedores in Yemen, who allege that they have sustained injuries on board.
The claims are normally notified to the ship just prior to sailing and the stevedore will try to obtain a letter of guarantee from the Association. However, the incident is rarely notified to the ship at the time the injury is supposed to have occurred and the circumstances are often unclear and unsubstantiated.
Unfortunately, however, with the support of the local stevedoring company, such claims are very difficult to defend in the Yemeni courts. The shipowner is therefore often forced to consider a settlement in order to dispose of the matter on economic grounds, irrespective of the facts.
Members loading or discharging in Yemeni ports should thus formally advise the relevant stevedoring company that any accidents should be immediately reported to a ship's officer. Any such reports should be fully investigated by the master as a matter of urgency and the Club and correspondents should be advised as soon as possible. Witness statements should be taken from all relevant parties, including other stevedores to prevent the possibility of collusion at a later date.
A very close watch should also be maintained on all stevedoring operations. Ideally this should be high profile to discourage stevedores from making speculative claims against the ship. Any incident, however minor, which might give rise to an allegation of injury, should also be reported to the Club and the local correspondent without delay - even where no formal report has been made by the stevedoring company.
Cargo Securing Manuals - A reminder
The member countries of the Paris memorandum of understanding (Paris MOU) on port-state control have recently been carrying out a purge on ships entering western European ports carrying cargo which has not been stowed in accordance with the ship's cargo securing manual (CSM). The Association thus wishes to remind Members and their masters of the requirements of CSM's.
On 1 January 1998, it was made compulsory by SOLAS that a CSM is carried by all ships except those carrying only bulk solids or bulk liquid - for which other regulations exist.
The CSM should ideally show the proper stowage and lashing arrangements for
- standardised cargoes, usually containers
- semi-standard cargoes, such as ro-ro cargoes
- non-standard cargoes, usually break-bulk.
The CSM should also contain a list of approved equipment for use on board and its securing instructions and diagrams should show how that equipment should be used. It is important to note that if masters attempt to use equipment which is not listed in the CSM, regardless of the fact that the equipment may be in good order and the stowage and securing may be perfectly sound, that ship may be found in non- compliance with CSM merely by reason of unlisted equipment having been used. It is important, therefore, to ensure that equipment supplied for use on board should comply with the list already in the CSM.
CSM's are often written by the ship's class society though there are a number of independent contractors which are able to write CSMs. Regardless of who writes the CSM, it must be approved by the ship's flag state for use on that ship. Any flag state authorisation of a CSM should name the ship on which it is placed.
The enforcement of the SOLAS requirement that the CSM be on board lies with both the port state and the flag state. Insurers also require a CSM to be on board and used and the Association's rule 29 makes it a condition precedent of cover that the member complies with all statutory requirements of the flag state.
If the CSM is on board, but is not commonly used, the courts are likely again to find the ship was unseaworthy. Whether the Member can take advantage of any limitation defence is doubtful given that a court would probably find that a prudent owner would take steps to ensure that there was a system in place to ensure that the master did follow the CSM - indeed this is likely to fall within the ISM procedures. In such circumstances, Club cover may also be in doubt.
If the CSM is on board and the master, who usually follows the CSM, fails on one occasion to do so, it is likely that the owner will still be held liable but may be able to take advantage of limitation defences. The problem would, of course, lie in proving that the master normally followed the CSM but failed to do so only on this occasion.
There are, of course, occasions on which the master has little control over the method of stowage or securing, such as when these functions are to be carried out by charterers and charterers' stevedores. In those circumstances the master should only interfere when, in his or her opinion, the method of stowage or securing will give rise to a danger either to the crew or ship.
"If the Master is only conncered about danger to the cargo he should protest at the time both verbally and in writing to the shipper, the charterer and the stevedores with advice to the owner. If no satisfactory remedial action is taken there are difficult legal implications both in respect of any further direct interference by the Master, but equally if the Master does nothing at all. For this reason, in such circumstances, we would strongly recommend the Master and/or owners to seek advice from the Association."
There are several useful publications by the IMO, for instance the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing, which are available and which should be placed on board every ship.
For further information members should contact the loss prevention department at the Association. The Association intends to produce guidelines on stowage and securing of cargoes in the near future.
Californian pilots - A new risk for owners
A new law in California means that shipowners are entirely liable for any incidents caused by local pilots unless they or their charterers pay for the pilots' individual trip insurance.
Under a time charterparty it is ordinarily the time charterers' obligation to provide and pay for pilots. This is the case, for example, under the New York Produce Exchange form. Nevertheless is it generally the owner who is responsible for the acts of the pilot. That is also the case under voyage charters.
