Your Say provides our readers with the opportunity to air views on all the pertinent issues. Contact us at webeditor@lloydslist.com. All comments will be moderated.

Owners missed the point about chemtanker vetting 

SIR, As having recently retired from an oil major where for the past 8 years I headed up the vetting operations globally (excluding the US) for inland barges and coastal operations, I have a lot of sympathy with the frustrations highlighted in the above article. 

However, whilst agreeing that the vetting process should and could be improved industry wide, some but not all owners seem to be missing the obvious point. Why do companies vet? Two primary reasons the first to ensure that the vessel presents minimum safety risk and secondly in the event something happens the owner/operator can be relied upon to react in the best way possible plus the charterer has sufficient data to be able to defend their decision. 

In order for the data to be usable and defendable then it has to be seen as "Independant of financial interest and Audited" - ie a number of random inspections of the same vessel organised by independant bodies giving a similar picture. 

The inspection frequency across a particular fleet can be reduced provided it is clear that the operator has effective management systems. 

OCIMF developed the TMSA program in order to help achieve this. I worked with many ship and barge owners to adapt the original version for their use and received a lot of support because they appreciated what we were trying to do. 

Philip Stride
Managing Director
Stride Marine Services
Old Orchard House
Kiln Rd
Redlynch
SP5 2HT


Polar ships designs well advanced 

SIR, I refer to your article "Iron ore developments sparks new generation of polar ships" and would like to correct one minor point. 

Whilst it is quite correct that we did assist Aker Arctic in the design of polar-classed Capesize ships for the purpose of Baffinland’s original feasibility study, we have since been working closely with two Korean shipyards, Samsung Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, to optimise the design from the original that, as you reported, would lift around 130,000 tonnes of iron ore to one that could lift 190,000 tonnes. 

These designs are now well advanced.

Carl M Lee
Vice President Strategic Planning
Fednav Limited
Montreal, Canada


Kudos to MSC Melody master and crew

SIR, Three cheers for Mr Vago and the master and crew of the MSC Melody! While many are pussyfooting around discussing the legality of carrying arms aboard ships in order to repel armed robbers on the high seas, they have actually done something about it, and in so doing have prevented a passenger ship, its crew and passengers - total of nearly 1600 people from being taken hostage. 

Captain Leslie Morris
Marine Consultant
Morris Maritime
Fairview Drive
SO51 7LQ
United Kingdom


Hebei Two treatment beggars belief

SIR, Why am I unsurprised at the treatment that these two men continue to receive? The Korean Supreme Court, having cleared them of the charges, still seems unable to order them to be released. It beggars belief! 

Captain Leslie Morris
Marine Consultant
Morris Maritime
Fairview Drive
SO51 7LQ
United Kingdom


Suez Canal must reduce fees

SIR, The association of shipowners,IMO and all other related bodies must pursuade Suez Canal Authority to reduce canal transit fees in present circumstances. 

Mahendra Singh
Chief Engineer
Wallem, Valecha Chambers 
Andheri, 400053
India.


No to retroactive port charges

SIR, Retroactive Port Charges must be thrown out! Imposition of retroactive port charges is in contravention of the international ports convention of 29th August 1924, which demands: ’’all dues and charges levied for the use of maritime ports shall be duly published before coming into use’’ This is explicitly mentioned by Intertanko and I cannot understand why the British Government has not taken this into account. 

Theodor Strauss 
Director 
Thestraco Consultancy
Diepenbrocklaan 22 
Netherlands

Where are policy initiatives to promote waterway logistics? 

SIR, I read with interest David Osler’s article ‘Turning the tide’ (Lloyd’s List, December 12) both because of the photograph of our vessel Terra Marique passing the Palace of Westminster and the views expressed within it.

One significant point, which seems to have been missed, is that the government has, it seems, consistently ignored the suggestions of their learned colleagues who serve on both the Environment Food and Rural Affairs & Transport Select Committees. Both these committees have championed the cause of waterborne freight carriage.

Only last year did the Transport Select Committee state in recommendations made following its inquiry into ports in England & Wales: “The commercial inland waterways are part of the country’s strategic transport network and they deserve better.”

It subsequently recommends that “the Department for Transport take over responsibility for them, giving the waterways a higher priority in its freight strategy”.

This would be widely welcomed by many of those currently working in the waterborne freight sector. For inland waterways to play a significant role within a truly integrated and sustainable transport network, the first step must surely be transferring responsibility for them from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department for Transport. Such a move we would hope would act as a catalyst for more focus and monies for the promotion and facilitation of waterborne freight carriage.

The government’s commitment to water should consist of more than providing the opportunity to apply for grant aid, an opportunity David Osler’s article highlights that has not been taken up, and a contribution to the funding of the promotion body Freight By Water.

Where is the innovative thinking? Are these officials tasked with driving modal shift? Where are the policy initiatives and thinking that encourages the logistics industry to consider the commercial waterway network as a viable alternative to road?

The Environment Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee proposed one such innovative idea when it recommended “that the government conduct a review to examine the possibility of introducing a carbon credit scheme to encourage more businesses to move onto the waterways”.

While the government did not reject this suggestion out of hand, we are now more than 12 months on and I see no sign of the promised “industry/government group to consider the wider issue as to how government and industry might further encourage more businesses to move onto the waterways, for example, though a carbon credit scheme”.

Is it too much to ask for some leadership to be taken on this issue?

Tim West
Research & Corporate Affairs
Robert Wynn & Sons
Eccleshall, Staffs


Hebei case will drive away seafarers

SIR, The contemptible and inexcusable treatment of Jasprit Chawla and Syam Chetan will have long-lasting implications within the marine industry.

The true cost of the actions of the Korean judicial system will be to drive such proficient and skilled seafarers from an industry already struggling to recruit and retain an ever dwindling resource.

All the recent denunciation seen in the trade press does not change nor diminish the very real and persistent danger faced by the seafarer today. It is welcome to see shipping groups make representations to the International Maritime Organization. However, when an individual nation state can act with impunity following an accident, then all these angry words will not comfort the criminalised and incarcerated seafarer, nor his family.

I sailed in the tanker industry for 28 years, taking the decision just recently, and with regret, to resign my position as a very large crude carrier master. This was a direct result of such inequitable treatment of seafarers, not to mention the almost constant threat of piracy and armed robbery.

I followed the Hebei Spirit story with interest, and it became evident as time progressed that Capt Chawla and Mr Chetan were going to be made scapegoats, regardless of their professionalism.

The continuing criminalisation of the seafarer by the unilateral action of individual nation states, including past actions by European Union member states, will drive people from the industry and make recruitment even more difficult than it already is. This will be the true long term cost of the Hebei Spirit trial fiasco, and the continuing deplorable treatment of seafarers.

Capt David Ireland, By email


Quote, unquote

SIR, We know that the French and the Belgians have close ties and that Belgium’s independence is arguably under threat, but to leave a quote "The French say Antwerp is the best French port" (Lloyd’s List, December 18) is surely unbecoming of an international maritime newpaper published world-wide?!!? 

Charles Reineke 
SMBC Group
France


A safe distance?

SIR, I note from Mr.Krieger’s report on p.2 of your 12 Dec edition that cruiseship Deutschland proposes to maintain "a safe distance of 400 miles from the Somali coast when she transits the Gulf of Aden in February."

Surely this is physically impossible?

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3 


South Korean rebuttal to Lloyd’s List opinion report 

SIR, In the piece ‘Hebei verdict must be just’ (Lloyd’s List, December 2), Lloyd’s List’s assertion that the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal investigation and appeals system are tainted by “collusion” and “bias” was not based on the facts of the relevant case and imprudently negates the court and administrative procedures of the sovereign state. It thus becomes a very regrettable editorial piece that only serves to irrationally defame the honour of the Republic of Korea.

1. Pertaining to the assertion that despite minimal consultation with the flag state and none whatsoever with any other stakeholders this tribunal’s report was published:

1.1 The Code of the International Standards and Recommended Practices for a Safety Investigation into a Marine Casualty or Marine Incident will be effective from January 2010. The new International Maritime Organization casualty investigation code will provide a unified investigation method as a way to resolve problems arising from different national investigation systems.

1.2 While this stands to be a new mandatory code and obligates all member states to implement it, the distinctive characteristics of the national laws of member states pertaining to marine casualty investigations have been recognized.

1.3 Article 13 of the code reads that an investigation draft report should be sent to relevant stakeholders for their views. However, as the code has not yet entered into force in the international maritime community, there exists no obligation to duly carry out any of its regulations, namely article 13.

1.4 International collaboration within the boundaries of national law is partially but most certainly possible even before the code enters into force. However, national legal procedures do not enable views of relevant stakeholders to be reflected in the final written report, and thus no practical benefit can be attained from sending a draft report to the stakeholders.

1.5 Nevertheless, in light of the special international interest and significance of this marine incident, the procedure to present relevant stakeholders with a written report is currently under review.

1.6 Moreover, article 25 of the code, which calls for a copy of the report to be sent to relevant stakeholders for their views, is only a recommendation, and presently does not correspond with national legal procedures.

2. Pertaining to the assertion that this tribunal’s report was used as evidence during criminal proceedings:

2.1 Article 23 of the code cautions that all recordings related to a casualty investigation should be kept strictly confidential, and Article 25 of the code recommends that the report should not be recognised as evidence during criminal proceedings.

2.2 The Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal, based on the open court principle, undertakes an approval process to provide evidence if relevant parties to the marine incident, trial lawyers or judicial authorities should make such a request. Otherwise, the tribunal abides by the Marine Accidents Inquiry Act and its non-disclosure principle.

2.3 However, it is up to the court to decide whether to take reference of the Tribunal’s final judgment in the criminal proceedings. At present, the tribunal is without any legal grounds by which to limit the court from using the evidence.

3. Pertaining to the assertion that the Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal is preparing an overly-critical report of the Hebei Spirit seafarers:

3.1 As the editorial indicates that the report details became known even prior to it being written, it seems logical to assume and criticise that, on the contrary, the tribunal was colluding with the Hebei Spirit interests.

3.2 In addition, despite the tribunal’s official explanations, the fact that Lloyd’s List continues to print or opine assertions favourable to the Hebei Spirit interests and condemning to the Korean authorities without any sort of a filtering mechanism raises a contrary issue of whether the Lloyd’s List and the Hebei Spirit interests are colluding to pressure the tribunal and the criminal court into handing out afavourable verdict for the Hebei Spirit tanker.

3.3 The tribunal’s motto is fairness and justice, and calls for evidence to be presented in trial proceedings. Facts based on the presented evidence are accepted, and criminal procedures including hearings are open to the public and conducted transparently. As noted by Lloyd’s List, words such as collusion, bias and possible distortion of the facts are not to be applied lightly.

3.4 Nevertheless, Lloyd’s List opined that the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal and the appeals court system were tainted by such descriptions, but based purely on suspicion and speculation, and thus the editorial severely defamed the impartiality of the tribunal. Hasty expressions and words were used that could very well disturb the foundation of the judicial and administrative institutions of a sovereign state. This very regrettable piece of writing did in fact undermine the honour and prestige of the Republic of Korea.

Embassy of the Republic of Korea
60 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6AJ 


LR’s stance on Panama flag 

SIR, Your headline, ‘Class societies reject Panama registry resolution’ in Lloyd’s List on December 4, is inaccurate — at least so far as Lloyd’s Register is concerned. 

We have not rejected the resolution in question, 106-26 DGMM, requiring Occasional Surveys of Panamanian Flag shipping over 20 years of age bound for Paris MoU destinations. 

In fact, the opposite is true. We accept the resolution and have complied with it by carrying out these Occasional Surveys when requested. 

However, as your article states, there is an aspect of the resolution, which asks for a guarantee of future compliance with statutory requirements, that we, and other societies, are unable to meet for both legal and practical reasons. 

Our position on this is clear to all involved: we are only able to survey compliance at the time of the inspection and cannot take responsibility for any change in the condition of a ship following these occasional surveys or any other surveys undertaken by Lloyd’s Register. 

Robert Smart
Head of external affairs Lloyd’s Register

We must have co-ordinated protection in Gulf of Aden 

SIR, I read Viewpoint (Lloyd’s List, December 1) with great interest and can only concur with Michael Grey’s comments.

We had our vessel CEC Future hijacked on November 7 and have negotiated for her release ever since. Since then another seven vessels have been hijacked.

The matter has filled us with frustration and we have decided to try and fight back, rather than sticking our heads in the sand, as seems to be the case with most owners affected by this menace.

Thus we have used the press,both Danish and international, to try to generate attention towards the ridiculous situation prevailing in the Gulf of Aden.

We have also briefed 12 embassies, mainly representing countries with naval assets in the area.

Furthermore we have contacted local politicians as well as leaders within the Danish defence department.

The problems are many, as pointed out in your article. The quick fix is naval escorts for vulnerable vessels. We have had good success with this and the Russian navy has so far escorted two of our vessels, including the Caribbean Express, currently under escort with Russian marines onboard.

We are in a small convoy with two other merchant vessels. The real problem is not the lack of naval assets, but lack of overall co-ordination. We are starting to see some signs of co-ordination. The Americans are showing increased interest in the problem and we hope they will eventually take the lead.

Obviously the United Nations needs to pass a resolution allowing the forces in the area to effectively deal with the problem at all levels, including prosecution of the bandits. However, we realise this may be hoping and expecting too much. It is imperative that the pirates’ motherships are taken out of the equation; again, the navies in the area need a clear mandate or resolution to do so.

With the imposed security zone for transit, we have made vessels into sitting ducks. In theory it makes sense to limit the area to be patrolled by the navies; however, all the pirates have to do is to prowl along the zone and then strike when there are no navy vessels in sight.

The EU has announced the arrival of a task force in the area to address the piracy problem. However, so far we have no clear information as to whether they will actually provide escorts for merchant vessels, or whether they will just patrol and monitor. If it is the latter then it simply a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting.

Per Gullestrup
Clipper Projects Harbour House, 
Sundkrogsgade 21 
2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 

Decision must be right, rather than speedy

SIR, Your report ‘Mitropoulos urges action on emissions’ (Lloyd’s List, December 1) outlines, in general, the comments I made when interviewed by media representatives during my attendance in Genoa last week at a conference on piracy — and also to inaugurate the first courses (on flag state implementation and port state control) of the International Maritime Safety, Security and Environment Academy.

The report does not, however, reflect accurately my comments on market-based mechanisms.

My concern — in this important part of the International Maritime Organization’s action plan to limit/reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shippingoperations — is not about “the slow pace of debates”, but about IMO making the right decision when tackling the issue, given its complexity and politicalconnotations.

I added that the question, as I have stated on several occasions in the recent past, should not be whether IMO concludes its consideration of the issue before or after the UN climate talks in Copenhagen next year as long as it makes the right, well-balanced decision and that such a decision is taken byconsensus.

E E Mitropoulos
Secretary-General
IMO


Longer route could be more risky

How has the hijacking of VLCC ’Sirius Star’ 450 miles south-east of Mombasa and en route to the Cape of Good Hope ’escalated’ the piracy problem in the northern Gulf of Aden?

Surely it has actually made the longer route more risky?

Yours truly,
Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


Still a long way to go in fight against piracy

SIR, Thank you for confirming today that of the 581 seamen kidnapped up to 30 Sept this year, 270 are still incarcerated, 9 have been killed and 7 missing presumed dead.

As a result of your insistent reporting, it is some relief to see that some more heavy-weight spokesmen, such as our Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, are now talking public interest.

However, far from achieving a solution, the situation seems to be getting worse:-

Though it is reported that the Indian Navy’s INS Tabar has sunk a pirate mother-ship and that HMS Cumberland arrested eight pirates and handed them over to the Kenyan authorities (as well as killing three), the evasive action of some operators (such as Odfjell) is routing their ships past Kenya and South Africa (rather than through Suez) clearly won’t work now that at least one mother-ship is operating about 450 nautical miles south-east of Mombasa!

With more than a dozen warships/helicopters in the area and spy satellites etc, surely the priority must be to eliminate the remaining motherships? 

Secondly, something needs to be done about the government of the ’northern breakaway Puntland region’ one of whose officials you quote as saying that Sirius Star is anchored off Haradhere.

Surely Nato should send a military mission to Puntland to insist on the immediate release without any further financial bribery of Sirius Star, ro-ro Faina and all the other hijacked ships achored off Eyl, Obbia etc?

Thirdly, what pressure is being put on the government of Yemen to seal its south coast from supplying the pirates?

There are said to be anti-piracy naval centres at Aden and at al-Mukalla; but apparently vital logistic supplies are still reaching the pirates from that shore. 

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


Masters should refuse to navigate in piracy zones 

SIR, In Lloyd’s List (November 6) we read of a tanker, for the second time in one day, coming under attack from three skiffs with four men in each using “small arms to level a sustained barrage of fire”.

To “deter” them a coalition aircraft dropped smoke bombs, inconveniencing the miscreants to the degree that they disengaged and, presumably, went off to look for a more compliant victim.

“Focus” advises “it is unwise to assume that a CTF150 vessel... will be able to render assistance to a ship which may be threatened or attacked” and “it remains the responsibility of masters to make their vessels less vulnerable to attack”.

That page also reads: “The master’s overriding responsibility is to the safety of his vessel and crew” despite “having to comply with shoreside instructions that often ignore the problems they face and the implications for safety”.

Does anyone truly believe that the shipmaster who takes his command into an area of known hazard, wilfully exposing his crew to the risk of death or injury and his ship and cargo to the risk of damage and loss — when there is an alternative — is acting in anyone’s best interests, and who would dispute that that master has abrogated his “overriding responsibility”?

Additionally, in the event of shipboard casualties, are not those individuals “shoreside” who, despite being well aware of the danger and of a safe alternative, order the master to a transit a high risk area (without ensuring adequate safeguards) guilty of criminal neglect — as is the master who misguidedly abides by the instructions?

It is time that shipmasters took it upon themselves to discharge their “overriding responsibility” and flatly refuse to navigate an area of extreme hazard until they are given a positive assurance of protection, making them “less vulnerable to attack”

Svitzer and those other operators who are prepared to re-route around the Cape of Good Hope have demonstrated that a safe alternative is available and affordable, and they are to be commended for their humanitarian response to a deadly and rapidly escalating problem that is unlikely to be resolved by the use of smoke bombs.

CR Kelso Captain (Rtd)
Southampton


Putting a price on British heritage 

SIR, It was with utmost regret that I stood alongside the Southampton Waters on the 11th day of the 11th month this year to watch Queen Elizabeth 2 leave Southampton for the final time.

It sends shivers down my spine to think that she will now become a support act in the Dubai circus, among palm islands and seven-star hotels.

I must admit though, that the farewell that was given to her by Southampton was one of dignity and respect, and one that acknowledged the great service this ship has given to the United Kingdom, both as an ocean liner, perhaps the most beautiful ever built, but also in serving as a troop transporter during the Falklands war.

This farewell comes far too early, and perhaps it should never have been a farewell at all, as this old but stylish lady should never had been taken out of service. She could surely have gone on for decades crossing the Atlantic with the grace that she has carried for so long.

It is a piece of English heritage that has left for Dubai, and a question comes to my mind; if it was so easy to sell the QE2, then what will happen when the sheiks come knocking with a bid for Big Ben or even Stonehenge?

Kent-Ove Jacobsen
Southampton


QE2 statement was difficult to take too seriously 

SIR, Are we take seriously the MCA’s “National News announcement” regarding the unfortunate grounding of Queen Elizabeth II on the Bramble Bank?

Apparently “the crew... reported to Solent Coastguard that they feared she may have run aground...”

The crew?

Feared?

But then: “Five tugs attended the scene and the vessel was successfully refloated...”

I was annoyed that the incident did not make the BBC news at 2200 hrs on the night in question, but so poorly drafted a press release now fills me with a profound sense of relief.

Richard Woodman
Dovercourt
Essex


‘Combined international action is only way to restore safety to Gulf of Aden’

SIR, the undersigned call upon all governments, individually and collectively through the United Nations, to do everything in their power to counter the state of lawlessness and to restore safety of navigation in the Gulf of Aden.

Contributions already made in response to UN Security Council resolutions 1816 and 1838 are welcomed but the undersigned note with considerable concern that UN SCR 1816 is end-dated December 2, 2008. The considerable support being voiced in the European Union and in NATO is also welcomed but co-ordinated international action is the only mechanism likely to bring any lasting relief to this troubled and lawless area.

These waters are strategically important for world trade; safe and unhindered passage of innocent merchant ships is essential if the needs of the nations and peoples of the world are to be safeguarded. The freedom to navigate safely on the high seas is an abiding principle of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the situation that pertains today is one of the most serious challenges to this principle to have arisen in recent years.

At the human level, the current appalling situation is intolerable for seafarers under duress whilst held hostage and for those running the gauntlet of increasingly violent attacks in this dangerous region. UNCLOS places an obligation on its signatories to do everything in their power to preserve the High Seas for innocent use.

It is our view that immediate and decisive action is required to strike at the very heart of the armed and organised gangs that appear to be operating in the region almost with impunity. The practical and legal difficulties facing the crews of the few warships currently deployed into the area are understood only too well and it is for this reason that the following actions are identified as essential short term steps toward a lasting solution.

1. Governments are urged to commit sufficient numbers of warships, military aircraft and surveillance assets to the region and to co-ordinate their command and control under the auspices of a United Nations mandate.

2. The existing UN Security Council resolutions 1816 and 1838 must be enhanced with a further resolution with more explicit text on action required against criminal gangs and with a timeframe adequate to reaching a final solution.

3. Of equal importance is the need to establish a legal jurisdiction to bring arrested criminals to justice and subsequent punishment. In this regard, states are particularly urged to review and amend national legislation to include such due process — noting their obligations under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988.

We request these actions and any others that may be appropriate be given the most urgent priority. Any further delay is bound to fuel a descent into ever deeper lawlessness.

S M Polemis
Chairman, International Chamber of Shipping
President, International Shipping Federation

P Embiricos
President, BIMCO

N Pappadakis
Chairman, Intercargo

N Fistes
Chairman, Intertanko

O Stene
President, InterManager

D Cockcroft
International Transport Workers’ Federation


No justice in second trial for Hebei Spirit pair

SIR, The treatise on the intricacies of the South Korean legal system (Lloyd’s List, October 22) makes for absorbing reading, and I invite the Minister-Counsellor to elaborate on his assertion that the report by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal “sufficiently points out the negligence of Samsung and Hebei Spirit, and that the cause of the collision mostly originated on the side of Samsung’s tug boats”.

Having seen a video excerpt and read numerous reports on the incident, which suggested that despite the appalling weather there was but one tug, I am at a loss to understand what more Capt Chawla and Mr Chetan could have done to avert the collision and in what way they were “negligent”.

Insofar as I am aware, both men were tried by a court of law, albeit at district level, on June 23 and both were found not guilty on all charges and had their passports returned. The same court found Hebei Ocean Shipping blameless, and it was reported that the court had promised the release of the master and chief officer.

It is pertinent that the report by the Korean tribunal stated that the tanker’s crew should have “done more to prevent the accident” but failed to suggest what action they might have taken to prevent the huge crane barge hitting the 270,000 dwt tanker when the barge’s towline parted. Equally pertinent was the report in the Korea Times that the regional office of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries made abortive attempts to warn the master of the barge that he was too close to the tanker — and that two hours before the collision.

Undoubtedly, the release of 11,000 tonnes of crude oil inflicted massive damage to the Yellow Sea coast, but with three tanks ruptured, it is difficult to imagine what more the crew of the tanker could have done to reduce the pollution.

Reports at the time commended them for their rapid transfer of the cargo residue from the damaged tanks, but I recall that the local police and the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries were castigated for their subsequent “insufficient distribution of oil absorbent materials”, a charge they did not deny.

Both men have had a fair trial and have been acquitted but there are many who share the reservations expressed by the president of V.Ships about the fairness of a further trial. Undoubtedly, heads should roll but not those of Capt Chawla and his chief officer. If they are being detained in Korea, they are hostages, and the complex legal system of their captors is being exposed for the farce that it appears to be.

I await Mr Lim’s response and I hope that he will not seek to shelter under the old “sub judice” argument.

CR Kelso, Capt (Rtd)
Southampton SO31 8DB


Statement from Korea on Hebei Spirit

SIR, The Korea Central Maritime Safety Tribunal, which aims to examine the cause of a marine incident and prevent any reoccurrences, is an independent body with a system and characteristics that totally differ from a judicial authority, such as a prosecutor’s office, which aims to punish crimes.

Therefore, the decision of the tribunal cannot be binding on a judicial authority.

In particular, Samsung Heavy Industries is strictly prohibited from making any sort of contact with the special inquiry division prior to a fair trial. Based on this reasoning, V.Ships’ president’s assertion that “there was some consultation between Samsung, the prosecutors, and the people that put together the report” is unfair and stands contrary to the facts.

To be clear, however, pursuant to a relevant act (Investigation and Inquiry into a Marine Accident Act, Article 7-2), the prosecutor may obtain the views of a competent district maritime safety tribunal when instituting a public action, and thus making references to a tribunal report is not illegal.

The report by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal (first instance) sufficiently points out the negligence of Samsung and the Hebei Spirit side, and that the cause of the collision mostly originated on the side of Samsung’ s tug boats.

The Hebei Spirit side is partly to be blamed for its negligence to prevent the collision and the excessive oil leakage, which caused the marine pollution incident, as the measures they took under the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans were inadequate.

Unlike the UK and US procedures for examining the cause of marine incidents, which end after a simple investigation by a public investigator, under the Korean system, while a district maritime safety tribunal gives a ruling as the court of first instance, an appeal can be made to the Korea Central Maritime Safety Tribunal as the court of second instance.

Therefore, as the legal representatives of Samsung and Hebei Spirit filed their cases to the Central Maritime Safety Tribunal in September respectively (second instance), the decision by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal (first instance) has been nullified. Likewise, the decision by the Central Tribunal will serve as the final report.

The original copies of the decision by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal were sent to the attorneys of the parties related to the incident.

Also, the Korean government has not violated any IMO regulations for not sending copies to Hong Kong’s Marine Department and the IMO, because the final decision by the Korea Central Maritime Safety Tribunal remains pending.

Upon its publication, the final report will be submitted to the IMO and may also be made available to Hong Kong’s Marine Department.

The government of the Republic of Korea very much regrets that your article of September 26 speculated that South Korean maritime officials, the prosecution and Samsung Heavy Industries’ lawyers colluded with one another, as it is an extremely one-sided view that is not based on the actual facts of the incident. 

Government of the Republic of Korea
Embassy of the Republic of Korea 
60 Buckingham Gate 
London SW1E 6AJ


Pity the poor pirate, a toiler of the sea 

SIR, The news that the arrest of the individuals who sequestered the French cruiseship Le Ponant may be “illegal” (Lloyd’s List, October 15) serves yet again to highlight the injustices being perpetrated against these people.

The publication (almost certainly without permission) in your newspaper, and the national press, of photographs of the Somalian pirates cruising around looking for suitable ships to hijack must surely be in breach of their human rights.

Furthermore, neither their flimsy craft nor the mothership appears to be adequately equipped with LSA and crew members were not wearing combat clothing or lifejackets. Surely this a blatant neglect of their health and safety?

Undoubtedly, these intrepid seafarers are making a good living (or should that be “killing”?) but it cannot be much fun driving around a hot and fetid Gulf of Aden in an open boat toting a heavy RPG — not to mention boarding a speeding high freeboard ship using an inadequate painter’s ladder.

In the event of an unfortunate accident it is to be hoped that the P&I clubs will be generous.

Very obviously, the need to maintain a constant pool of hostage seafarers (to ensure that their modest endeavours are not disrupted by military intervention) must place an inordinate strain on their traditional and legendary Somalian hospitality.

The solution to the problem is obvious. Rather than continuing to engage in the laborious process of paying ransoms (much of which is being misappropriated by dishonest individuals shoreside) why not just give these “toilers of the sea” an annual inducement of, say, $20m, as a reward for not interfering with global trade?

Granted, others may seek similar consideration and there will almost certainly be a demand for a biannual increase, but surely that is not unreasonable in these hard times?

That having been done, merchant ships and their crews can again enjoy the right of innocent passage, the navies of the world can revert to what, in peacetime, they do best — showing the flag and visiting each other’s countries — and the international shipping community will, in part, be relieved of their heavy responsibility to safeguard the world’s seafarers, and can therefore terminate their endless and fruitless discussions about the “problem”.

Those among the pirate community desirous of taking passage in a naval vessel to the United Kingdom to start a new life may show understandable resentment at being denied the opportunity, but given today’s banking uncertainty, it is probable that, in the short term, they may prefer to keep their hard-earned money in the Bank of Mogadishu.

CR Kelso, Captain (Rtd)
Southampton


Keeping an open-minded approach on CO2 emission reductions

SIR, I am writing in response to your October 13 editorial about the use of market-based instruments to encourage carbon dioxide emission reductions by shipping.

The position of the International Chamber of Shipping, as agreed by its executive committee, is that notwithstanding the major reservations that exist within the ICS membership about the possible application of MBIs, the ICS should be open minded during the continuing discussions at the International Maritime Organization, and elsewhere, in order to remain fully engaged.

This position was reflected in the interventions made by ICS representatives during last week’s IMO MEPC meeting.

During my presentation at the Financial Times conference in Athens, I made some personal observations questioning the benefits that might be achieved through shipping’s participation in Emission Trading Schemes. I also concluded these remarks by reiterating that many regulators, particularly in Europe, are strongly focused on the use of such schemes, and that the shipping industry must therefore remain open to the study and debate of such concepts — which is the position of ICS.

The editorial finished by suggesting that ICS should declare whether the industry would prefer a bunker levy to emission trading. However, there is as yet no clarity from the proponents of such schemes as to how they would operate in practice. We therefore have nothing to compare.

This makes it very difficult for ICS, which represents all sectors of the industry to which these measures might apply, to take a firm position at this stage, and we are now waiting for governments to submit detailed proposals to the next round of IMO discussions on CO2, which take place in March.

ICS is engaged in industry-wide consultation and internal discussion with a view to being prepared for a full debate when the IMO member states are ready. We do not understand why, as is suggested by your editorial, this should be a problem.

Spyros M Polemis
Chairman, International Chamber of Shipping


Cooperation between countries vital to punish hijackers

I am extremely surprised by Mr Andres Breijo’s comments. Section 100 of The United Nations Convention of the Sea dated Montego Bay 10th December 1982 provides that all states must cooperate to punish piracy on the high sea. 

The Genoa Court of Justice did punish the poeple responsible for the hijacking of the "ACHILLE LAURO" and similar steps have been taken by the French Authorities. 

I trust that similar action be taken by the other States or to have the crime of piracy punished by the Internation Criminal Court of the Hague as this might be the proper place. 

Dr jur Francesco Rizzuto, Advocate
Genoa, 
Italy


What about seafarers’ rights?

Why is it that we spend so much time on the Human Rights of criminals! What about the right’s of seamen going about their lawful business? 

Neil Porter
Bromley
United Kingdom


Dollar-per-day trading can offer huge opportunities for Baltic Exchange

I refer to the quote below from the article SSY goes transparent with dollar-per-day contracts;
“There’s no doubt that our particular trading methods (Worldscale) appears deeply obscure and almost intentionally a barrier to entry,”

This quote is an understatement. But there is a great role for the Baltic Exchange to actually take the $/day rates, then post calculations that convert the $/day into WS on major routes. Such an exercise may reveal discrepancies between the TC rates and the WS quoted on the major routes.

Rather than being incorrect, such calculations will reveal that different assumptions are being used by potential FFA market participants who are also running the same numbers. Therein lies a big opportunity.

The big players for many years have been able to exploit arbitrage differentials between the numbers in the big WS book and what they can achieve in the market. The Baltic Exchange might consider providing templates that will stimulate such arbitrages and thereby generate activity in the markets.

The WS Association surely won’t do this, but the Baltic Exchange can and should. Though their calculations will be a "straw man"- with marketing participants remarking on things like, "Oh, they should have calculated with a ship burning 40 tons a day instead of 38 tons a day..." or "we all know that the ships are going 12 knots instead of 13 knots..." and variants on this. "Different horses for different courses." is an applicable way of describing the non-uniformity of calculating equivalencies between $/day and WS.

But the ability to exploit such differences will get people in. Hedge funds eat this stuff up- they live for these kind of anomalies- which comprise an important part of their commodity market activities. Research providers all over the markets should have a field day with these types of calculations. Let them "educate" potential customers. "Viva la’ difference" also applies here. 

Barry Parker
bdp1 Consulting Ltd.
United States


Use of convoy system can curtail piracy threat

The threat of priracy can be curtailed by the simple expedient of using a convoy system to protect the vessels passing through the danger areas. A single warship can provide protection to a number of merchant vessels.

A convoy system is in operation for the passage through the Suez Canal so it is not a new concept.

The Rules of Engagement for the Warships should be sufficiently robust to allow the Commanding Officer to operate effectively, the political climate is now attuned to this solution.

Once the system has been established and in use for a short time the pirates will seek alternative and easier sources of revenue. 

Chris Jones
Managing Director
Fullbridge Mill
United Kingdom


Listen to views of piracy victims 

AS a survivor of the piracy attack of the Svitzer Korsakov on Feb 1 2008, I am available to give witness to what transpired and have suggestions for all the bodies concerned. 

It’s not that I am opinionated but that I feel that there is very little heed being paid to the opinions of the victims . 

They truly do not want any other seamen to go through what they did but in the months since our release I have witnessed the same errors being made by shipowners day in day out. 

What needs to be done is to talk to battle hardened survivors for the keys to stopping this run on criminal violence to peace-loving seamen of all nationalities. 

As I’ve found with the British Navy, all that’s done is to make polite don’t rock the boat, leave it to your betters, noises. 

The result - more pirate attacks!

Fred Parle,
Chief Engineer,
Ireland


Is Spain best suited to anti-piracy role? 

SIR, I note from Marcus Hand’s informative report (Lloyd’s List, September 26) that over 300 crew have been taken hostage from 24 ships, of which 13 were still detained in Somalia with 97 Filipino still held.

I also note that 10 confessed pirates were released because “it is not possible to bring pirates to court in Denmark”. Why not? Is this some throw-back to Viking traditions?

Meanwhile, I note that the European Union has decided that the “magnitude of the problem” of piracy is so complex that it plans to set up an “inter-service piracy task force” and a “piracy cell under a Spanish naval officer” to “cope with this sensitive issue where a multi-disciplinary approach is required”.

In view of your recent reports that the Spanish government took no part in the release of crew from their two trawlers, other than to advise their owners never to negotiate with pirates nor to pay ransom, might it not prove more effective to ask the French Navy to take charge?

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


Single-track approach for rail funding

SIR, Your piece ‘Northern Gateway developer calls for rail upgrades’ (Lloyd’s List, July 28) highlights the need for clear guidance and consistent policy on rail targets and funding of rail infrastructure for port developments.

The infrastructure requirements to achieve set rail targets, including obligations to fund them, have been a feature of the consent process for many recent port developments. Apparently, this was not the case when Teesport was given consent for its new deep-water terminal, and the existing infrastructure was, presumably, deemed adequate by developer and government alike.

The admission that this is not the case has implications for the government’s current consultation on funding transport infrastructure for strategically significant developments. It also raises questions on how these developments are assessed in the first place.

In the Haven Gateway, the necessary rail upgrades to serve port developments were fully assessed and are to be funded by the developer. Should this not also be the case at Teesport?

