In advance of next week’s meeting of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has suggested a number of steps by which IMO Member States might address implementation problems associated with the Ballast Water Management Convention, which has yet to enter into force.

As previously highlighted in a submission to the MEPC (made by ICS in conjunction with other international shipowner organisations), the implementation problems which ICS urgently seeks to address include the lack of robustness of the current IMO type-approval process for new treatment equipment, and the criteria to be used for sampling ballast water during Port State Control inspections.

ICS believes that the legal changes needed to make the ballast regime fit for purpose are relatively straight forward and could be agreed in principle quickly by IMO Member States.  ICS has therefore suggested that the MEPC might agree a ‘road map’ using the mechanism of an MEPC Resolution which – if agreed – could make it easier for additional IMO Member States to decide to ratify the Convention.

“If so decided, this Resolution would provide greater confidence for owners and operators installing treatment equipment, and could help end the current impasse.” said ICS Secretary General, Peter Hinchliffe.

The new ICS Position Paper, prepared by the ICS Board of Directors, is being communicated to maritime administrations by ICS’s member national shipowners’ associations, and can be found at http://bit.ly/1gF1VVc

The previous industry submission to the MEPC can be found at http://bit.ly/LedLbs

The IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which starts on 31 March, will seek to make progress on the development of a global system of monitoring and reporting of CO₂ emissions from ships.  This is supported by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) which has made a detailed submission on the issue to the MEPC meeting on behalf of its member national shipowners’ associations.

In Ålesund, Norway, at a seminar organised by ICS for senior officials of maritime administrations, ICS explained that it supports a global system, provided that the mechanism is simple to administer, is primarily based on fuel consumption and that the system itself will not be used for the development of a full blown Market Based Measure.

ICS supports the ‘three phase’ approach to the development of a global system proposed by the United States.

ICS Director External Relations, Simon Bennett said: “ICS believes that the question of whether IMO should eventually develop a mandatory system of energy indexing for existing ships – to which ICS is currently opposed – should be left open until after a mandatory CO₂ emissions reporting system has been established, trialed, and the results evaluated.”

He added: “The priority of ICS is to assure the primacy of IMO as the industry’s global regulator.  The successful development of a global system will require the support of all IMO Member States, including nations such as China.  In order to make progress and discourage regional regulation, we think that the MEPC should initially focus on how information about emissions should be collected before launching into detailed discussions about efficiency indexing of ships, on which there is little global consensus.  If they so wish, IMO Member States can always return to the question of ship indexing once a CO₂ monitoring system has been established.”

Mr Bennett remarked: “It is unfortunate that the debate has been complicated by the parallel proposal from the European Commission, now being considered by the European Parliament, for a unilateral regional system of CO₂ reporting.  In order that the systems can be compatible, it will be helpful if EU Member States could defer reaching agreement on any regional EU regulation until IMO has had time to make progress on a global system.”

ICS made the remarks at a seminar for members of the Consultative Shipping Group (CSG) of maritime administrations, organised with the assistance of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association in Ålesund on 20 March.

The ICS submission on the monitoring and reporting of CO₂ (November 2013) can be found at www.ics-shipping.org/submissions/imo

Maritime Employer representatives, coordinated by the International Shipping Federation (ISF), met with International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) counterparts this week at the International Labour Organization to review the ILO recommended minimum wage for the Able Seafarer.  It was agreed that from 1 January 2015, the ILO minimum monthly basic wage for an AB is increased to US$592 and from 1 January 2016, the basic wage is increased to US$614.

ISF spokesperson Arthur Bowring led the Shipowner Group in the discussions held on 26^th and 27^th February 2014 in Geneva. In his opening statement, Mr Bowring reflected that the current figure of US$585 came into effect on 31^st December 2013 and noted that the purpose of the meeting was to ensure the maintenance of a safety net for seafarers particularly from developing countries.  He also referred to publications from UN bodies such as UNCTAD that underlined uncertainty in the global economy and challenges facing world trade and particularly over supply of tonnage in the shipping industry.

Mr Bowring commented: “We believe the decision taken is an appropriate one that gives shipowners adequate notice to be prepared for the impact of agreed changes going forward to 2016.”