It is also very often the case that owners will have no claim against pilots for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of their acts or omissions. At best where claims may be possible, the pilot's liability is usually very strictly limited to levels that are so low as to make it unrealistic to pursue a claim at all.
The new law in California affects only those pilots licensed for the bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun. With effect from 1 January 2001, section 1198 of the Harbours and Navigation Code renders every ship, owner, operator or demise or bare-boat charterer (owner) hiring a pilot liable to indemnify the pilot for his or her acts. Only acts that are the result of a pilot's wilful misconduct are excluded from this indemnity. The Code also confirms that the owner shall have no claim against the pilot.
The indemnity is however not to exceed the limits of liability to which owners may be entitled under any bill of lading, charterparty, contract of affreightment or other relevant provision of law.
The obligation to indemnify the pilot can however be avoided by the owner paying for the trip insurance that the pilot is required to maintain by the Code. All pilots licensed in the three bays in question must maintain trip insurance with a limit of US$36 million.
Under most time charterparties the charterers are obliged to pay for pilots. In the absence of an express clause they will not also be liable to pay the additional cost of pilots' insurance.
Therefore, if owners wish to avoid the need to indemnify the pilot but do not wish to bear the cost of the pilots' trip insurance, they will need to include in their charterparties a clause placing the burden of meeting that expense on charterers.
The following is the wording of a charterparty clause that will achieve this result.
"In the event that the charterer orders the ship to proceed to or from any port or place in the bays of San Francisco, San Pablo or Suisun or otherwise to pass through any or all of the said bays, and in the event that the ship engages a pilot or pilots, whether compulsory or otherwise, the charterer is to pay, and to indemnify the owner against, the cost of the pilots' trip insurance as required by and in accordance with section 1198 of the California Harbours and Navigation Code."
Members should nevertheless be aware that this is only a general wording and may not be suitable for all charterparties, depending upon their precise wording. Members requiring further guidance on a suitable clause for their particular charterparty should contact the Association.
Unhappy day for the shipowners
A recent decision of the English High Court in Glencore Grain Limited -v- Flacker Shipping Limited ('Happy Day'") considered when, if at all, laytime would begin to run when an invalid notice of readiness (NOR) is served.
The charter provided for laytime to count at 8 a.m. on the next working day after tender of NOR. The ship arrived off the discharge port on 25 September and tendered NOR, but was unable to berth because she had missed the tide. She entered the port on the next tide the following morning and discharge commenced the same day. No further NOR was ever served.
As the charter in the 'Happy Day' was a berth charter, the ship was not an 'arrived ship' at the time she tendered NOR on 25 September. Whilst there was a WIBON / WIPON clause in the charter, this did not apply as it was merely the tide which prevented the ship from reaching the berth, rather than congestion. In the circumstances, the NOR served on 25 September was invalid.
The owner argued that the whole purpose of an NOR was to inform charterers that the ship was ready to perform cargo operations and that that purpose was fulfilled at the latest when discharge actually commenced. It argued that laytime should commence at that time.
However, the court did not agree. The court found that the NOR was also the trigger provided for in the charter for the commencement of laytime and that therefore a valid NOR had to be served in order for laytime to commence. As no valid NOR had ever been served, the court found that laytime never began to run at all. In the circumstances, not only did the owner not earn demurrage but it had to pay despatch to the charterer.
In the circumstances, if there is any doubt (no matter how small) as to the validity of the NOR, the master should be instructed to tender subsequent NORs in order to ensure that at least one valid NOR is served and therefore that laytime will begin to run.
Thought should also be given to incorporating a provision in the charter whereby in any event laytime will commence when loading or discharging (as the case may be) commences.
Recovering legal costs in the US
As, no doubt, many of our readers will be aware, where arbitration or court proceedings take place in England, costs will normally 'follow the event' and the losing party will be ordered to pay the successful party's costs (as well as its own).
On the other hand, where proceedings take place in the US (either in court or arbitration) the general principal is that costs are not recoverable. That said, Members should be aware that if they are agreeing that claims will be subject to dispute resolution in the US, for example in New York, they can take steps to ensure that costs are recoverable.
One step Members can take is to ensure that agreement is reached that disputes will be determined in arbitration in New York in accordance with the SMA Arbitration Rules. The SMA Arbitration Rules specifically provide that the arbitrators have jurisdiction to make an award in respect of costs and, if costs are claimed, the arbitrators' practice is to award them to the successful party.
Alternatively, Members can ensure that a clause is incorporated in their contract which provides for the costs (including attorneys' fees) of any proceedings to be recoverable. If they do so, then, in most circumstances, the court or arbitration tribunal (as applicable) will proceed to give effect to the clause and will award costs.