George Kieffer
Chairman
Haven Gateway Partnership


If more gunships are needed, get them

SIR, The waters off Somalia comprise part of an important international waterway and the admission, by IMB director Pottengal Mukundan, that “the situation is grave... unless further action is taken, seafarers remain in serious danger while navigating the Gulf of Aden” is cause for great concern.

Of equal concern is the reported comment by the commander of Coalition Task Force 150 that “responsibility” for the protection of merchantmen lies with the industry.

Understandably, Commodore Davidson is unable to “guarantee” security for merchant ships transiting the area, but his assertion “the best way to prevent skiffs approaching a vessel is to put an armed security team aboard” demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of commercial shipping — unless he is in a position to put such a team aboard a ship before the transit and disembark at afterwards.

A possible, but rather unlikely, alternative is to maintain platoons of armed militiamen on Perim and Socotra and embark and disembark them by helicopter — not, I suspect, a solution that would find favour in many quarters.

The commodore is obviously unaware of the consequences for a master and ship’s company of a vessel arriving at a port in the region (or anywhere for that matter) and declaring on the mandatory custom’s manifest: “Two RPGs and associated armaments” — or ordering replenishments from the ship chandler.

Since 1991, there has been no semblance of stable government throughout Somalia and piracy, as a safe and assured method of accumulating vast wealth, has been on the increase and allowed to prosper.

There is a growing belief in many quarters that at least some of the money is being diverted to fund Islamic militancy further afield.

The commodore comments that to afford protection would take “far more ships than we have available”. If that really is the case, then the powers-that-be must ensure that he is given the ships to ensure right of innocent passage through international waters for all commercial vessels. It is patently obvious that the puny force he commands is totally incapable of combating the current threat, never mind the developing one.

The possible consequences of not doing so are too dire to contemplate.

C.R.Kelso Captain (Rtd)
5 Bursledon Heights 
Southampton SO31 8DB 

Give coalition remit for more action

SIR, I am a serving tanker master who frequently transits the Gulf of Aden as well as other pirate hot spots.

I was quite taken aback by Commodore Davidson’s remarks to the effect that merchant ships should provide their own security for Gulf of Aden transits (Naval forces establish Somalia safety zone, Lloyd’s List, August 26).

He went on to state that ships crews should not be armed, so I assume he wishes to see us employ some form of armed guards onboard to deter the pirates.

As these pirates are heavily armed, then we could assume we would need arms to combat them. I doubt there are many shipmasters who wish to be involved in a firefight between the pirates and armed guards upon his ship, certainly not if he is on tanker laden with low flashpoint cargo.

I am at a loss as to why the coalition forces cannot track and effectively deal with the so called ‘mother’ ships. It seems they know exactly what they look like and with modern satellite imagery, I am sure they can effectively track them.

If need be, they should be permitted to deal with such vessels within Somalian territorial waters. This country has little law and order and there is not much they could do about such action. I believe this is the only way to stop these pirates as their effectiveness is vastly reduced without these ‘mother’ vessels.

Let us see some concerted action from the coalition forces to resolve this problem. I am sure it could be dealt with quite quickly if they were given the remit to do so.

Manning shortages are becoming critical on merchant ships today. No seafarer wants to be captured and held hostage or worse. It is fear of such happenings that can go a long way to cutting short a sea career. We all have families who must come first. It is pressure from wives and families that will be the main reason that seafarers will refuse to transit pirate waters.

I note that MISC is not sending its vessels through the Gulf of Aden at present. How long will it be before other shipping companies or individual ship crews will refuse to pass through these waters?

The US government stated recently that there was no link between such piracy and terrorism. I have my doubts about this. Surely the effective closure of the Straits of Meneb would make al-Qaeda very happy indeed? It could have a devastating effect on world trade.

Captain Ian 
OddShipmaster, 
Corfe Mullen, Dorset


Why Temasek is linked to NOL bid for Hapag-Lloyd 

SIR, I laughed out loud when I read that Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, insists it is not involved in the machinations behind Neptune Orient Lines’ bid for Hapag-Lloyd. Temasek owns more than 66% of NOL, and is further connected to NOL via the parochial and intertwined structure of Singaporean business and government.

Let us count the ways:

• NOL has two board members with a direct connection to Temasek: one is an executive director and the other, a consultant;

• Through interlocking directorates, several NOL board members are also on the boards of other companies with a minority or majority owned stake by Temasek;

• Until last year, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also served as the Minister of Finance, which is the sole shareholder of Temasek. His wife, Ho Ching, is Temasek chief executive;

• In 2006, the NOL board and shareholders voted to give a S$1.3bn ($906m) cash distribution via capital reduction. This meant that Temasek received about $500m, money that could have been spent to reinvest in NOL operations like new ships and terminals.

If Hapag is indeed acquired by NOL, its executives and employees are in for a rude awakening. In the eyes of many, they will be de facto agents for the Singaporean government.

This is what concerns Hapag-Lloyd employees the most. Not being owned by a foreign entity, but being owned by a foreign government.

So although NOL is basically run by an American, he will always be looking over his shoulder to gauge what Temasek, and by extension the Singapore government, feel is in their best interests, and not necessarily in the best interests of customers and employees.

Would the two companies really make a good fit? I don’t think so. Hapag-Lloyd’s venerable history, and culture of openness and diversity, would not make a good fit with the authoritarian and rigid culture of Singapore. I know — I lived there.

Klaus Biedermann
Houston, Texas 

Same problem, same resistance, same solution 

SIR, It is of interest to read that European transport ministers will meet in La Rochelle to discuss, inter alia, pollution and ‘motorways of the sea’, and that the latter is, yet again, facing opposition from the road transport lobby.

Some 15 years ago, Italy launched a pioneering scheme, termed Viamare (sea road) aimed at reducing the number of heavy freight lorries using its autostradas. Half a dozen revolutionary ships were built but the concept foundered due, almost certainly, to political backing for the strong objections of the Italian road freight industry.

The French minister attending La Rochelle is reported as saying that there are suggestions that state aid should be “redirected from operating subsidies towards ship construction”. So, hopefully, M Bussereau will have read the report of the success enjoyed by the seawater scrubbing plant in operation aboard P&O’s Pride of Kent (Lloyd’s List, Letter to the Editor, Sept 2) “which consistently removes more than 99.7% sulphur... (and) 80% of the cancer-causing pollutant particulate matter”.

What better use for state aid than subsidising the cost of fitting each Vitmare vessel with a scrubbing plant?

Hopefully the UK Transport Secretary will also be in La Rochelle to support the fitting of seawater scrubbers: they would go far towards allaying her fears about “rising emissions” from merchant ships.

Even more hopefully, she might be convinced of the merits of ‘sea roads’ and recognise how their introduction into the UK would, at a stroke, regenerate many small ports (and surrounding areas) and significantly reduce the congestion, pollution and wear and tear on our motorways generated by lorries from every corner of Europe.

CR Kelso, Captain (Rtd) 
Bursledon
Southampton 

Tiger claims ‘scaremongering’

SIR, Your article by John Drake of AKE Intelligence (Lloyd’s List, Sept 3) makes some astonishing forecasts of the possible consequences of the Sri Lankan government being successful in its current anti-terrorist activities.

He asserts that “maritime strategy has been a key component” of the Tigers’ “island-wide insurgency campaign since 1995” involving “amphibious assaults”, “sabotage divers”, “high-seas raids against targets in Galle... and a series of commercial vessels around the Indian Ocean” extending their influence “extensively into neighbouring India and across a vast swathe of the Indian Ocean implicating the Maldives, Comoros, Indonesia and Cambodia.”

In my opinion, this is irresponsible scaremongering of a sort which I should have expected you to challenge before publication.

He quotes one actual incident against a Chinese fishing boat in 2003; but, otherwise, to my knowledge there have been no subsequent incidents involving commercial shipping in Sri Lanka, which has been mercifully free of such lunacy.

Geoffry Lucas 
Shipbroker
London SW3


Fuelling inconsistency on crude

SIR, Between your two comment pieces on September 1, there seems to me to be surprising inconsistency.

In the former, you disparage the reaction of fuel traders to Hurricane Gustav, while expressing surprise that Russia’s actions in the Caucasus have not had a greater effect.

In the latter, while questioning the reliability of the IEA’s forecast that the price of crude oil won’t fall below $100 per barrel before 2013, you imply that the price of marine fuels will nevertheless increase “endlessly”.

Isn’t the common factor between these two pieces that, as IEA says, the cushion between current demand and potentially short-term supply is presently untypically thin?

With prices above $100 per barrel accelerating substitution, while new resources from Shtokman, Brazil and Alberta are being developed (not to mention increased supplies from Iraq), isn’t it possible that, from about 2013, we shall see some further decline in prices?

Meanwhile, Russia will surely continue to supply oil and gas to the West, as these sales currently contribute about 40% of its foreign exchange earnings.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker London SW3


No need for ‘backfiring’ 

SIR, Michael Grey’s article (IMO sulphur plans will backfire, Lloyd’s List, August 26) highlights the real and present danger facing ferry operators in European ‘ECA’ waters, particularly from 2015, when ECA’s will require fuel burnt at 0.1% sulphur or below.

Interferry cites a potential jump in its operator’s costs from 2015 of between 80%-100%, an amount it suggests could put many ferry operators out of business as operators switch to costly ultra low sulphur fuel.

Mr Grey’s article, however, fails to mention that the IMO Marine Environment Committee has provided for an alternative to the use of costly distillates to meet new ECA regulations in the form of scrubbing technology.

Krystallon has for several years run a seawater scrubber on the P&O ferry Pride of Kent, which consistently removes more than 99.7% sulphur — more than required to comply with all new regulations for decades.

Moreover, unlike the 10% reduction achieved from burning ultra-low-sulphur fuels over bunker fuel oil, seawater scrubbing removes 80% of the cancer-causing pollutant particulate matter.

The initial cost to retrofit scrubbing technology would offset Interferry’s additional fuel spend in as little as 18 months, less for a newbuilding, with manufacture prices set to fall as production heightens. A fall that almost certainly won’t be replicated by the price of bunker fuel and marine diesel oil, which the International Energy Agency predicts will increase amid tight supplies and competition with other modes of transport.

The ferry market, and Interferry and its members, can be assured that regulations need not “backfire commercially and environmentally” in northern Europe with a scrubber onboard.

Chris Leigh-Jones
Managing Director, 
Krystallon UK


IMO is working behind the scenes to alleviate piracy risk off Somalia 

SIR, I was pleased to read in Monday’s edition of your newspaper the article concerning the establishment by naval forces of a Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden, designed to offer merchant vessels safe passage through the troubled waters off Somalia.

As your article acknowledged, the MSPA is being created in response to continuing efforts on the part of the International Maritime Organization, together with other UN agencies, to alleviate the situation by protecting shipping sailing off the coast of Somalia and allowing humanitarian aid to reach the Somali people.

Your subsequent reporting of the situation (’Somali pirates strike deeper on the high seas’ and ‘At least six pirate gangs active in Gulf of Aden, says IMB’) provides a clear picture of the extent of the problem and is appreciated. The following information, therefore, aims at supplementing your reports so that your readers may obtain a more thorough idea of the work being done to achieve the set objectives.

IMO’s initiative on the Somali issue goes back to 2005, when a resolution, adopted by the IMO Assembly (expressing the organisation’s concern at the situation and appealing to all parties that might be able to assist to take action to ensure that all acts or attempted acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships were terminated forthwith), was conveyed, through the UN Secretary-General, to the UN Security Council.

This resulted in a Security Council presidential statement encouraging “Member states, whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate in international waters and airspace adjacent to the coast of Somalia, to be vigilant to any incident of piracy therein and to take appropriate action to protect merchant shipping, in particular the transportation of humanitarian aid, against any such act, in line with relevant international law”.

Subsequently, in 2007, jointly with Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Programme, we wrote to the Secretary-General of NATO proposing the formalisation of a co-ordination mechanism between the three organisations (IMO, WFP and NATO), by means of which naval operational centres in the region were provided systematically with the details of merchant ships chartered to deliver humanitarian aid to Somalia on behalf of the UN System, so as to facilitate the task of naval assets operating in the region of the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean adjacent to the Somali coast in undertaking the tracking of and, where necessary, the provision of assistance to, merchant vessels carrying urgently-needed humanitarian aid.

In November 2007, the IMO Assembly adopted another resolution (on Piracy and armed robbery against ships in waters off the coast of Somalia), which, among other things, requested the UN Security Council to seek the consent of Somalia’s transitional federal government to warships or military aircraft entering its territorial sea, when engaging in operations against pirates or suspected pirates and armed robbers.

In addition, it asked the TFG to advise the Security Council of its readiness to conclude any necessary agreements as to enable warships or military aircraft to escort ships employed by the WFP for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia or leaving Somali ports after discharging their cargo.

In July this year, Ms Sheeran and I wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada, whose country is in command of Coalition Task Force 150, requesting that members of the force co-ordinate their efforts to provide naval protection and to help establish a stable escort system for the future. This would ensure that innocent shipping operating in the region can continue serving international shipborne trade and, in particular, that ships carrying food and other humanitarian assistance to Somalia can reach their destination safely, to the benefit of the Somali people, who are facing the threat of famine of an unprecedented scale and who should not be left alone in their plight.

I am, therefore, much gratified that these efforts have borne fruit and hope that the overall effect will be a reduction in and, eventually, the eradication of pirate attacks in these troubled waters.

In the meantime, we continue our efforts to expand the naval support to shipping in the region as well as to assist governments of countries north and south of Somalia to build their capacity to prevent and suppress acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships and prosecute their perpetrators.

For the time being, I recommend that shipping making use of the Somali waters exercise the highest possible vigilance, implementing, at all times, the relevant IMO guidelines and keeping as much as possible away from the troubled waters.

EE Mitropoulos
Secretary-General
International Maritime Organization


Facts will lead to right course on emissions 

SIR, Julian Bray calls for action for action’s sake in relation to greenhouse gases (Lloyd’s List August 7).
The Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, however, considers that no proper and productive decisions can be reached without a full examination of all the relevant facts and is concerned that, in certain quarters, there is a marked reluctance to follow such a course. This is the reason for its position paper.

Shipping is by far the most environmentally friendly form of transport and it would be environmentally counter-productive for shipping to be singled out as the only form of transport to be subjected, internationally, to an emissions trading scheme.

Environmental studies by the world famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and by members of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, published in the renowned Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, conclude that emissions from ships, due to the production of sulphates and methane reduction, contribute to global cooling, not warming. This can hardly be called “contentious”.

The shipping industry will certainly go far enough in relation to climate change. It is the Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee’s desire that it should do so in the right direction.

Epaminondas Embiricos
Chairman Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee 
The Baltic Exchange
38 St Mary Axe 
London EC3A 8BH


It’s time for a brief history of the class struggle 

SIR, I have to admit that the heading of your article “Doctoring the class equation” (Lloyd’s List, 4 August) grabbed my attention. I had thought I may learn something new, but having read it I feel the need to put some things straight, in their historically correct context.

Unfortunately for shipowners and the poor crew onboard their vessels, it is the shipyards today that hold the biggest influence in dictating changes in the International Association of Classification Societies’ rules for building or converting ships.

Your article states: “Take the awful business of bulk carrier casualties, which were such a stain on the industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Each society was losing ships in small but significant numbers. Once the big societies started to share information about these tragedies, the magnitude of the problem was fully revealed, and collective steps taken to reduce casualties.”

For the sake of accuracy and correctness, I should point out that at that time the International Maritime Organization investigated this matter and providedevidence and data that clearly indicated that the IACS class societies’ rules were inadequate for the purpose.

The reason appeared to be the complacency of IACS members towards their first client, the shipyards.

IACS members ignored the operator, who is the end user of the ship. It would appear that IACS members reduced their guards in safety and felt the pressure of competition for classing new tonnage.

It was the IMO that instructed IACS to provide for the first time “retroactive” requirements for existing and new bulk carrier safety.

Over the period of three years (1994-1997) IACS produced new rules and thus formed Solas Chapter XII.

To avoid competition between its members, IACS decided to produce the Common Structural Rules for bulk carriers and tankers. But the end users were again found to be at the bottom of IACS members’ list of interests.

Experience in regulating safety, especially in design and building, is not the unique prerogative of IACS classification societies.

People have the wrong perception of class, thinking that it produces rules for design rather than for checking the ships.

IACS class societies have no experience in ship design because they are not designers. Yet companies affiliated to IACS class societies have produced designs recently for conversions of single-hull oil tankers into double-hull, andsingle-hull oil tankers into bulk carriers. These designers appear to be fresh from college with relatively little or even no experience in any form of ship design and fabricating. The IACS class society approves the designs.

I wonder if these class societies’ liability insurance covers them adequately for possible blunders.

Is that what the writer calls the “experience” of IACS?

The CSR for bulk carriers came into force in 2006. IACS members fought very hard to convince the world that an open-deck structure like a bulk carriers does not need to be analysed for loading from oblique seas, and yet for a closed-type structure the CSR for tankers applies loading from oblique seas.

It is elementary thinking that an open- type box structure will suffer more severely when it is twisted (that is, from oblique seas) than a closed-type structure. It is not necessary to attend advanced classes in naval architecture to understand the physics of this phenomenon.

IACS members refused to produce prescriptive formulations for the minimum scantlings of the primary structural supporting members of a bulk carrier as they were using “finite element” analysis for their calculations.

Two years on, IACS members now have to change the loading on the FE analysis and replace it with an interim solution as the current rules were producing high stresses. It would appear that CSR for bulk carriers are not applied by all IACSmembers.

Tools like FE analysis are dangerous tools in the hands of inexperienced naval architects with no experience of the huge structures they are dealing with.

Thus IACS Common Structural Rules are not “common” any more and certainly cannot address commonly the main supporting members of the bulk carriers.

The use of CSR for bulk carriers is down to the will of each IACS societythat is pressed by the designers andbuilders of new tonnage. Is that what the writer calls “experience”, or are we left with the hope of another yet IMO intervention for another set of retroactive requirements?

Common Structural Rules are half baked. IACS members cannot even agree between themselves on the calculations of the main supporting members and yet have issued safety certificates for hundreds of bulk carriers.

Any new rule change appears to be traded between the yards and IACS members at the expense of the end users of the ships.

Costas Georgas, PE, ChEng
New York


A bottom-up practical approach to saving lives 

SIR, We wonder what approaches to ferry safety you are referring to in your leader column (Learn from local experts, Lloyd’s List, August 5).

The article argues that much of the effort to develop plans for upgrading ferry safety in developing nations has been wasted because it recommends strategies that are impractical or too expensive.

While no specific project is singled out for criticism, we at Interferry feel obliged to stress that such comments cannot possibly be applied to our current and widely-supported initiatives in this crucial area of concern.

In partnership with the International Maritime Organization, we have been working directly with our counterparts in Bangladesh to develop pilot safety projects that can then be rolled out to other countries in need of assistance.

Practicality and affordability are uppermost in our plans, which are rooted in local as well as global experience. There is enormous intellectual capacity in the Bangladeshi ferry sector — from government, NGOs and the academic sector to industry and labour leaders. We all met as part of the Bangladesh Ferry Safety Working Group.

In the series of meetings they hosted, local players were instrumental in identifying four ‘low hanging fruit’ demonstration projects covering training, overcrowding, vessel modifications and hazardous weather detection/communication.

On training, they decided that crew needed help to prevent and respond to accidents, and agreed that, since many crew have low levels of literacy, a visually based training program would be appropriate.

The director-general of shipping took the lead in identifying what should be taught on the one-day course — basics such as ‘know your vessel’, maintaining stability, dealing with people, what to do in extreme weather and fire/emergency procedures.

The IMO and Interferry retained the maritime training professionals at Videotel Marine International, who have supplied a good part of their services without charge. The training course will go ‘live’ in the very near future.

Interferry is more than confident that such action represents a bottom-up practical approach to the universal value of saving lives. In addition to the support of our members, our IMO partners have been superlative in bringing resources to these and other on-going issues in Bangladesh — such as Korean funding to help create a searchable database for more than 20,000 vessels.

We would never think to impose impractical hi-tech solutions, much less employ the “expensively-suited consultants producing lavish reports that are routinely filed”, as alluded to in your sweeping critique.

Finally, the article spotlighted co-operation between Singapore and Indonesia as a good example of a locally based training regime. It is worth noting that the Indonesian authorities requested the facilitation of the IMO Technical Co-operation Division, with whom we have been working, to help establish a ferry safety working group. The aim is that it will work jointly to solve the ferry safety issue there, just as in Bangladesh.

Len Roueche,
Chief executive, Interferry
Roberta Weisbrod,
Bangladesh Ferry Safety project manager


Help needed to fight the corner of ships’ masters and their crew 

SIR, What is happening on the issue of ships’ masters and crews being punished for supposed infringements and accidents involving their vessels that can be construed as illegal?

Even if these punishments are decreed by any court of law in the world, they should not be exercised in the arbitrary way in which they are.

The present attitude is that of a “Guantanamo Bay” approach: arrest the senior man regardless of whether he is the culprit or not and charge him with something he had no control over.

This attitude is becoming more prevalent with every incident and something must be done to counter this trend.

One of the main factors in these incorrect practices is that the shipowner, agent, manager, class societies and any others in positions of power (supposedly more powerful than the master they have chosen to manage their affairs) are experts in abdicating their responsibilities, in the knowledge that they have appointed a scapegoat in the person of the master.

The above-mentioned are in a position to engage legal advice, whereas the individual master very often is not in a position to do so.

I do not at all times condone what the so-called human rights organisations do or attempt to do. But in the case of victimisation in the context we are considering, I feel that they should be brought into the picture more often.

One of the main problems here is the sad fact that the average person knows little of the world’s merchant fleets. Few people realise or even want to think about “those who go down to the sea and do business in great waters”.

The pride of seafaring nations has all but been wiped out by bureaucracy, greed and ignorance, practised in particular by politicians and self-centred bureaucrats.

Organisations such as Amnesty International could do their part in bringing this matter to the attention of the public.

These groups carry within their systems legal advisors who should, givensufficient facts, be capable of representing masters and crews of vessels who aresupposedly thought to be guilty of committing an indictable offence.

Funding for these organisations may cause concern.

However, if the issue at hand is properly presented to these groups, it may conceivably be possible to attract their interest and then to attract funding for their support in the matter.

Perhaps consideration should also be given to forming what can only be described as a masters and crew P&I club.

This club could be dedicated to the wellbeing of the individuals as opposed to the vessel itself.

Capt Peter Donoclift FNI
C/o Pintor Rembrandt,
Casa 20,
Entre Naranjos y Flores,
03580 Alfaz Del Pi,
Alicante,Spain 


Mediterranean shipping tax not on agenda

SIR, On the front page of July 15 edition, you published an article on the summit of the Union for the Mediterranean held in Paris on July 13, reporting a plan to levy a tax on ships entering the Bosporus, Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal.

While thanking you for your interest in France’s initiative on the Union for the Mediterranean, I have to refute the rumour regarding the proposal for a ‘Mediterranean shipping tax’. It is just one of many ideas which have circulated in unofficial documents.

Indeed, no proposal of this nature was on the Paris summit agenda and, moreover, it was not raised during any of the discussions during the meeting.

André-Yves Legroux
Permanent Representative of France to the International Maritime Organization
Maritime Counsellor of the French Embassy
London SW7 5EH 

World economy depends on trade talks continuing

SIR, In your comment column (Lloyd’s List, August 1), you state that it is “little wonder” that the United States refused to agree to Chinese and Indian requests for safeguard clauses permitting developing countries to impose emergency tariffs on imports of soya, cotton and rice, in case imports rose to unmanageable levels.

It is perhaps worth noting that, after seven years of negotiations, the parties had succeeded in agreeing on 18 of the 20 points on their agenda.

It is nothing short of a tragedy that they have now parted company without setting a new date to reconvene this debate.

If we all now have to wait until after the new US president takes office in February 2009, many of the key negotiators will have left and the time-consuming process may have to start over.

China’s Commerce Minister Chen Deming may have been spot on when he said that failure would add to a world economic downturn, serious inflation and imminent financial risks. As EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said, the average tariff in the emerging economies would have fallen to 7%.

This would have locked in the huge amount of economic liberalisation that has taken place over the past 10 years. It would have reformed farm subsidies in the US and Europe so that they no longer squeezed farmers in the developing world, and ended the 16-year banana wars.

The EU had offered to cut its average farm tariff by 60% and to slash its trade-distorting subsidies by 80% — the biggest farm trade liberalisation ever.

You suggest that “shipowners should remind Washington” of what protection has done for the US merchant navy. It should not just be shipowners demanding that Pascal Lamy convenes another emergency meeting as soon as possible. We should all be demanding it.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3 


Basic respect is the key to safety 

SIR, I read Michael Grey’s article ‘The Human Touch’ recently (Lloyd’s List, July 14). He often raises issues of seafarer welfare and safety, and I believe he understands many of the arguments and genuinely tries to raise them where it counts. But this article, while it followed this theme, made me want to shout out loud.

Does it really take a high-powered committee to make the amazing discovery that seafarers are human?

Everything he says is true, but nothing he says is new. It is basic common sense that we will work better and more safely if we are treated with a little consideration and respect. We have been saying this ever since I can remember. Nobody listens.

Everyone knows that ships have too few crew to operate safely, let alone comply with all the regulations and procedures that they are faced with today. Nothing is done about it.

Mr Grey has done a better job than I could of listing many of the factors that make seafaring a stressful, exhausting, difficult and dangerous career. Should you aim to get to the top you will find you are right at the sharp end, with little or no back-up, an army of managers and officials to tell you what you are doing wrong and absolutely no thanks or recognition.

There is a great deal of wringing of hands about increasing accident rates, (read increasing insurance costs?), falling standards and falling numbers, but nobody thinks it worthwhile to take any of the simple steps that would help to reverse the trend, and any talk of making the single change that would do most — which is to increase crew sizes — is looked upon as verging on the insane. Nobody is going to even consider it.

“A meanness of spirit” is putting it mildly, I am afraid. I am close to the end of a 42-year career and ships are being built now with considerably worse accommodation than those that were being built when I started.

I believe owners and managers are just as aware as the Human Element Advisory Group of these issues, but they resent every penny spent on crew. Minimum numbers at minimum cost is the rule.

They know as well as anyone that people will work better and more safely if they are not tired, uncomfortable and homesick, but they do absolutely nothing.

I must have read 50 articles on the subject in the past couple of years. Mr Grey’s is one of the better ones, but now they simply make me angry. It does not take a committee of wise men to come to his conclusions. There will probably be some improvements in pay and fringe benefits as the shortage bites harder, as there were in the early 1970s — the last time there was a serious shortage. This won’t be because anyone has read Mr Grey’s article and been enlightened, however.

Owners will concede what they must do to keep their ships moving. Should the current financial turmoil lead to a decline in world trade or if, for any other reason, there is one surplus seafarer on the market, you can be sure the pendulum will swing back faster than you can blink.

Only compulsion will change this and I see no sign of anyone willing or able to compel. But where do we go from here?

Identifying the problem is the easy part. Getting owners to take any action is another matter.

I hope your article may help but, as I say, I have read a great many on the same theme recently, some by apparently concerned managers. I am afraid I am not holding my breath, waiting for them to apply any effective remedies to the problems they identify.

The years have turned me into a cynic. I feel very sorry for my younger colleagues. What ought to have been an interesting and rewarding career has been reduced to a painful grind.

I have no sympathy with owners at all as far as the current shortage is concerned. I hope it gets worse.

Capt David Baily
Llwyngloddaeth,
Barmouth
Gwynedd
LL42 1DX


Imprisoned captains need our help now

SIR, Welcome as the news is (Industry condemns Hebei Spirit detentions, Lloyd’s List, July 23) that the Round Table, the International Transport Federation, the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, InterManager, the International Group of P&I Clubs, and others, have jointly issued a vigorous protest at the continued detention of Capt Chawla and chief officer Chetan, let us not forget that six years after his stricken ship was denied a port of refuge, Capt Mangouras of the Prestige is still not at liberty and that Capt Laptalo of the Coral Sea — after 12 months in a maximum security prison in Greece and a farcical show trial where he was denied natural justice — has been sentenced to 14 years in prison.

These men are guiltless and their lives and those of their families have been destroyed. As the president of InterManager, Ole Stene, said: “Yet again we see our highly professional and valued seafarers singled out for appalling treatment.”

Mr Stene goes on to ask (and answer) a pertinent question: “Would the airline industry accept this? I think not.”

How right he is.

If these men were aircrew there would be an international outcry, sanctions and other economic penalties would be imposed and their plight would be highlighted globally.

These men are not guilty of any crime and their continued detention is wholly unjustified. We must ensure that time does not erode international disgust at their treatment by countries who profess to uphold the principles of democracy.

CR Kelso, Captain (Rtd)
Southampton SO31 8DB


Safety code needs clear legal status 

SIR, I refer to an article on the Marine Navigation Bill by David Osler (Lloyd’s List, July 21).

The brief report on the Transport Select Committee’s report into the DMNB identifies very clearly the problem with any non-statutory safety regime code.

British Ports Association director David Whitehead states in the article: “The report talks about the ‘voluntary’ approach as represented by the [Port Marine Safety] code. We would not regard it as voluntary.”

It all comes down to interpretation. Clearly the BPA position would indicate that they chose not to regard it as voluntary. At present it most certainly is not compulsory, it is simply expected that all ports will comply with its provisions.

The problem, long since evidenced by specific examples, is that there is currently no effective mechanism in place to insist that a SHA complies with all or even part of the code.

Where a SHA chooses to cherry-pick certain parts of it, or, as has happened recently, chooses to blatantly ignore certain parts of it — both for commercial gain — there is no machinery in place for legal action to be taken against the port.

Hence the simple need for an effective and powerful legal tool to obligate port authorities to fulfil their social responsibilities as enshrined in the Port Marine Safety Code.

Tim Reardon, a ports and pilotage specialist at the Chamber of Shipping, is quoted as saying: “It is disappointing that scaremongering by the trade unions has obscured the fact that allowing a ship to carry more than just two PEC-holders will enhance safety standards, not detract from them. Shipowners are committed to safety, and we will obviously pursue that enhancement undeterred.”

We would challenge elements of the statement, not least Mr Reardon’s qualifications as an “expert” on pilotage — we are the experts in pilotage, and have never heard of Mr Reardon. The Chamber of Shipping represents shipowners.

The principal goal of shipowning, as with any other business, is to make as much profit as possible from the commercial venture.

One only has to consider why it is that international shipping is so heavily regulated to see that centuries of experience have exposed that, in simple terms, unless well regulated, profit comes first, with safety (and environmental protection) being runners up.

As regards the “scaremongering by trade unions”, the trade unions and professional associations referred to represent the views and interests of their members.

Consultation with members in this instance has clearly revealed, established and reported to the TSC the long-held knowledge of poor and deteriorating onboard levels of expertise and continued sharp operating practices by so called first class, but in fact operationally questionable, shipping companies.

If fatigue is not such an issue and safety paramount, why then is the campaign to abolish two-man watch systems of six on, six off being so strongly resisted by shipowners, many of them CoS members no doubt?

As pilots we constantly meet ships’ crews that are fatigued, physically and mentally. How can Mr Reardon describe the proposal to allow more officers to have a PEC as an enhancement? Many officers are already working under extremely stressful conditions, and may not welcome the added burden of having to conduct their own pilotage.

Joe Wilson
Chairman UK Maritime Pilots’ Association 
Transport House 
London WC1X 8TN 


Stressing Turkey’s commitment to Paris Mou 

SIR, Referring to the article ‘Flag ‘bias’ sees Turkey frozen out of Paris MoU once again’, (Lloyd’s List, June 30), I want to inform you and your readers about the port state control implementation in Republic of Turkey.

It is a fact that the Turkish application for the co-operating membership was turned down. However, based on the conversation with an official at Paris MoU, you claim that this is due to the problems between Greek Cypriots and Turkey and so-called unfair flag slate implementations on other European flags.

In the article, it is mentioned that the reason was partly that there needs to be an improvement in the Turkish administration and its performance as a flag. Additionally, “a dramatic improvement” is seen necessary to reach “apprenticeship”.

First of all, the Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs (UMA) carries out the port state inspections based on international documents and national regulations. For instance, International Maritime Organization resolution A.787(19), with resolution A.882(21), is one of the international bases for PSI, as well as SOLAS 74, Loadlines 66, Marpol 73/78.

As could be inferred from the name itself, the PSI are for vessels calling at Turkish ports. Alleged “frustration among MoU members at various types of discrimination against other member flags” is not a case in Turkish PSI. The Republic of Turkey was one of the first states in the world carrying out port state control. The main Turkish legislation on safety at sea is Law No 4922, ‘Law on the Protection of Life and Property At Sea’, and has been in force since 1946.

It should be borne in mind that this law applies to all the ships calling to Turkish ports regardless of the flag. Several hundreds of thousands of port state control inspections have been carried out in accordance with this law in last 61 years. Modern PSC started in Turkey after the signing of Mediterranean MoU in 1997. The Black Sea MoU was signed in 2000.

An active member of both memoranda since the first year, Turkey always considered the safety and pollution prevention at sea a prime responsibility and high priority. Secondly, UMA focused in the last five years on the employment of professional people in order to perform PSC implementations. Today, UMA has more than 250 officers authorised both for surveys of Turkish ships and PSC inspections, and around 60 surveyors are solely authorised for flag state inspections.

In time, all the officers will also be responsible for making the flag state inspections. The professional profile of Turkish PSC officers consists of captains, desk officers, engineer officers and naval architects, all of whom are graduates of maritime departments of universities.

A minimum marine service on ships for two years is a prerequisite for PSC officers with a marine background, and a minimum of two years of field working experience in the shipping industry is required for naval architects.

A verbal and written command of English language is another important requirement. After the employment of professional people, UMA initiated an inspection campaign to increase the performance of Turkish flags. It is the obvious fact that in five years, the Turkish flag passed from the black list of Paris MoU to the grey list.

In other words, the real and obvious fact is that the Paris MoU’s decision is the indicator of performance of Turkish vessels. Moreover, passing from the grey list to the white list is a prerequisite for the membership of Paris MoU.

Therefore, if the Turkish flag cannot be a co-operating member, Turkey will not be able to be the full member.

Port state control is a very strong international tool with powerful implications. Port state control officers have huge authority and powers on the implementation of their duties. Power may corrupt if ethical and moral values are not respected properly.

UMA is very sensitive to demonstrate uncompromising ethical conduct and moral behaviour in all of the inspections on the Turkish port state control officers.

All officers are maritime professionals and they are all aware that PSC is a national duty with big international implications, which should be executed with pride, but extreme caution.

Turkish UMA is dedicated to keep the code of good conduct on PSC inspections and it is confident of its officers’ adherence to ethical and moral values and there are several indications for this confidence.

Despite the high inspection and detention numbers, not a single case of corruption has been reported.

If there is a case of high detention rates in Turkish ports owing to the reasons other than safety, Turkish officials are close to foreign colleagues to contact via telephone or email. In other words, mutual understanding is always on the table on the condition of the suspicion.

The claim on the suspicion is, therefore, without any basis due to the good relations of Turkish officials with foreign counterparts.

I personally assure Paris port state control countries that Turkey fully respects all Paris MoU commitments, especially on the policy of non-discrimination for PSC inspections in Turkish ports.

Hakan Fikircioglu
Acting General Director of Maritime Transportation
Republic of Turkey
Prime Ministry
Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs


Calculations confusion 

SIR, ‘Baltic Exchange unveils daily dollar tanker rates’, (Lloyd’s List, July 16) highlights what actually may not be a “problem” for oil traders and freight operators, who have been able to profit from arbitrages on the cost of time charters versus the Worldscale calculations.

