THE IMPACT OF THE NEW ISPS CODE ON MANNING AND TRAINING Implementation of the ISPS Code is a Flag State responsibility while enforcement will be both a Port State and Flag State responsibility. Port States and Flag States have historically had a rather uneasy relationship, however in the past few years they have been drawing closer together. Both are concerned with improving the safety and environmental protection standards of shipping, one with the quality of ships entering ports under it’s jurisdiction, while the other is concerned with the quality of ships operating under it’s Registry. INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING PORT STATE CONTROL ISM Code The advent of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code sent a shock wave through the industry, because for the first time it gave the industry a yardstick by which the performance of a vessel and owner could be measured. Many reputable owners already had well developed written procedures and had been using them for a number of years prior to ISM, however a considerable percentage of the industry did not. Those Owners were now faced with the additional task of preparing procedure manuals, a not inconsiderable task as some of you probably remember. ISPS Code The ISPS Code will likewise have a significant impact on all vessels engaged in International trade, however the ISPS Code will also affect the operation of Port facilities and the ship/port interface. There are fundamental differences however between the ISPS code and ISM. ·Security concerns the risk associated with protection against intentional acts of disturbance, damage or destruction. · Safety concerns the risk associated with protection against accidental disturbance, damage or destruction. Security is not a new issue, the vulnerability of ships at sea has long been recognized, but primarily in the context of piracy. For vessels in international trade today it is generally agreed by governments and others that there are three possible threats involving shipping. · Ships can be used to carry hidden weapons or other dangerous cargo for terrorist use. · Ships or containers may be used as a devise to cause disruption in busy shipping lanes or port facilities. If the vessel has a hidden explosive device activated or the ship rammed into a jetty or scuttled in a narrow channel this would cause extensive disruption to the operation of that port and indeed the economy of that country and it’s trading partners. · Ships themselves may face terrorist attack as in the case of the Limburg and the USS Cole. Such activities would cause widespread consternation within the industry and seriously affect world trade. Sadly it is not possible to be 100% “terrorist proof” and the best we can achieve is to try and minimize the opportunities available to the terrorist. In an effort to combat the threat of terrorism to ships and port facilities the ISPS Code was drawn up by the IMO and consists of two parts - Part A which is Mandatory and Part B which is recommendatory. However, it is important for owners and seafarers to note that some countries have unilaterally decided to adopt certain parts of Part B as compulsory.
The Code also clearly defines the roles of the various participants, the Flag State, the Owner, the Ship, the Port and Port State Control. In the ISPS Code the training requirements, specific responsibilities and the ultimate onboard security and anti-terrorist activities of seafarers are directly linked to each of these participants. Therefore I will now take a brief look at the specific roles of the participants and attempt to show how they should interact with seafarers to provide a safe and secure environment. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLAG STATE Because the ISPS Code was adopted as a part of SOLAS, Flag States have an important responsibility to provide guidance and procedures to assist vessel owners in Code implementation and compliance. Company Security Officers and Ship Security Officers, as well as other Officers who may be involved with security matters on board the vessel will need to have a thorough understanding of their Flag State’s ISPS Code procedures, which include the following. Ship Security Plan Approval Under the ISPS Code, a Ship Security Assessment (SSA) is made and used as basis for developing the Ship Security Plan (SSP). Approval of the SSP is then obtained from the Flag Administration or an Administration approved Recognized Security Organization (RSO). The Code clearly states that the Organization undertaking the review and approval of a ship security plan shall not have been involved in either the preparation of the ship security plan or the ship security assessment. Different Flag States handle this step differently, some Flag Administrations such as the Marshall Islands have entrusted specific IACS Classification Societies with the role of RSO who will carry out review and approval of the SSP. Other Administrations may carry out plan review and approvals by themselves. In either case Owners will use consultants to assist in the