Members agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration or to the courts in New York and who require assistance in drafting appropriate clauses to ensure that costs are recoverable should contact the FD&D department.
Ports of refuge - A new approach needed
The recent refusal of maritime authorities to allow the product tanker Castor to seek a port of refuge after developing a crack during heavy weather has led to calls for an international debate on the issue.
Whereas there may be some political motivation behind certain coastal states refusing to allow stricken ships to shelter in their territorial waters, there also appears to be a reluctance by coastal states to fulfil their responsibilities to safety of life at sea - arguing that saving a ship and its cargo is a 'commercial matter'.
Due to political difficulties in choosing sites worldwide as ports of refuge, particularly with regard to indemnifying local authorities, there are arguments for a provision to be made between having a major oil spill as in the Erika and having no spill at all.
After the Erika disaster, the European Commission (article 17 of 'Erika II') now requires that member states ensure their ports are capable of accommodating ships in distress and that a realistic assessment of the risks should be calculated - as opposed to a knee-jerk refusal following an uneducated, worst-case scenario calculation.
As there appears to be more of a mentality towards punishment rather than assistance to prevent such casualties, the industry requires a coherent world-wide regulatory regime. The IMO has thus called for an international debate on the issue of ports of refuge - which itself may require the EU to take the lead.
As it stands, though states remain determined to prevent any pollution to the environment, many are not seen to be proactive in creating a legal framework to accommodate ships in distress - they are simply being reactionary and punitive. Such states should note in particular that it is not necessarily a 'port' of refuge that is needed - a sheltered anchorage within territorial waters to permit contractors to work in sheltered conditions (as required by Castor) may be all that is needed.
Masters decision and charterer's orders
Several Members have contacted the Association in recent months expressing concern about a recent judgement handed down by the House of Lords. The widely reported 'Hill Harmony' case appears to suggest that ships' masters are now obliged to follow the charterers' orders with regard to weather routeing regardless of the masters' own views.
The full name of the case is Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. V. Whistler International Ltd (the 'Hill Harmony'). In very brief terms it involved a deduction of hire made by the charterer because it alleged the master had substantially extended the length of the voyage across the Pacific on two occasions having taken a southerly route, which he considered a safer route, rather than a northerly great-circle route, which the charterer had asked for based on advice from an ocean weather-routing organisation. In the High Court the Admiralty Judge supported the master's right to make such decisions and this ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. However, the House of Lords overturned the decision and found in favour of the charterer.
Certainly a non-lawyer could be forgiven for drawing a misinformed conclusion as to what their Lordships were saying - the judgment is long and requires very careful reading to understand precisely the rationale behind their decision. It would seem to be the case that the Lords have not challenged the master's right, which is indeed an obligation, to have overriding authority to take whatever decisions he or she feels most appropriate for the safety of the crew, ship and cargo, provided that he or she acts reasonably.
As always it is difficult to define exactly what is actually meant by 'reasonableness'. Some may say that it is like the proverbial elephant - it is difficult to describe but you are in no doubt when you meet one!
The Lords did not deny that whereas the master did have the right to overrule the charterer's orders, he must have good and sound reasons for doing so. In this particular case it would appear that their interpretations of the facts was that the master did not have good enough reason not to follow the charterer's orders and proceed by the great-circle route. The master's case appears to have been based on the fact that he had taken the northerly route on a previous occasion and had encountered bad weather.
In addition to everything else, masters, owners and charterers should recall the language of section 5.2 of the ISM Code. which states:
'the Master has the overriding authority and the responsibility to make decisions with respect to safety and pollution prevention'
It is unfortunate that the House of Lords' judgment had not been made a little easier to understand by the non-lawyer since perhaps a lot of the worry and unnecessary concern could have been avoided.
New COLREG's poster
The second of the new COLREGS (Collision Regulations) poster series accompanies this issue of Signals. It highlights the key points associated with Rule 7- Risk of Collision.
It will of course be apparent to all navigating seafarers that determining whether a risk of collision exists is a fundamental part of collision avoidance. The purpose of this article is not to repeat the obvious but, hopefully, to highlight some areas based on industry experience where there are sometimes misunderstandings which can lead to very serious consequences.
Risk of collision
Rule 7 identifies when a risk will exist and refers to the compass bearing of an approaching ship not appreciably changing. The rule does not identify a minimum closest point of approach (CPA) that would give rise to a risk. This is because the actual distance will vary depending upon the circumstances including the amount of sea room available, angle of approach of the ships, traffic density and size of ships.