While transparency may be good for investors, the ultimate users of the market are very comfortable with the Worldscale book and all the mystery that goes with it. And even those who do calculate time charter equivalents cannot agree on the “correct” number.

It would be in the best interests of those who are putting rates out there to not only disseminate the rates, but also be very visible about the calculation methodologies. Assumptions are available if you read the fine print, but I am talking about publishing the calculations every day, in big print, to build awareness of what happens inside what is a dimly transluscent box.

Since the major variable in the forward tanker rates, if expressed as Worldscale, concerns fuel pricing, it would be a good idea for all concerned to be very transparent also about assumptions for fuel prices beyond the timeframe of 2008’s big thick book. Yes, also in big print.

Barry Parker, Shipping Consultant
bdp1 Consulting Ltd, Lower Level Offices
9 Valley Road, 11709, USA 


Time for debate is far from over 

SIR, I refer again to your Comment of June 25 and to my letter commenting on it, which you kindly published on June 30.

I have since had the opportunity of reading in full the address of the secretary -general of the IMO to the first intercessional meeting of the Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships and of briefly discussing it with him.

As a result, I can now see it as I was misled by your comments. At no time has Mr Mitropoulos stated that further debate is ‘futile’ or ‘over’. On the contrary, he told me that he encouraged such debate, which is very desirable.

What he did say and write is ‘failure is not an option’.

If I now understand him correctly, that is to say the working group studying GHG emission from ships must supply the necessary data for the next meeting of IMO’s MEPC to reach a viable decision at its next meeting in October.

I trust you will agree that, in order to ensure that none of your other readers are misled as I was, it would be well worth publishing the secretary-general’s clear and pragmatic address in full.

Geoffry Lucas 
Shipbroker, 
London SW3


Objectivity is not a matter of opinion 

SIR, With reference to your report on studies on greenhouse gas emissions, June 27, alleging that the International Maritime Organization Secretariat refused to process two recently-concluded studies for consideration by the Oslo meeting (June 23-27) of the MEPC Working Group on such emissions.

I wish to advise that, as long as documents are received in the Secretariat within deadlines set by the Member Governments (not the Secretariat) and as long as they are submitted by Member States, international governmental organisations or non-governmental organisations to which IMO has granted consultative status, the Secretariat does not have the right to reject them.

Of the studies referred to in your report, only one was received by the Secretariat from an entity qualified to submit documents to meetings of the Organization, as specified above, and that was well after the deadline set by the MEPC — May 30.

The one study received, on ‘Climate forcing from the transport sectors’, was submitted by BIMCO but this happened only on Friday, 20 June 2008, that is, on the eve of the meeting in Oslo, when it was practically impossible, even if a deadline had not been established, to take any action on it. In the circumstances, the Secretariat advised BIMCO that, owing to the late submission, their observer at the meeting could introduce it orally and distribute copies to participants for information. Additionally, the Secretariat is processing that study to the next meeting of MEPC (October 6-10, 2008), for the Committee to also take into account when considering the outcome of the Oslo meeting.

We are not aware of any submission by OCIMF to the Oslo meeting.

We agree that it is important that all relevant studies on the issue of GHG emissions are brought to the attention of the MEPC so that the Committee, taking them into account, makes pragmatic, realistic, workable and balanced decisions, as the Secretary-General has repeatedly emphasised most recently at the opening session of the Oslo meeting, which he personally addressed. In furtherance of this objective, the Secretariat is advising sponsors of such studies to send copies to the consortium established by IMO to update the IMO’s 2000 study on GHG emissions from ships so that the consortium can consider them.

We hope the above factual information will put the record straight, leaving no doubt in your readers’ minds as to the objective handling of the matter by the Secretariat.

Natasha Brown
External Relations Officer
Public Information Services, IMO 


Slow steaming a welcome trade-off

SIR, In response to points made by Tor Svensen from DNV in ‘Svensen calls for speed limits to reduce CO©ü’ (Lloyd’s List, June 24).

I note that Mr Svensen identifies slow steaming as the efficient way to reduce emissions from shipping and especially CO©ü emissions. We could not agree more.

Mr Svensen also claims that a CO©ü emission trading system would not work for shipping as it is trading world-wide. We could not disagree more.

Shipping must do its utmost to reduce harmful emissions from ships. But the world must continue to turn around, the world economy must be supported and we must reduce speed in sectors where they are most efficient. We have enjoyed a super-high market in practically all shipping sectors as a result of the economies of emerging countries. In response, shipping companies have built more new ships in a few years than ever before.

The surge for new ships has led to a dramatic increase in shipyard capacity. With an ultra-modern fleet and practically no old ships to leave the market, this will lead to over capacity. This will not be evenly distributed but may well start in tankers, where high oil prices, alternative energy sources and conservation can lead to reduced tonne-miles and lower freight rates.

Container traffic may be equally hit and would be ideally suited for speed reductions. Bulkers and car carriers may continue to have very high rates in response to high demand, until the yards double capacity here too. Yards build ships irrespective of market conditions. Prices vary but production continues.

The shipping industry must reduce emissions. Some ships will earn less and can be persuaded to reduce speed or lay up.

Some sectors have an economic incentive to proceed at full speed. They are earning very high rates and should be happy to pay for emission rights from slow steamers.

SEAaT, an organisation founded by oil companies, shipping companies and the shipowner organisations of Sweden and Norway would be willing to arrange an emission trading market. Any shipping company, oil company, shipper or other firm that has an influence on the trading of ships is welcome to participate in a scheme to reduce emissions by slowing down some ships, maintaining the service of others and to initiate a voluntary emission exchange.

Speed reduction is just a start. We know that better planned voyages where owners, charterers, ports and terminals get together to optimise every voyage would give savings in fuel, time and emissions.

We intend to create good will for the participating companies, launch a logo that shows that the firm takes part in voluntary emission reduction schemes and continuous reporting on the progress we make and how emissions have been reduced.

Lars Carlsson
Chairman of the Executive Committee
Shipping Emission Abatement and Trading


Nothing vexing about not having a single rule of law 

SIR, Mr Kimball’s comment (Lloyd’s List, June 26), that the Supreme Court’s decision not to decide whether a vessel owner can be held liable for punitive damages for the reckless acts of its managerial employees will continue to “vex” the industry, is, in my view, a little hyperbolic.

Each of the US federal appellate circuits currently has its own rule on this point. For example, my home Circuit, the Ninth (the originating circuit for this decision), does allow an employer to be liable for the reckless acts of its managerial employees.

The Supreme Court’s decision did not change these individual rules. What the Supreme Court decided not to do was to create a single rule for US general maritime law.

The only reason one might be “vexed” by the absence of a single rule is if one did not hire counsel capable of discerning the different rules for the different circuits — there are only 11 of them, so the research would not be too burdensome. Indeed, the absence of a single rule leaves the question open, and provides fertile ground for future appeals on this very issue (a split among the circuits is the most common basis for the Supreme Court’s granting certiorari).

The really interesting part of this aspect of the ruling is that the court exhibited judicial restraint, something it almost never does.

Jonathan W Thames
Archer Norris 2033 North Main Street, 
Suite 800 Walnut Creek,
CA 94596-3728 


Green debate is just hotting up 

IN YOUR editorial of June 25, you report the secretary-general of the IMO as saying that the green debate is over.

You say that enforcement will come ‘in all its myriad forms’. Surely this is the point at which the debate should still be open?

Elsewhere, you report that Hyundai’s thrust fins will reduce fuel consumption by up to 6%, while Daewoo’s pre-swirl stators will reduce it by 4%.

Rightly, you point out that such inventions are driven more by economic than environmental concern.

Clearly, it makes sense to reduce oil consumption wherever possible, regardless of whether CO©ü pollutes or actually improves the environment by cooling the temperature and encouraging the growth of vegetation.

Though Mr Mitropoulos may sadly be right to warn us that the bureaucrats will enforce restrictions whether they are sensible or not, surely it is the duty of the press to continue the debate?

Geoffry Lucas,
Shipbroker,
London SW3


Safety of lifeboats must be enforced

SIR, Alf Sandberg’s call (Lloyd’s List, June 19) for the International Maritime organization to standardise on-load release hooks for lifeboats is welcome.

If IMO set — and flag states enforced — a high standard of design, installation and maintenance of lifeboat on-load release hooks, then lifeboats would do what they should do — save lives, instead of costing them.

Unfortunately, what is happening in practice is exactly the reverse. Shipowners and their appointed flag states are pushing hard to undermine the moves IMO has made towards reducing lifeboat accidents, mainly on cost grounds. That this is happening at a time when the whole industry has enjoyed record cash flows for many years is difficult to comprehend.

IMO has recognised that poor maintenance of lifeboat on-load release hooks is one of the biggest causes of lifeboat accidents. So it made changes to SOLAS and published guidelines, MSC1206, which insisted that lifeboat hooks should be serviced by the manufacturer or an authorised representative trained by the manufacturer. These guidelines were to become mandatory, so that the service requirements of lifeboats would mirror those which successfully cover liferafts.

Manufacturers like Schat-Harding have geared up to provide those services. We have invested heavily in a global network, in training our own people and in training authorised service partners. We have designed and built the safest hooks on the market and we have the infrastructure to support them, working in common with other leading manufacturers.

Some owners, in sectors such as cruise and offshore, take advantage of that. They replace old hooks, they use our network and authorised spares for service. So do some responsible shipowners in the bulk and tanker sectors. And these companies do not have lifeboat accidents, and their crews trust their lifeboats.

Unfortunately, outside these high-quality sectors and owners, there are members of the shipowning community that appear to be trying to force IMO to prevent MSC1206 becoming mandatory. The only reason is that owners used to having boats maintained on the cheap with dodgy spare parts are afraid they will have to pay for proper services and spares. They would rather save money than save their crews’ lives.

Some P&I clubs, such as Gard, have recognised the problem. They have to pick up the pieces of dead and damaged seafarers. They know that the only way to get high standards is to make them mandatory. It is time for shipping organisations to follow suit and campaign to make MSC1206 mandatory, instead of campaigning to make it irrelevant. The technology, the trained engineers and the global networks needed to stop seafarers dying in lifeboat accidents are in existence. All that is needed is for owners to be willing to use them. Our experience so far is that they will only do that when IMO forces them to.

David Bradley
Executive vice-president, 
Schat-Harding


There are lies, damned lies ... and PPA statistics 

Sir, the European RoRo Carriers’ Action Group has given a great deal of consideration to the reply from the Piraeus Port Authority, (Lloyd’s List, May 29) before deciding that a further response to state the facts is necessary.

The PPA mentioned the 95% reduction for storage tariffs. This is inaccurate. PPA’s announcement on April 15, 2008, stated that storage charges would be reduced by 60%, and only for transit cargoes. It must also be noted that this was after heavy pressure from port users and was not willingly conceded.

With regard to the service element, we cannot agree with PPA’s figures at all. Having polled just four Eurocag members who call at Piraeus, the figures substantially belie those posted by PPA.

In total, the four members cancelled the (planned) Piraeus port call 93 times in the first four months of 2008 due to the risk (or certainty in many cases) of lengthy delays.

This high number of cancelled port calls should have greatly alleviated the burden on stevedoring activities. But the four companies still managed to notch up a staggering 118 days in delays to their vessels. These cancellations and delays have been fully documented.

As for the 20% increase in transhipments, one wonders where they originated from and who brought them into the port, unless PPA is counting all of the frustrated cargoes that had to be delivered elsewhere and then “transhipped” back to Piraeus, the original port of destination.

It is interesting to talk about “financial prudence”. When a port call is cancelled, the carrier is exposed to many additional costs to ensure that the frustrated cargoes are delivered to their intended destination, as in most cases the contracts of affreightment would demand this.

Also, the various transhipment possibilities that will have been turned down affect the bottom line due to the loss of potential earnings. While it is difficult to fully calculate financial damages to container, ocean and short sea/feeder carriers so far suffered and which are still occurring, this has had a tremendous impact on operational costs and therefore the profit margins that are needed for the sustainability of services and operations.

This has been the reality of having Piraeus in one’s itinerary over the past few months and it is about time that PPA woke up to these facts and came to the table to discuss, as previously requested, customer service levels and some form of compensatory action to those operators being severely affected by the disruptions.

James W. Dempster
Executive director, 
European RoRo Carriers’ Action Grouprue Ducale 
67 bte 21000 Brussels, 
Belgium


Wrong kind of carrier can be a lesson to us all 

SIR, After reading Robert Gay’s article ‘Tanker owners to bear the brunt of regulatory reform’ (Lloyd’s List, June 11), I wish to congratulate the gentleman for an excellent article, clearly explaining the various intricacies relating to the Elli and Frixos court cases concerning their time charterers and owner’s responsibilities vis-à-vis charterers, as well as for the conclusion offered.

The article in question was accompanied by a photograph of a newbuilding, with the caption “Under Marpol, only double-hulled and existing double-sided vessels could carry fuel oil cargoes after April 5, 2005”.

Regrettably, the vessel in question will not comply with either of the following Tanker Charter Party prerequisites: “shall be in every way fit to carry”, and “shall be in every way fit for the service”.

This is because the vessel shown in the picture is a rare double-hulled bulk carrier, and not a double-hulled crude oil carrier.

The reason for sending this epistle is not so much to point out the error in type of ship, but to highlight the importance of teamwork in the shipping industry.

Buoyant and successful shipping can only be achieved if all professions involved are interactive and interdependent, thus forming a strong and successful team.

GM Vagliano
1 Elm Place
London SW7 3QH 

Ships’ officers merit respect

SIR, Marine consultant Hendrick van Hemmen’s first person article on why ships’ officers deserve the same respect as awarded to airline crews (Lloyd’s List, May 30), was bang on target.

Arriving at a major airport to join my new ship and dressed as any other businessman, I was politely waved through immigration and customs, only to be recalled and told: “Sorry, captain, but we didn’t realise you were a seaman, you have to come back to immigration and be cleared along with other seamen arriving.”

On another occasion, when arriving with two other officers, we were separated from the other passengers and detained for a considerable time while the tourists were expeditiously cleared.

As a master serving on large containerships with multinational crews, I frequently encountered seafarers who had experienced many inconveniences when joining and leaving the ship.

They would regale us with their tales at management meetings and many of the stories were quite astonishing.

Reading Mr van Hemmen’s views was most refreshing, and if the shipping industry and related authorities can be persuaded to take some notice, it would be to everyone’s advantage.

Capt Ken Owen
High Peak, Derbyshire

Global warming conundrum

SIR, Bill Gray’s most interesting article (Quarterpoints, June 6) is extremely helpful, but I should like to ask him the following questions:

Has he read Nigel Lawson’s recently- published book, An Appeal to Reason? If so, can he confirm that the area of the northern ice cap may not have receded at all since 2000?

Indeed, during the winter of 2007-2008, it was larger than it has been for some years. Reputedly however, the marine ice-cover may be getting thinner year by year, though the Greenland land cap may be increasing in thickness. Either way, Mr Gray’s reference to the US adding polar bears to its list of endangered species as “largely symbolic” is probably correct: they are not in fact in any serious danger of extinction.

The retrieval of scarce and increasingly valuable mineral resources from the Arctic region will clearly now accelerate rapidly. But the prospect of a shorter, year-round route from Asia to Europe is perhaps no greater than it was in 1421.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


Inmarsat will still supply broadband during satellite fleet repositioning 

SIR, Inmarsat is not closing or suspending its broadband services, contrary to your report on our plans to reposition the fleet of three Inmarsat-4 satellites (‘Ships face loss of broadband cover’, Lloyd’s List, June 5).

Even during the repositioning process, broadband services such as FleetBroadband would continue to be available via our other two Inmarsat-4 satellites.

All other maritime services, including our GMDSS obligations, are also completely unaffected.

If we proceed with the repositioning, there would be service interruptions to some users of our broadband services, in limited areas, during two short periods.

However, this is dependent on the successful launch of our third Inmarsat-4; until then, we cannot confirm the exact timings and duration of these interruptions. When the satellite is launched, we will communicate directly and through our partners to the limited number of users who could be affected.

FleetBroadband is already performing beyond our expectations; at Posidonia, our partners’ demonstrations were achieving speeds in excess of our published figures. Optimising the network by repositioning the satellites will enhance our broadband services and deliver significant, tangible benefits to our users. Our next-generation satellite network will be complete, fully-optimised, and providing an assured service to 2020 and beyond.

Piers Cunningham
Head of Maritime Business
Inmarsat
99 City Road
London EC2 

Hot and bothered over pessimistic CO2 views 

SIR, Both your editorials of June 2, ‘Big ships or direct calls’ and ‘Mend and make do’ tempt me into print.

Firstly, the impact of another 140 ships of over 10,000 teu nominal capacity (over the next four years). The genesis of this enormous investment is, as you say, that operational costs, particularly fuel costs, have been and may still be rising.

Operators seek economies of scale to maintain today’s phenomenally low port-to-port freight rates, which have fallen from about 10% of landed value in the 1970’s to below 2% today.

To achieve this, clearly the main-line operators have had to concentrate on fewer port-calls. The issue is therefore whether consolidation at, and distribution from these mega-ports should be by sea, river, train or road.

Feeding by sea is also clearly much more environmentally friendly than by road.

Therefore, ports such as Teesport, should have no fears, provided that they can compete efficiently.

Far from being anti-social, such relay by sea reduces the volume of road haulage.

Secondly, with regards to CO2 emissions: Shipping is, as you also say, the most efficient, environmentally friendly form of transport. Should we be so obsessed with its CO2 emission?

A study of Nigel Lawson’s excellent recent publication ‘An Appeal to Reason’ suggests that we should not.

On the question of an ‘exponential’ reduction in shipping’s CO2 output, the increased use of scrubbers offers a far better prospect that the wholesale replacement of current fuels with distillates. Unless the cost of such fuel falls dramatically, this would cause such a marked increase in the cost of sea transport, that it would kill far more people by starvation and other deprivations (of livelihood etc) than are ever likely to die or suffer from marine CO2 emission at present levels.

Nevertheless, you should not be so pessimistic about the ability of shipowners and ship operators to achieve fuel economy by consultation with naval architects, classification societies, etc.

In my experience this is a most enlightened, on-going process, which has served the global community very well over the past 60 years and will doubtless continue to do so.

I do not fear the lack of shipyards or machinery and component suppliers availability nor their willingness to continue to contribute to this dialogue, (Odense, whom you were maligning last week for example).

The shipping industry’s main problem is with bureaucrats and some politicians, who fail to appreciate just what a good job shipping already does for the global community.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


S&P views were misrepresented

SIR, Your article “City braced for wave of liability litigation” (Lloyd’s List May 22) misrepresents the views I expressed at the recent Lloyd’s conference.

First, it is not the case that S&P has “cut its estimate of how much money investors would recover from the subprime crisis”.

Our role as a rating agency is to provide an opinion about the probability of securities defaulting, not about “how much money” may be made or lost on investing in these securities.

We have lowered many of our rating opinions on sub-prime-related securities to reflect our view of their weakened creditworthiness, but we have made no statement about the likely return investors may make.

Second, I did not say that S&P had “got it wrong” on sub-prime. What I actually said was that the original assumptions underpinning our ratings analysis of sub-prime mortgage securities had proven insufficient in light of the unprecedented poor performance of recent sub-prime loans, and that we have consequently updated our assumptions and revised our rating opinions on many of these bonds.

Rob Jones
Managing director
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services
London


Simon says: bring Seafarers 2009 to town 

SIR, The article ‘Ten thousand new ships minus sailors equals chaos’ (Lloyd’s List, May 23), made interesting reading.

I warmed to the comments of the experts, especially those of Ole Stene: “As an industry, we need to address the recruitment situation earlier in the education process… We need to inform and educate our very young and we need to nurture them so we can effectively and wisely plan a recruitment strategy for the future.”

Participants in the inaugural Lloyd’s List Seafarers 2008 event in Singapore are perhaps not aware that this is being done at Simon’s Town, South Africa, where, from the age of 15 years, over 100 youngsters are introduced to ships and shipping via the school’s Maritime Studies programme that runs for the last three years of their secondary schooling.

Two subjects — Nautical Science (coastal navigation, astro-navigation, seamanship, naval architecture, ship stability, cargo stowage, and other modules) and Maritime Economics (maritime geography, ship types, port studies, ship management & chartering, ships’ agency procedures, elementary maritime law, voyage costing, and many other modules) — form an integral part of the school curriculum and the students’ public examinations at the age of 17.

Three full-bridge simulators are about 400 m from our facilities. Even knots and splices, as well as sailing, are included in the curriculum.

Most of the students come from South Africa’s townships on bursaries from Safmarine, the port authority, the Grindrod Group and other benefactors.

A boarding house provides a home from home for students from other centres and rural areas. With the TK Foundation playing a leading role, a building project to extend and upgrade the existing boarding and tuition facilities is under way.

Since the inception of the programme 12 years ago, successful students have embarked on careers at sea and in the maritime industry ashore, in many cases, escaping the poverty cycle to gain the dignity of employment in a country with soaring unemployment.

I invite anyone interested in our programme (that could be replicated anywhere) to contact me.

I also invite Lloyd’s List to stage Seafarers 2009 in Simon’s Town. Although our beautiful naval town cannot compete with the vitality and opulence of Singapore, holding Seafarers 2009 here will introduce participants, inter alia, to a programme that informs and educates young people in the ways of the sea, launching them into worthwhile careers in a dynamic industry of which few had heard before they arrived at Simon’s Town.

Brian Ingpen
Head, Maritime Studies Department
Simon’s Town, 
South Africa


Look to the past for crew crisis answers

SIR, Given that most people in the industry accept that the retention of seafarers is a greater problem than recruitment (important as that is), surely it would be wise to take a closer look at the reasons?

If the industry accepts the developing hypothesis that seven years seatime equips a trainee to become a master or chief engineer, then the manning problem may well be resolved, but the real problem — the ability to crew ships safely and competently — will be rapidly exacerbated.

It is axiomatic that the industry can never return to the pace or quality of shipboard life experienced by many seafarers in the recent past. Multinational manning will remain, and increased automation and technical advances will allow for smaller crew numbers, thus increasing the sense of loneliness and social deprivation. Opportunities for meaningful shore leave to meet other people or “see the world” will become fewer, but, despite all of this, there is still much that can be done to encourage young men and women to remain at sea until they truly gain the experience and competence needed for promotion — afloat or ashore.

Money is important, but increasing shipboard salaries is not the sole answer. Shorter periods of service, longer periods of paid leave, financial assistance during study leave, good ship/shore communications, interaction between ship and office to engender a feeling of belonging and the sympathetic understanding of domestic problems are factors that will go some way to compensate for the drab conditions obtaining on many ships today.

Yesterday’s seafarers enjoyed these things, together with a good shipboard social life and, in the dry cargo trades, long stays in port and enjoyable runs ashore. Don’t tell me the industry cannot afford it — ours did, and at a time when freight rates were a fraction of those being earned today.

Captain CR Kelso (Rtd)
Southampton, SO31 8DB


Double hulls are next giant step for shipping 

SIR, our generation has made great strides in shipping. From the Second World War Liberty ships, Forts and T2s we have reached today’s very large crude carriers.

A 300,000 dwt VLCC runs at 15 knots on 100 tonnes of fuel a day. A 10,000 tonne Liberty ran at 10 knots on 25 tonnes fuel a day. A tenfold increase in efficiency.

In 1845, Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the Great Eastern, a 28,000-tonne, propeller- and paddlewheel-driven steamer, the largest at the time, that ran at 15 knots on 300 tonnes of coal a day.

In 1825, the Greeks, then fighting for independence, ordered the Perseverance — Karteria in Greek — from Brent’s at Deptford, with steam engines and paddle wheels from Galloway at Smithfield.

It was built at the instigation of the great English philhellene Frank Abney Hastings, who inspired the design, helped in the construction and captained the ship on her passage to Greece in September 1826 and in war. Karteria was the first ever iron-hulled, steam-engined warship to do battle.

These were the early days of discovery, invention and engineering. Individuals with vision, tenacity and the tools of science and materials developing within the industrial revolution, took it upon themselves to invent, co-ordinate and develop new things.

Iron and steam gradually replaced wood and sail. In 1897, Parson’s Turbinia, the first steam turbine boat, was presented in a spectacular manner to Queen Victoria and the Royal Navy at Spithead.

The early 20th century saw the great passenger liners and the dreadnoughts. The two world wars saw the Hog Islanders, Liberties and T2s and thence the VLCCs, bulkers, ore-bulk-oil carriers and VLCCs, and elsewhere, the giant cruiseships, container ships and others.

Progress is achieved with new ideas. Some take a long time to be assimilated and established, some less, while their relative and potential benefit can be subject to controversy.

The double-hull tanker is a recent typical example.

Not quite in tune with the conventional wisdom and apprehensions of the time, it took the vision, courage, hard work and perseverance of all those concerned to achieve a pioneering first in the Arosa in 1993 and in her success to date.

Dimitri Capaitzis
145 Filonos Street (3rd floor) 
GR 185 36 
Piraeus
Greece 


Recognise the virtues of AP Moller Maersk 

SIR, Your assault [on AP Moller Maersk], in your second editorial on May 30, seems to be almost totally unjustified. Why is it “clearly an inefficient anachronism” for this profitable group, which has consistently out-performed most of its now defunct rivals from the US, the UK and the Netherlands, to build a small fraction of the most sophisticated high-tech containers which it expects to need? You are no-doubt aware that the vast majority of the standard boxes which it uses have long since been out-sourced to China.

Why is it clearly a mistake to build the largest ships in Denmark? You will also be aware that China has yet to build anything remotely resembling the size and quality of the Emma Maersk class and that the vast majority of copy-cat newbuildings, even those to be employed by Cosco and CSCL, will come from South Korea. It remains to be seen if they will match Emma Maersk in efficiency.

I should have thought that you would do better to praise AP Moller-Maersk for maintaining vital expertise and employment in Europe.

As far as sailing its fleet between terminals, some of which it profitably operates itself, surely you are not suggestingthat it makes sense to outsource portoperations?

In your final paragraph, you imply that a maritime company has no place in the supermarket, retail business. Why not? How do you suppose that Hamburg-Süd’s owners have financed their shipping operations?

At least you have not suggested that AP Moller-Maersk ought to outsource its oil and gas business, bearing in mind that they are one of the very few maritime companies which have benefitted from the recent price rises. Personally, I am lost in admiration at how, by sensible diversification, it has succeeded in remaining at the forefront of innovative progress in so many different vital areas of economic activity.

Geoffry Lucas 
Shipbroker London SW3 


Piraeus rejects Dempster’s remarks 

SIR, In reply to the letter by James Dempster, executive director of EUROCAG (Lloyd’s List May 16), please allow us to comment the following:

As the shipping community is well aware, Piraeus Port has faced personnel mobilisations since January 5, 2008 that mainly take the form of abstention from overtime and weekend work.

Naturally, this condition has consequences for port operations. However, these mainly affect the container terminal where productivity is hit and cargo handled is reduced by almost 80%.

On the other hand the car terminals (and the cruise terminals for that matter), where reduced productivity is also recorded, are mainly unaffected as the management took action for mitigating the effects.

These actions include the reduction of storage tariffs by 95% and most importantly the allocation of 6% more workers per vessel in order to trade off the reduced productivity. This decision incurs significant cost increase for PPA that, together with the generous reduction in storage fees, stresses the management’s decision to provide the best service possible under current conditions.

The measures taken have proved successful as according to PPA’s data from the beginning of disruptions in January until May 15, only six vessels had to wait during weekend for cargo operations to be completed, the average service time is two shifts and only 11% of the vessels had to work more than two shifts in order to complete operations.

What is more, at the same period, transhipment cargo handled, under these adverse conditions, was increased by 20% and if cargo had further increased by 23% for the local and 45% for transhipment as EUROCAG suggests then vessel congestion would become a norm, since yard space would be inadequate for catering these volumes even under normal working conditions.

With this undisputed fact in mind, the numbers suggested by EUROCAG are by far exaggerated.

Although the situation is not ‘rosy’ PPA has taken the necessary measures to mitigate consequences for its clients and sometimes against its own financial prudence, and this cannot be overlooked by both operators and EUROCAG, that is undoubtedly very well informed of these measures.

Nikolaos Anastassopoulos
Chief Executive Officer
Piraeus Port Authority 

CLD would not improve safety at sea

SIR, While enjoying the CSI:EU — Who killed the Civil Liability Directive theme of your feature on May 9 — the reality is rather less dramatic and I would like to take the opportunity to clarify the International Group’s approach to the directive and to the European Union in general.

The Group has spent considerable time in engaging with European institutions so that insurance issues that concern shipowners are as well known to them as to other international forums, such as the International Maritime Organization.

We naturally take a long-term view and are well aware that in order to be heard we have to be as clear, open and precise as possible. Most of our efforts have been directed towards MEPs, their assistants and the commission. In spite of our representations, and of the recommendations of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, the parliament voted in favour of the directive.

Less time has been spent with transport attaches since they are, unlike MEPs, more familiar with maritime issues and many were sceptical about CLD before any representations were made by the group.

There is no secret about any of the meetings that group representatives held and the position papers that we have prepared in connection with these meetings are freely available on the International Group website.

Your report rightly states that the proposals would have been hugely complicated. It has been a formidable task to try to explain the implications in understandable terms.

However, our main argument throughout has been quite simple, namely that although part of a Maritime Safety Package, CLD would not improve safety at sea. CLD is modelled closely on the Civil Liability Convention. The CLC has been in force for 33 years yet tanker accidents still sometimes happen. Equally, CLD would not prevent accidents taking place.

While we may disagree with the claim by the rapporteur Gilles Savary, that the defeat of CLD makes accidents at sea more likely, the group supports measures that can contribute to improved maritime safety and therefore we will continue to engage in an open and constructive dialogue with those involved in the legislative process in Europe.

In common with the shipping industry as a whole, P&I Clubs all stand to benefit from improved safety at sea.

Jonathan Hare
Chairman 
Compulsory Third Party Liability
Insurance Sub-Committee 
International Group of P&I Clubs


Surprise over European Maritime Day

SIR, I am surprised to see what appears to say that the EU plans to declare a European Maritime Day. Since the IMO (a UN Agency) already has a World Maritime Day, there has to be very good reason why the EU wants to have its own Day instead of simply getting itself into line with the UN - the rest of the world. 

Captain Baboucar Sallah
Director
Virgin Islands Shipping Registry


Piraeus’s problems are worse than it admits 

SIR, The European RoRo Carriers’ Action Group (EUROCAG) has many of its members calling the port of Piraeus. It has therefore been closely monitoring events since the Greek government decided to engage in discussions over the privatisation of the two main container ports, with Piraeus being the main one of interest for the members.

On the basis of submissions from members we wrote to the Piraeus Port Authorities (PPA) to place a note of protest on the poor levels of service that ro-ro operators and, by extension, other non-container operators were enduring while the rather public fight between the PPA and the Ministry of Mercantile Marine on the one side, and the stevedore unions on the other side, continues unabated.

We were somewhat amazed when the PPA replied that it had, through a number of manoeuvrings, succeeded in offering an acceptable level of service to the vessels which apparently is considered more than sufficient. It also stated that as a result of PPA intervention car throughput is only 3.5% behind the same period last year. This figure is debatable and is being looked into, as actual figures for the first quarter of 2008 are compared to those of 2007, without taking into account the throughput of individual line operators, which was initially programmed but cancelled due to the insufficient service of the port, or potential delays anticipated.

Our figures, based on comprehensive data received from various line operators calling Piraeus (collected from January 5 2008 through to May 14 2008) show a different picture. When we consider planned vs actual we have the following: number of calls, 30%; local imported units, 23%; transhipment units, 45%.

PPA also makes the claim that its own costs incurred are far more significant than those of shipping lines i.e. its customers. It goes without saying that this cost comparison is irrelevant as PPA does not understand or is not in possession of any line’s operational or commercial data.

We believe that the PPA needs a swift reality check. The facts speak for themselves. Arriving on a Thursday makes departure a lottery, with vessels having to endure long waits over the weekend due to lack of labour or berth space due to congestion as a direct consequence of the port unrest. Vessels frequently experience more than two days’ delay with four to five days delays a regular occurrence on or close to a weekend or public holiday. These delays alone place a huge cost burden on vessel operators who may be losing on charter hire or having to restructure on-going schedules and cargo deliveries.

Also, the weekend lottery has forced many operators to reschedule and place Piraeus after the weekend, which places Greek imports at a disadvantage and in itself creates additional costs. The worst-case scenario, which is also happening on a regular basis, is actually cancelling the port call into Piraeus because the schedule just cannot take the risk (or even certainty) of a two to four day delay. The costs to the carrier when forced to take this option is enormous as all import and export cargoes have to be repositioned.

The other very important aspect to all this is the customer image, which is called into question when cargo is not made available in time, not delivered to the right port or suffers on-carriage delays that, in turn, lead to disruption to the cargo interests’ supply chain. This damage to the customer image cannot be numerically calculated. This applies to both the shipping company and the port of Piraeus.

In summary, we have to say that far from the rosy picture that they are trying to paint is a situation where vessels are being held in port for days and over weekends and where prudence has meant that operators have had to by-pass the port of Piraeus to ensure schedule integrity, thus incurring costs for over-landing imports and having to re-position exports to ports of exit other than the planned port call into Piraeus. Many operators have had to forego transit cargo offers as the situation regarding on-carriage is so precarious.

We are fast coming to a point at which the whole logistics package in Greece may need reviewing. We need the PPA to come to the table to discuss customer service levels and also some form of compensatory action to those operators being severely hit with disruptions.

James W Dempster
Executive Director, 
European RoRo Carriers’ Action Group,
Brussels 


Berlusconi risk for seafarers

SIR, Your report (Italy immigration pledge puts heat on rescue services, Lloyd’s List, May 14) is a timely reminder of the danger of seeking easy solutions to complex problems.

The Berlusconi government and its supporters need to take a step back and a long hard look at what they’re proposing: namely, the unilateral abandonment of key elements of international human rights and maritime law for short-term political gain.

This is such a sensitive subject that the IMO and the UNHCR have produced “a guide to principles and practice applied to migrants and refugees”, which sets out the legal framework and procedures for those involved. Mr Berlusconi’s government would be well-advised to study it.

We cannot stand by and wait to see a re-run of the Tampa case nor the possibility that seafarers who act to save lives at sea could be criminalised.

Jon Whitlow
Secretary, ITF Seafarers’ Section
49-60 Borough Road
London SE1 1DR


Don’t meddle with things that work

SIR, Centralist, managerial, interfering and bureaucratic are some of the adjectives that come to mind upon reading today’s leading article exhorting us to “see the light on safety”.

Lloyd’s List consistently advocates a commonsense, seamanlike approach to maritime issues, nothing of which isevident in today’s opinion, whichhas struck the wrong note in every conceivable way. It seems to have been sculpted by an accountant with no concept of what the lighthouse authorities, the regulatory authority and the volunteer lifesaving organisation actually do.

The idea of rolling them together into one single “supervisory” organisation is bizarre.

Would this be a private organisation, a public body or something we support by legacies and stuffing silver into a tin? Is there any evidence whatever that the lighthouse authorities are inefficient, even though shipowners don’t like paying for them?

Just because organisations are ancient and traditional doesn’t mean that they are inefficient. Consider what has been done to improve them all in recent years,so that they can work together more efficiently.

Why can we not just leave things alone, when they work rather well. Please Lloyd’s List, admit that this was an aberration.