Shipowners, Salvors and Insurers – through their respective trade associations – have jointly called for the prompt and proper implementation of international measures to provide a Place of Refuge for stricken vessels, following a series of incidents where casualty vessels have been delayed in accessing a safe harbour.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) says that it has noted “with dismay” the refusal by some coastal States to make places of refuge available, thereby risking lives and the environment even after the high profile cases of the Stolt Valor and the MSC Flaminia in 2012.  And the plight of the Maritime Maisie presently off the coast of Japan has brought this subject back into sharp focus.  The 44,000 dwt chemical tanker is being held at sea by six tugs after a collision and fire on 29 December 2013.  The cargo fire has now been extinguished through the efforts of the salvors in the face of difficult conditions at sea.

The vessel has been seeking a place of refuge in either the Republic of Korea or Japan for more than a month.  The salvors have indicated that it is a priority to take the vessel to calm waters to manage the remaining cargo in a safe manner and so to minimize potential damage to the environment.

The International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI); the International Salvage Union, (ISU) and ICS all recognise that the issue of Places of Refuge for casualty vessels is sensitive and that the risk of pollution from casualties cannot be completely removed. They also recognise that decisions with regard to handling casualty vessels carry political implications and may impact coastal communities.

At the same time, failure to offer a suitable Place of Refuge may prevent successful salvage intervention and therefore allow a casualty’s condition to worsen and ultimately lead to pollution that might otherwise have been prevented, and that pollution may affect a wider area than need have been the case.

Peter Hinchliffe, ICS Secretary General, said: “Guidance on the handling of requests for places of refuge was agreed at IMO but often when a case arises the coastal states concerned take a ‘not in my backyard’ attitude. This is in marked contrast to attitudes to aircraft in need of assistance.  This current case shows that recent lessons have simply not been learned.”

Commenting on the matter, President of the ISU, Leendert Muller said: “Our members are right on the front line of this issue. Too often they are unable to follow the best course of action which is to take the casualty into shelter, which does not necessarily have to be a port. We have seen infamous cases like Castor and Prestige and more recently the MSC Flaminia and Stolt Valor and now the Maritime Maisie where our members, attending damaged vessels, experienced great difficulty in finding an authority willing to accept the casualty.”

Ole Wikborg, President of the IUMI, points out: “The potential impact of environmental damage has to be reduced as much as possible and the safety of crews is paramount and we have to minimize material damage to ships and equipment. Coastal states must be able to make the best possible decision to prevent further damage following a maritime accident. Some countries have a system that seems to be functioning. IUMI is of the strong opinion that the prevailing regulations as set out, for example, by IMO and the EU are sufficient but that the necessary steps have to be taken to make the rules work.”

ISU, ICS and IUMI all note the international legal context for the issue and the significant relevant legislation that is in place internationally and regionally, in particular, IMO Resolution A.949, “Guidelines on Places of Refuge for ships in need of assistance”; Resolution A.950 (23) (recommending all coastal States to establish a Maritime Assistance Service) and the 1989 Salvage Convention as well as the European Union vessel traffic monitoring and information system (Directive 2002/59/EC as amended by Directive 2009/17/EC) which prevents member States from issuing an outright refusal to provide a place of refuge and states that safety of human life and the environment are of over-riding concern.

The industry bodies do not see merit in pursuing additional international legislation which will be a lengthy process and will consume resources. Instead they will campaign for better application of, compliance with and enforcement of existing rules and guidance. ISU has already formally presented views on Places of Refuge to EU member states through the EU Commission; the issue will be raised in IMO fora this year and there will be direct engagement with the governments of individual coastal states.

In short, coastal states should be encouraged to recognise that granting a Place of Refuge to a casualty vessel may be the most appropriate course. States should establish an authority to assess each case on its merits without political interference. Such an assessment must include a visual inspection and conclude with recommendations for managing and mitigating the risk of any impact on local coastlines and communities. The assumption should be that a Place of Refuge will be granted if needed and that there should be “no rejection without inspection”.

IUMI, ICS and ISU would like to see wider adoption by coastal states of simple, robust, “single point” command and control models akin to that of the United Kingdom’s SOSREP system.