What may be considered a safe distance by a small, manoeuvrable ship may be considered too close by a larger ship. This is particularly important for the ship that would be obliged to give way if there was a risk of collision. The rule states that if there is doubt, risk of collision shall be deemed to exist.
Historically the means of determining if a risk of collision exists is to take visual bearings. This remains an appropriate method subject to visibility and a proper system for recording the bearings taken. However, the navigator now has the benefit of modern radar systems.
Many of the displays on such equipment are such that the navigator may be led to believe that information about movement of all targets on the screen is completely accurate. However, there are a number of limitations on the accuracy of an ARPA radar which can lead to incorrect information being displayed. For example, the radar takes time to complete an electronic plot and make an accurate assessment after the target or own ship has altered course.
The calculations performed by an ARPA radar are also reliant upon accurate data in relation to own ship's course and speed. If there is an error, the radar will give false readings of the course and speed of targets.
Early warning of risk of collision
There may be a tendency in confined areas to maintain the radar on short ranges because the number of echoes on the longer ranges is confusing. However, the navigator must have in mind that early detection of risk of collision is essential and it may therefore be appropriate to shift to longer ranges or perhaps have a second radar on a longer range.
The technology available on ships for collision avoidance is increasing all the time. This can be of great assistance to the navigator and ought to improve his or her chances of detecting dangerous situations and acting properly to avoid or overcome them. However, the navigator should not become over-reliant upon that technology. This message has been given many times in the past but situations are still encountered where navigators are unable to give an accurate description of the lights and actions of another ship before a collision because they have been concentrating too much on the radar.
In many cases, if better use had been made of both visual and radar means, earlier warning of a ship's movements would have been obtained with the possibility that a collision could have been avoided. There remains no real substitute for the 'Mark 1 Eyeball'.
New poster on raising the fire alarm
The latest poster in the MAST (management, safety, training) series accompanies this issue of Signals. MAST 7 continues the Club's efforts to use humour in loss prevention by using cartoon characters to show the right and wrong way to raise a fire alarm.
Chapter VI of the STCW Code requires that all persons on a ship receive familiarisation training before undertaking shipboard duties. One of those training requirements is what to do if fire or smoke is detected. This familiarisation training should obviously form part of the contingency planning for emergencies - including musters and drills - as well as being a part of the ship's ISM safety management system.
Procedures for individual companies and ships may be different, so it is vital that all crew members are trained and familiar with the action to take on their particular ship. When any emergency situation is first discovered one of the most important actions is to raise the alarm immediately. In the case of a fire, the alarm is generally raised by activating the nearest safe fire alarm point. Crew members discovering a fire can then take further action themselves, but only if they consider it safe to do so. These actions might include using the nearest correct portable extinguisher to attack the fire, isolating the electrical supply and closing doors and fire flaps.
In the meantime the officer on watch should ensure that the appropriate general emergency signal is sounded and direct the ship's crew to the location of the fire, according to their duties and actions designated on the muster list.
If any crew members feel that they are not familiar enough with their ship, or with the procedures for raising the alarm and mustering, they should bring this to the attention of the senior ship's officers to arrange suitable training.
Fraudulent certificates - The real costs
There are an increasing number of incidents in which certificates of competency held by masters and other officers are proving to be fraudulent. Apart from obvious concerns on safety generally, this can also have direct and very serious consequences for shipowners - especially with the advent of the ISM Code and in light of port state control inspections.
It is crucial that shipowners and managers carry out careful checks of the authenticity and validity of certificates and to verify the prior relevant experience of all masters, officers and crew before employing them.
If such checks have not been carried out and an incident subsequently occurs - such as a collision or cargo damage - and it comes to light that the master or officer was not properly qualified, not only would potential defences to the claim be lost but the shipowner may also lose its right to limit financial liability and possibly even insurance cover.
Section 6 of the ISM Code deals with 'Resources and personnel' and makes the following very specific requirements.
6.1 The Company should ensure that the Master is:
1. properly qualified for command; ….
6.2 The Company should ensure that each ship is manned with qualified, certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and international requirements.
If Members do not have such procedures in place already they are strongly advised to review and rectify the situation without delay. If external manning agents are used then clearly their involvement will need to be included in the company's procedures and their activities will need to be subject to regular audit to confirm compliance. Crucial to such activity is also the maintenance of good and accurate records which can be produced as evidence if necessary.
Under the documented safety management system of the ISM Code it should be relatively easy to demonstrate what procedures were in place for verifying the validity of certificates of competency and relevant prior experience, whether or not those procedures were followed and the results if they were.