David Robinson
Wallasey
CH45 7PH


Greece reiterates zero tolerance on substandard shipbuilding

SIR, With reference to the article in Lloyd’s List, April 22, 2008, “Napoli sparks boxship crackdown”, discussing the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report, Greek shipping has been publicly questioning shipbuilding practices for the last 16 years. It has supported in all fora that ships should be built robust and fit for purpose. This is particularly important in this era of changing weather conditions and larger ships.

We understand that from a series of 1,500 containerships of similar configuration that were examined after the issuance of the MAIB report that a further 12 appeared to have problems. We regret to note that a responsible classification society is quoted as saying that “the fact that only 12 of 1,500 ships indicated any problems show this was not an industry problem”.

We beg to disagree: shipping operates in a ‘zero tolerance’ environment, so the probability of losing one in 125 ships is not insignificant.

In 2002, Greece, together with The Bahamas, initiated the discussions on goal based standards in the International Maritime Organization to support improved ship design and construction, so that the international community would face up to its responsibilities and improve shipbuilding standards.

In light of the MAIB report we would expect that all governments will base the requirements of the goal based standards on sound engineering principles, avoiding shortcuts and generalisations that have led to discontinuities in hull structures, lack of proper design of load carrying members that result in cracks or buckling and other phenomena. Oversimplification in the use of design tools leads to results that do not reflect everyday situations on board ships.

Finally classification societies’ rules should close all loopholes that have been identified at great length by the Greek shipping community based on its wealth of experience, so that such accidents do not occur in future.

George A Gratsos
President
Hellenic Chamber of Shipping


Remember: no ship is unbreakable

SIR, Comforting as it may be to read the assurances by the classification societies, in the wake of the superb MAIB report on the loss of MSC Napoli (Lloyd’s List Wednesday April 23), that containerships are “structurally safe”, there are many other aspects of that report that must give rise to grave concern.

As an ex-shipmaster, chief marine superintendent and containership manager, I find it almost incredible that, despite the implicit instructions from the company in respect of speed in heavy weather, the master of this 16-year-old vessel elected to attempt to maintain 17 knots (and this with a defective engine governor) when heading into the high seas generated by storm force winds.

His log book entries make reference to “vessel pounding heavily at times”, witnesses refer to “quite powerful strikes”, crew members speak of “difficulty in standing” and the report stresses that these were not “rogue waves”.

The key finding in the investigation is contained in the synopsis that “the ship’s speed was not reduced sufficiently in the heavy seas”, and there can be little doubt that had the master given more thought to the possibility of severe damage to the vessel’s structure and engines (and to the risk to the lives of the crew) and rather less to the wellbeing of the forward containers (and his schedule), then MSC Napoli would still be trading today.

But then, one reads in an earlier 2007 report that “while key industry players will attest that safety is of paramount concern, evidence obtained during this and other MAIB investigations into container shipping accidents suggests that, in reality, the safety of ships, crews and the environment is being compromised by the overriding desire to maintain established schedules or optimise port turn around times”.

So should we be critical of the master of a ship that is already running some six days behind schedule?

The MSC Napoli report hits equally hard by commenting that “speed and quick turnarounds appear to have become the focus of the industry at the expense of the safe operation of its vessels” and, more pertinently, “keep the ship’s speed as fast as possible when pounding into heavy seas [and are] symptomatic of the industry’s ethos to carry as much as possible as quickly as possible”.

But the ultimate truism is that no ship is unbreakable. “Classification societies apply structural strength limitations which are contingent on the application of good seamanship and prudent operational practice. It has been apparent during the course of this investigation that these caveats are not widely recognised by many in the containership industry,” the report concluded.

We can but hope that the authors of the pending Code of Practice for the container trade will read this report in detail — and be guided accordingly.

Captain C R Kelso
5 Bursledon Heights
Southampton SO31 8DB


ACP has Panama jam under control

SIR, I wish to comment on the article ‘Panama battles to clear canal bottleneck’ (Lloyd’s List, April 18).

You claim that “the Panama Canal is struggling to control major congestion” and that “local agents have suggested that an industrial dispute between the canal authority and pilots that help ships transit the canal may be responsible”.

The fact is that this time of the year is always a high season for the canal where there are more ships than usual going through the waterway. To suggest that this is otherwise is pure speculation.

The Panama Canal Authority and its pilots are working together to continue to provide a safe, efficient and reliable service to our clients and their performance continues to be of the highest degree.

The backlog, which occurred during the second half of February, was due to a surge in arrivals within the waterway’s peak season (February-May) that happened to coincide with maintenance work being carried out at the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores Locks.

The ACP is concerned about the situation and is working assiduously to reduce the backlog. Every measure taken by the ACP to date, including the reduction of booking slots, the addition of more equipment and personnel and the postponement of non-critical maintenance work, has allowed us to be more responsive to our customers’ needs.

We have seen a downward trend in waiting times and we expect to see an even more pronounced reduction for transits in the weeks to come.

Teresa Arosemena
International Communications
Panama Canal Authority


When Cold War authorities offered a warmer welcome to seafarers 

A LONG time ago I arrived with a coaster in Wismar, in that time still in the former German Democratic Republic.

When the gangway was ashore and the pilot disembarked, I walked behind him to take the drafts, as was my usual task as second mate. At the bottom of the gangway I looked in the barrel of a gun and decided to wait until I had a shore pass and all formalities were done.

A number of vessels from companies I sailed with went to ports behind iron and bamboo curtains and the stories of the crews were all similar: a strict system with shore passes and shore leave only for the seaman’s club.

When you were found on a stroll somewhere, a black car stopped next to you and asked where to bring you: to the seaman’s club or to the ship.

We saw this as a sure sign that freedom in these countries was severely restricted and we were happy that we lived on the right side of the fence.

Now there are many places where you don’t even come near a seaman’s club, where trespassing as I did might cost you a $10,000 fine and maybe even your career, as you are not allowed to come back in the country for some years.

I am now a pilot and I am ashamed to say that even in my own country there is very little concern for seamen. I was ordered to a Russian reefer somewhere between Christmas and New Year 2006. On board I heard that the gate had closed on the Friday afternoon before Christmas and had opened again on the Wednesday morning after.

Fortunately, the crew had not received any wages over the past months, so it didn’t matter that much, they had nothing to spend anyway. Who wonders why retention of seafarers is a problem?

The iron curtain has fallen, but to me there is no doubt on which side seamen have ended up: the wrong side.

In the name of freedom, and especially in countries which say that they defend freedom, freedom for seamen is much more restricted then it ever was under regardless which communist rule. Or to say it bluntly: the modern US and some countries in western Europe offer less freedom to seamen than the USSR or mainland China did during the Cold War.

Ed Verbeek
Van den Vondellaan 25
1985BA Driehuis
The Netherlands


Left high and dry at dock 

SIR, While agreeing whole-heartedly with Werner Lueken (Lloyd’s List April 15) about the welcome trend to treat yards as a vital part of the supply chain rather than a last resort, I should like to question some of his statistics.

If he is right to estimate the total merchant fleet at about 100,000 ships, then surely we need to replace them much faster than 2% per annum? Otherwise, he is implying that their average life expectancy is 50 years? He also states that the average ship will dock only once every four years. Is this right?

On page seven of the same issue, you report that DNV believe that the demand for drydocks by 2011 will be 50% greater than it was in 2004 and that the main demand for repair and conversion services, at least of big ships, will be in South east Asia.

Certainly my recent experience is that docks and repair services are already becoming far harder and more costly to secure than they were comparatively recently.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3 


Did strait talking end piracy? 

SIR, The front page on April 15 announced that there were no piracy incidents recorded in the Malacca Strait during 2007. I don’t remember the relevant dates, but I wonder to what degree this was a direct result of Lloyd’s Insurance market imposing a war premium on vessels passing through the strait, thus finally concentrating the minds of the littoral states into concrete preventative measures?

Sean Gay
Antrak Group
Marc House
13/14 Great Saint Thomas Apostle
London
EC4V 2BB


Repair yards’ capacity crisis is unjustified

SIR, Repair and conversion yards in Europe are as busy as they have been for the last 25 or 30 years, and we know that the picture is more or less the same world wide.

What we have today is a boom market in which yards and owners in partnership should be looking for ways to meet the need for ever-higher standards of cost-effective repair and maintenance.

Long newbuild orderbooks produce two side effects for the repair and conversion yards. One is that the demand for conversions increases as owners seek to convert rather than wait five years or more for a newbuild.

Second, not only will some of the capacity that might have been used for general ship repair be devoted to that conversion work, but there may also be some diversion of capacity from repair work to newbuild.

Even allowing for these two points,in my view it is not correct to suggestthat the progressive delivery of thecurrent newbuild orderbook to theworld fleet will generate a repair capacity crisis.

Just consider the numbers. Shipyards delivered about 2,000 ships in 2007. If you take the broadest definition of the global merchant fleet, it consists of just under 100,000 ships.

With scrapping rates so low as to be disregarded, assume the growth of the fleet is 2% per annum in terms of ship numbers. Ships will dock on average once in four years, which means that demand is for 25,000 dockings each year globally, and the rate of growth in the fleet will generate another 500 dockings each year until the order backlog is cleared.

If you make some allowance for productivity improvements in the repair and conversion sector — and all the companies I know about are improving productivity at more than 2% per annum — then I simply do not see how the claim of a capacity crisis can be justified.

Analysing the market at its most recent meeting in early March, the CESA Ship Maintenance, Repair and Conversion Group view was that there has been no fundamental change in the decision-making process of owners about where to award a repair job. Rather, the elements in the decision-making equation now produce an answer that favours ships that start or end a trading journey in Europe making repairs in Europe.

Quoted cost of the repair, plus length of time of hire in the yard, plus the cost of diversion are the principal elements in the decision equation. In short, for as long as freight rates remain high, and while fuel remains expensive, the picture looks good for European shiprepairers.

Group members notice that, in the last couple of years, they are being asked to do more work on each ship that they dock. It seems that there is a certain amount of catching up on repair and maintenance work deferred from years when freight rates were not as high as they now are. However, this will not continue indefinitely.

In the SMRC group, we hear of growing numbers of owners who, instead of regarding a repair yard as a place of last resort, are instead working in partnership with yards to schedule maintenance and repair dockings. This seems to us to be a far more sensible approach based on the constructive involvement of a vital service industry as part of the shipowners’ supply chain, which is what repair and conversion yards actually are.

From the yards’ perspective, there is no capacity crisis, just a situation that encourages and rewards owners for dealing with repair yards in a more constructive, less adversarial way than they might have done in the past.

Werner Lüken, (Lloydwerft), 
Chairman, CESA Ship Maintenance, Repair and Conversion Group
Brückenstrasse 25
27568 Bremerhaven


Marpol Annex VI revision not a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ 

SIR, I was most concerned to read the leader, ‘Show us the proof’ (Lloyd’s List, April 11). In no sense can the International Maritime Organization decision on the revision of Marpol Annex VI be described as a “knee-jerk reaction”. The process of revising Annex VI started immediately the existing Annex achieved its ratification criteria for entry into force.

While most involved in the process had understood for a long time the controls on air emissions did not reflect the expectations of society, or indeed the aspirations of the industry, they could not for legal reasons be changed until sufficient states had ratified the agreement reached back in 1997.

Having agreed to start the review, IMO embarked on a programme that was both transparent and exhaustive. It will be recalled that most people (including this newspaper) welcomed the IMO secretary-general’s decision to convene the ‘Scientific Group’ on the implications of options under consideration and the findings of that group played a pivotal role in ensuring that the new requirements are deliverable.

The draft text agreed unanimously at IMO last week is certainly welcomed by the International Chamber of Shipping. This text reflects the convergence of a number of long-held and fiercely-argued positions; that it should be so widely accepted is a remarkable international achievement.

From the opening of the review process, ICS argued for principles that included a goal-based approach to deliver short-term and long-term solutions to meet environmental concerns and so that the industry could plan for known targets. ICS also argued for the concerns of the refining and bunker industries to be heard in support of a deliverable solution.

Representatives of the refiners consistently talked about a seven- to 10-year lead time to develop the capability to deliver lower sulphur fuel in sufficient quantity. The lowering of the Seca [sulphur emission control area] cap in 2015 and of the global cap in 2020 (subject to a review of fuel availability) provides the certainty that the oil industry sought.

ICS has always argued that whatever the solution, there is a need to not only allow, but to positively encourage, innovation so that future ships can take advantage of technological development without the need to revisit the regulation with a further review. This aspect is also built into the agreed text.

ICS has a global view that is informed by its international and cross-sectoral membership. It was around this foundation of realistic and practical analysis that the ICS principles were built and this was recognised throughout the debate. It is our view that the IMO outcome is not only deliverable but it also provides the environmental protection that was sought and positions the shipping industry on a well-founded platform for the future.

Peter Hinchliffe
Marine director
International Chamber of Shipping
12 Carthusian Street, London EC1M 6EZ


Masters and pilots must communicate

SIR, I read Michael Grey’s article (Viewpoint, February 25) with great interest. As a Rotterdam pilot I can understand his point of view.

In my experience, the master/pilot relationship is open for interpretation. Where some masters/pilots like to know everything and believe sharing information is normal, others are completely the opposite. It comes down to explaining what your intentions (as a pilot) are and doing what you say; not doing what you think has to be done (as a pilot) and then explaining your actions.

Masters and the bridge team should shape up and start to assist and control pilots.

In real life, tools for this kind of communication are not available. Pilots and masters are always working individually. They develop, on their own, some kind of communication and sharing of information. Each has their own priority list which they do not share.

Training and shared vocabulary are not really available and are underestimated. How, then, can they truly communicate? Why do we not develop an international standard that is realistic and workable with a shared terminology? In other industries this is possible, so why not in shipping?

Margriet J Torpstra
Johanna Naberkade 60
3137 TN Vlaardingen
The Netherlands


Shipping industry regulation must be on international basis 

SIR, Denmark is deeply committed to the objective of ensuring the highest possible levels of quality shipping, safety at sea and environmental protection.

A way to achieve this is through global regulation, which is a cornerstone of Denmark’s shipping policy. Shipping is an industry that operates on a global level, which is why it must also be regulated on an international basis.

That being said, Denmark of course supports European legislation that enhances maritime safety. Denmark therefore hopes that the first five proposals in the third maritime safety package are implemented as quickly as possible.

At a European Union meeting yesterday, 27 transport ministers discussed the remaining two proposals by the European Commission on flag state requirements and on shipowners’ civil liability. I do not believe that these directives will lead to the intended results. I find that these proposals are the “wrong medicine”, as the problems they seek to address are those which are neither confined to, nor significant within, Europe.

As minister for Danish shipping, my primary concern is that Danish shipping can prosper. But Danish shipping can only prosper with a well-functioning, global and universally applicable, regulatory framework. This is to ensure a high level of safety, security and environmental protection as well as a well-working liability and compensation regime. I believe that the two proposals may work contrary to the international regulation and merely create new administrative burdens for the European shipping industry and administrations alike. I do not see the necessary added value in the proposals. Therefore, such regionalism is not justified. It is simply not in line with the EU´s better regulation agenda.

Given the international nature of shipping, the problems that haunt the industry are mostly global. It is therefore often futile to try to combat a global problem with regional measures. Regional measures lack the scope of international measures. Compared to unilateral and regional regulation, the International Maritime Organization’s regulation has the benefit of applying to all ships, no matter where in the world they operate.

When we decide to regulate shipping, we must ensure that the regulations are effective and easy to implement.

I believe that the IMO time and again has shown that value is added by achieving global solutions. Examples of this are the Voluntary Member State Audit Scheme; the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the introduction of double-hulls, among others. One of the strengths of the IMO is the technical knowledge that individual member states bring to the IMO. This ensures sound solutions to the benefit of the shipping industry at large. We need solid, sound and long-term solutions.

Instead of creating a patchwork of regional regulation we should support the work done at an international level. For example, the member states and the commission could join forces to make the IMO Voluntary Member State Audit Scheme mandatory and further encourage the ratification of the international conventions by all states.

The IMO has, in the past, in many ways demonstrated the requisite leadership to handle the problems that global shipping is faced with. That is why my commitment on behalf of Danish shipping to global regulation is as firm as ever.

Bendt Bendtsen
Minister for Economic and Business Affairs
Denmark


Turkey takes the lead on European ship recycling initiatives

SIR, I refer to Aline De Bievre’s Quarterpoints article on IMO’s ship recycling Convention (Lloyd’s List, March 5, 2008) and particularly to the “…encouraging signs that critically important countries such as India and China are keen to sign up to the agreement”.

At this point one should also mention Turkey, which provides a reliable and environmentally responsible solution to ship recycling. Turkey has significant ship recycling capacity, being among the top five world recycling centres. 

Turkey’s proximity to Europe and its location in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, North of Suez canal, presents an ideal destination for recycling ships under a controlled and internationally regulated regime. A recent report by the European Commission’s Environment Directorate-General has identified that “up to 1m ldt/year safe and environmentally sound recycling capacity can be generated in Turkey”.

Similar views have been expressed by the French Inter-departmental Committee on Dismantling of ships — and other EU member countries — who stated that “thanks to [Turkey’s] collaboration with Western countries, especially Germany, some yards [in Turkey] have achieved significant improvements and now meet the Western management standards”.

Turkey is a country that actively participates in the drafting of IMO’s convention, has developed a ship recycling industry that meets or exceeds the proposed standards and procedures with members holding ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certification.

In this sense Turkey is also critically important particularly as is expected to be among the leading countries to enforce IMO’s Ship Recycling Convention.

D Ayvatoglu

On behalf of Ship Recyclers’ Association of Turkey


Irish lights subsidy must be abolished

SIR, The European RoRo Carriers’ Action Group — EUROCAG — has noticed with great concern your article on Tuesday March 4 (‘Lines fail to make UK see the light over dues rate’).

We have had discussions and communications on the issues of light dues in general and the so-called Irish lights subsidy for some time with both Dr Ladyman and now with Mr Fitzpatrick. We felt that, at last, a common sense approach was being applied to the issue of the Irish lights subsidy. We now learn that this is not to be the case.

Whether there should be any UK light dues charges is one issue that still needs to be addressed, but the fact of the matter is that today the subsidy to Irish lights is inflating the real cost of light dues to UK port users.

We have not received any tangible reason from the UK government as to why the Irish lights subsidy is still ongoing.

Firstly we fail to understand why Irish lights feel the need to be subsidised by the UK, when a more appropriate instrument should be by one of the various funding arrangements that is sponsored by the European Commission, if subsidies are indeed required.

Secondly we fail to understand why the UK government should see fit to take the subsidy from a fund that is supposed to be 100% self-supporting and where its monies are collected solely from those using UK ports.

Any excessive port cost is a financial burden to shortsea shipping operators and every effort, as requested by the European Commission and the European Parliament, should be made to reduce overall operational costs to maintain and also increase the competitiveness of shortsea shipping so as to be able to remain a viable alternative to road transport.

Bearing in mind that apparently the European Commission last year urged the UK government to speed up discussions with its Irish counterpart, we once more call upon the UK government to immediately enter into dialogue with all relevant parties with a view to swiftly ending the subsidy to Irish lights. This will put the government in a position to reduce light dues in the short term, while discussions on the abolition of the charging of UK light dues to UK port users are ongoing.

James W Dempster
Executive Director 
European RoRo Carriers’ Action Group
Rue Ducale 67 bte 2 1000 
Brussels, Belgium


Some practical advice on better ISM Code compliance 

SIR, With reference to your recent article on the ISM Code (“Throwing a lifeline to ship safety”), your readers may wish to know that, for some time now, the International Maritime Organization has been engaged in a multifaceted review of the code aimed at ensuring its improved implementation and enforcement by governments and industry.

The process began in 2004 when we established a group of independent experts (selected from among administrations, organisations, academia and the shipping industry) to carry out a study on the impact and effectiveness of the ISM Code. The group met on three occasions and, with support from the IMO Secretariat and the World Maritime University, analysed data collected from a wide cross-section of stakeholders, including sea-farers and ships’ masters, shore-based personnel, shipping companies and administrations.

It arrived at the overall conclusion that, where the ISM Code had been embraced as a positive step toward efficiency through a safety culture, tangible positive benefits had been evident. The group also concluded, on the basis of feedback, particularly from seafarers, that ISM Code compliance could be made easier by reducing the administrative process. The group also made several practical recommendations which, to date, have resulted in the following further action by the IMO:

• contemplated amendments to the ISM Code relating to requirements for seafarer safety representation — these are being prepared by a human element working group;

• further revision of the Revised Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by administrations — the aforementioned working group is also looking into this;

• adoption of guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by companies — the first-ever guidance issued to companies on this subject; and

• adoption of guidance on qualifications, training and experience necessary for undertaking the role of the Designated Person under the provisions of the ISM Code.

As part of our work on the harmonisation of port state control activities, we will review the reports of the Paris and Tokyo MoUs on their recently concluded concentrated inspection campaigns on the ISM Code, once they are made available to us. We expect that these reports will shed light on issues related to the effective implementation of the code and will be considered by the IMO’s technical bodies, together with the outcomes of any marine accident and incident investigations that may relate to the code.

Should, from the examination of these and other material, the need emerge for further revision of the code or that additional guidance is required, appropriate action will be taken and carried out expeditiously (as evidenced by the measures taken, following the report of the group of independent experts) to improve further global, uniform and effective implementation and enforcement of the ISM Code.

The code is significantly important to us all in our efforts to enhance safety at sea and marine environmental protection, and we are determined to continue improving it in the light of experience gained in its implementation thus far and in the future.

Efthimios Mitropoulos
IMO secretary-general 


Act now to curtail the crewing crisis

SIR, “All progress wiped out in one brief party of booming market urgency and outright negligence towards safety standards”: undoubtedly, Richard Meade gets it right in An unwelcome eighties revival (Lloyd’s List, February 26, 2008).

The complacency abounding in much of the maritime industry in relation to the steadily worsening crewing/competency crisis is almost certainly based on the hope (or even belief) that, come what may, many regulatory bodies (with the probable exception of the USCG) will be “understanding” in light of “the short supply of quality crew, the increasingly difficult retention problems [and] faster promotion” and are unlikely to take any action liable to disrupt today’s frenetic but highly profitable global trade — irrespective of the steady increase in accidents caused by human error.

Predictably, some sectors of the industry belatedly responded to the crisis by throwing money at it — something they will have to continue to do on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.

In the short-term, this may help recruitment and, to a lesser degree, retention. But it will not solve the problem.

In October 2006, the then Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman, at a meeting of The Mission to Seafarers, waxed eloquently about the “welfare charter: a charter setting international standards for the conditions in which seafarers work, and, in many cases, also live”.

He went on to say that “realistically” ratification would take “four to five years” and, more recently, his ‘successor’, Mr Fitz-patrick, opined that the aim was to ratify in 2010 “or earlier, if possible”. Neither mentioned that, after ratification, implementation could take a further 12 months.

The ILO Consolidated Maritime Convention (the culmination of five years of discussion) will consolidate and update all existing maritime labour standards and will go far towards affording seafarers worldwide the terms and conditions of employment they have been denied for so many years — the principal cause of today’s crewing and competence crises.

Someone, somewhere should seek out the Maritime Labour Convention, dust it off and promote its speedy ratification and implementation, in its entirety. Although not a panacea, it might just form a basis for recovery.

The full impact of the crewing and competency crises has yet to take its toll of the industry (and recovery will be tortuous), so time is of the essence — 2011 will be much too late.

Captain CR 
Kelso,5 Bursledon Heights, 
Bursledon, Southampton 
SO31 8DB

Save the planet: send world trade by air?

Readers of Wednesday’s Guardian newspaper front page (‘True scale of CO©ü emissions from shipping revealed’) would be forgiven for thinking that shipping is inefficient in terms of CO©ü emissions and should clearly be targeted in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Even aviation is only “responsible for about 650m tonnes of CO©ü emissions a year, just over half that from shipping.” Perhaps we should park all the ships and send the trade by air?

That would be a catastrophe for the environment — as well as a physical impossibility. Air freight produces 100 times as much CO©ü per tonne kilometre. Such a move would quadruple total man-made CO©ü emissions. This is a measure of the carbon-friendly nature of the shipping industry — although the industry is far from complacent and continues to work to reduce CO©ü output.

Previous studies — including the universally acclaimed Stern Report — have suggested that shipping is responsible for between 2%-4% of total man-made CO©ü emissions. The claim that the 4.5% figure is “three times higher than previously thought” is strange. Certainly the shipping industry itself has long recognised the difficulty in obtaining an exact figure on CO©ü emissions due to its complex and global nature. The figures in the report submitted to the International Maritime Organization make a valuable contribution to the development of a baseline figure on which to assess industry efforts to reduce CO©ü emissions as far and as fast as possible.

The real focus of the IMO report however, was the reduction of air pollution from ships (CO©ü is not classed as a pollutant but as a greenhouse gas). The report itself was not concerned with carbon emissions per se, except in terms of assessment of whether efforts to reduce air pollution from ships may actually raise their carbon footprint.

It is a pity that the Guardian missed the main thrust of the report — the impact of practical options to reduce emissions of air pollutants (sulphur oxides and particulate matter) from ships. The report made a major contribution to the revision of air emission legislation by the IMO last week. This should see a considerable lowering of global emissions of air pollutants in force world-wide by 2009. This is good news for the environment and for the health of those people affected by these emissions and industry was proud to have contributed positively and substantively to the debate.

Mark Brownrigg,

Director-General of the Chamber of Shipping

 
Strange way to show appreciation 

SIR, I was interested to read your article ‘Policy shifts threaten stability of UK shipping’. Further, and perhaps of most interest, was the statement by the Shipping Minister Jim Fitzpatrick that “this industry’s contribution to the UK’s economy, our productivity and our competitiveness on a global scale, is well appreciated across government.”

This statement is at odds with my experience.

Having sent an email on the January 8 to the Prime Minister, Treasury, Mr Fitzpatrick and George Osborne which, to summarise, stated:

“... It will not be the Greek shipping community who pay this tax but the Treasury who will pick up the bill for the resultant unemployment caused by the closing or reduction of staff in many ship-owning agencies, broking, insurance, banking and legal firms.

“The departure of the London Greek will be driven by the extended family/support community, it is they who will leave. The uncle, the niece, the Greek engineer/accountant — they do not need to pay this tax. With the extended family and fellow Greek compatriots leaving it will not be long before the actual owner decides to depart as the infrastructure disintegrates.

“As Mr Embiricos, the chairman of the GSCC, eluded to in an article in Lloyds List on January 4, 2008, “there will be a drip-drip Greek desertion from London”.

“As to what is being put at jeopardy [this] was clearly stated by the International Financial Services, London:

“...Overall the sector is estimated to have contributed £1.5bn [$2.9bn] to the UK economy in 2006, with the ship-broking sector accounting for about half of the sector with overseas earnings of £706m.

“Maritime banking is estimated to be worth £240m. Maritime services contribute to the UK economy through the employment of 14,300 people.”

I received no acknowledgement or comment from the Treasury but Mr Fitzpatrick’s department replied: “Unfortunately, the Department for Transport does not have responsibility for the issue raised in your email.”

The implication is that the non-domicile taxation issue is of no consequence and will not affect the Department of Transport’s forward thinking or planning in relation to shipping.

I can only assume the minister will rubber stamp whatever the Treasury wants and therefore avoid upsetting the Prime Minister.

For me, in the twilight of my career, this may not be a major issue (I’ve seen the almost total demise of the British ship-owner and shipbuilding industry) but for the future young men and women and those who are currently employed in the many aspects of this diversely interesting industry, this ill-conceived tax will turn out to be very short sighted and the beginning of the end for many a career here in London.

Meanwhile the other major shipping centres around the world are rubbing their hands with glee at the intended absurdity of this proposed legislation.

The Greek Shipping Minister George Voulgarakis warned “that the new UK tax proposals may cost London more in lost business than the Exchequer is likely to gain”.

I couldn’t have put it better myself but I doubt somehow Mr Voulgarakis will be presenting his concerns in a formal submission to the Treasury.

MJ Thomason


We should have learned from Kodima

SIR, Peter Cardy quite properly responded to the comments regarding scavenging of flotsam after the MSC Napoli beaching, and the lessons learned and subsequently applied to the Ice Prince sinking.
What is forgotten is that the stranding of the Kodima off southeast Cornwall in 2002, and the subsequent scavenging of its timber deck cargo, provided all concerned with sufficient knowledge and experience to apply to the Napoli incident. The frenzied looting on Branscome Beach could have been avoided.

Devon County Council plans to hold a public enquiry into the MSC Napoli incident, I trust those involved with Kodima will be asked to participate.

Tim Charlesworth 
Chief executive and harbour master 
Cattewater Harbour Commissioners 
Port of Plymouth 


Code exists for timber cargoes

SIR, With reference to your editorial of February 4 on the problems with timber deck cargoes, there is a longstanding international standard on the safe stowage and carriage of such cargoes.

The International Maritime Organization’s Timber Deck Cargo Code was first published in 1974. It was revised in 1981 and the current edition dates from 1992.

The Maritime Safety Committee of IMO recently authorised a thorough review of the code and that process started last October. The code is not mandatory, although some nations that export timber have adopted it within their maritime laws for their flag ships and all flag ships loading in their ports. Some have even made it mandatory for an independent organisation to certify that the loading and stowage complies with the code before the ship is permitted to sail.

If masters are under the pressures that you indicated, one or other of the aforesaid measures would eliminate that. Patrik Granstam, IMO co-ordinator of the work, tells me interested readers can contact him at patrik.granstam@sjofartsverket.se

Mike Compton
Technical adviser, 
ICHCA International 
Romford, Essex


Doing what it says on the tin 

SIR, Michael Grey’s suggestion to “rebrand the tanker” (Viewpoint, February 4), in an effort to make it rather more politically acceptable as means of transport has much merit. What about an EOC — an Essential Oil Carrier? It does what it says on the tin.

Yours etc

Capt Anthony Baker Douglas, 
IOM IMI 4NY


MCA staff exit ‘planned’ 

SIR, Your report (‘High profile MCA staff ask to quit’, February 1) gives the impression of an unexpected brain-drain during the planned restructuring of the administrative centre of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

The unexpected part is that only about half of the number anticipated have applied for a severance package.

The departures will be taking place over the rest of this year as originally scheduled and business will continue uninterrupted. The movement of some senior staff will, of course, create opportunities for their talented younger colleagues.

Although doomsayers can always be found to talk to the press, the actual behaviour of our staff does not bear this out.

Our sickness absence rate remains one of the lowest in the Department for Transport, general staff turnover remains unchanged and we continue to do our job normally, as the handling of this winter’s series of shipping casualties demonstrates.

We cannot, of course, foresee the outcome of the strike ballots and resulting action by our trades unions, but we continue to work constructively with them on plans to ensure that safety at sea is not compromised.

Peter Cardy
Chief executive
Maritime & Coastguard Agency 


Joint Hull Committee initiative must be embraced 

SIR, I was disappointed and surprised to read Anthony Delderfield’s criticism of the Joint Hull Committee and its current chairman, Simon Stonehouse (Lloyds List, January 18), following the Lloyds List article of the December 10 where Simon had made a case for hull underwriters supporting the shipping industry more actively.

It is self evident to me that underwriters (and brokers) should be supporting the shipping industry. It must be in our interests to contribute in seeking resolutions to issues such as shortages of qualified crew; criminalisation of seafarers; ports of refuge for vessels in distress; common structural rules and goal based standards.

This is in addition to questioning some of the more esoteric ideas emanating from the EU such as an EU coastguard, new liability regimes which threaten to break up limited liability concepts, implementing IMO directives-even transferring flag state control completely to the EU, ship machinery certification widened from IACS members to unspecified authorising authorities, and so on.

There is no doubt that the major marine markets are very much more professional than in both Mr Delderfield’s time and my own 40 years in the market.

Individual operators have rating guidelines approved by their executive and there is a vast range of information available and utilised. For example, risk management applications now include such pre-risk analysis as management operations, engine room evaluation, office procedures and port state control information is widely available, while new software programmes provide ‘drill down’ opportunities to research individual vessel history to name but a few.

The function of Joint Hull Committee has been adapted to encompass the changing environment and legislation, moving from a quasi cartel-type body to an advisory and technical authority to the market, whose advice and knowledge can be utilised or ignored in the evaluation of risk-the choice left to the individual underwriting operator.

I believe the Joint Hull Committee under the last few chairmen has greatly assisted the market in focusing on the dramatic changes we have seen in the shipping world, particularly over the last 10 years. The current Joint Hull initiative to interface more with, and provide greater support to, the shipping industry and for us to better understand their business (and vice-versa), is not only to be applauded but embraced by all hull underwriter’s who want to see their industry flourish in the future.

Membership of Joint Hull is voluntary and involves considerable amounts of underwriters own time. To suggest this may impinge on safeguarding members interests (and presumably company shareholder interests) is frankly derisory. Having been a member for over 10 years some long time ago, I have rarely seen any constructive praise for this invaluable institution and I am sad that someone with such a long association with the market should be so be so out of touch with current reality.

Keith Potter, 
FCII Chartered Insurer
Sanderstead, Surrey 


Sinking feeling on lack of maritime eco-leadership 

SIR, What a shame you had to spoil your piece (and show your true colours) on the differences between maritime and aviation disasters (Lloyd’s List January 28).

The nasty little reactionary paragraph at the end seems to suggest environmental activism can’t co-exist with justice and commonsense. What tosh!

The aviation industry itself seethes with ‘environmental activists’ (whatever they are) and more power to their elbows.

Your subtext is a blatant appeal to the neo-con right wing free market agenda which got us into this mess in the first place.

Some of the latest observation and research in leadership discourse detects a move (in the corporate world and elsewhere) towards ‘eco-leadership’, which would be in keeping with moves in society at large.

So, far from seeing off environmental activism, we’re actually seeing industry embracing it.

I’m guessing, but I expect your preferred models of leadership probably haven’t moved on since Nelson, so I don’t expect too much buy-in there!

On a final note, you also manage some breathtaking hypocrisy by, on one hand, espousing a blame-free culture, while at the same time laying into the Spanish authorities (Prestige) “which (sic) are arguably culpable”.

Quite enjoyed it otherwise...

Chris Haughton
Haughton Maritime Ltd, 
Inversanda, Rosslyn Avenue, Preesall, Poulton-le-Fylde 
Lancashire FY6 0HE


Why too much personnel service is bad for the MCA 

SIR, In recent weeks your paper has run a number of articles on the present restructuring of the MCA. This letter is a further, but unattributable, contribution on this subject for your information.

The intended new organisational structure of the agency has been announced to all employees. It is clear from this that there is to be an absolute and disproportionate increase in personnel branch (human resources if one must) staffing at high grades, at the expense of others perceived as being less useful.

The new personnel establishment appears to the writer as a kind of praetorian guard to surround the person of the chief executive who, of admitted little relevant experience, proceeds to dismiss his generals while leaving his infantry disorganised.

The similarity disappears, however, when one considers that personnel branches cannot organise campaigns.

During a full career in shipping on both sides of the regulatory divide, I always recognised owners, seafarers and government as those most reliant on MCA advice.

That the present confusion here in Spring Place is likely to persist is not only regrettable, but it will come to be regretted by all these.

‘Resigned’Maritime and Coastguard Agency


Ice Prince proves Napoli lesson has been learned 

SIR, Your report (‘Review urged after MSC Napoli’, January 30) suggests that the law should be reviewed in response to the scenes of scavenging that following the beaching of the ship.

In fact, the lesson of the MSC Napoli did not go without notice.