preparation of the SSP or prepare it in house, and in many cases with assistance of shipboard personnel. Security Risk Flag States must monitor security risks and provide guidance on security matters through assessments of both the general security situation prevailing in various locations around the world and the security threat to vessels in specific ports. Based on the information available the Flag Administration will then set one of the following security levels as appropriate. Security Level 1: Normal Security Level. Security Level 2: Heightened Security. Security Level 3: High Level of Security. It is expected that most vessels will usually be operating at Security Level one. Security level three is an exceptional situation and would only be decided when an incident is imminent or probable. If level three is declared the Flag Administration would provide vessels with appropriate security related information and instructions. Declaration of Security A Declaration of Security (DoS) provides a means for ensuring that specific security concerns are properly addressed prior to and during a vessel/facility interface or a vessel/vessel interface. A DoS must be completed anytime a Flag Administration; a Contracting Government (in this case the government of the country where a specific port facility is located); or a Port Facility, Company, or Ship Security Officer may deem it necessary. Flag Administrations will need to establish the requirements for a DoS. Continuous Synopsis Record
Although not a requirement under the ISPS Code, Continuous Synopsis Records are worthy of mention. The Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) is a current record of the history of the vessel from the time of delivery to present. CSR’s will be issued by Flag States and will contain specific information indicating the vessels current and past owners; operators and/or managers; bareboat charterers; classification societies; and details of organizations that issued the ISM Document of Compliance (DOC), the Safety Management Certificate (SMC) and the International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC). Any time changes occur affecting the information contained on the CSR, such as transfer of ownership, transfer of registry, change of classification or change of manager, a new CSR will be issued by the Flag State. CSR’s must be carried on board the vessel and made available for inspection when required. Also, and again not a responsibility under the ISPS Code, Flag States have an obligation to advise their Owners on how best to implement the Code and obtain an ISSC in good time before the 1st July 2004 deadline. The Marshall Islands Maritime Administration has held a series of seminars around the world providing guidance to Owners on the ISPS Code and also provides free access to detailed security related information and publications on the Marshall Islands register web site. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER Ship owners have a number of responsibilities almost all of which are based on the requirement that each Company shall, for each of it’s ships, develop, implement and maintain a functional Ship Security Plan compliant with SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. Following are the steps that are required for SSP certification. 1. Appoint and train a Company Security Officer (CSO). 2. Carry out a security assessment of each vessel. 3. Prepare a Ship Security Plan. 4. Designate and train the Ship Security Officers (SSO). 5. Train the ship’s crew. 6. Obtain approval for the Ship Security Plan from a Recognized Security Organization designated by the vessel Flag Administration. 7. Implement the SSP. 8. Conduct an external audit and verification of the implemented SSP. 9. Obtain an International Ship Security Certificate. Ship Security Officers I have no intention of going into a detailed discussion of all owner responsibilities, however I will look more closely at owner related manning issues that arise when a Ship Security Plan is implemented. After 1st July 2004 the International Ship Security Certificate will be a mandatory international trading certificate and it will be up to the Ship Security Officer to administer the vessel’s Ship Security Plan on a daily basis to ensure Certificate compliance. Therefore all Ship Security Officers must be trained, in accordance with Flag State guidelines, and prepared to perform the following duties as required in both Part A or B of the ISPS Code. · Conduct regular security inspections to ensure the appropriate security measures are maintained as required for the current security level of the vessel (1, 2 or 3). · Maintain and supervise the implementation of the Ship Security Plan. · Co-ordinate the security aspects of cargo and stores handling with ship’s staff and Port Facilities Security Officers (PFSO). · Periodically review the SSP and propose changes if necessary to CSO. · Report any deficiencies and non-conformities found during internal audits, periodic reviews and security inspections to CSO. · Enhance security awareness on board.