University recognition for P&I Distance Learning Course
North of England's unique distance learning course in P&I insurance and loss prevention was first launched as a joint venture between the Club and South Tyneside College in 1989. Since that time the training material has evolved through three editions with nearly 1500 students having enrolled on the course.
Many students completing the course enquired whether they could continue their studies and work towards a more advanced qualification. Invariably they would be directed towards one or other of the shore-based maritime-related degree courses run by various universities, but often the individuals involved were not in a position to undertake a full-time course of study which may last a number of years.
In an attempt to find a more realistic and attractive alternative which could appeal to such students, the Association has been in discussions with a number of major academic institutions and believes it has now found a solution. The University of Northumbria at Newcastle is in the process of developing a postgraduate certificate / diploma / LLM programme in International Trade Law which can be taken by distance learning. Students who successfully complete the Club's distance learning course will be granted a certificate by the University in 'Marine Operations'. This certificate will then give the student advance standing in the postgraduate programme by way of granting exemption from one of the core modules - Carriage of Goods by Sea. The International Trade Law postgraduate programme distance learning course will be starting September 2001.
Further details of the postgraduate Certificate / Diploma / LLM programme in International Trade Law can be obtained from:
Elaine Conroy (course secretary)
School of Law
University of Northumbria
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK
Tel: +44 (0)191 227 3431
E-mail: Elaine.conroy@unn.ac.uk
Fax: +44 (0)191 227 4557
Loss Prevention in Hell
For the last 20 years, Norwegian shipbrokers and coastal and near-trade shipowners have held an annual conference in a suburb of Trondheim called Hell. This year's conference in February 'Stjørdalseminaret 2001' was very well attended and the Association presented two papers and ran an in-depth workshop.
The Club's in-house Norwegian attorney, Rune Dybedal, described some important changes which had taken place as a result of recent legislation in Norway. This would seriously affect the interpretation of the most common types of charterparties used in the coastal trade - particularly relating to FIOS terms.
Most of the coastal and near-trade shipowners represented at the conference operated relatively small cargo ships that would need to comply with the ISM Code by 1 July, 2002. The Association's loss prevention manager, Phil Anderson, explored a wide range of ISM-related issues including some problems which had been encountered with compliance since the first phase of implementation in 1998. He also emphasised the importance of starting preparation for implementation without delay and described the special circumstances which would need to be taken into account in the 'owner /master' situation which applied to a number of the delegates.
The workshop explored further some of the practical problems which would need to be faced and overcome for a safety management system to be satisfactorily and successfully implemented.
ISM Seminar in Germany
The Nautischer Verein zu Bremen (Nautical Society of Bremen) hosted its eighth annual seminar on 24 February where it welcomed nearly 250 delegates from many nations and from many sectors of the maritime industries. The focus of the event was encapsulated in a somewhat provocative title: 'ISM Code - half time or additional playing time?'
The Association's loss prevention manager, Phil Anderson, was invited to join a panel of international speakers exploring a wide range of ISM-related topics. The papers touched upon many of the important issues affecting the shipping industry at this time, with particular relevance to the question of successful implementation of a safety management system both with regard to experience post-1998 and in anticipation of 1 July 2002.
Copies of most of the speakers papers can be found at: www.ismcode.net
Residential Course - Last chance
At the time of going to press there were still a small number of delegate places available for this year's residential training course in P&I insurance and loss prevention, which is due to be held at South Shields and Lumley Castle between 2 and 8 June 2001.
Full details, along with a registration form, can be found in the pamphlet contained within the new loss prevention brochure accompanying this issue of Signals.
Further information can be obtained from the loss prevention department.
The ISM Code - Is it working?
Even outside his role as head of loss prevention at the Association, Phil Anderson maintains a passion for reducing maritime accidents and takes a keen personal interest in the ISM Code. Indeed, he is still the world's only author of a major work on the Code.*
As vice president of the Nautical Institute, Phil has embarked upon a major piece of research to establish to what extent the ISM Code may, or may not, have been successfully implemented since the final compliance deadline of 1 July 1998 for phase one implementation. The research is being undertaken as part of a project for submission to Middlesex University for a doctorate. The views of the entire shipping and related industries are being sought in order to obtain as clear and concise a picture as possible. Nearly 60,000 copies of a questionnaire have been distributed to seafarers around the world and questionnaires for ship operators and others involved in shipping and related industries have been set up on a dedicated website at http://www.ismcode.net. Full details of the research programme can be found on the website.
Although this is not a North of England initiative, all readers of Signals are encouraged to participate and share their views and experience.
* Anderson, P. ISM Code - A Practical Guide to the Legal and Insurance Implications, Lloyd's of London Press, 1998, ISBN 1 85978 621 9