A similar situation was prevented in the aftermath of the sinking of the Ice Prince by prompt action by the Receiver of Wreck, who conferred the appropriate powers on the coastal police forces along the expected trajectory of the deck cargo of timber.

The police have taken the appropriate action and some arrests have been made: though some timber has been removed, there has been no repetition of the disorder of January 2007.

The insurers have also accepted responsibility for the shoreline cleanup, another lesson from the MSC Napoli.

Peter Cardy
Chief Executive Maritime & Coastguard Agency


Fair treatment for seafarers is essential in every situation 

SIR, it is difficult to judge an accident even with all the details on the table. The same goes for the unfortunate Hebei Spirit accident.

What we do know is that seafarers have been detained and later charged for violation of anti-pollution laws. It seems that the two barge captains have been in a difficult situation, while the crew of the tanker appear not to have had real possibilities to prevent the accident.

My role is not to judge the case, but to stress the complexity in these matters and to encourage the authorities to fair treatment for the seafarers involved in this and other incidents.

Luckily, no seafarers were injured in this accident, but the environmental impact is very unfortunate in itself.

The IMO/ILO guidelines on the Fair Treatment of Seafarers from June 2006 should be followed by authorities all over the world.

In this connection, BIMCO feels it is necessary to highlight that the guidelines state that the coastal state should take steps to conduct the case in a fair and expeditious manner, and the coastal state should minimise the physical presence of the seafarers. While we have no reason to suspect that this is not the case already, it should, nevertheless, be stressed here more than 50 days since the incident took place and the three masters are still detained in South Korea.

As we know, most people around the world are not aware of the fact that ships carry 90% of all goods and that shipping is a prerequisite for global trade and, indeed, the way we live today. Ships are run by people. It is key to the shipping industry that seafarers are given fair treatment. This is not only to improve recruitment, which reflects a complex challenge with many elements involved, but first and foremost to give our present seafarers proper working conditions and treatment even in difficult times, as when they are involved in an accident. We owe that to one of our industry’s most precious assets — the seafarers.

Philip Embiricos
BIMCO President
Bagsværdvej 161
BagsværdDK-2880
Denmark


Captains lose out in the blame game 

SIR, I’ve been reading with interest the Hebei Spirit case. I wonder if less than one hour is sufficient time for action by the anchored tanker of more than 260,000 dwt to avoid collision with the barge. The captain may be responsible for collision only if he anchored the ship in position which is dangerous for safe passage of other vessels.

I am very concerned about the captain’s future, because if the captain of the anchored vessel is going to be responsible for some collision, then the captain of the berthed vessel in port may be responsible for collision too some day.

A captain’s job is not an easy job and it is full of unpredictable surprises. Whatever happens to the ship, everybody is asking the same question: “Who was the captain?” It is also easiest to blame the captain for everything.

Those captains who want to be successful masters need to have a lot of skills, continuous concentration and, of course, they should have a lot of luck.

Captain Doctor Ivica Tijardovic,
PhD Split-Croatia


Working for peanuts? You’ll have to hire monkeys 

SIR, At a time when the rapidly increasing shortage of competent crew threatens the safety of global maritime trade routes, it is worrying to read ‘MCA braces itself for industrial action’ (Lloyd’s List January 17).

Happily, the majority of those working for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are professionals and can be relied upon not to take any action that would endanger the lives of those they serve or the ships in which they sail.

The emasculation of this vital maritime safety agency started long before Peter Cardy appeared on the scene and many of us, reading his assurances shortly after he took office, were hopeful that he could be relied upon to stem the growing discontent and steady loss of talent.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case.

Most of the reports of discontent concentrate on the capping of the public sector pay awards, but this is only part of the story.

The recent decision to grant UK registration to vessels that do not comply with Solas undoubtedly divided the agency and reinforced the long-held view that registration and legislative enforcement are unhappy bedfellows — and many still have reservations about the success of the unified coastguard/regulatory body structure.

More transparency and less political interference would be welcomed.

Money undoubtedly is a concern and it is almost unbelievable to read that “many experienced staff are set to see pay increases of under 1% ... coastguard watch assistants earn basic pay rates only £0.01 an hour higher than the legal minimum wage”.

Surely, in the nine months that he has worked with the agency, Mr Cardy has recognised the worth and dedication of these men and women and he will not, as his spokesman suggests, conveniently allow “his hands to be tied” by the public sector pay cap?

Leadership and management are all about standing up for one’s employees. It is ironic that the rewards of those who strive to prevent accidents are so inferior to those who investigate accidents after they have happened — and the latter are not overpaid.

Mr Cardy has suggested elsewhere that the ‘Nintendo’ generation of game-playing teenagers possess the skills needed by the shipping industry — and the UK Coastguard.

Apparently, these game players “have developed an ability to see, comprehend and analyse multiple sources of information.

“They then use that information to make the best decision.”

I suggest that that is precisely what the majority of his employees do on a day-to-day basis and they expect to be rewarded (and valued) for it — as will the Nintendo generation.

Captain CR Kelso
5 Bursledon Heights
Bursledon, Southampton
SO31 8DBHants


Not so fast, Jim

SIR, Although I cannot claim to have served my ‘learner’ time quite so far back as my respected friend Jim Davis (Lloyd’s List, January 17) nor in the familiarity of the London Royal Docks, our mutual employer (P&O/BI) sent me ‘to learn on the job’, which took me directly into the bewildering ways of life in the Far East.

While canvassing for cargo from Japanese keiretsu, I learned very quickly that the speed of our liner services to Australia, the Middle East or, say, Europe was always highly critical.

Of course, exactly the same applied back in the days of sail, as illustrated best by memories of the famous tea clippers like Cutty Sark.

It would be logical if the EU allowed the Box Club to agree to restrict their services at set lower speeds if the exercise suggested by Jim supports it.

But without robust conference systems, and human nature being what it is, I fear it would be too easy for the need for profit to confound common sense and for some renegade(s) to upset the apple cart.

Michael Farlie
Vancouver
British Columbia


JHC’s limited mandate

SIR, I have just read James Brewer’s report on his interview with Simon Stonehouse, chairman of the London Joint Hull Committee, entitled “Underwriters are urged to support shipping industry” (Lloyd’s List December 10, 2007).

Mr Stonehouse makes some very sensible and valid points, but I am not aware of any mandate the JHC has to concern itself with the many complicated issues facing our mercantile industry.

As a practising underwriter, Mr Stonehouse’s prime interest should be the safeguarding of his members’ financial interests and encouraging all marine underwriters to support the rules and encourage the members to publicise their insurance products and available markets in London specialising in various innovative policies. All other matters should be the responsibility of the transport minister.

Throughout my senior lifetime I have watched with frustration successive British governments weaken and anger the British Mercantile Marine.

In 1935 there were about 7,000 vessels under British flag representing a grt of 17,000. In 1965 there were 4,500 vessels with a grt of nearly 22,000. Due to larger vessels being built in 1975, only 3,622 vessels registered with a grt of 33,000.

In the past 30 years Greek and Hong Kong shipowners controlled approximately 60% of the world tonnage.

While British shipowners were being forced to pay corporation tax the Greeks adopted the more sensible tonnage tax, later improved on by the Dutch.

All this forced British owners to set up foreign companies and fly flags of convenience. As a devout Tory it pains me to write that in the year 2000 John Prescott bullied and badgered all the right people and forced the Government to change to the Greek system of tonnage tax. Since then there has been an increase of 300% in trading fleets and an increase of 350% dwt flying the British flag.

During my broking years I have had numerous uncomfortable interviews with various JHC chairmen in my quest to obtain what I knew to be uneconomical rates. Fortunately the London market is much more disciplined today than it was when I rejoined Lloyd’s in 1947 after army service.

Brokers, underwriters, protection and indemnity clubs, the Salvage Association, Lloyd’s Register and the Chamber of Shipping are providing a very important service with many others to the British Mercantile Marine.

In spite of all this, if I find an underwriter prepared to cut my competitors’ rates I will of course do what is best for the owners paying my commission.

Antony Delderfield
Arthur J. Gallagher (UK) Limited
9 Alie Street
London E1 8DE 


No decision on distillates

Sir, I refer to the report ‘Distillates win green fuel debate’ in your issue dated 16 January, which states that the IMO’s Expert Panel studying shipping’s impact on the environment “has concluded that increased use of distillate fuel is the most practical way to comply with tough new emissions regulations”.

Both the statement and the headline over the article are incorrect and misleading. The IMO report does not draw conclusions nor — as you rightly state — make recommendations. It sets out the findings of its expert groups. While some of these findings address the use of distillate fuels, many others explore alternative solutions. Your article makes no mention of these. It is entirely wrong to suggest that the IMO has concluded that distillate fuel is the most practical way of dealing with new emissions regulations. It has not.

The IMO has undertaken a thorough study of the options facing the shipping industry in this regard, one of which relates to the use of distillate fuels.

No decisions will be made, or conclusions drawn, until the other options explored by IMO have been thoroughly debated.

Ian Adams
Secretary-General
International Bunker Industry Association,
Southampton


Why need for speed is ill-conceived 

SIR, I was interested to read that Mr Miyahara, president of NYK, has made a decision to slow down vessel speeds. This initiative should reduce bunker costs by some 25% and significantly reduce the dreaded carbon footprint.

But I have a sense of déjà vu on this resolution. In my days in the 1950s when I was serving my ‘learner’ time in the London Royal Docks, I was puzzled over the need to rush freight liner tonnage at 20-plus knots from the Far East or Australia, only for that cargo often to stand undelivered for weeks. What a waste it seemed.

Nowadays, containerisation has nearly overcome these delivery hang ups, but is not the whole concept of high speed freight vessels ill-conceived? The great innovator of container shipping, Malcolm McLean, decided that his Sealand ships should be “big, fat and slow”.

The old arguments of cost of money/letters of credit, do not, to my mind, hold water. The ‘just in time’ management that is today’s norm (ie, elimination so far as possible of holding stock) can be perfectly well served by steady instead of high speed deliveries. Furthermore if the huge cost of bunkers simply to speed transit time were to be passed on to shippers/consignees, it would heartily surpass the few days extra interest notionally charged.

It would be, I suggest, thoroughly worthwhile for major container lines to work out and exhibit the real cost per container involved between carriage on a high speed container ship and one operating more slowly.

Jim Davis 
Chairman
International Maritime Industries Forum 
c/o The Baltic Exchange
38 St Mary Axe
London EC3A 8BH


Use our pilots to guide vessels safely into port 

SIR, I read with interest the comments in the letter from Captain Kayser in Lloyd’s List (January 4, 2008).
We are one of the deep sea pilot agencies operating in northern Europe, and have been offering the services of licensed Trinity House sea pilots to many of the responsible shipping owners and charterers who see the benefit and value in using the service we have offered for over 60 years.

Our agency offers licensed deep sea pilots who will join a vessel on its approach to Europe at either Brixham, off the UK south coast, or Cherbourg, France. The pilot has a great deal of experience and knowledge, gained over the very many regular transits he makes in and around the English Channel and North Sea. They are effectively an extra navigation officer on the bridge at all times when the vessel is on a sea passage.

Not being a member of the ship’s crew gives them the opportunity to get adequate rest when the ship is on a river passage and in port, and be fully rested when taking the vessel onwards to the next port.

A pilot is fully aware of the constraints and of any changes to navigation in the area, and of all reporting procedures.

He can liaise with the local pilot stations and make correct and safe approaches to where they hand over to local pilots. A deep sea pilot will have served as a master on a vessel for a minimum of three years, with the majority of pilots having at least 10-15 years in command before coming ashore, training, sitting an examination and obtaining their licence from Trinity House. They are fully aware of the importance of keeping a vessel to the schedule, and the stress and fatigue experienced by masters and crews.

A pilot is also aware that the master’s job is not finished when he arrives in port, as he is required to undertake paperwork, deal with the numerous demands made upon him on his arrival in port from the likes of immigration, agents, port state control and owners’ and charterers’ representatives.

The master and crew are then expected to be adequately rested and ready to be on the bridge for the passage down the river, and on the sea pasage to the next port, to undergo all the same duties again.

Some of these container vessels are making three to four port calls in four to five days.

The cost of a deep sea pilot for the LT Cortesia would have been in the region of £2,500-£3,000 ($4,900-$5,900), a mere drop in the ocean compared with costs involved in the grounding of the vessel on the Varne bank.

We would also welcome a dialogue between the P&I Clubs, who we would like to see encouraging the use of pilots and some incentive being given to shipping companies and charterers who use or would consider using our services.

It would also be of benefit if the profile and availability of pilots was more strongly promoted by governments and the various maritime organisations within the UK and Europe.

Patricia Brooks
Managing Director
Deep Sea & Coastal Pilots Ltd
Gravesend Kent 
DA12 3WB 


An extra hand makes economic sense

SIR, I agree with your view that too many owners and their operations departments are ignorant in respect of navigational necessities securing a safe and economic outcome of a voyage.

I do, however, also believe that incidents such as the unfortunate accident of LT Cortesia are also manipulated by the simple imbalance of container terminal capacity versus cargo throughput.

The consequences of missing a berthing window for a ship the size of LT Cortesia are significant and can reduce any profit generated by the total voyage and that increases pressure on the master and navigators. It is also well-known that the European part of large containership schedules is taking its toll on officers, especially the less experienced.

One solution, which in my opinion makes sense to an operator, is to increase the number of navigators, either by an officer employed for the European part of the voyage or by a permanent extra hand.

With the lack of officers, more officers with less experience will be placed in charge of these huge vessels, and one way of retaining experienced officers could be to employ them on shorter trips, enabling them more time at home while sharing their experiences on top of what the present senior officers already do (if they have time for it).

I understand that most tankers are now required by the charterers or cargo owners to employ extra officers with the exact reason being to avoid accidents. With the cost the LT Cortesia incident will accumulate, an extra hand seems a very manageable insurance.

Captain FJ Kayser
Address supplied


Cheap cover 

SIR, The article ‘Cheap Cover to continue for soft German market’ (December 6) reports “price drops in 2008…are partly due to new providers entering the market...such as Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (EU) [my company] and Mapfre...”

Such a statement is misleading, as it is very unlikely, probably unrealistic, to assume that such ‘new kids on the bloc’ can have any impact on what is a €19bn ($27.2bn) market!

The fact is the two major players, AGCS and HDI Gerling, are driving the market down for their fierce competition against each other. AGCS, having two former Gerling board members in charge for Germany, aims to lure what have been Gerling clients (such as BMW) to Allianz. Whereas the merged HDI Gerling is desperately trying to retain — at whatever cost — its client base in lieu of preparing for the expected IPO of its parent Talanx.

Despite rate reductions for the last three years (not four years), the results in the industrial segments remain positive. Just look at what was the former Gerling/ GKA company on a standalone basis producing its best ever underwriting result in the industrial sectors for 2005 and 2006.

Reiner K Gleiss
Hauptbevollmächtigter and general manager
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (EU) Ltd
Niederlassung für Deutschland
An den Dominikanern 11-27, 50668 Köln


Why have shipowners jilted their husbands? 

SIR, With reference to Dr Hughes’ most helpful letter of Lloyd’s list December 6 (‘Befriending the master’), what has become of the concept of the Ship’s Husband?

When I joined this industry in the 1950s, the Blue Funnel Line always appointed one of its most senior directors as the Ship’s Husband. This executive was intended to create and to preserve precisely the personal and concerned contact with the ships to which Dr Hughes refers.

I recall that it was explained to me at the time that this executive held himself and was held by his colleagues to be legally responsible for the safe conduct of the fleet.

Many years later, I recall asking who was the Ship’s Husband at P&O in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster? And I believe that the answer was that there wasn’t one.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Geoffry Lucas
Shipbroker
London SW3


Hebei Spirit rattles communication chains 

SIR, Your article in Lloyd’s List of December 13, 2007 (Repairs to Hebei Spirit prove tricky but on track) rattled an old ghost, particularly: ‘Questions continue to be asked about the inability of the barge’s towmaster to establish VHF communications with the shore VTS station, which appear to have been caused by the failure of the lead tug to monitor Channel 16 as required.’

In my former role of senior radio adviser with the MCA, I was once asked whether vessels operating in a (port) VTS area are required to monitor Channel 16. My response: it all depends. It must be remembered that the principal reason for monitoring Channel 16 watch is distress and safety.

The relevant legislation is buried in the small print of the International Telecommunications Union Radio Regulations.

Although the number may have changed in recent years, to the best of my knowledge, the following ITU regulation is still in force:

‘3060 (4) Ship stations, when incommunication with a coast stationin the ship movement service and subject to the agreement of the administrations concerned, may continue to maintain watch on the appropriate ship movement service frequency only, providedthe watch on 156.8 MHz (Channel 16)is being maintained by that coaststation.’

A ship movement service is defined by the ITU as “a safety service, other than a port operations service, between coast stations and ship stations, or between ship stations, in which messages are restricted to those relating to the movement of ships, that is, VTS”.

A port operations service is a radio service in or near a port, between coast stations and ship stations, or between ship stations, in which messages are restricted to those relating to the operational handling, the movement and the safety of ships and, in an emergency, to the safety of persons.

This may also be viewed to describe VTS. However, there is a similar dispensation in the ITU regulations apropos Channel 16 monitoring.

Thus, providing the VTS (or another coast station) is monitoring Channel 16 for distress and safety calls, vessels need not.

The regulation is quite pragmatic:

• If a ship is communicating with a VTS, its crew are likely fully occupied with managing navigational safety and should not be otherwise distracted by ‘chit chat’ on Channel 16; and, in any event,

• A ship within a VTS area is probably not in a position to go to another vessel in distress, or would otherwise be required to do so — and any safety information to be sent would largely be irrelevant — so what purpose can there be in keeping the distress and safety watch on Channel 16?

Consequently, when asked, my general advice on this subject was along thelines of: unless information to the contrary is published by the port or other authority responsible for the VTS (theUS requires a continuous watch on Channel 16 be maintained), and providing the VTS channel is monitored at all times, Channel 16 need not be monitored by vessels in a VTS area where viewed (by the master) to be detrimental to navigational safety.

This would not explain why the lead tug in Korea did not respond to calls on the VTS channel, presuming these were made in addition to calls on Channel 16.

Perhaps it is also worth noting that, in line with US practice, the ITU recommends vessels monitor Channel 13 (not Channel 16) at all times for bridge-to-bridge communications related to collision avoidance; Channel 16, strictly speaking, ceased to be a general marine calling channel with the full implementation of GMDSS. (Yes, I am fully aware that I am quoting regulations from a mythical IMO/ITU-world that does not exist.)

Incidentally, in the days when GMDSS false alarms were a big issue, if they are not now, taking the aforementioned interpretation one stage further, my ‘unofficial’ advice was that any vessel passing through the Dover Straits, in GMDSS sea area A1 and in the coverage area of CNIS, was quite at liberty to isolate all GMDSS equipment other than VHF DSC and NAVTEX hence removing, at a stroke, the hazard of false alerts and the consequential interference to navigational safety.

Not that everyone agreed with this opinion, of course.

Forgive the self-publicity, but if you have not already picked this up, the MCA has made available my (and others’) recent report on international recreational vessel safety regulation.

This may be of some interest particularly in light of the brouhaha over the loss of the yacht Ouzo. Perhaps it is worth noting that, in general terms, there are now more people being killed at sea on, orby, recreational vessels than commercial vessels.

Steve Harding MRIN
Senior consultant
Marico Marine NZ
Wellington


IMO green agenda driven from within

SIR, I refer to Jamie Dale’s article (November 19) on the International Maritime Organization’s ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gases from ships.

I would like to clarify that the IMO’s work in this regard is in pursuance of the related policies approved by the IMO Assembly in 2003 (resolution A.963 (23)) and the consequential action plan and timetable agreed by our Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

In carrying out its work on this important matter, the IMO is doing its duty, as decided by its membership, and by so doing, is contributing to the international community’s efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

It was because of the IMO’s commitment to ensuring an appropriate response from international shipping to the challenges of climate change and global warming that the aforementioned policies, action plan and timetable were adopted. They are fully in line with the priority that the organization’s strategic high-level action plans place on the protection and preservation of the environment.

And it was with that same strategic vision, together with his desire to expedite the IMO’s ongoing efforts in this regard, that last week IMO Secretary-General Efthimios Mitropoulos informed the IMO Council of his intention to submit to the MEPC a proposal by which we might accelerate certain elements of our work and, thereby, facilitate and bring forward the decision-making process.

For, as your editorial so rightly states, what the maritime community needs and has asked for are “solid, scientifically based and practical solutions, devised internationally by the IMO”, which are, indeed, infinitely preferable to having a patchwork of different unilateral measures around the globe.

The IMO’s agenda has not been driven by outside pressures as your article suggests. Indeed nothing could be further from the truth — without disregarding the initiatives taken in other decision-making centres, which we commend, the protection of the marine environment is a task on which we spare no effort.

Lee Adamson
Head of Public Information Services
International Maritime Organization


Clarifying NPX capacity

SIR, We read with great interest your articles relating to the lock sizes for the Panama Canal’s third waterway and the possible need to raise the Bayonne Bridge outside the Port of New York and New Jersey (November 8, 2007). One of the articles suggests that classification societies, among other parties, are calling for the locks to be made wider. Lloyd’s Register would like to clarify its position on this issue.

The expansion of the canal has raised questions concerning optimal ship designs and capacities at a time of significant investment in ever larger capacity containerships. The predominant driver behind both the canal expansion and the issue of the height of the Bayonne Bridge in the Port of New York and New Jersey is the rapid increase in containership size.

Research undertaken by Lloyd’s Register indicates that the ability of the canal to transit larger containerships will increase the importance of US east coast ports — particularly New York and New Jersey — hence the significance of the Bayonne Bridge. The current width of the Panama Canal locks is 33.53 m and the maximum permitted beam for transit today is 32.3 m, leaving a very modest clearance of 1.2 m. In the new locks (the third set of locks, which will be 55 m wide) we understand that the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) will require substantially more clearance — 3 m either side of a 49 m wide ship. Because of this substantial difference there has been some speculation that, in time, the ACP might relax the clearance requirements relating to the third set of locks and allow ships with an increased beam, and therefore the potential for greater container capacity, to transit.

This needs to be distinguished from speculation about the construction of a potential (fourth) set of locks.

The expanded ship size dimensional constraints now specified by ACP — length 366 m, beam 49 m, draught 15 m — should enable most ships in service today and on order, as demonstrated in the table below, to transit the new locks. A very large number of ships fall into the current post-panamax-to-new panamax size range; these will benefit directly from the canal expansion.

There are very few ships (see table below) that will not be able to transit the new locks. Indeed, a modest increase in the size of the lock basins would have very little effect on the number of ships which would be ‘NPX compatible’ and this is entirely consistent with the view expressed by Mr Sabonge in your article.

Our analysis indicates that future NPX containerships will have maximum capacities of about 12,500 teu. With an expected doubling in global container trade volume by 2015, we anticipate very strong demand for canal transits by ships of this size.

It is clear that ACP has specified new lock dimensions which allow the transit of 49 m beam ships, to accommodate a large proportion of the current and future fleet. We believe that ACP’s decision is correct.

David Tozer
Lloyd’s Register Business manager, containerships


Class involvement key to proper repairs

SIR, I read with interest the article “Yards encouraged to guarantee standards of steel repair work” (Lloyd’s List, October 16). You report that the European Union-funded ALERT (Assessment of Lifecycle Effect of Repairs on Tankers) project is looking at repairs to tankers in response to the loss of the Prestige. The project team includes a flag state, an owners’ association, a classification society, a shipyard and a university.

There are two issues on which I would like to comment.

First, MME, one of the ALERT project partners, reports that weld testing is not done by marine experts, who would know where a ship would be subjected to higher stresses.

It is a surprise no mention is made of the role of classification and classification society surveyors, who are in the best position to oversee repairs to classed ships and provide guidance to owners.

Owners’ associations are able to provide guidance to owners. With safety as a priority, I would suggest that owners’ associations may want to examine the numbers of repairs carried out without any class involvement and to investigate the consequences of such unsupervised repairs.

Second, the project team states that “there has been very little research into repair work” and they “are trying to find out best practices for the industry”.

I would direct interested readers to the following publications: the International Association of Classification Societies’ Shipbuilding and Repair Quality Standard, 1996 and the Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures, 1997, published by the Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum (whose participants include Intertanko, OCIMF and IACS members).

Both publications cover the repair of ship structures. MME could be directed to the sections that clearly show where high stresses occur in tanker structures.

Class is able and willing to identify typical locations for high sensitivity to fatigue failure and to provide owners and yards with optimum strategies, solutions and supervision to help ensure effective maintenance and repair are carried out.

Alan Gavin
Marine Director 
Lloyd’s Register


MCA safety is not being compromised 

SIR, Your leader (October 31) entitled ‘Efficiency at all costs?’ paints a pessimistic picture about changes in the MCA. Readers of Lloyds List should be reassured that these changes to our administrative systems and management mean our work on the safety of seafarers and ships will be enhanced, not compromised, as a result.

Many of the MCA’s back-office functions are being centralised to South Wales, along with those carried out by the other executive agencies in the Department for Transport family. This has been known to the MCA staff for almost two years.

However, in contrast with your rather gloomy outlook, this change in the way we manage our business gives us a rare opportunity to review the agenda for the MCA, in anticipation of the challenges we will face in the shipping world of the 21st century and beyond.

Bigger and faster ships, new operations in severe conditions, more demanding standards, more sophisticated technology on ships and ashore, competition between navigation and renewable energy, and climate-driven extreme weather are among the factors that will shape our future work.

The issues of fatigue and manning, safety, carbon emissions and emergency response still need proper resourcing. By identifying clear priorities and sticking with them, the MCA can have a bigger impact to the benefit of all in our industry.

Peter Cardy, chief executive
Maritime and Coastguard Agency


IMO risks missing the emissions boat 

SIR, While the intervention in Lloyd’s List (October 11) of the International Maritime Organization in the shipping emissions debate (triggered by your coverage of Waterfront’s recent conference) is welcome, it is a pity it was not able to accept our invitation to participate in the conference itself, and engage at first hand with European stakeholders from the European Commission, industry and non-governmental organisation stakeholders.

The IMO’s Mr Palomares may think his statement that action will be agreed in 2009 will reassure us, but clearly the EU and many stakeholders think that is simply not fast enough. Nor is there any guarantee that the outcome will be the internationally binding international agreement to limit or cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is now necessary.

After all, the IMO was asked 10 years ago, in the Kyoto protocol, to pursue the limitation and reduction of GHG emissions. Since then, according to the European Commission, international shipping emissions have increased by more than 20%, the second fastest-growing source of GHG after aviation.

No wonder the Commission’s Blue Book on Maritime Policy, published on Wednesday, makes it clear Europe will not wait much longer for the IMO, nor will the EU accept a sub-standard deal.

The parallels with the aviation world are striking. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the UN body responsible for international aviation agreements, failed two weeks ago to deliver a binding international agreement of GHG emissions. The EU, and all the European Aviation Conference states, were unanimous in signalling their intention to go it alone.

The UK government is now leading that EU unilateral initiative, which will mean the inclusion of all flights leaving EU airports in the EU Emission Trading Scheme by 2010. It is not hard to work out what the EU is preparing for international shipping.

We would prefer a legally binding international agreement under the auspices of the IMO, but the IMO must bring forward its deadline or risk missing the boat.

Mark Watts, 
Director,
Waterfront Europe


IMO and gas emissions: putting the record straight 

SIR, It was disappointing to read, in yesterday’s article under the title ‘Brussels in carbon cut hint’, the negative comments made by various sources (who should certainly know better) on the International Maritime Organization’s work to contribute to the world efforts to reduce gas emissions. I, therefore, take this opportunity to put the record straight and thus leave your readers in no doubt as to the seriousness IMO attaches to the issue.

Our work to reduce ship-source atmospheric pollution is being progressed along two distinct paths, namely, control of greenhouse gas emissions generated from shipping operations and having the potential to contribute to global warming, and revision of the regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships contained in Marpol Annex VI.

As regards GHG emissions, in October 2006, the Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 55) approved a work plan to identify and develop the mechanisms needed to achieve the limitation or reduction of CO©ü emissions from international shipping.

The work plan aims at improving the GHG indexing scheme, considering methodology for CO©ü emission baselines and considering technical, operational and market-based methods for dealing with GHG emissions.

The work plan is progressing in accordance with an agreed timetable and will culminate at MEPC 59 in July, 2009, enabling the IMO member states to agree on the action to be taken within the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

As part of this process, IMO is updating its 2000 GHG study to provide the factual basis needed for future decisions.

A correspondence group is currently working to compile and consider different approaches on technical, operational and market-based measures to address GHG emissions from ships and will present a report to MEPC 57 (March 31 to April 4, 2008), with a view to providing input to the considerations in accordance with the GHG work plan.

Progress is also being made on enhancing the GHG indexing scheme and a GHG module, being incorporated into the IMO’s Global Integrated Shipping Information System, will be in operation from November this year to make the information accessible for comparison and further studies by member states and the shipping industry.

From the above it is more than obvious, not only that an action plan has already been agreed by IMO but also that work to implement it is well under way — contrary to the statement in your article that “IMO could fail to have an action plan prepared by 2009”.

On the matter of air pollution from ships and the continuing review of Marpol Annex VI, your readers may recall that a cross government-industry scientific group of experts was established by the secretary-general in July to comprehensively review the impacts on the environment, on human health and on the shipping and petroleum industries of applying any of the proposed fuel options to reduce SOx and particulate matter generated by shipping and the consequential impact on other emissions, including CO©ü emissions from ships and refineries.

The final report of the group will be completed by mid-December for submission to MEPC 57 through BLG 12 (February 4-8, 2008).

Meanwhile, the BLG air pollution working group will be meeting in Berlin from October 29 to November 2 this year to consider other matters relating to the review of Annex VI, in particular NOx limits for new engines and introduction of control of particulate matter.

After consideration of the reports of the scientific group of experts and the air pollution working group, the BLG sub-committee will be able to develop a complete set of amendments to Marpol Annex VI, which will be submitted to MEPC 57 for approval and, subsequently, to MEPC 58 for final adoption in the autumn of 2008.

It should be apparent, therefore, that, contrary to some perceptions, IMO is working, and will continue to work, speedily and thoroughly on reducing emissions from international shipping, a transport industry that is vital to world trade and sustainable development.

The organization intends to maintain its leading position by purposely fostering the protection of the marine environment from all possible threats through close co-operation with other relevant United Nations bodies, governmental and non-governmental organisations and, naturally, the shipping industry, thus rendering unilateral action, either on a regional or national level, redundant in all respects.
M Palomares
Director
Marine environment division
International Maritime Organization 


Accidents waiting to happen

SIR, Having watched this topic for some time and been actively involved in finding a solution to known problems for several years, I feel it is about time for us to hear of yet another lifeboat accident involving the maiming and killing of more seafarers.

The more superstitious of your readers will no doubt feel very uneasy about my saying this, but I would suggest my sense of doom is linked less to luck and more to seeing no satisfactory proposal by regulators of any solution to the problem.

I am certain that the tinkering that has taken place to date has done little or nothing to improve the situation and it may even have made matters worse.

As a mariner who now works in risk assessment, I feel frustrated that the problems of on-load release gear in particular, but also a host of other less fatal issues in lifeboats, have apparently never been subjected to a proper risk assessment. If they had the real killer hazard would have been positively identified and effective mitigation could have been put in place.

The killer hazard is the uncontrolled descent of the boat to the water’s edge, which usually means a free fall.

Unfortunately on-load release, side-launched boats are not designed for free fall. The problem with most investigations is that they dwell on factors such as so-called crew competence and maintenance rather than the hazard, which plays into the hands of the blame culture. We know that never benefited anything, except perhaps the bank balances of lawyers.

The irony is that the solution already exists and is familiar to seafarers and regulators across the world. In many states it is part of their legislation. In the UK, for example, it takes the form of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations, known in the industry as LOLER.

This statute forbids the lifting of personnel by any equipment unless it has substantial safeguards against the carrier falling. Lifting equipment and loads are defined and include personnel. There are no exemptions for lifeboats and davits.

There is advice — very bad advice — that in the opinion of certain regulators life saving appliances are not considered lifting equipment, but no explanation is given as to why. It is as though the lifeboats are expected to have powers of levitation. Unfortunately there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Under LOLER, on-load release gear is surely illegal until the boat reaches the water’s edge. It should therefore be rigidly disabled with a pin or other direct intervention in the hook, or by-passed with a resilient fibre safety strop, both of which can be easily removed just prior to the boat becoming waterborne. The so-called safeguards should not rely on over-complex mechanisms with hidden workings that have engineering tolerances far too fine for shipboard use, and which are usually made of unsuitable materials.

Perhaps those responsible for enforcing the bad advice might ponder the ultimate consequences of their actions. You know, or should know, that exercising a lifeboat launch could, if the unthinkable happens, result in the death of one or more persons and, incidentally, in risk assessment that alone would make the risk intolerable. You also know how to prevent such calamity (I have just told you how).

If you then insist on going ahead with the procedure without safeguards, or require a master to do it on your behalf, and the unthinkable does occur and you are left with a failed boat in the water with maybe two or more dead seafarers aboard, is that not manslaughter? If the case came before a judge it would be interesting to see how he or she interpreted the law — statute or advisory notice.

We can turn round and start acting rationally or we can sit on our hands and watch more seafarers die. I personally am sickened every time I hear of yet another accident when I know the solution and am very willing and eager to show anyone how to implement it, as I regularly do when inspecting ships. Will anyone join me?

Captain Dennis Barber. FNI. MRIN
Ship Inspector
Consulting Partner
Marine and Risk Consultants (Marico Marine)


Ban passengers from ro-ros and save lives 

SIR, In your leader ‘Festival of Ferries’ (Lloyd’s List September 18, 2007) you raise the possibility that “an acceptable safety level is often missing” in ferry operations owing to a lack of “technology transfer between the wealthy, technology-rich industrial world and developing nations”. Thus it seems that you are suggesting ferry losses reflect the wealth of the nation operating them. This is a serious matter and it is good that you recognise it as such for it threatens to involve, as you write, the loss of “many hundreds of people”.

In reality, the loss of lives arising from ro-ro ferry operations reflects the laws of physics and not the wealth of the managing nation. Even the so-called wealthy nations still have their ro-ros capsizing and sinking with such regularity that there should be more concern. The Sea Diamond (an ex-ro-ro), Tricolor, Queen of the North, Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia are in this category.

The truth is that ro-ros are prone to capsizing because their athwartship watertight bulkheads are no higher than the main vehicle deck level. This is just a little above the water line. The design has been developed for the convenience service as roll on -roll off ferries. The commercial benefit of easy cargo handling has taken precedence over safety through the need to raise the bulkheads to the top of the hull.

The Titanic sank for the same reason. The tops of its internal watertight bulkheads were too low so the water of the initial flooding over-flowed successive watertight bulkheads to sink the ship. This defect was recognised by Solas and the bulkheads on all ships built subsequently were raised to the top of the hull with one startlingly exception, ro-ros, even though they often have hundreds of passengers onboard.

Of relevance, on the ro-ro ferries, the tops of these bulkheads are plated over by the vehicle deck, so that if any water enters this space, the tendency is for it to accumulate along the extreme beam of the ship, on one side only, causing the ship to list and roll. It can and often does so very quickly as to sink the ro-ro and drown the people trapped within its hull.

It has nothing to do with the wealth or the poverty of the managing nation except that more people may crowd aboard the ferries of a country in poverty and the poorer nation may have lower safety standards. But the most detailed inquiries into ferry losses, managed by wealthy countries, consistently suggest carelessness.

