|
With
the war of terrorism high on its
agenda, the International Maritime
Organisation has elected to meet
behind closed doors to discuss a
wide range of issues but notably
consider, what industry sources
expect, tight security measures
affecting ports and ships.
The
75th session of the Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) of IMO which began
its meeting last Tuesday is expected
to come out with new security regime
that could redefine the
international maritime industry at
the end of its 10-day meeting this
week.
The
discussion will center on Review of
measures and procedures to prevent
acts of terrorism which threaten the
security of passengers and crews and
the safety of ships, that was
adopted after IMO Assembly met in
November last year.
The
delegates are discussing measures
that could become mandatory for all
member countries to enforce after
the measures are adopted at the
Diplomatic Conference on Maritime
Security scheduled for December
2002, at which any new or amended
legislation could be adopted.
Issues
up for discussion include
accelerating the implementation
schedule for automatic
identification systems on ships; a
proposed international code for
security of ships and port
facilities; proposed new
requirements for ship security
plans, a ship security officer and
company security officer; proposed
requirements for a port security
officer, port facility security
plans and port vulnerability
assessment;
Other related matters are action on
a revised seafarer identification
document; discussion of transparency
of ownership and control of the
ship; providing a capability for
seafarers to activate an alarm in
case of terrorist attack; inspection
of containers; maritime security
equipment to prevent unauthorised
boarding in ports and at sea.
The
priority over security issues
appears to have taken precedence at
IMO following US moves to consider
unilateral action on matters
affecting port and ship security
following September 11 atrocities.
With
US anxious to make shipping less
vulnerable to terrorist infiltration
and attack, IMO has given top
priority to coming out with common
approach to handle the matter.
In
his opening speech, IMO secretary
general William O’Neil, noted that
the non-existence of an
internationally accepted definition
of terrorism and IMO’s apolitical
character had been brushed aside in
the wake of September 11.
He
referred the way the IMO’s last
assembly had agreed to amend the
Safety of Life at Sea (Solas)
agreement to address maritime
security concerns within two and a
half months of the US atrocities.
Although
there is common agreement on the
need to introduce enhanced security
measures affecting ports and ship,
there appears to be major
differences in the approach to the
issue.
Japan,
supported by a number of member
countries has proposed that new
initiatives on security should
become part of the International
Ship Management Code (that becomes
mandatory 31 July 2002) as it is
much simpler approach to introducing
new security requirements for
shipping companies and ships they
operate.
US
has proposed a range of new,
detailed regulations for inclusion
into the Solas existing Chapter XI
concerning measures for maritime
safety.
Unlike
the Solas Convention, the ISM Code
is non-prescriptive.
Ship
owners are concerned that any new
security requirements affecting them
are matched by commensurate port and
terminal responsibilities.
There
are more than 60 papers covering new
security measures to be discussed by
the MSC which has also before it a
raft of other measures critical to
the industry, including piracy, the
IMDG Code, substantive measures on
bulk vessels and passenger ship
safety, the enhanced survey
programme and the amended timetable
of the STCW Convention.
On
related matter relating to security,
the MSC will also consider IMO's
Legal Committee report on ownership
and control of vessels for maritime
security purposes.
In
response to the issue the Legal
Committee identified a number of
ways in which this can be
determined.
After
an extensive discussion about the
definition of the terms
"ownership" and
"control" of ships in the
context of detecting or deterring
unlawful acts involving the use of a
ship, the Committee concluded that
answers to the following three
questions would be relevant:
1.
Who appoints the crew?
2. Who fixes the use of the ship?
3. Who signs the charterparty on
behalf of the owner?
|