· Ensure ship’s staff has been given adequate training. · Report all security incidents to CSO. · Co-ordinate implementation of the SSP with CSO and PFSO. · Ensure security equipment is tested and maintained. · Conduct drills and exercises. Without question there will be a considerable workload on the SSO and one of the major questions owners ask is: “Who is going to have time to be the SSO?” In these days of reduced manning the entire ship staff are already under intense pressure. As soon as the vessel arrives in port, and after it has been cleared by Customs and Immigration, there are a host of people waiting to get on board including Port State Control, Charterer’s Representatives, Vetting Inspectors, Chandlers and others. Who then is the person most able to act as the SSO? The Chief Officer will usually be involved with the terminal/port facility regarding loading/discharging sequences and the need to start cargo operations as soon as possible. The Chief Engineer and Second Engineer will usually be desperate to start essential maintenance work. The Master will be dealing with Customs and Immigration and then PSC. But, one person must be in charge and the Officer appointed SSO must be able to make decisions that could affect all operations on board the vessel. Because of this the Marshall Islands Administration has stipulated that the SSO should be a management level officer and it is highly recommended that it is the Master. However, it is very important to remember that the SSO does not have to perform all the above duties himself and does not have to remain on board the vessel at all times. Moreover, an owner may also decide that there should be more than one SSO on board any vessel. There is no stipulation within the code as to who should be the SSO; it is up to the Company and the CSO to decide. But, it should be noted that the responsibilities detailed in the Code are such that only a senior officer will have the experience and authority on board to satisfactorily carry out the SSO’s duties. In any case no matter who is appointed the Master has overriding authority under the Code and any SSO is answerable to the Master and the CSO. A number of Companies are intending to place another Officer on board the vessel to take care of Safety and Security matters, however not all companies wish to take this step and indeed many smaller vessels may not even have the accommodation space for another officer. Security Awareness The essential point that must be emphasized is that each Company must develop a strong sense of security awareness so the entire ships complement are enforcing basic security precautions and looking out for suspicious persons and unusual occurrences. I think most people will agree that the security awareness of the average seafarer at this moment is almost non-existent. The security precautions maintained by most ships are also almost non-existent with perhaps the exception of piracy watches during passages through known piracy waters such as Malacca Straits. Many companies especially tanker companies have spent much time and expense on enhancing the safety awareness of the ship’s staff. Likewise many of the oil terminals have strict security criteria. However many other owners are going to have to start from a very low security awareness level and invest considerable resources to raise their security standards just to a basic minimum level. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PORT FACILITIES Without going into extensive detail, CSO’s and SSO’s will also need to have a clear understanding of port facility security considerations because of the interface requirements between ports and vessels that are mandated in the Code. Like vessels, all port facilities throughout the world are required to establish security measures and procedures and act upon the security levels set by the government where the port is located. The Port Facility has a complementary function to that of the ship and is required to establish the following.
· Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO) · Port Facility Security Assessment (PFSA) · Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP) The Security Plans of the port and the vessel are mutually exclusive and this can easily create considerable confusion, especially if it is felt that one SSP should take precedence over the other. In order to clarify this situation the Declaration of Security should be used to clearly identify the responsibilities of the ship and those of the port facility. To avoid potential security plan differences the Marshall Islands Administration has recommended to it’s owners that a DoS be completed at every port call. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PORT STATE CONTROL In addition to the normal Port State Control (PSC) regime currently in force PSC inspectors will now also assess the effectiveness of the vessel’s SSP. In most cases PSC inspections should be limited to verifying that a valid ISSC or an interim ISSC is on board and they will most likely also make a very basic assessment of the effectiveness of the SSP. But, how will PSC test the effectiveness of the SSP? At the present time the security guidelines for PSC officers are still being drafted and may not be ready until Spring 2004. However it is likely that initially the inspections will be very basic and possibly become more intensive as the industry becomes more familiar with the procedures. Initial inspections will probably look at the following. · Keeping a good gangway watch, if PSC Officers can board the vessel unchallenged this will not make a good impression and can lead to a closer scrutiny of the SSP. It is essential that crewmembers be trained to carry out an effective gangway watch where all visitors are stopped and asked to identify themselves and to state their business. This is not as easy as it sounds, as seafarers from some nationalities are reluctant to stop visitors, especially those in uniform. · Master and SSO understanding of the SSP. · Master and SSO awareness of the identity of the CSO. · Sighting a valid ISSC or Interim ISSC. · Check that security equipment is functional. However if the PSC inspectors have “Clear Grounds” to believe that the vessel is not complying with the ISPS Code or SOLAS XI-2 or is not able to produce a valid ISSC then PSC are authorised to impose controls on the vessel. Control measures can include. · Inspection of the vessel. · Delay of the vessel. · Detention of the vessel. · Restriction of operations including movement within the port. · Expulsion of the ship from the port. IMPLEMENTATION AND SECURITY TRAINING Implementation As I mentioned earlier the implementation date of the ISPS Code is fast approaching and there is much to do. The requirements of the Code will not change nor will the implementation dates, and again I stress that both the USCG and Paris MOU have stated that there will be no extensions and zero tolerance for those vessels not compliant by 1st July 2004. Starting 1st January 2004, about five weeks from today, the USCG will request vessels calling at US ports to provide details of their ISSC. If the vessel has no ISSC, an examination will be carried out to ascertain the general level of security on board and recommendations will be made via a letter issued to the vessel.