Of course, ferries do not sink of their own accord. There has to be a careless act to allow any water to get into the vehicle deck. This may be water used to fight a fire, in the internal transfer of ballast or with water entering through a hole in the hull, such as a vehicle door or ship’s side door, an access ladder or a ventilator. This initial carelessness is so unusual that ro-ro ferries are still in common use. But carelessness may allow the ferry to suddenly flood, capsize and sink with the appalling loss of life exceeding not just the hundreds you refer to, but the thousands.

I write at such length, as these losses are commonplace; at least two a year every year. The first ro-ro ferry Princess Victoria disappeared in 1939, while only two months old, and its identical replacement, also Princess Victoria, capsized and sank in 1953. That was the warning our industry should have heeded.

The entire ferry industry is aware of the danger, and remains responsible, but no one seems to be able to ban these ro-ro ferries, or at least ban them from carrying fare-paying passengers. The danger and the deaths persist. It is merely a matter of time till the next casualty and, if the unfortunate ro-ro capsizes quickly while in deep water, it will take its people down with it.

Even pure ro-ro vessels are equally exposed to sudden capsize, when their loss of life might be limited by the small size of their crews, but the removal of such immense ships is a major expense, possibly the most expensive of all sea casualties known to underwriters.

I believe that the solution to avoiding the loss of these people is to ban passengers from ro-ro ferries or, if the passengers must sail on such ferries, to build a new generation of ro-ros with full height athwartship bulkheads (per Solas) carrying vehicles on the top of the hull.

This may mean wider hulls for stability, but that is of small account compared with the continuing loss of life.

KM MacKenzie.
Extra Master. FNI. FICS.
45 Kolokotroni Street.
Piraeus. 185 36
Greece


A pilot’s view of crewing crisis 

SIR, With regard to the International Shipping Federation’s crewing and training conference held in London this year, my observation of ships’ crews from a pilot’s viewpoint is that the remarks made by Helen Jones of DNV, restated below, are the most significant — except the italicised words which should be deleted:

”The problem is not one of malice or sabotage, but a desire to save time, or a belief that they have too much work to do or that there are not enough people to do the work. Often they believe that they are expected to cut corners for commercial reasons, and may even be under pressure from superintendents.”

Superintendents do not usually originate the pressure but are, like the ship’s crews, subject to it and pass it on. At best pressure is forthright, well considered, on the record and delivered without a threatening silent subtext.

Pressure on crews by owners and charterers has always existed and will always exist. Shipping is a tough business with unfettered international competition. It is not in itself a bad thing; owners and charterers have certain rights to demand performance and may use legitimate means to obtain that end. Good crews have always risen to, enjoyed and surpassed the challenge of an owner who can motivate without coercion.

Even if there are not that many committed professional seafarers who want the job any more, good owners will still attract them and thrive.

However, they will not enjoy the kind of loyalty the “company men” of the past gave, even those with in-house career development programmes. Bitter experience has shown that such unqualified dedication eventually leads to dismal prospects at the peak of a career. It is best to learn to recognise the signs, have a survival plan ready and jump ship long before the chop comes. (A bit like chief executives, apart from the absence of a golden parachute.)

The message: “The status quo is not an option and will have to change”, was delivered by the actions of the seafarers themselves long before The International Shipping Federation conference coined that phrase. It will require some honest self- examination among the elites of the whole global marine community ashore, which has collectively created an existence so miserable that even the threat of poverty at home will not retain crews, even over the medium term. Increased financial rewards will work for some who will grab the money for as long as they can tolerate the life — then run. But not to worry, it has all happened before!

Alan Stockdale 
31 Fleming Drive Halifax, 
Nova Scotia 
Canada B3P 1A8 


We must restore respect for our crews

SIR, It comes as little surprise to read (LSM, September 2007) that “insurers believe crew shortages are already contributing to the rising severity of casualties and cost of claims” and that the current shortage, estimated to be as high as 10,000, is forecast to double over the next seven to 10 years.

With the massive building programme and the reluctance to scrap older tonnage, it is difficult to come up with a panacea but, before one starts looking for one, it is important to recognise how the industry got itself into such a pickle.

The reckless and overriding quest to reduce operating costs by discontinuing direct employment and employing crewing agencies, contributed to the initial feeling of disenfranchisement amongseafarers.

In more recent times the situation has been exacerbated by prolonged periods of service; under-manning leading to excessive hours of work; fatigue and the destruction of shipboard social life; the irrational application of the ISPS Code; incessant commercial pressure (particularly on Senior Officers) and increased ‘operational control’ from without the ship; the construction of ships with accommodation more suitable for the inmates of Wormwood Scrubs than the young men and women for whom it is intended; and, until recently, absolutely no assurance about a career in the industry.

Today’s young seafarers will not tolerate being incarcerated in a steel box hurtling from port to port without some opportunity for meaningful shore leave.

They wonder why they must serve with a crew of 14 comprising six different and diverse nationalities, why they are denied the right to enjoy a beer when off duty.

Making two trainees per ship mandatory may, in the short-term, result in a modest amelioration of the situation, but it will do little to solve the real problem — the inability to retain junior and intermediate rank officers.

When 80% of container vessels fail to maintain their schedule, it should be obvious to even the most ambitious operator that the schedule is unrealistic.

When seafarers are willing to be poached in return for ever-increasing salaries, it should be equally obvious that they will move on as soon as a better offer is forthcoming, and leave the industry when their finances permit.

No doubt with the understanding of numerous compliant Registers desirous of maintaining their fleet levels, the ease of obtaining Certificates of Equivalent Competency, the ability of the crewing agencies to look under every stone (including the flat ones), the outpourings of the diverse nautical training establishments globally, and the payment of ever-increasing premiums, many ships will continue to trade.

But if they are to be competently staffed and operate safely and efficiently, then the underlying causes of the current crisis must be addressed.

Captain C R Kelso 
5 Bursledon Heights Bursledon 
Southampton SO31 8DB 


Container lines do put safety first 

SIR, Your editorial concerning the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch’s report into the loss of/damage to boxes on board the containership Annabella (Lloyd’s List, September 14, 2007) rightly stressed that its recommendations deserve to be taken seriously.

Recognising the concerns that might arise from the Annabella and, although we have yet to sight any report, from the loss of MSCNapoli, the International Chamber of Shipping (in co-operation with the US-based World Shipping Council) has already established an expert group to investigate the need for further best-practice guidelines to cover issues associated with stowage planning and the safe loading of container ships. We will report on this work to the International Maritime Organization at the earliest opportunity.

However, there is no evidence at this stage that the problems highlighted with the Annabella are endemic. Most container lines have proven systems to manage the loading of vessels, and would never put commercial considerations before vessel safety.

We would also gently refute any suggestion that the container industry somehow lacks representation. ICS represents all shipping sectors and trades, including containerships, at international regulatory fora.

On containership issues, we benefit greatly from the technical expertise provi-ded by our member national shipowners’ associations, who comprise the world’s largest container shipping companies.

Tony Mason 
Secretary General 
International Chamber of Shipping 
12 Carthusian Street London 
EC1M 6EZ 


Malacca Strait users should pay for its safety

Sir, the leading article ‘Paying to stay safe’ (Sept. 12, 2007) raised an important issue that has not been fully explored.

You note that the Malacca Strait littoral nations cannot afford to install and operate the numerous aids to navigation needed for maritime safety.

You also note that the owners and operators of the ships transiting the strait are reluctant to step forward and pay these costs, fearing that it will set a bad precedent.

You than suggest that the owners and operators take that risk due to the importance of the waterway.

There is another possibility, and one with prior examples.

I suggest that the nations of the transiting vessels contribute to the cost of the service. There are at least two good examples of this. The first is the International Ice Patrol, operated by the United States. In accordance with the provisions in the SOLAS Convention, each year the United States totals the costs of the service, divides it by the percentage of use by ships of the participating nations, and sends bills to each of the participating nations.

The second example is less well known to me. For many years, there was a multi-lateral treaty that provided for payment of the cost of operating the Red Sea lights. I believe it functioned in a manner similar to that utilised by the International Ice Patrol, except that I believe Britain was the lead government. The treaty was terminated when technology greatly minimized the cost of those lights.

Both examples show that a government-to-government funding mechanism can be utilized to address aids to navigation issues. This may be an option for the Malacca Strait situation.

Dennis Bryant,
Holland & Knight LLP,
Washington DC. 


Shame on the City

SIR, I note in the September edition of my union newspaper (Nautilus UK ‘Telegraph’) that the Cutty Sark trust is facing a shortfall of £16m ($32.6m) for restoring the Lady.

I note in the Guardian of August 29 that Bob Diamond of Barclays Bank has been paid £23m for one year and that executive directors’ pay has risen by 37% over one year. Another recent headline tells that bonuses in the City will be an enormous amount — was it £41bn?

What will this tsunami of money leave after it has crashed through the economy? Increased sales of Maseratis and Ferraris, yet more country people priced out of their villages by new money soaking up any spare housing and most of us feeling less and less valued.

But will anything of value in the wider sense remain? I doubt it.

Shame on the City.

Where is the 37% increase in philanthropy, in cultural awareness, in humility?

Shame on the lot of ’em.

One cultural and historical icon, the Cutty Sark, a symbol of the partnership between financial, technical and operational courage and imagination and the heroic time that established London as a world centre, could be saved by these exalted creatures searching behind the cushions in their sofas.

Come on — reach down into those deep pockets, shake the piggy banks, reduce the heir’s allowance for a month and blow the cobwebs off your wallets. You won’t notice it, but the rest of us might. It’s only £16m after all...

If the money is not found, then perhaps we should use what there is to preserve the wreck as it is, as a monument to our foolish age and the paltry minds of those who have begun to believe they really are exceptional, rather than lucky.

Entitle it “The Shame of the City of London”.

Captain A Ian Hale FNI

The Old Vicarage

Barbon

Carnforth

Lancs LA6 2LS

One law for seafarer, one for Euro MPs? 

SIR, Your ’Last Word’ article on the European politicians (described in some non-shipping national papers as MEP’s) crossing the Channel in a unregistered, unequipped, unsuitable craft, receiving only a “good telling off by coastguards”, begs the question what would have happened if they were not MEP’s (who should know better) but a ship’s master, officer or other seafarer.

Would they have been treated as lightly, or would they have been hauled before the courts, possibly thrown in jail, with or without the key thrown away, as appears to many shipping professionals to be the case when even minor misdemeanours are committed by seafarers.

It should not be one law for the seafarer and one for the European politician, a correct prosecution should have been considered.

Nigel E Smith
’Middlecot’, Redden Court Road
Romford, Essex

What crisis of confidence?

SIR, I was a bit surprised, not to say irritated, by the editorial A Cure for Ailing Yards (Lloyd’s List, August 23).

I do not know what has triggered it, but for sure the talk of a “crisis of confidence” is nonsense, and claiming European shipbuilding would be “whining and complaining about unfair competition” only demonstrates how outdated the author is. A small hope that he does see the highly productive shipyards in Europe.

Turnover in commercial shipbuilding in Europe increased 43% last year and the value of orderbooks 33% — a crisis of confidence looks different.

As to the second quote, let me refer to the statement by the CESA Chairman in our latest annual report:

“Accelerating global trade has made shipbuilding an attractive growth market.

“The booming demand since 2004 has motivated a number of new shipbuilding nations to support investments in new shipyards.

“Today, we not only enjoy record orderbooks for shipyards, we also face a record buildup of additional shipyard capacity all around the world.

“Most analysts observe this development with some concern as it appears doubtful that the medium term demand would fill these additional capacities.

“A period of weaker demand in the future could require substantial corrections to the current trend.

“In such a scenario, all stakeholders could be affected. Therefore, it would be helpful to develop on time some effective mechanisms to avoid major damage.

“The market can only deliver optimal results when all players apply the same principal rules.

“CESA, therefore, welcomes the various efforts under way to continue and intensify the dialogue among major shipbuilding nations.”

Reinhard Luken
Community of European Shipyards’Associations
Rue Marie de Bourgogne 52-54, 3rd floor
B-1000 Brussels

Boxes versus bulkers 

SIR, Your lead article August 16 edition, concerning the trend of bulk cargoes such as soyabeans moving in containers is interesting — the freight rate comparisons are not as easy as indicated though.

Container rates include the cost of stevedoring but bulk rates do not. In addition stuffing and unstuffing individual containers with such cargoes is likely to cost more per tonne than pouring thousands of tonnes into a bulker.

Coal cargoes are dirty and would mean steam cleaning costs for boxes unless plastic liners are used etc, etc.

Big container ships are designed to maximise stability/capacity and take large quantities of light 40 ft boxes, not heavy cargoes - the average transpac/teu eastbound weight is probably 8 tonnes or less for example, compared to the 20 tonnes or more you refer to —complicated, n’est ce pas?

Sean Gay 103 Magdalen Rd, SW18

From Sean Gay


No BW Gas semi lay-up 

SIR, The article headlined ”Weak VLGC rates deflate BW Gas profits” in August 16 edition incorrectly states: ”Meanwhile, up to a quarter of the fleet remains in semi lay-up.“ If you have a look at the second quarter presentation on our website, you will see that BW Gas has no vessels in semi lay-up. At the most there were five vessels in semi lay-up (out of a fleet of over 90) but these have now all been employed.

Ole Ekhaugen
Information & PR
BW Gas


There’s a lot in a name 

Sir, Thanks for Michael Grey’s story about the buying and selling of ships, (Viewpoint, August 6).

We recently stayed at a hotel which we had huge difficulty booking. The previous owners had taken the domain name with them and not made it available to the new owners. Based on the problems illustrated in Michael’s article, might it be advantageous for ships to have domain names — www.shipname.ship? It might be worth campaigning for.

David Hirst,
Hirst Solutions Limited 
david@davidhirst.com


The element of risk has always been present

SIR, I refer to your editorial on July 17, ‘The Risk Takers’, and would like to take the liberty of thanking you on behalf of all masters for such a brilliant description of today’s risk situation and the instant but lonely decisions they so frequently have to make.

You make the point that it has probably never been any different.

I agree and feel sure the pressure on the captain of the teaclipper balancing the waiting for that last chest and still catching the tide wouldn’t be so different from the 12,000 teu containership master being persuaded to hold on for those last few containers under the same circumstances (and possibly the same place!).

I recollect while serving as chief officer in the very early days of containers, a former colleague who was managing the new Modern Terminal in Hong Kong asked — even though a typhoon was approaching and ships were advised to put to sea — whether I could persuade our very experienced master to stay alongside a bit longer and complete the loading, as we were no longer dependent on the junks to deliver cargo.

I well remember the captain’s reply: “Tell your friend that he may be operating a modern terminal, but I’m dealing with an old fashioned typhoon... we’re sailing now.”

Captain Ken Owen FRIN MNI
Rowarth
High Peak
Derbyshire


Prevention should be the key to reducing level of claims

SIR, With great interest I read the article “Claims reach ‘appalling’ levels”, Lloyd’s List, July 19, and felt compelled to attempt to shed some light on this sensitive matter.

In my opinion, costlier claims are due to the fact that we live in times where ships are getting ever bigger.

Although we have not seen a 500,000 tonne-plus vessel built since the 1970s, those built between 2000 and 2006 have an average dwt double than those built in the 1980s.

Another indicator of increasingly large ships is the proportion of vessels that are more than 100,000 tonnes dwt. This decade has seen a more than threefold increase in comparison to the 1980s.

Logic follows that the larger the vessel, the more expensive it is to acquire, especially in the current market. Thus, in the event of an incident, the cost of claim will have an upward trend.

This is without mentioning the cargo damage, which too will be greater due to the higher volumes and values of cargo carried.

Maritime incidents take place, and will continue to take place as a result of either an act of God or human error.

By act of God, a reference is made to the loss that is attributable to natural causes independent of any human intervention and where nothing can be done to prevent them.

Incidents that are attributable to human error are far more multi-angled and can be caused as a result of insufficient training, fatigue, error in judgment on the part of the master, error of the pilot while the vessel navigates in port, poor communication and subordination among the seagoing crew, or unclear communication channels between the seagoing and shore-based personnel of the company concerned.

Although we cannot control natural events, we can and must influence the human element side, which is the primary cause of maritime accidents.

It might be more constructive for the industry to be asking from now on not just how an incident took place but what can be done to make sure it will not happen again.

Panagiotis Tsakos 
Global Manager — Marine Aon Ltd 
8 Devonshire Square 
London EC2M4PL


Guidelines point the way to fairer treatment of accident victims 

SIR, Your report, Lloyd’s List July 20, about the continuing legal limbo suffered by the master of the Prestige, Apostolos Mangouras, also highlighted general concerns about what can only be described as the most unacceptable treatment of seafarers by some investigating authorities during the aftermath of maritime incidents.

We would therefore like to draw the industry’s attention to at least one potentially positive development.

I refer to the adoption last year, by the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organisation, of Guidelines on Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a Maritime Accident.

These were developed with significant input and much encouragement from the International Shipping Federation and International Chamber of Shipping on behalf of shipowners.

If these IMO-ILO guidelines are followed by investigating authorities, they should do much to ensure in future that seafarers unfortunate enough to be involved in maritime casualties enjoy the same rights to ”due legal process” in the coastal state as any other professionals.

Although too late to assist Capt Mangouras, it is crucial that governments are now lobbied by all sections of their national shipping industries to ensure that the guidelines to which they have subscribed are fully implemented in practice.

Tony Mason 
Secretary-general 
International Shipping Federation/International Chamber of Shipping


Clarifiying auditor guidance in cases of ISM non-compliance

SIR, with reference to the letter from Dr EJ Hughes on July 9, “Steer clear of corrective action on ISM”, commenting on my letter of July 4, asking for IMO auditor guidelines for the appropriate corrective action in line with the port state control regime procedures, I would appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on this matter further.

First, I apologise for not being quite specific in my conclusion, which was to provide the ISM auditor with some guidance for the issuance of non-conformity, pointing at the port state control inspection’s practice of “more specific definition of possible deficiencies and the relevant corrective actions” as I wrote.

I am sorry this statement might be misleading, as it is not the auditor but the company that “is responsible for determining and initiating the corrective action needed to correct a non-conformity or to correct the cause of the non-conformity”. (IMO res. A.913(22), Ch. 3.12.1)

My letter was initiated by a relevant case, where the auditor stated some non-fulfilments of the ISM code as lack of procedures for the ‘key operation’ and lack of training procedures and experience requirement for the relevant crew to operate the equipment, for which was issued several non-conformities (with the ‘standard’ three-month due date).

Since the infancy of the ISM code, there has been great confusion about the optimal division between the non-conformity and major non-conformity issuance, as the consequences with respect to the issuance and validity of the ISM certificates are enormous.

I suggested that some auditors might feel tempted to use the most lenient option. Even if the safety aspect of the ship and crew could in some cases justify the strongest alternative, which again calls for the involvement of the administration (the classification societies do not possess the power of withdrawal of the ISM code certificates).

And this is the reason for my comparison with the port state inspection regulation, the introduction of an ‘action time frame’, which may give the auditor the possibility to graduate a non-conformity in proportion to the safety impact for the ship and the crew.

As already experienced by the port state inspection, a more robust auditing ‘time frame action’ (such as urgent/detention) might trigger some unwanted court prosecutions, but it might save some seafarers’ lives.

Arne Sagen
Retired ISO Q assessor, 
ISM code auditor, port state inspector, seafarer.
The Skagerrak Foundation, Norway 


Role of insurers key to beating piracy

SIR, Your editorial on June 29 on piracy off Somalia and the message it delivers would, I am certain, be supported by anyone in the marine world who has had to grapple with the problem, wherever it emerges around the globe.

However, your reference to the progress made in the Malacca Strait by the co-ordinated efforts of the littoral states to tackle piracy triggered a wry smile as I read it.

I recall that the efforts of underwriters and the Joint War Committee to get the region to co-operate and acknowledge the problem were greeted with an element of ridicule, and even caricature, by your publication, as we attempted to price what we perceived then to be an enhanced risk.

I think the insurance market played a significant part in improving the safety of seafarers and their vessels sailing in the region, and perhaps eventually after some reflection, recognition of our contribution might replace the criticism heaped on the market at the time.

Was it simply an accident of timing that the Joint War Committee’s action was followed by littoral government officials meeting to discuss the problem, and finally tackle it, with unprecedented coordinated commitment?

Rupert Atkin
Director of underwriting and active underwriter
Talbot Underwriting
55 Gracechurch Street
London EC3V OJP

Market process efficiency — strategies for accelerating the pace of change

SIR, Further to recent comments by Dane Douetil [chief executive of Brit Insurance], the purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update on the current status of efforts to improve the market’s operational processes, both at a market level and also for your individual business. I will also highlight the steps the Franchise Board will be taking over the remainder of the year in the event that progress falls behind expectations.

I have no doubt that there is a shared will in the market to improve our processes and much progress has been made. The pace of change, however, is still too slow. Improvements to the market’s processes are fundamental to the ongoing competitiveness of the Lloyd’s market.

In a survey of managing agents that we recently conducted, the chief executives of managing agents confirmed that leading and delivering improvements to process efficiency was one of the key areas of focus for the corporation.

Two key initiatives in this area are the use of electronic claims files (ECF) and the accounting and settlement repository (A&S). The Lloyd’s Three-Year Plan sets targets for the usage of both of these systems, and we have a shared interest in ensuring these targets are met. The systems are available, further versions are being rolled out on schedule and we are not aware of any material barriers to brokers and managing agents utilising them.

The published Market Reform Group (MRG) targets for A&S take-up are 40% by the end of the second quarter, 60% by the end of quarter three and 80% by the end of fourth quarter of 2007. The market’s current use of A&S is 17%. This is disappointing. We do, however, recognise that increasing the use of A&S is primarily driven by brokers’ adoption and behaviour.

We will continue to engage with the brokers and XIS to improve the speed of take-up. I would ask that you use every opportunity to encourage your broker counterparties to do so. During 2008, the Chatham van will be withdrawn, so brokers who are not using the A&S repository will have to make their own arrangements.

The adoption of ECF is an area where the managing agents can more directly influence the rate of adoption. The published MRG targets for ECF usage are 30% by the end of Q2, 60% by the end of Q3 and 100% by end of the Q4 2007. The market level use of ECF over the last two weeks is 28.5%. This is encouraging, but we need to ensure the momentum is maintained.

With such strong support for these initiatives, both from managing agents and leading brokers in London, the Franchise Board has considered carefully how it can encourage, accelerate and ultimately mandate the adoption of key market processes in the Lloyd’s market. Failure to improve our processes represents a risk to the market’s efficiency, ratings and reputation and we cannot miss this opportunity to modernise.

The Franchise Board recognises that the majority of managing agents have committed to transact all in-scope claims via ECF, and that successful take-up for both initiatives is heavily dependent upon broker commitment to usage.

While progress has been made, the board is committed to taking firm action where necessary to accelerate change but recognises it is important to signal its intentions at an early stage, so that the market can properly plan for the future. The following steps will be taken:

• beginning immediately, there will be a heightened level of engagement with all managing agents and Lloyd’s brokers to understand in each case how use of ECF and A&S can be accelerated, and what support the corporation can provide. We will, as now, provide businesses with their own performance data;

• at the end of Q3, the Franchise Board will publish a complete list of performance figures for all managing agents and Lloyd’s brokers. This will make relative performance transparent to the market and if the rate of use has not accelerated by that time, the Franchise Board will consider mandating the use of ECF and A&S.

The board has the power to mandate the use of such systems under paragraph 12 of the underwriting byelaw. To support that mandate, the Franchise Board will look to a range of options including:

• requiring managing agents to enter into revised terms of business agreements with Lloyd’s brokers to agree contractually appropriate use of ECF and A&S;

• requiring managing agents to include within each contract of insurance clauses requiring the appropriate use of ECF and A&S;

• with regard to usage of ECF, where poor performance is directly linked to the competence or the capabilities of the managing agent, requiring appropriate restrictions on business plans and, in particular, the business led by that syndicate;

• requiring managing agents whose use of ECF is poor to commission a ‘skilled person’s’ report to identify the causes of poor performance and improvements.

• where a managing agent’s performance is unacceptably poor, the imposition of a capital loading to reflect the threat that this represents to the market as a whole. The Franchise Board would look to impose such loadings for mid-year coming into line in 2008.

I hope these steps will not be necessary, but there should be no question of the Franchise Board’s commitment to take them if needed. This approach has the support of the MRG.

For the sake of completeness, I will briefly address the issue of Pre-Bind Quality Assurance (PBQA). This is critical to contract certainty and contract quality. As such, this year’s individual capital assessment (ICA) review will include scrutiny of each managing agent’s PBQA processes and assess the level of operational risk that they may represent. The importance of a robust PBQA process has been stressed to ICA team leaders. Inadequate processes will lead to operational risk loadings.

If there is anything Lloyd’s can do to assist you in your use of PBQA or ECF do not hesitate to contact me. I will ensure we are ready to support the market in every way we can to fully deliver these initiatives on time.

Richard Ward 
Chief executive 
Lloyd’s 


Trials and tribulations of being a tug master 

SIR, I note with interest that Lloyd’sList will feature towing and I presume also harbour-sea and ocean towing in Lloyd’s List on July 20.

I was master of the oceangoingtug Tradesman, an oil-burningsteam tug owned by United TowingCo of Hull.

In January 1956, with a Dutch tug,we towed the steamer Port Fairy from Piraeus to Palermo. I then towed anoil exploration vessel from the River Tyne to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea via Suez and Jakarta, then to Mombasa for a boiler clean and then to Zanzibar to tow the sultan’s state and cargo steamer Al Said to Hong Kong via Colombo.

Then two tows from Jakarta toHong Kong, first a tank landing ship and second an obsolete passenger vessel which sank 20 miles from Hong Kong.

We made our way westwards to Colombo as the Suez Canal at that time was closed.

While at Colombo I received information that the tanker Drafn was aground on the island of Minieoy.

This was a new vessel of 11,900 gt on passage from Australia to the Middle East Gulf.

It went ashore at 14 knots. After receiving authority from my owners, I sailed from Colombo to assist the Drafn.

On arrival, I boarded the vessel and advised on ballast distribution.

We made connection at sunset and high water was around 0100 hrs the next day and we refloated it around midnight, which was November 16, 1956.

We escorted Drafn to Colombo. I later received an order to proceed to Aden and tow a steamer to HongKong.

After sailing from Colombo I received a message from our agent quoting a report from a British warship about the German vessel Max Arlt aground in the Maldive Islands.

The warship had taken the passengers off the Max Arlt but stated the area was too dangerous for them to remain near.

On this information I found and made contact with the Max Arlt. It was on a reef on the windward side.

We eventually connected and after three high tides we refloated and escorted it into Male anchorage for cargo discharge and a seaworthy survey. This was now December 3, 1956.

From Male we proceeded to Aden to tow the steamer Velho to Hong Kong via Colombo and Singapore. After delivery at Hong Kong we towed a newly built bunker vessel to harbour and towed Sri Tutoh, a cargo motor barge to Hong Kong.

At Hong Kong we waited while completion of the new bunkering barge Tiram was made — it was then towed to Jakarta.

After delivery of this barge, we headed home. The Suez Canal had by this time reopened and we arrived back in England on July 3, 1957, 18 months after departure.

In total we covered 56,500 miles having crossed the Indian Ocean six times.

Capt William Valentine Hopper 
65 Corby Park North Ferriby 
East Yorks HU 14 3 AX


Steer clear of corrective action on ISM 

SIR, With reference to the letter from Arne Sagen, ‘Non-fulfilment of ISM Code obligations must be sorted out’, Lloyd’s List, July 4, we would welcome a debate about how the industry might improve the effectiveness of implementation of the ISM Code.

However, we would wish to express a note of caution towards Mr Sagen’s idea that to improve the current implementation of the code we should consider prescribing what corrective action should be employed for a specific non-conformity identified.

The strength of the ISM Code is that it provides companies and masters the opportunity to interpret the code in a manner that reflects and is suitable for the operations and environment in which they trade. Likewise, the code provides auditors with the scope to explore the effectiveness of the safety management system, both ashore and on board, to establish whether it is fit for purpose.

Both permit a pro-active approach to be taken whereby hazards are identified and risks, mitigated before they are even identified as non-conformities.

As a flag state, it is our responsibility to ensure that our auditors have sufficient knowledge, training and experience to interpret how the safety management system meets the requirements of the code within a given context.

That way we assure ourselves that the ISM Code is being implemented effectively in those companies and ships to which we issue a document of compliance and safety management certificate respectively. Prescribing what is and, by its absence from any given list, what is not an effective corrective action would result in limiting the scope of those audits.

Further, it could risk inappropriate corrective actions being imposed that are disproportionate and could fail to adequately address the root cause.

Dr E J Hughes
CEng MIMarEST 
ISM policy manager Risk, Analysis & Prevention Branch 
Maritime and Coastguard Agency


UK first for oil spill Cat 

SIR, I notice in your issue of June 27 you state that the Port of Rotterdam Authority has commissioned what is believed to be the first oil spill response catamaran.

Not true. We at the BP Hamble Oil Terminal have been using an oil spill catamaran by OMI Ltd Pollution Control of Tonbridge for the last 17 years.

The vessel is always on stand-by whenever we are loading crude oil from the Wytch Farm Oilfield at Poole, Dorset and, happily, has never been used in ‘anger’, although there have been a couple of instances when it has helped others in oil spill clean-ups.

Capt Emma Tiller

Marine Superintendent

BP Oil Terminal

Hamble Lane

Hamble-Le-Rice

Southampton SO31 4NR


Losing Ladyman is ‘sad, mad and bad’ 

SIR, The recent sweeping changes to the UK government’s ministerial line up have produced some winners and losers.

But one particular casualty has hurt the maritime industry inexplicably; the Minister of State with responsibility for Ports and Shipping, Stephen Ladyman MP, has gone, not to another ministry, but to the back benches. This is sad, mad and bad for the UK’s powerful maritime interests; not because the new demoted post of Parliamentary Under Secretary, Jim Fitzpatrick, isn’t a worthy replacement.

But because it is clearly a waste of talent and leaves much unfinished business.

Dr Ladyman was universally popular as the UK’s shipping minister and he worked very hard for one of the least visible parts of the transport industry. His approach was always sensible, level headed and he demonstrated a sureness of foot and a level of impressive competence in handling his diverse portfolio.
I am sure that there will be many like me, from all sides of the political spectrum, who wish him well and hope that he will return to government. We will all welcome Jim Fitzpatrick as the new minister and wish him well with his new portfolio. He has a hard act to follow.

We can only trust he will quickly carry on the hard work of promoting the unsung and often ignored interests of Britain’s great maritime industry.

Nicholas Finney
Managing director
The Waterfront Partnership
130-132 Tooley Street
London SE1 2TU



Fitzpatrick is good choice for ministry 

SIR, Further to your article ‘Fitzpatrick gets UK shipping portfolio’, (Lloyd’s List, July 4), the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers would also like to welcome Jim Fitzpatrick to the shipping portfolio.

The RMT has worked constructively with Mr Fitzpatrick on other matters and I am sure this will continue as he will certainly have a full intray. We have sometimes been frustrated at the lack of progress on certain issues within the shipping industry, but lately there has been an expectation amongst industry representatives that action would be forthcoming.

In particular, the industry has recently submitted a joint document seeking improved support for UK seafarers training and progress was expected. The new minister will also need to quickly grasp the consultation on the Race Relations Act and the mounting concern on employment standards on the UK Flag.

We look forward to working with Mr Fitzpatrick and to see progress on these issues.

Bob Crow
RMT general secretary



Rebranding pirates

SIR, The disgraceful seizure of the little Danica White nearly 250 miles off the Somali coast, under the watchful surveillance of warships not empowered tointervene, seems to demonstrate a legalistic attitude that requires to be confronted.

A few weeks earlier, a US destroyer had shelled a coastal Somali village where known terrorists, supposed to be of the al-Qaeda brand, were sheltering.

Perhaps if we “rebranded” the pirates as terrorists, the armed forces and their legal minders ashore would be more enthusiastic about “hot pursuit”, hunting down and eradicating these violent criminals with extreme prejudice.

The intervention of Efthimios Mitropoulos, the IMO Secretary-General in this respect is most welcome. Let’s hope he gets the appropriate backup from the UN.

Captain G Brander
Purley
Surrey CR8 3HR



Wind turbines: a lot of hot air over nothing

SIR, I am sorry to see Michael Grey’s unreformed views of wind turbines aired again (Lloyd’s List, June 25), along with the rather superficial (and wrong) analysis of what happens when the wind is not blowing.

The right answer to the conundrum is to “do your laundry when the wind is blowing”. Or rather, not do it when it is not, as smart appliances have a lot of flexibility as to when to consume.

Mostly, so long as they meet your deadline, you do not care when they run.

David Hirst
Hirst Solutions Limited
mailto:david@davidhirst.com


Non-fulfilment of ISM Code obligations must be sorted out 

SIR, With reference to your article, ‘ISM Code too lenient on Bourbon Dolphin’, Lloyd’s List, July 2, from the very first introduction of the ISM Code there has been some confusion about its correct definition of non-fulfilment of requirements.

The code has three options for non-fulfilment reporting: 1) An “observation”, which is not requiring any formal corrective action; 2) a “non-conformity”, defined as “an observed situation where objective evidence indicate the non-fulfilment of a specific requirement”, and 3) a “major non-conformity”, which means “an identifiable deviation which poses a serious threat to personnel or ships’ safety or a serious risk to the environment and requires immediate corrective action”.

In addition, the lack of effective and systematic implementation of a requirement of the ISM Code is also considered as a major non-conformity. These require quite different actions and have different consequences with respect to both immediate corrective actions and for the issuance of the ISM Code certificate at the initial audit, or the endorsement of the certificate at the annual or intermediate audits. Experience has revealed several practical problems caused by this rather inconsistent definition of the audit requirement. Even worse, it is practised differently by the different administrations.

Another problem is that the ISM Code’s definition of a major non-conformity is very close to the statutory law’s definition of “non-seaworthiness”.

If this really is the intention of the ISM Code, the required immediate corrective action or detention of the ship or loss of the ISM Code certificate is self-evident.

This relation put an immense responsibility to the auditor.

This may be the reason that most ISM Code auditors prefer to downgrade apossible serious deficiency to a non-conformity statement, which again heavily minimises the consequences of thedeficiency, even when the safety aspect of the ship and crew could justify a major non-conformity statement.

Consequently, as shown by statistic, the ISM Code’s most important corrective measure, the impact of the issuance of a Major Non-conformity, has been greatly reduced. This practice cannot be in the interest of the ISM Code’s objectives of an effective safety management code.

The Skagerrak Foundation has requested that the International Maritime Organization should scrupulously investigate whether such a dilution of the most important tools for corrective action is developing in the ISM Code auditing, alternatively urging the administrations to provide the ISM Code auditors with a more specific definition of possible deficiencies and the relevant corrective action, as already practised by the Port State Control inspection.

Arne Sagen
Lead ISM auditor,
The Skagerrak Foundation,
Billingstad, Norway



No claims against Rina over Al Salam

SIR, I refer to the article “Al Salam legal fight targets Rina” (Lloyd’s List, June 5) referring to events arising from the sinking of the ferry Al Salam Boccaccio 98 in the Red Sea last year.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to draw the attention of your readers to a statement in the article which is inaccurate. In fact, Rina has never been the subject of any claim involving this vessel in respect of passenger loss of life, and no claimant has ever looked to Rina for damages in this respect.