Vessels will also be advised that the ISPS Code comes into force on 1st July 2004 and if the vessel does not hold an ISSC by that date it will be refused entry into the USA. Seafarer Security Training Training for Ship Security Officers is mandatory in accordance with part A, paragraph 13.2 of the Code which states that “the Ship Security Officer shall have knowledge and have received training, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code”. The Code goes on to say in paragraph 13.3 that other shipboard personnel having specific security duties and responsibilities “shall have sufficient knowledge and ability to perform their duties, taking into account the guidance given in part B of the Code”. Section 13 in part B provides a list of the specific areas in which the SSO and other shipboard personnel should have adequate or sufficient knowledge, or receive training. However, there is nothing in the Code that specifies how the SSO or other personnel training should be carried out. This leaves all decisions regarding ISPS Code training requirements, training center accreditation and SSO certification up to the Flag State Administrations. IMO has issued a Model Training Course for SSO’s, which most training centers are following, but there are currently no IMO guidelines for training other shipboard personnel. The training centres face the challenge of providing SSO training for thousands of Officers, however the training certificates may not be accepted by certain flag states or their Recognized Security Organizations (RSOs) unless the training courses have been reviewed and approved in advance. Training centre management must keep in mind that it is very likely that review and approval procedures, if required, may vary among Flag State Administrations. Many in our industry expect the ISPS training issue will be brought up at the next IMO STW meeting which will be held in London in January 2004. It is expected that a proposal will be tabled for SSO training courses to be made mandatory for all Officers, or at the very least all Management level Officers, and that all seafarers will be required to complete an introductory security training course, along with the other four basic SOLAS courses that are already required. Given the current push for increased security legislation in the USA and Europe, and the speed with which the ISPS Code was developed, it is very likely that Officer and rating security training courses will become mandatory within the next few years and probably before January 2006. Implementation of the ISPS Code will incur considerable costs for the Owner both in terms of hardware and seafarer training. Hardware requirements include installation of an Automatic Identification System (AIS), securing of restricted areas on vessels and a Security Alert System, while specialized security training will be required for the CSO and SSO and the ship’s crew. It is also a very salient point to remember that terrorists work on the element of surprise, and if ship staff is properly trained and vigilant then that will go some way in neutralising terrorist activities. Although the Code will cost money to implement, the consequences of a half-hearted implementation could be catastrophic for the owner. CONCLUSION As I mentioned at the start of my talk PSC are working more closely with Flag States and Owners to try and improve the overall standards of safety and environmental protection of ships calling at their ports. In a similar fashion Port States are working closely with Flag States and Owners to try and ensure the secure and safe continuation of sea borne commerce where the lives of seafarers and those involved in the shore side of the shipping industry are safeguarded. In order to achieve this goal it essential that Ship’s staff embraces the security culture wholeheartedly supported by the Owners. It is essential that Owners develop a culture of security, which goes hand in hand
with the culture of safety, which they should have in place already. In the end, failure to implement the ISPS Code effectively can mean at best the ship will be detained by the PSC, or at worst the subject of a terrorist attack with the added penalty of bearing a greater apportionment of the costs due to negligent performance.