As your reporter correctly states, a formal application was made by an Italian law firm seeking the production by Rina of documentation relating to the vessel. Having been authorised only by the vessel’s former owner and former flag, Rina produced documents, in accordance with Italian law, for the period from when the ship was launched until 1999, when it passed to new owners.

Rina does not propose to make any further comment on the contents of the article, since it does not want to feed in any way the speculation that inevitably attends tragic accidents of this kind.

Mario Dogliani

Director, corporate communications

Rina


UK courts take naïve view of shipping deals

SIR, Your article ‘Take care in English courts, owners told’, Lloyd’s List, Thursday 31 May, cites a number of potential problems to Scandinavian shipping interests concerning the reluctance of the English courts to accept that contracts have been made — including contracts where the words ‘subject to.’ appeared.

It seems to me that this is a somewhat naïve approach.

Almost every shipping deal I have been involved in over the last 35 years has concluded with the question or the statement: “are there any subjects still outstanding?/all subjects have been lifted”.

The deal is ‘clean’ or ‘fully fixed’ once subjects are lifted.

Where charter party or MOA contracts are concerned the fact that there are subjects is surely a ‘taken for granted’ protection by most that there is no contract until they are lifted? Any further comment welcomed.

Sean Gay 103 Magdalen Rd London SW18 3NW


Cutty Sark is a legend that must live on

SIR, With reference to Michael Grey’s evocative Viewpoint on last month’s fire on the Cutty Sark, I should like to cast a vote very firmly in favour of the continued restoration of that magnificent "old clipper".

Indeed, when speaking at the Seatrade Awards dinner, on the evening of the very day the fire broke out, I said that, despite the setbacks the accident had caused, we should move, and move fast, to do our duty and preserve her, not only for the British nation but also for the maritime community as a whole.

I strongly believe that legends, such as the Cutty Sark, should not be allowed to perish. That is why I was delighted when, on the following morning, my colleagues at IMO decided to set up a collection in support of the preservation efforts – to which I have pledged my own support.

I would, therefore, call on all to play their role generously so that, collectively, our response is commensurate with the grandeur of the legend that is the Cutty Sark.

EE Mitropoulos Secretary-General International Maritime Organization


Clarifying conventions

SIR, I refer to the article appearing in the last page of Lloyd’s List, dated 31 May 2007, headed ‘Owners get tough on wreck removal’, which states that the Ship Insurance and Liability Committee of the Asian Shipowners’ Forum has ‘agreed to call for the development of a single insurance certificate that would cover all ships under the relevant IMO liability and compensation conventions’.

The article also notes the forum welcomed the recent adoption of the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks but regarded it as unfortunate that in developing the convention ‘an opportunity would appear to have been missed to create a uniform liability regime for wreck removal in territorial waters’.

With respect to these comments, I would offer the following clarifications.

A diplomatic conference was convened by the International Maritime Organization at the Headquarters of the United Nations Office at Nairobi, from 14 to 18 May, the outcome of which was the successful adoption of the above-mentioned convention. The convention, once in force, will provide a sound legal basis for states to remove, or have removed, shipwrecks which may pose a danger to the safety of navigation or to the marine environment, or both.

The convention, as originally drafted by IMO’s Legal Committee, would have applied only to wrecks located in the Exclusive Economic Zone of a State Party, or, where a State Party has not established such a zone, an equivalent area extending not more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured. In light, however, of the fact that many shipwrecks occur closer to shore, the conference agreed to allow states to apply certain provisions of the convention, on a voluntary basis, to their territory, including the territorial sea. Not all states may choose to do so, as many already have legislation which applies to wrecks in this area. One potential benefit of using the optional clause would be to facilitate insurance cover in the event that a wreck might occur.

In recognition of the fact that the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks requires that a compulsory insurance certificate attesting that insurance or other financial security is in force on the same basis as previously established liability and compensation conventions, the conference also adopted a resolution inviting IMO and, in particular, its Legal Committee, “to develop a model for a single insurance certificate which may be issued by States Parties in respect of each and every ship under the relevant IMO liability and compensation conventions”.

This will be addressed by the Legal Committee, which is scheduled to meet in October, and which will, no doubt, take into account the corresponding provisions of relevant IMO instruments.

Dr Rosalie P Balkin Director, Legal Affairs and External Relations Division


Timetable of progress on creating LRIT system

SIR, I refer to last week’s article entitled “IMO’s plans for long-range tracking under threat from lack of funds”. As it contains a number of factual inaccuracies, I provide below an overview of the work done so far for the timely establishment of the long-range identification and tracking system of ships.

The Maritime Safety Committee in May, 2006, when adopting the related amendments to the 1974 Solas Convention and the associated performance standards and functional requirements for LRIT, took a number of decisions specifically designed to ensure the setting up of the LRIT system. It is worth noting that regulation V/19-1 of Solas, which governs LRIT and is expected to enter into force on January 1, 2008, envisages a phased-in implementation starting on December 31, 2008, and ending on March 30, 2010.

The matter was subsequently reviewed by the committee when it met in December, 2006, and a “road map” has been established which so far has been adhered to. The sub-committee on radio communications and search and rescue has carried out the tasks assigned to it when it met last February and the ad hoc engineering working group on LRIT is expected to complete its work on the various technical aspects of the LRIT system when it meets in June.

In addition, an intersessional meeting of the MSC working group on LRIT has been scheduled to take place in July to consider matters relating to the timely establishment of the LRIT system which are of a non-technical nature.

The committee is due to meet during October in Copenhagen and is expected to review and approve the work done, take decisions in relation to the establishment of the International LRIT Data Centre and the International LRIT Data Exchange and address any problems in relation to existing shipborne equipment which may be used to transmit LRIT information. At that time the IMO Secretariat intends to demonstrate the prototype of the LRIT data distribution plan which is one of the key components of the LRIT system.

The committee has also appointed the International Mobile Satellite Organisation as LRIT co-ordinator to perform a number of tasks specified in the relevant performance standards adopted.

Since the establishment of the LRIT system is the collective responsibility of the 158 contracting governments to Solas, the October session of the committee will review progress made and decide necessary measures to ensure that the LRIT system is established within the time frame agreed in relevant amendments to Solas. K Sekimizu,

Director, Maritime Safety Division


Clearing up issues obscured by smoke 

SIR, Lloyd List’s edition on May 16 contains a piece entitled “Smoking out vessels” which states that “the main smoke-free provisions under the UK government’s legislation to be implemented on July 1 may apply to seagoing and inland waterway vessels to and from UK ports”.

This gives the impression that smoke-free legislation could apply to ships as of July 1. This is not the case. The Department for Transport has stated that the earliest that any such provisions will apply to ships will be spring 2008.

It has also recognised the practical issues particular to shipping, notably that a ship is often a seafarer’s home as well as his or her workplace and that safety considerations and lack of space aboard certain ships make the provision of smoking rooms difficult. If you would like more information on this topic, please email 

Tim Springett

Chamber of Shipping

Head of Labour Affairs


ICS standpoint on inert gas rule

SIR, I wish to correct an inaccuracy in your report of May 9 “Fatal blast on Indonesian ship reignites product and chemical tanker concerns”.

Although this inaccuracy concerns the report to IMO submitted by the Inter-Industry Working Group on tanker explosions in May 2006, please note I am writing on behalf of ICS rather than the group as a whole.

Contrary to your report, the IIWG did not recommend making inert gas mandatory for existing oil tankers below 20,000 dwt and for existing chemical tankers.

The relevant recommendation relating to existing tankers was: “If [IMO] wishes to consider the application of inert gas to existing ships, the IIWG would suggest that this should be based on the principles of resolution A.900(21) on Objectives of the Organisation in the 2000s including a Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) study and a cost-benefit analysis.”

To some this might seem like splitting hairs.

However, subsequent IMO sub-committee discussions have agreed that, should a mandatory inert gas requirement emerge for new ships, only after gaining technical and operational experience on new ships would it be appropriate to consider possible retro-fitting to existing ships.

John Murray

Marine Adviser

International Chamber of Shipping


Turkey has never wavered in its port state control responsibilities 

SIR, the Republic of Turkey was perhaps one of the first states in the world to carry out port state control.

The main Turkish legislation on Safety at Sea is Law No. 4922, named “Law on the Protection of Life and Property At Sea”, and has been in force since June 10, 1946.

Article 6 of this law reads: “All commercial ships which have seaworthiness certificates and which would sail to the sea beyond port boundaries shall be inspected before travel, in terms of life-saving, firefighting, fire protection and navigation equipment, seamen, supplies and fuel, number of passengers, type of the cargo, stacking and loading mark; and any commercial ship which do not comply with the relevant statute shall not be permitted to navigate.”

It shall be borne in mind that this law applies to all ships calling at Turkish ports regardless of flag. Several hundreds of thousands of port state control inspections have been carried out in accordance with this law during the past 61 years.

Modern PSC started in Turkey after the 1997 signing of Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding. The Black Sea MoU was signed in 2000. An active member of both memoranda, Turkey has always considered the safety and pollution prevention at sea a prime responsibility and high priority. Due to the severe economic crisis affecting the country in the first years of our memoranda, resources were restricted. Consequently, numbers of PSC officers were limited and the number of inspections was not as high as desired.

But positive progress has been achieved with strengthened economic conditions combined with increasing levels of professionalism and competence and the strong commitment of the Turkish government.

Over the last four years, the number of port state control officers has continuously increased. Statistical figures also indicate that the improvement is widespread.

Today, the Turkish Maritime Authority has more than 250 officers authorised for surveys of Turkish ships and PSC inspections. There are around 60 surveyors solely authorised for flag state inspections.

With regards to training: a minimum marine service on ships for two years is a prerequisite for PSC officers with a marine background. A minimum of two years of field working experience in the shipping industry is required for naval architects. Verbal and written command of the English language is another important requirement.

After assignation to port duties, all inspectors receive at least two months of practical and one week of theoretical training. The training is mostly given by qualified and experienced Turkish PSC officers, who have undertaken “training of trainers” programmes in EU and Paris MoU member countries.

In the last period, training seminars and visits are conducted under MoU programmes and EU twinning projects.

The new officers are only given authority to carry out port state inspections once they have completed the training programme and have received positive reports from senior inspectors and succeeded with their technical examination. Candidate PSC officers are still under training for eight months.

Officers authorised for port state control inspections are presented with an identification card, showing that “the holder is authorised to carry out port state control inspections on behalf of Republic of Turkey as per the ratified MoU and in accordance with the IMO Resolution A.787 (19) as amended”.

Port state control is a strong international tool with powerful implications.

Port state control officers have huge authority and powers when undertaking their duties.

Power may corrupt if ethical and moral values are not respected properly. Turkish UMA is sensitive to demonstrate uncompromising ethical conduct and moral behaviour in all of inspections carried out by the Turkish port state control officers.

All officers are maritime professionals and they are all aware that PSC is a national duty with significant international implications. It is a duty which should be executed with pride, but also with extreme caution.

Turkish UMA is dedicated to upholding its code of good conduct on PSC inspections and it is confident about its officers’ adherence to ethical and moral values.

There are several indications for this confidence. Turkish PSC has the highest detention rate of’ the region. This shows that no other criteria but standards for safety at sea are ruling the quality of inspections.

Despite the high inspection and detention numbers, not a single case of corruption has been reported, encountered or no such notification has been received from shipping interests.

Özkan Poyraz

Republic of Turkey

Prime Ministry

Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs

General Director of Maritime Transportation


No pre-conceived list is possible for places of refuge

SIR, Further to the article concerning the beaching of MSC Napoli in Lyme Bay (Lloyd’s List, May 10), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would like to clarify the situation concerning places of refuge.

The National Contingency Plan recognises that anywhere around the UK’s coasts could be a place of refuge. The UK would consider it unwise pre-emptively to rule anywhere in or out as a potential place of refuge.

There can be no pre-conceived list or ranking of places of refuge in waters as complex as ours because each incident has its own unique, transient and varied nature.

When a ship in need of assistance requires a place of refuge, Sosrep inevitably takes account of all the factors which relate to that specific incident, such as the weather, the location and the type of threat posed by the vessel and its cargo.

That established process allows him to determine the most appropriate place of refuge, minimising adverse consequences, for that particular incident.

In making such judgements, Sosrep necessarily builds on information which has been assembled pre-event.

This information includes a partial inventory of the UK’s coast, providing a generic analysis of locations which could become a place of refuge for ships in particular circumstances.

This information is assembled and kept up to date by the MCA — it can be viewed on the MCA website.

This partial inventory is used as a tool, in conjun- ction with other published sources, to identify the most suitable place of refuge on the day for a particular incident.

The partial inventory is not, and does not need to be, exhaustive, but it includes ports, harbours, anchorages, bays, inlets and sets out detailed information about each place.

Mark Clark

MCA Public Relations

Manager 


MCA dispute did not affect lifeboat cover

SIR, The press report summary covering the recent Coastguard strike, ‘Labour Disputes’, published on Monday, reported that volunteer lifeboat crews were withdrawing from providing emergency cover.

The MCA does not, of course, operate lifeboats and I would like to reassure your readers, many of whom support our charity, that RNLI search and rescue operations were not at any time affected by the dispute within HM Coastguard.

In fact, 93% of the lifeboat services for the UK are provided, usually at the request of HM Coastguard, by the RNLI’s overwhelmingly volunteer crews.

Spencer Gammond

Head of external

communications RNLI


In defence of sea water scrubbers and their contribution to cleaner shipping

SIR, I refer to the article ‘Intertanko is spreading disinformation on sulphur scrubbers says BP-Krystallon’ (Lloyd’s List, April 17, 2007) reporting on comments made by Peter Swift, managing director of Intertanko, and the rebuttal from the sea water scrubber manufacturer Krystallon.

I believe that Mr Swift has been seriously mis-advised by his organisation on some of the factual claims he has made at the recent Sea Asia conference. To help resolve these mis-understandings I would like to invite Mr Swift to accompany me on a visit to one of our sea water scrubbing installations so he can see for himself how effective and compact these systems and that in many cases they are a relatively easy retro-fit installation.

It is hard to imagine that the rational shipowner or charterer would wish to constrain his or her future choice of marine fuel. Unfortunately, life is not as simple as a switch to a “cleaner fuel” and then all your air quality challenges go away.

In fact with the cleanest road fuels, all modern cars are being required to be fitted with after-treatment systems. Exhaust gas after-treatment is also common in large combustion plants in industry and utilities.

The big advantage a ship has over most other modes of transport is that there is usually sufficient space to locate after-treatment systems, enabling continuing fuel choice, while achieving very low, and I forecast as after treatment technology develops, close to zero harmful emissions.

The P&O Ferries’ Pride of Kent has a Krystallon sea water scrubbing system fitted to the starboard outer auxiliary engine. With over 8,000 hours of operating experience it continues to reduce emissions of sulphur oxides to less than 10 ppm or about a 98% scrubbing efficiency.

The emissions are monitored continuously and are recorded along with the ship’s position on a secure data logger, so there is no doubt as to the contribution to improving air quality that is being made by this ship. The system pumps are rated in total at about 5kW and the engine on average generates about 700kW.

Retrofit requirements are not new to the shipping industry. Tanker owners will remember that inert gas systems, (very similar to sea water scrubbing to clean exhaust gas for inert gas blanketing), were retro-fitted after several disastrous explosions identified the potential for an explosive gas mixture, and an ignition source to be present during tank cleaning on large crude oil tankers.

Krystallon estimates that for a typical ship installation on a 100,000 dwt tanker, the ship would have to be out of service alongside for less than five days, to complete work that can only be undertaken alongside.

There is a desperate need for the shipping industry and all the stakeholders to engage in informed, rational and coherent assessment of the challenges facing the industry over the next 10 to 20 years.

If shipping is to make a successful and cost effective contribution to improving air quality, an international and well thought out regime and set of rules needs to be established, and that requires honest debate, revealing the issues each sector of the industry faces, and how best to meet the different needs.

Creating an effective process for tackling emissions to air will undoubtedly contribute to the process needed to tackle the next big emissions issue, the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping.

With one third of the current fleet on order and global fuel consumption growing at around 5% per annum, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be a real challenge.

Let us ensure we have the facts, consider the implications and consult widely before nailing the industry in a coffin of poor decisions.

DM Gregory

Director

Environment & Sustainability

BP Marine

Chertsey Road

Sunbury on Thames


New passenger accounting system should help in future emergencies

SIR, The grounding and subsequent sinking of the cruise vessel Sea Diamond off Santorini is both unfortunate and regrettable.

The revelation that two passengers remain missing after the muster and abandon ship further compounds the seriousness of the incident. I extend my sincere sympathy to the family and friends of those who have been lost and to the master, officers and crew of the vessel who, no doubt, gave the management of the incident their best endeavours.

Broadcast media reports over the weekend, speaking to survivors, suggest a degree of chaos and confusion aboard the vessel, which is understandable in the circumstances.

Without wishing to prejudge the management of the incident, the apparent loss of two passengers suggests a lack of co-ordination between the onboard departments in this major emergency.

In its report into the fire aboard the Star Princess in March, 2006, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch stated that: “Until advances in technology are forthcoming, the completion of a full roll call on board large passenger cruiseships will be difficult to achieve within a reasonable timescale…

“Whatever method is used, the mustering of several thousand passengers, particularly by name and stateroom number, will inevitably take a long time.

“Notwithstanding difficulties such as names which are difficult to pronounce, language, identical surnames and passengers not hearing, the calling of 500 names alonewill probably take well over one hour. A head count of so many is also unlikely to be accurate and will need to be repeated several times…”

With these comments in mind, Seatag Safety Systems Ltd has developed the CT@GTM real-time passenger accounting system for use in circumstances such as occurred on board the Sea Diamond. CT@GTM was successfully marketed at the Seatrade Cruise Convention in Miami last month and the company is in serious discussions with a number of major cruise ship operators.

CT@GTM systems couple the use of modern technology with established safety processes and procedures in order to accelerate the processes by which large numbers of people are accounted for in the event of a major emergency.

Utilising asset tracking capabilities such as barcodes and RFID along with appropriate software, Command and Control personnel and Muster (Assembly) Station leaders are provided with a rapid, real-time indication of passenger muster.

Where passengers have failed to report, they are readily identifiable and, from appropriate data that is held on board the vessel, their possible whereabouts can be determined and search and rescue personnel can be detailed accordingly.

While the system could not have been installed on board the Sea Diamondto prevent this loss, its future deployment can allow the industry to learn from this unfortunate incident.

There will inevitably be some degree of concern over safety from potential passengers. The installation of CT@GTM systems would go some way to reassure them.

Capt Trevor Bailey FNI

Seatag Safety Systems Ltd

Plas Elyn

Llangoed

Ynys Môn

LL58 8SB


Need for clarity over British ports policy

SIR, Your correspondent Andrew Wyatt of the Port of London Authority (letters, April 12) seems to suggest another approach to the thorny question of infrastructure funding (“split the cost and just get on with it”).

Captain Wyatt has highlighted one of the key problems with port development in the United Kingdom in the 21st century — who pays for what, and how much is it likely to cost?

In his Transport Study for the government, Sir Rod Eddington highlighted the importance of transparency and certainty for private companies competing in the market.

That the British port industry is highly competitive is beyond question.

So, too, is the fact that additional capacity, particularly deepwater container capacity, is badly needed.

The government must provide this clarity as soon as possible to encourage badly needed investment in the sector.

It is essential that, in doing so, it also ensures that competing projects are treated equally.

George Courtauld

Chairman

Haven Gateway Partnership

Colchester


Calls that never were

With regard to the story of Monday, April 2 (Maersk E-class sisters cross paths in Bremerhaven), Maersk Line would like to make the following observations.

While Maersk’s PS-class container vessels will indeed no longer be calling the Scandinavian ports of Gothenburg and Aarhus, these ports were never on the AE7 string loop to begin with.

The suggestion in the story that we have “deleted” calls in Scandinavia is wholly incorrect.

The AE1 string remains as before, with calls at Gothenburg and Aarhus servicing our customers, but just without the PS-class vessels.

Frederik Berling

Communication & Branding

Maersk Line

Copenhagen


Happy with dredge plan

SIR, I refer to the letter from Captain Andrew Wyatt published April 11.

I wish to make it clear that the Port of London Authority, after rigorous risk assessment, is satisfied that the planned dredge to provide access to the London Gateway Port will enable it to fulfil its role as a major container terminal serving a national need.

Alistair Gale

Director of Corporate Affairs

Port of London Authority


In defence of UK pilots 

Sir, the UKMPA represents around 500 UK pilots. Neither the Skagern nor the Samskip Courier was under the pilotage of any member of the UKMPA, whose membership is comprised entirely of pilots authorised under the 1987 Pilotage Act.

We agree with the MAIB recommendations on use of mobile phones, particularly in relation to collision avoidance; all too often we hear of “collision avoidance by VHF” with total disregard of the Colregs. We also share MAIB’s concerns about the erroneous “tripping” information.

Joe Wilson

Chairman

UKMPA


London Gateway must be able to accommodate largest vessels

Sir, there will be very little point in going ahead with the London Gateway container development (‘That north south divide’, Tuesday, April 10) if the super post-panamax boxships cannot get to it.

With drafts of 14.5 m there will be a requirement for 16.0 m minimum depth at any tide.

The increase in draft with angle of heel is measured in metres for these behemoths, so a nice straight run in with no sharp bends please.

The cost of dredging to establish suitable unrestricted access is considerable, but without such access the port will not achieve its potential throughput. It will be a glorified feeder port.

The cost of road and rail links, even bridges, is small beer compared to the dredging required.

This is the reason that these big ships are excluded from the US ports; however, it is the environmental lobby stateside preventing the dredging. We are merely haggling over who is going to pay.

The UK needs this port and DP World wants it — so instead of harping on about the principle of ‘the user pays’ and haggling over the cost of connection to the M25 (small beer again) they should split the cost and just get on with it.

Mike Grey knows something about this project and I would be interested to hear his comments.

Andy Wyatt

Port of London Authority

London River House

Gravesend

DA12 2BG


Different interpretation of so-called shortsea shortfalls

SIR, The juxtaposition of the front-page stories (April 5 - ’Box giants brand UK railfreight subsidy cut "a retrograde step" and ’Users slam shortsea shortfalls’) implies that government support for modal shift is being transferred from popular rail to unpopular water transport.

That would be a completely wrong analysis.

The Chamber of Shipping has consistently supported the previous Company Neutral Revenue Support as an effective contribution to reducing road congestion through the transfer of traffic to rail freight.

Furthermore, we have long argued that a similar system could work well also in favour of water freight, particularly coastal container feeder services. CNRS-type systems have the additional advantage that they do not engender problems of skewing competition between different operators in the same sector.

Regrettably, the DfT declined to take this forward. We could not agree more with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers that the reduction in grant is a retrograde step.

The report of the Sea & Water research focuses entirely on the negative perceptions. If Mr Osler had turned the page, he would have found that around half of the same freight users surveyed also believed there are real opportunities for expansion of water freight, particularly in the movement of containers, recyclables and waste.

There is undoubtedly much to be done by coastal and inland shipping operators to develop their offering to the relevant markets, but there is good reason to believe that shippers are becoming more aware of the availability and benefits of water freight options.

It would indeed be an irony if, just as industry and trade are making environmentally-friendly options available, the Government should be reducing its support for modal shift.

David Asprey

Head of shipping policy

Chamber of Shipping


Where Netherlands stands on wreck removal 

SIR, As representative of the Netherlands — which acted as lead country in the preparation of the new International Maritime Organization Convention of Wreck Removal for many years — it was with some surprise that I read in a recent article (March 14) Richard Shaw of the Institute of Maritime Law at Southampton University being quoted to have said that the Netherlands “has been taking a hard line on part of the text” or is even “leading the opposition to extending the convention to territorial waters”.

Although the recent debate which was reported by Lloyd’s List did have a confidential character, it would be expected from media reports on the proceedings of work in the framework of IMO to accurately reflect the outcome of discussions.

Such an accurate reflection would have recognised that it is certainly not only the Netherlands that expressed concerns on recent developments regarding the finalisation of the new convention.

And the suggestion in your article that the Netherlands is opposing the application of the new wreck removal regulation to territorial waters is most definitely incorrect.

For many years, views in the Legal Committee have differed on the extent of a so-called ‘opting in’ to the territorial sea. Some delegations favoured opting in for the whole of the convention, while other delegations favoured maintaining a selective opting-in clause.

On this basis, the IMO Legal Committee approved the present text of the draft convention some years ago on the basis that nothing would prevent a state party from applying some or all of the provisions of the convention to its territorial seas.

Noting that it would be helpful for states in applying their national legislation with respect to the recovery of costs, compulsory insurance and direct action, it was explicitly clarified in the present text that state parties may apply the relevant provisions on compulsory insurance and direct action to waters subject to their jurisdiction.

Against this background, the Netherlands, together with other countries, is greatly concerned that new proposals in this stage of the preparation of the convention would result in the whole scheme of the draft convention having to be reworked, with possibly many unforeseeable consequences.

As a traditional maritime nation and being very committed to international co- operation, the Netherlands is very much prepared to consider any appropriate arrangement in light of the decision of the IMO Council to hold and successfully conclude a diplomatic conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in May this year.

This also regards the application of appropriate provisions within territorial waters of IMO member states.

We consider it of utmost importance that the international community adopts a convention on the removal of wrecks, not only in the interests of a successful diplomatic conference and of the image of IMO in general, but certainly also in the interests of safety of shipping and protection of the marine environment.

Jan E de Boer

The Netherlands

representative

IMO Legal Committee


Pension ordeal nears resolution 

SIR, I write to you as a deferred pensioner of the Salvage Association primarily to thank those in the marine insurance market who have helped to reduce the deficit of our pension scheme.

Some five years ago, I was advised that my pension was effectively worthless.

The 30 years’ service should have provided a pension of half final salary.

Having nothing to fund retirement with obliged me to continue in employment. Another 48 colleagues suffered losses of all or part of their pensions.

During 2003, I approached Bernard Devereese, who had been chairman of the SA with the idea of us jointly soliciting donations from our past masters in the marine insurance market.

Following several years of correspondence and meetings, we were advised that pledges of help had finally been received from a number of organisations who transacted business under the Lloyd’s umbrella.

We were also to benefit from the in-house support offered by the Corporation of Lloyd’s. All the pledges had been honoured by early 2007.

I am sure my now ex-SA colleagues would wish to join me in offering heartfelt thanks to those of you who have helped to implement the improvement to our pensions.

Richard Allen

Applegarth

The Street

Framsden

Stowmarket

Suffolk

IP14 6HQ


IMO and European bodies’ joint actions continue to shape shipping

SIR, With reference to the article and editorial (Lloyd’s List March 8, 2007) on the present status of the European Commission and European Union within the International Maritime Organization.

While encouraging all efforts towards ensuring that Europe and Europe’s maritime industries — and, for that matter, those of other regions, too — do continue to play “an active role to support the common efforts of IMO” (as proposed by Mr J Barrot, vice president of the Commission and Commissioner for Transport), your readers may wish to note the following information:

- The commission has had observer status at IMO since 1974 and, through that status, it is, therefore, factually incorrect to suggest that the Organization does not recognise the existence of the EU;

- The commission, like all other entities enjoying observer status at IMO, is entitled to submit documents to all IMO bodies and has done so on many occasions.

Such documents are, accordingly, circulated among IMO members and observers; are considered by IMO bodies; and their contribution to attaining the organization’s objectives is appreciated;

- The EU has, to date, not sought observer status in its own right, as have other regional intergovernmental entities (the African Union and the Organization of American States); and

- With respect to full EU membership of IMO, this is a matter, on one hand, for the EU members to take appropriate necessary action and, on the other, for the IMO members, upon receiving a relevant request, to act in accordance with the applicable provisions of IMO’s constitutive Convention.

Finally, I would also underline IMO’s excellent record in shaping the global regulatory framework with due speed, as witnessed by the introduction of significant maritime safety, security and marine environment protection measures — such as SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, or those following the Estonia , Erika , Prestig e and Star Princess incidents — all of which were adopted under the maximum speed allowed by the provisions of the relevant IMO treaties concerning the adoption of amendments thereto.

Dr Rosalie P Balkin

Director

Legal Affairs and External Relations Division

International Maritime Organization



PD Ports must accept funding challenge 

SIR, I noted with interest the comment from Martyn Pellew, group development director of PD Ports, that contributing to the costs of upgrading the East Coast Main Line to accommodate boxes from Teesport’s proposed new deepwater container terminal could cost “tens of millions of pounds and make the project economically unviable” — ‘Track upgrade dispute could derail Teesport growth plans’, (Lloyd’s List, March 5).

This is not a problem exclusive to Teesport, but it does appear to be the reality of UK port development in the 21st century. Ports in the Haven Gateway area face similar issues as the government implements its policy of requiring contributions from ports to road/rail infrastructures — some that may be some distances from the port itself.

This policy is, inevitably, going to lead to a shift in the burden of infrastructure funding from the general taxpayer to port users. The port developer in our region has, perhaps reluctantly, had to acknowledge this new reality, and has announced an infrastructure charge to fund network upgrades that would previously have been for the government’s account.

If the UK is to continue to benefit from a truly competitive port industry, then the government must be consistent in the application of its policy, and treat all developers the same. The government seems to recognise this. The answer for Mr Pellew is not to plead for special treatment, but to accept the inevitable and, as the ports in our region are already doing, look for alternative ways to fund these rail works.

George Courtauld

Chairman — The Haven Gateway Partnership

Colchester, Essex CO4 9QQ



Overall impact of shipping reduces global warming 

SIR, The article by John Vidal (Saturday, March 3) stating that “emissions from shipping… will have a serious impact on global warming”, paints a strangely inaccurate picture. A recent report for the European Commission argues that shipping’s overall impact actually reduces global warming (CE, Delft 12/06).

The origin of the statistics used in the article are unclear. Donald Gregory, director of environment at BP Marine, advised on the global fuel consumption, but he did not offer the 4% figure for CO 2 emissions attributed to him. Veronika Eyring (the other quoted source) does not accept that shipping contributes 4-5% to total CO 2 emissions.

Ships carry some 90% of all world trade – their operations are of an altogether different order of magnitude to aviation — yet all the major studies (including the Stern Report, which acknowledged that shipping, together with rail, contributed only 1.75% of greenhouse gases) have shown that total international CO 2 emissions from ships are lower than from aviation. Even the International Air Transport Association confirms aviation as responsible for 13% of all transport CO 2 emissions. Given that IATA cites road transport at 75%, this leaves only 12% from all other modes (including marine, inland waterways and rail).

Moreover any growth in global shipping at the expense of other transport modes would lead to a reduction in total global CO 2 emissions. Shipping produces less greenhouse gases per tonne mile than any other form of transportation and technological advances and the use of larger ships are constantly improving that efficiency. For this reason, shipping should be seen as part of the solution to increased emissions resulting from growth in world trade, not as part of the problem.

However, the shipping industry is not complacent and is committed to further reducing its carbon emissions.

To this end, we welcome the research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change into shipping emissions and will provide any practical support the centre may need in order to help achieve the goal of minimising the environmental impact of shipping operations.

Matt McKay

UK Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street

London EC1M 6EZ



Plan of action in place to tackle C0 2 emissions 

SIR, With reference to the article and editorial of Tuesday, March 6, on CO2 emissions from ships, it is worth noting that the International Maritime Organization is developing an emissions strategy through its Marine Environment Protection Committee and an action plan has been agreed.

Indeed, since IMO adopted the 1997 Protocol to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol), to add Marpol Annex VI – Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, the Organization (member states and secretariat alike) has been, and continues being, fully engaged in finding appropriate ways to prevent and mitigate all emissions from ships. These include the effects of greenhouse gases produced by marine engines, which are not regulated under Marpol Annex VI.

IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its 55th session in October 2006, approved a work plan to identify and develop the mechanisms needed to achieve the limitation or reduction of CO2 emissions from international shipping, inviting member governments to participate actively in the work.

The committee also considered updating the IMO Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships and agreed to finalise the terms of reference for such an update at its next session (9-13 July 2007). We anticipate that the proposed study will be initiated soon after that session and that it will provide reliable scientific data on the status of shipping’s contributions to greenhouse gases. This will help IMO in continuing and finalising its development of any necessary measures to achieve the limitation or reduction objectives mentioned above. Attempts to play the shipping industry against the aviation sector at this time seems futile and meaningless in the absence of such data.

You might also like to note that the chosen theme for World Maritime Day 2007 is “IMO’s response to current environmental challenges”, selected to give IMO the opportunity to focus on its environmental work (both of the past and present) and thus intensify its efforts to add our contribution to that of the international community to protect and preserve the environment before it is too late.

Miguel Palomares

Director

Marine environment division

IMO



Felixstowe should pay for its own expansion 

SIR, I’d like to make a point about the planned Felixstowe expansion.

According to the port the plan was approved by parliament subject to the port making some improvements to the roads and rail.

It now appears that the port is not intending to pay for the improvements but is going to charge an extra levy of £5.50 ($10.60) for all import containers as from April 2007.

Surely if it wishes to make the expansion it should pay for 100% of it or not make the expansion at all.

It is the port that wishes to make the expansion — if it cannot afford it, do not expand.

It is unfair that it can just impose a levy on importers.

It could have tried to increase the stevedoring charges to the shipping lines.

But it knows that the shipping lines would have said ‘get stuffed’.

Anthony Bayley

2 Rowarth Ave

Kesgrave

IP5 2FL


Norway shipping lane debate

Sir , the article ‘Norway orders compulsory shipping lanes’ (Lloyd’s List February 23) fails to catch the central point made by me on behalf of Green Warriors of Norway.

I also want to stress that whether or not these lanes are compulsory will depend on the interpretation of the advice from the International Maritime Organization.

Our main argument against these lanes, 30 nautical miles from shore, is not that they will be ignored because they are only recommendations by IMO.

Our main concern is over the huge distances between a vessel discharging crude oil in one of the lanes and the on-shore contingency equipment as well as the assistance vessels normally situated in harbour. We feel that this illustrates the severe inadequacy of the lanes, because time is the most critical factor in order to respond adequately.

Another problem is that the coastal administration never elaborated on such scenarios before proposing the 30 nm lanes. The logic of Kirsten Selvig, director-general of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, is that all future incidents must consist of ships drifting towards shore where cargo and bunkers are intact and the only important factor is the time needed to locate a tug.

Even Ms Selvig cannot plan for this, as every incident differs and one must allow for flexibility in the organisational response to an incident. The Norwegian government’s proposal fails to do so. In 2003, Green Warriors proposed 10-12 nm as a proper distance from shore, in order to respond to drifting vessels and to make arrangements for the discharging of vessel fuel and polluting cargo.

Norway, as a shipping nation and a country with a long exposed coastline, today faces severe challenges. These are posed not only by tanker traffic transporting 110m tonnes annually in our waters, but also the lack of contingency planning, and the lack of competence, especially in the Ministry of Coastal Affairs represented by Ms Selvig and her staff.

Jan-Hugo Holten, Fagansvarlig olje/shipping executive oil, spill & shipping

Norges MiljØvernforbund/

Green Warriors of Norway

hugo@nmf.no 



Those empty boxes are shipping fresh air to Asia

SIR, I was pilot on board a large German flag containership the other day talking about trade in general with the master.

The news item today referring to all those empty boxes reminded me of his remarks about China and industrial pollution.

He said that although pollution in the industrialised areas that he visits is getting pretty bad with all the implications of global warming, the West was also doing its bit.

We are shipping container loads of FRESH AIR back to Asia!

So let us tackle this problem and get those boxes moving!

John Gurton

Medway Pilot


A ‘race to the bottom’ for EU jobs

SIR, In your article about maritime employment (Tuesday, February 27) you write that at present EU seafarers form different countries can legally be paid different wages on the grounds that their home costs are different.

That is generally wrong. I will admit such practice has developed, but it is not legal.

It is perhaps correct to say maritime transport is often exempted from EU employment legislation but not from the right to exercise freedom of movement and equal treatment. “No discrimination” on wages and working conditions is enshrined in Article 39 of the EC treaty.

The European Court of Justice has on several occasions confirmed that there is no exemption for the maritime sector on the application of the EU law on the freedom of movement for workers. It is clear that a seafarer who has legal work in another EU country is entitled to equal treatment under the EU law.

Further, the EC has stated that if an EU seafarer employed on a ship under another EU flag by law of administrative practices is excluded for benefiting from the wages and working conditions from the host country, it amounts to indirect discrimination, a practice equally prohibited under EU law.

In short, the commission takes the view that, for the purpose of determination of wages, working conditions and trade union rights, an EU seafarer is entitled under the Community law. Country of origin or residence is not a determining factor. Interestingly enough, this has been the case for quite a long time.

Also all of the former candidate countries have prior to their accession concluded the “Europe Agreement” with the EU. According to this agreement workers from the candidate countries were entitled to equal treatment as soon as they obtained legal work in another EU member state.

The ECJ has pronounced this twice, in the so-called Mayer case from 2002 and the Kolpak case. Despite this, national seafarers have been dismissed and replaced by seafarers from other parts of the EU where wages and working condition were lower, in particular from the new entrants.

It has been a race to the bottom where those who were willing to compete for their jobs on the basis of slave wages and working conditions from the 19th century could have the jobs.

Over the years EU ship-owners have simply neglected to abide by applicable EU law and, despite being aware of the situation, the commission has not reacted to rectify this blunt breach of EU law.

There have already been examples of EU shipowners who cannot resist the temptation to employ new entrance seafarers on discriminatory wages and working conditions.

We have in Denmark seen adults being paid € 2.80 per hour and working up to 500 hours per month. This is not the welcome to the EU that was announced before the enlargement took place.

It should be clear that shipowners who have employed seafarers from the new member state, even when they were candidate countries, on conditions other that the flag states condition are in breach of EU law and are in debt to those seafarers.

Unfortunately seafarers have to enforce their rights at national courts level and starting legal proceedings against their employer is difficult. Perhaps the commission could come up with an idea to assist seafarers in that situation.

One could also wonder when the commission will start infringement proceedings against member states where governments or administrations have practices that allowed for such discrimination to take place.

Henrik Berlau

Secretary transport section

United Federation of Danish Workers


Only way to boost officer recruitment

SIR, I am delighted to see Brian Orrell (letter published February 22) recognise the economic contribution of the shipping industry and the continuing strategic significance of the UK fleet revival.

It would be hard to do otherwise. Without the turnround of the past six years the continuing collapse of the industry would have meant a significant and permanent decline in British seafarers. But some of his points require clarification or correction.

The chamber has consistently striven to work with Nautilus (and the RMT) to ensure the recovery of the fleet also produces a growing recovery in seafarer employment. His letter might have recognised publicly that our two organisations submitted a proposal to government two years ago calling for new and innovative support for officer training. We are still awaiting a response.

Our joint proposal remains the only practical way forward to boost officer recruitment in the UK. On Mr Orrell’s repeated call for an employment link, this would be illegal under EU law and has been proved by the Mackinnon research (jointly funded by Nautilus and ourselves) to be a solution to a problem that does not exist — because almost all cadets emerging from their watchkeeping training are being offered jobs.

It would certainly drive away much of the fleet on which the future job opportunities for British officers and ratings will depend. This is not a “belligerent” threat but a statement of fact. As for statistics on UK seafarer employment and training, again a dose of practicality is necessary. We all try hard to put forward a fair representation of reality. The government-sponsored studies on seafarer employment, which are produced in conjunction with the chamber, show volatility because of changing methodology in the past few few years.

But through this shines a picture of around 26,500 UK seafarers working regularly at sea. What is remarkable about this number is that there are so many. This figure defies all earlier predictions based on retirement of the current workforce.

As to the numbers of new officer trainees, figures produced by the Merchant Navy Training Board (which brings together employers, unions and colleges) show that — with the exception of 2004-2005 when the closing figure of recruits was 574 (not 540) — the average since 2002 has been 625 per year. The fact is that recruitment is rising twice as fast as the number of ships in the UK-based fleet.

We should all be celebrating the success of the new Foundation Degree route to officer training aimed at ensuring that the industry can recruit the highest-calibre trainees, ahead of targets with 114 trainees on these programmes in the first year.

On the concern about Certificates of Equivalent Competency, the government has just begun a tripartite review with employers and unions under an independent chair to consider all aspects. What more is necessary?

Finally, it is not logical to argue that British seafarers are increasingly missing out because the proportion of UK officers on tonnage tax ships has gone down since 2001.

The fleet that joined the tonnage tax in the first wave was made up of ships from traditional British companies. Since that time we have seen major inward investment — ships brought to the UK by companies setting up bases here. These ships came with crews, so of course the proportion of UK officers in the total fleet fell.

The point is that the rules require UK trainees to be carried in these fleets at a proportion of one to every five officers employed, and the numbers are now improving.

All of this calls for persistence in our original joint objectives and for celebration of successes achieved. All the more important, too, in this day and age, to support the efforts of the maritime sector to ensure that a career at sea is seen as a positive option rather than knock them.

Mark Brownrigg

Director General

The Chamber of Shipping

London EC1M 6EZ



Warming up to coal ironing 

SIR, In your Insight and Opinion section (‘Plugged in’ — Lloyd’s List, February 15 ), it was implied that the absence of international standards to support the installation of on-shore power supplies for ships in port, so-called cold ironing, presented the shipping industry with a significant problem.

While it is true that there are no published standards as of yet, I believe it is worth pointing out that there is in fact at present a draft standard for high-voltage shore connections which is to be submitted to the International Electrotechnical Commission’s technical committee on electrical installations of ships and mobile and fixed offshore units. Also, a draft standard for on-shore power supply and cold ironing is being developed for the International Organization for Standardization’s technical committee on ships and marine technology.

The Oil Companies International Marine Forum has also established a working group to consider specific operational issues for liquefied natural gas carriers fitted with cold ironing installations.

Specifically, BP Shipping has conducted an extensive peer review of arrangements with a view to application at the proposed Crown Landing LNG terminal facility, and it is our understanding that BP would like to see the standard it has developed rolled out across the LNG industry for the benefit of all. BP Shipping has long been a supporter of the technology, having been involved in the Long Beach on-shore power installation since its conception four years ago.

Further, to assist in addressing any technical risks arising from the use of cold ironing, Lloyd’s Register has developed draft rule requirements for on-shore power supplies in consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders, including the standards bodies mentioned above. We will be submitting these draft rules to our technical committee for approval later this year.

There are certainly technical challenges and operational and environmental issues involved with the advent of cold ironing, but in our view the industry is addressing these in a constructive manner.

The environmental benefits of cold ironing certainly need to be weighed against the challenges and the technical risks must be effectively managed, but it appears that in any event cold ironing is likely to become the standard in many ports in the medium term. Lloyd’s Register is pleased to be working with the industry to develop appropriate standards to ensure that ship and port safety is preserved.

Vaughan Pomeroy,

Manager,

Research and Development,

Lloyd’s Register,

71 Fenchurch Street,

London, UK.


CalMac: meeting community needs

SIR, I refer to the reporting of the current series of consultation meetings being held by CalMac Ferries staff throughout the network (‘CalMac now sole bidder for ferry routes’ — Lloyd’s List, January 31).

There appears to be a general lack of awareness amongst the communities we serve of the details of the Invitation To Tender (ITT) document which is driving our planning for the bid we will be making to operate the Clyde and Hebridean Ferry Services.

This is understandable and unavoidable given the timescale to which we are operating. It is, however, a publicly available document and has been so since December on the Scottish Executive and on our own website.

It may be fashionable to criticise CalMac for a perceived lack of response to communities’ requests for meetings and additional services, but it is simply not possible for us to meet all the communities in the network in the time available.

It was because of the compressed timescale which is available to us that we decided the best way to complete our consultation on the contents of the ITT would be to meet bodies representing the communities: these are principally the local authorities and other user groups and stakeholders. We remain pleased to receive any observations by letter or email.

Whilst the strict application of the Performance Regime included in the tender documents for the Clyde and Hebrides ferry contract could result in the imposition of an inflexible service, CalMac has no intention of operating routes in any way which does not best meet the needs of both visitors and the community network.

The whole purpose of our meetings with representatives of the interests of communities throughout the network is to explain the principal requirements of the tender; to gather as many of their concerns as possible, and to incorporate this detailed feedback to the Scottish Executive.

We support the inclusion of an effective performance regime in the service contract, but our customers and the communities we serve should be assured that CalMac is determined to make sure that this does not result in any restrictions either to the lifeline nature of our services, or to their quality and suitability.

We are certain that the outcome of all of our discussions will result in proactive, customer- friendly services, which operate whenever possible according to timetable, summer and winter, within the parameters set for us by the operating contract.

I am equally certain that ministers and their officials would not wish otherwise. I am grateful for your coverage of our discussions with local interests which will help inform the debate about future services to and from the islands.

The Invitation To Tender is a complex document worthy of detailed examination by everyone affected by its contents.

Peter Timms CBE

CalMac Ferries Ltd

Ferry Terminal

Gourock, PA19 1QP

Good public relations are key to a better press

SIR, In my lifelong experience as a journalist and as a public relations practitioner, I am always curious when executives blame the media for the perceptions held of their industry (‘A drama that never became a crisis’, a First Person opinion piece by TT Club’s George Fawcett — Lloyd’s List, February 16.).

True, we have much to be proud of in the shipping industry.

We do carry 90% of the world’s trade and we have a significant and glorious heritage.

But the fact remains that we do not get the press that we ‘deserve’, because we are not as good as we think we are in convincing the consumer media that our role in the business life of this nation is as important as other industries more favourably reported on.

It is all too easy in hindsight to pass judgment on a situation that you are not involved in, but I suspect that had the company’s public relations been better managed it may have gained a more sympathetic press.

The editor’s blog of January 26 demonstrates that all was not well on the media relations front.

For the editor of such a respected trade paper as Lloyd’s List to be so upset, you have to question whether the media relations tactics employed are working as well as they could be.

Was it a drama and a crisis?

A ship so stricken that it had to be beached and the crew lifted off — that’s a drama, and a crisis. It’s the way that you resolve the drama and take the ‘heat’ out of the crisis that brings companies kudos and admiration for the way they handle a situation.

In this web connected age of ours, ‘the truth will always out’.

Being transparent and open about the way you communicate is critically important today.

The organisations that have a high image, in the eyes of the general public, are the ones that understand and act on this maxim.

Robert Minton-Taylor

Associate Senior Lecturer,

School of Marketing & Public Relations, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University r.minton-taylor@ leedsmet.ac.uk

Why must UK seafarers still have to accept poor salaries and training?

SIR, The response by the UK Chamber of Shipping (‘The true value of Britain’s growing fleet’ — Lloyd’s List, February 15) to your editorial of January 29 makes interesting reading although I suspect that the real message is contained in the final three paragraphs. Unfortunately, Dr Ladyman may find it difficult to sustain the unsustainable.

The MSC Napoli stranding bears many similarities to the stranding of the Zodiac Maritime-managed Kowloon Bridge some 20 years ago and no doubt the MAIB will, in the fullness of time, report on the operation of this multi-national manned UK flag vessel.

I would, however, suggest that the benefits of two British cadets being “trained” on a ship that “without the tonnage tax would have had no connection with the United Kingdom” — and whose manning comprised eight different nationalities — is open to debate and one can but surmise the quantity and quality of the training and professional guidance they were receiving.

In light of the current global manning crisis it is no surprise to read that “there will be no shortage of posts for these trainees when they qualify”.

But one wonders if the Chamber is still of the view that “it is essential to recall that the employment of seafarers takes place in a world market in which cost and quality are the determining factors”.

In short, does the Chamber still expect United Kingdom domiciled seafarers to accept the salaries paid to their Third World or eastern European counterparts and will they, when the outpourings of the world’s “maritime colleges” become available, continue to advocate their employment?

Possibly, the success or otherwise of the MCA “reforms” might benefit from a little scrutiny and one wonders if the massive increase in the number of ships under their jurisdiction has been matched with a commensurate rise in the numbers of those who labour long and late in Spring Place and beyond. One could be excused for wondering what is their primary role.

Is the MCA a regulatory body charged, inter alia, with enforcing national and international regulations without fear or favour, or has it become a marketing medium whose objective is to sell the Red Ensign (and the multitudinous Certificates of Equivalent Competency) and to be “customer orientated” without rocking too many boats?

Finally, it is axiomatic that as “an island dependent on shipping for 95% of its trade” we should not be “entirely dependent on the ships of other states to carry [that] trade”. But surely that raises the question of the wisdom of allowing the vast majority of those ships to be manned by officers and ratings from “other states” and controlled by those who will drop the Red Ensign like a hot potato the moment something more financially beneficial comes along ?

With most of the Red Ensign fleet “beneficially owned” outside the United Kingdom and the plethora of “compliant” registers offering ever more advantageous tonnage tax systems I fear Mr Brownrigg’s misgivings “fall shrewdly to the purpose”.

Captain C R Kelso

5 Bursledon Heights

Bursledon

Southampton, SO31 8DB

Failing to deliver on UK maritime training

SIR, I am pleased to say that there is much I can agree with in Mark Brownrigg’s lengthy reflections upon British shipping in the wake of the MSC Napoli incident (‘The true value of Britain’s growing fleet’ — Lloyd’s List, February 15).

We can indeed all rejoice in the rejuvenation of the UK flag’s fortunes brought about by the maritime policies introduced by the government in 2000. The economic contribution of the industry and its continuing strategic significance must never be under-stated.

But this is where my consensus with the Chamber of Shipping comes to an end.

Sadly, the organisation continues to fail to deliver on the critical objective of expansion in UK seafarer employment and training — and, even worse, continues to resist measures, such as an employment link to the tonnage tax, that seek to ensure that recruitment targets are met.

While Mr Brownrigg argues that it was “always bound to take time for training and employment to grow”, may I remind him that it was his organisation that promised to increase the officer cadet intake by 25% year on year?

Can I also remind him that the McKinnon report to which he refers was jointly commissioned by ourselves and the chamber to investigate the repeated and erroneous assertions of a former chamber president that the industry was in danger of recruiting too many cadets?

I don’t know where the chamber gets its government statistics on UK seafarer employment and training, because the official UK Seafarers Analysis paints a very different picture. The most recent report refers to a total of 26,520 UK seafarers working regularly at sea — 4% fewer than in 2004. The same report also puts the total of new entrant officer trainees at 540 — a reduction of 11% from the previous year.

Worryingly, these are not one-off statistics. There is consistent evidence to show a sustained failure to hit even half the trainee intake required for future seagoing and shore-based needs. Even more worrying, British seafarers are increasingly missing out on the tonnage tax success story recounted by the chamber. Between 2000-2001 and 2006, the proportion of UK officers employed on ships in the tonnage tax scheme fell from 80% to just 41%.

The stark reality is that our maritime skills base is in desperate danger. The last UK Seafarers Analysis showed a 7% decrease between 1997 and 2005 in the number of UK deck and engineer officers. Of further concern is the fact that the number of officers aged under 40 fell by 15% over the same period.

Nautilus UK believes it is now essential that we have an employment link to the tonnage tax scheme, linked to a proper strategy to ensure we have sufficient trainees to meet the future needs of the shipping industry and the broader national maritime infrastructure.

We must never forget that this was one of the two key objectives of the government’s maritime policy package and it is of critical importance that it is not allowed to be scuppered by indifference and the confetti-like flurry of Certificates of Equivalent Competency issued to allow foreign seafarers to serve on UK-flagged ships — 4,144 in the past year alone.

Mr Brownrigg also suggests that talk of a ‘flag of convenience’ is misplaced and misguided in relation to the MSC Napoli incident. The reality is that the ITF definition is far from ‘meaningless’ as he avers, and is directly related to the Unclos criteria for beneficial ownership. In openly advertising the concept of the UK fleet as one of ‘inward investment’ — and let us not forget that around two-thirds of UK-owned tonnage is still non-UK registered — the chamber is taking the red ensign even further away from the ‘genuine link’ principle.

While fully endorsing the argument that we should rightly acknowledge the excellent work of Sosrep in responding to the MSC Napoliincident, I believe it is entirely appropriate that questions should be raised about the ship’s history and the possible causes of the cracking that affected it.

There are pertinent questions to be answered about a wide range of operational issues and there is already evidence from recent MAIB reports on incidents involving foreign-owned ships under the UK flag to justify concerns about underlying trends.

MSC Napoli was 15 years old, which is relatively old for a containership and Nautilus UK is not alone in having expressed concern at the legacy of the reduced scantlings and use of high-tensile steel during the period in which the vessel was built.

Finally, the chamber’s ultimate threat of an exodus from the register if the government “waivers or departs from its present positive policies” could be viewed as a display of petulance and belligerence that does little to dignify the organisation in the context of the very necessary debate about the direction of our merchant fleet and the increasingly critical state of British maritime employment and training.

Brian Orrell

General secretary

Nautilus UK

Oceanair House

750-760 High Road

Leytonstone

London E11 3BB

Happy days on coal delivery run

SIR, Michael Grey’s references to Para Handy (Viewpoint, Monday, February 12) struck a chord.

In August 1963, when I had reached the ripe old age of 13, my father arranged for me to join Ross and Marshall’s newbuild diesel “puffer” Raylight.  

We loaded a full cargo of household coal at Troon for discharge at Portree on Skye. It was a “self discharge” and as some of the crew were not up to the task (we were moored adjacent to the Harbour Hotel) I happily took up a shovel.

I was even happier when Capt Sutherland insisted I receive payment of £1 for my day’s efforts!

We returned to the Clyde in ballast and I settled my victualling account which came to… £1.

Happy days. 

On a subsequent trip I explained to Capt Sutherland that I had £3 spending money and inquired where I might place this for safe keeping.

Without hesitation he replied: “Place it under the soap, the boys will never find it there.”

Best holidays I ever had.

Tony Young, FICS

Seabrokers Ltd

Ocean Spirit House

30 Waterloo Quay

Aberdeen

AB11 5BS

No highway robbery in Equitas transaction

SIR, Dr NE Dangoor’s letter to you of February 8 suggests that the reinsurance transaction proposed between Equitas and Berkshire Hathaway’s subsidiary, National Indemnity, is “the biggest highway robbery in the history of the universe”, being an “attempt to requisition the £4,866m of assets in return for sound sleep”.

May I ask you for the opportunity to correct this rather melodramatic claim?

The premium to be paid initially by Equitas for some $5.7bn of reinsurance is only £286m. The “assets” of £4,866m which Dr Dangoor says are being stolen from Names are claims reserves which are matched by the Equitas liabilities which National Indemnity undertakes to pay under the terms of the contract.

That is no highway robbery!

Sir Adam Ridley

Chairman, Equitas Trust

UK has good pilot standards but they are yet to be adopted

SIR, The article ‘Pilot error drives owners’ push for higher standards’ (Lloyd’s List, February 12), rightly calls for higher standards and better training for pilots.

The United Kingdom Maritime Pilots Association has worked for a number of years on such projects as National Occupational Standards for Marine Pilots, formed in 2000 but not yet adopted; Education Training Certification Standard for pilots, formed in 2001 and completed in 2005 but also yet to be adopted; and IMO resolution A960 concerning the Training and Certification of Marine Pilots and also detailing Master Pilot exchange.

We want all pilots to be properly trained — the standards are there, just waiting to be adopted.

It is very easy to say “pilot error” just because a pilot is onboard; however, in the two cases highlighted, the pilot of Zim Mexico III was not advised that the bow thrust had previously failed (as reported October 27, 2006); in the Charleston case, the pilot had a federal licence.

Each US flag coastwise vessel is required by federal law to use a pilot with a federal licence issued by the US Coast Guard.

Unlike the comprehensive state systems, federal regulation is limited to licensing and disciplinary enforcement.

The federal licence has much lower qualification requirements (for example, no prior training specifically as a pilot is necessary) than a state licence, and is similar to a pilotage exemption certificate issued under systems in other parts of the world. Each state pilot also holds a federal licence, however.

In this respect, the federal licence serves as a national minimum standard. The pilot concerned had been previously found to be negligent, the judge remarking that he should never be entrusted with a loaded tanker.

The talks alluded to with our International colleagues at IMPA did, I believe, indicate that, of the 2.5m acts performed each year by skilled and properly qualified pilots, there was close to just one in one million chance of a serious accident — not one a week.

In shipping, accidents do unfortunately happen — it is a peril of the business. We would hope that having a properly trained and skilled pilot onboard a ship, working as part of a bridge management team, would enhance the safety of the vessel during its movement in and out of a port.

Joe Wilson

Chairman, UKMP

Transport House

128 Theobald’s Road

Holborn

London WC1X 8TN

IMO audit scheme - but what about environment?

SIR, Though the aims of the IMO Member Audit scheme are laudable and fully supported by the St Kitts & Nevis International Ship Registry, it was interesting to note that of the administrations featured as wishing to be or already having been audited, only one, Cyprus, has, according to the current listing at IMO, ratified either the Ballast Water Management Convention or the Anti-Fouling Convention, surely the two most important conventions for environmental protection agreed in the last 10 years.

With the slogan of IMO being ‘Safe, Secure & Efficient Shipping on Clean Oceans’ and with both conventions having been accepted by all IMO members, many people will ask the question, “How can any administration be a model member of IMO if it is not supporting these conventions by ratifying them”.

The secretary-general, Efthimios Mitropoulos, in his opening address to the last Marine Environment Protection Committee bemoaned the lack of ratification of these two conventions.

As is often pointed out in your newspaper, as an industry we need some “joined up thinking” and to “get our act together”.

This could be taken as a case in point.

We would end by saying that, especially in view of environmental concerns in the Caribbean region, which is so dependent on its seas, St Kitts & Nevis has ratified both conventions and is working with a supplier of ballast water treatment equipment with a view to giving administration approval to that equipment.

Nigel E Smith

International Registrar of Shipping & Seamen

St Kitts & Nevis International Ship Registry

West Wing, York House

48-50 Western Road

Romford, RM1 3LP

Equitas reckoning

SIR, I wish to express my view that the attempt to requisition the £4,866m assets of Equitas in return for ‘sound sleep’ is the biggest robbery in the history of the universe and should be resisted or amended.

I suggest that Lloyd’s Names should be left a substantial proportion of the assets of Equitas.

The sound sleep that they are offering is the ‘sleep of the dead’.

One solution could be for those who want to settle to relinquish their share in Equitas and leave the others to fight on.

Dr NE Dangoor OBE

25 Albert Hall Mansions

Kensington Gore

London SW7 2AJ

US must avoid protectionism

SIR, Your leader on February 7 put a very positive emphasis on US plans to promote US flag LNG ships and crews.

However, it will be important for the US to ensure that any promotional measures adopted could not be perceived as a means of giving preference to US flag LNG carriers or protection from fair competition from non-US flag ships that otherwise adhere fully to international standards of safety, security, environmental performance and social protection. 

This is important, since there is a danger that such measures could be referred to by other nations to justify protectionist or discriminatory measures in international shipping elsewhere. 

There is nothing to suggest that non-US flag/crewed LNG carriers would be intrinsically any less safe or secure than equivalent US flag ships (any more than non-US aircraft that land at US airports are intrinsically any less safe or secure than US registered aircraft).  

We recognise that Marad is required by Congress to explore means of promoting US flag LNG ships and crews.

 However, to ensure free and fair competition and economically efficient markets, free trade principles with regard to international maritime transport should always be observed. 

Simon Bennett

Secretary

International Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street

London EC1M 6EZ

Priority must be given to ratify IMO conventions

SIR, Your editorial on January 30 commented on the absence of an international liability regime for damage caused by spillage of non-toxic materials from ships.

This may well be an issue, but it should not divert attention from the far more pressing need, highlighted by the MSC Napoli casualty, to ratify Conventions already agreed by IMO such as the HNS Convention 1996 and the Bunker Oil Pollution Damage Convention 2001. 

As we have recently announced, ICS and its member national shipowners’ associations are pressing for these and other IMO Conventions to be ratified by governments as a matter of urgent priority.  

Fortunately,  MSC Napoli was not carrying large quantities of hazardous and noxious cargo on board but, in the event it had been, no clear liability and compensation structure would have been in place to respond to it. This is the issue on which governments should now be focused.

Tony Mason

Secretary-general

International Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street

London EC1M 6EZ

Dialogue is needed on containership loading

SIR, While there is a certain amount of professional reticence within the shipping industry as a whole to criticise the operator (that being MSC) of the MSC Napoli for the débâcle that has occurred, I would think it would be of some use to the industry as a whole to open a dialogue on the structural stresses of large container vessels.

As far as MSC themselves are concerned this must be a high priority in the light of what happened, and also considering a similar type of failure and loss of another large containership some years ago, namely the MSC Carla.

As an industry, shipping went through a similar phase with the loss due to structural failure of a number of large bulk carriers, and while containerships have more inherent buoyancy than bulk carriers, which tend to sink quite rapidly, the clean-up associated with container vessels is far greater.

Having had some experience with the loading of large container vessels and the stresses involved there are a number of issues that need pointing out in the loss of the MSC Napoli.

While the vessel had previously grounded in southeast Asia, it was repaired to classification requirements to ensure full structural compliance. This should have ensured that the maximum longitudinal  stresses allowed within the cargo operation sequence in port, and the maximum loading stresses at sea, would not cause structural failure to the vessel as has happened. If this is not correct the classification society must be questioned further.

As most people involved in the cargo operations of large container vessels are aware, due to the construction of these vessels, to be able to load a full cargo either weight or capacity wise it is sometimes necessary for the longitudinal stresses involved to be stretched to their limit. They have to be watched very carefully both in the discharging or loading phase and also at sea.

Initially these stresses are pre-calculated within the operator’s planning department and then passed on to the container terminal as a loading plan (loadins), and also the vessel’s command. The container terminal’s planning section will also advise the vessel’s command of the discharging or loading sequence to be followed during its stay and also the final departure condition (baplie).

It is the vessel’s responsibility to ensure that its structural integrity is within limits at all times during cargo operations and that the vessel is within the stability and stress limits on departure for that port, and is also able to keep within these  limits until arrival at the next port.

I would suggest that, as it is very difficult and time consuming, the position during loading is very often neglected to some extent by the vessel’s command and provided the departure condition is satisfactory this is all that is looked at.

This does leave an area of opportunity for the vessel to be overstressed while in port and cracks to start.

Once the vessel is at sea fuel oil is used in large quantities and the stresses changed on a frequent basis.

While this should not be any cause for concern it has been known for vessels to be unable to pump or ballast tanks due to one reason or another thereby increasing what should be containable stresses.

These problems are further exacerbated today by the reduction in crew size and the multicultural format of some crews working on vessels with documentation in a different language from their own.

Nigel Ianson

23 Carters Hill

Manuden

Essex

CM23 1DA 

Retention, not recruitment, of crew is key in manning debate

SIR, The managing director of V.People Marine is to be congratulated for his shrewd assessment of the current manning crisis — ‘V.Ships boss urges blue sky thinking on crew training’ (Lloyd’s List, January 24) — when he says that today’s problem is significantly different from those of previous times as “there are no new nationalities to be introduced and the number of officers from developed countries continues to decline”.

With shipping expanding year-on-year, the concerns of the LNG/LPG sector are well recorded and the almost unbelievable six nationalities manning configuration of the ill-fated MSC Napoli is an indication of the developing problem in some parts of the container trade.

Hopefully, Mr Greenhalgh’s interview in the next issue of ‘Lloyd’s Ship Manager’ will reveal his thinking when he advocates that the industry should “move towards the airline model where specific tasks are carried out by trained people who are not part of the crew”.

The stipulation “not part of the crew” is interesting insofar as it suggests a degree of control from without the ship. It is unlikely that the MD of this prestigious manning agency is advocating a move towards shore-based ‘hands on’ operational control — the precursor of the unmanned ship — unless, like many others, he sees the latter as an eventual inevitability.

Retention is the problem — not recruitment. In 1987, the secretary of the Nautical Institute wrote: “The number of deck cadets going to sea in 1986 was less than 50. It takes about 10 years to qualify as a master mariner and in that time over half will have left the sea. Only about one in 10 will make the rank of captain … if the current trend continues Great Britain will cease to be a maritime nation.”

Today, few trainees/junior officers intend to make seafaring a career and seek eventual promotion to master or chief engineer. Shorter periods of engagement, regular (paid) leave, proper training aboard ship, shore leave, shorter working hours and the ability to integrate socially with their shipmates are but a few of the suggestions they make to enable them to “enjoy life — afloat and ashore” — and, perhaps, stay at sea.

Captain CR Kelso

5 Bursledon Heights Bursledon

Southampton SO31 8DB

Textbook thwarting of Veesham 1 hijack

SIR, With regard to the feature on Somali piracy — ‘Somalian “solution” may see pirate flags fly once more’ (Lloyd’s List, January 23) — we wish to correct an inaccuracy in the report and further enhance the information contained therein. 

The ship Veesham 1 mentioned in the article is flagged with St Kitts & Nevis, not the UAE, and it is the managers who are in Dubai. On being advised by the managers about the hijacking, this administration contacted the International Maritime Bureau, which then informed relevant authorities in the region. These included those in Somalia and coalition naval authorities. Meetings were held between the managers and the maritime liaison office of the US naval forces in Bahrain and, through the intervention of France Telecom, use of the ship’s communication equipment was monitored and the location of shore support to the hijackers identified.

Subsequently, Islamic forces tracked and then boarded the ship, returning it to the rightful control of the master and owners. Our government has circulated a letter of thanks to all parties concerned and we consider that the thwarting of the hijack was a textbook example of how co-operation between parties can assist in the fight against piracy.

Nigel E Smith

International Registrar of Shipping & Seamen

on behalf of

St Kitts & Nevis International Ship Registry

West Wing, York House

48-50 Western Road

Romford RM1 3LP, UK

UK waterways are key to an integrated transport system

Sir, I am writing with reference to the Transport select committee report into the ports industry published on January 23 and covered in Lloyd’s List the following day — ‘National UK ports strategy finds favour with MPs’ (Lloyds List, January 24).

While the emotive issue of foreign port ownership might have grabbed the attention of many of the national transport correspondents, there were a number of significant recommendations concerning inland waterways in the report which are in danger of being missed.

Most notable is the recommendation that the commercial waterway network should be considered part of the UK strategic transport network and therefore responsibility for the commercial waterways be transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department for Transport.

This is a hugely significant recommendation which, if followed, would boost dramatically the political profile of waterborne freight. This announcement coincides with the news that British Waterways is disbanding its national freight marketing team as a direct result of the funding cuts from Defra. The reason given by BW is that freight does not pay its way.

It is essential there is a debate on the role the commercial waterways can play in an integrated and sustainable transport system.

I know you have banged the drum for waterborne freight carriage in the past and as owners and operators of the two government sponsored vessels Terra Marique and Inland Navigator, which were grant aided by the DfT to the tune of £9m, we have a commercial imperative to get the commercial waterways working.

Tim West

Research & Corporate Affairs Robert Wynn & Sons

Refreshing approach

SIR, I was a salvor who enjoyed the freedom of being able to act without instant communications, thus was able to salve without outside interference.

How refreshing to see the state co-operating with the salvors of the MSC Napoli, unlike the Spanish, and that a successful salvage is concluded instead of another Prestigedisaster.

Capt IG Tew

3 Claire Court

Victoria Road

Milford on Sea

Hampshire SO41 0UT 

MSC Napoli operators letting the side down

Sir, Re ‘Keeping a low profile’ in your Last Word (Lloyd’s List, January 22), I find it disappointing that a lot more leaders in the industry are not loudly lambasting Zodiac and MSC for not taking the heat for the wreck of the MCS Napoli and the mess it is making.

Not leaving it to a nonentity as myself, one would have thought that by now the big names in the industry would have demanded of these wretched people that they should make their spokesmen fully available to the public and the media.

When we are all aware that the image of shipping needs all the help it can get, what is going on? When all else are calling for more transparency and accountability, the operators of the MSC Napoli should not be allowed to slink away uncondemned.

Thanks, Zodiac and MSC, for so blatantly letting the side down. Just what we all need.

Mike Farlie,

Vancouver BC

Has DNV cracked up?

Sir, Regarding the article ‘Fatigue problem avoidable, says DNV’ (Lloyd’s List, January 23).

To ensure structural integrity of containership hulls, DNV suggests “regular visual inspection by ship staff in areas where fatigue cracking is most likely”. What a level-headed suggestion that is!

Everybody in the industry knows how over-manned containerships are these days. So instead of idly lounging in the messroom, desperately trying to find something to do, some of these men could be made to hang stages over the side, climb down and check welding seams.

Or they could get on the paint punt and check things at water level — all this to the friendly, encouraging remarks from the passing local coastguard patrol boat.

Or the OOW could use his torch to look at longitudinals down below, in the long intervals between container moves. Or why don’t we do as in the old days when we stopped the ship on a quiet day in the middle of the Pacific to do a boat drill. Instead, do a spot of shell plate analysis.

Did anybody watch the DNV man if he had a straight face when writing those suggestions?

Capt Georg Fries,

Brunsbüttel,

Germany

Cardy gets it in the neck

SIR, I enjoyed the article about Peter Cardy’s appointment to the MCA (Lloyd’s List, January 19).

Having worked for him at Macmillan a few years ago, I would concur with most of what you say. 

However, I was surprised that your probing journalist didn’t issue a word of warning to the staff at MCA — even Peter Cardy would be hard-pushed not to admit that he has the world’s worst taste in ties, as your photograph clearly illustrates.

Sheila Bailey

Director of Fundraising and Communications

Apostleship of the Sea

Bunhill Row

London

Clecat say no alliance

Sir, I refer to the statements contained in the article by Mike Piddington: ‘Top billing ... but not by the liner industry’ (Lloyd’s List, January 24).

I wish to inform you that any allegation of an alliance between the European Liner Affairs Association and Clecat is totally groundless.

Marco Leonardo Sorgetti

Director-General Clecat  www.clecat.org

Brussels

Banging drum for inland waterways

SIR, I refer to the transport select committee report into the ports industry, ‘National UK ports strategy finds favour with MPs’ (Lloyd’s List, January 24).

While the issue of foreign port ownership might have grabbed the attention, there were a number of significant recommendations concerning inland waterways contained in the report which are in danger of being missed.

Most notably, the recommendation that the commercial waterway network be considered part of the UK strategic transport network and therefore responsibility for the commercial waterways be transferred from Defra to DfT.

This is a significant recommendation which would boost the political profile of waterborne freight. And this announcement coincides with the news that British Waterways are disbanding there national freight marketing team as a direct result of the funding cuts from Defra.

I hope that your publication might highlight this issue as it is essential there is a debate as to the role the commercial waterways can play in an integrated and sustainable transport system.

I know Lloyd’s List has banged the drum for waterborne freight carriage in the past and, as owners and operators of the two government sponsored vessels the Terra Marique and Inland Navigator , which were grant-aided £9m by the DfT, we have a commercial imperative to get the waterways working.

Tim West

Research & Corporate Affairs

Robert Wynn & Sons

4 High Street, Eccleshall

Staffordhsire, ST21 6BZ