The change from general cargo transport to container shipments resulted in historical change from craft production methods to industrial production by using containers, the general cargo transport gets attributes which are comparable to those of bulk cargo, making it possible to establish whole logistical chains from the shipper's ramp to the receiver's premises.
Due to the increasing importance of material handling costs now-a-days and transport costs the management function is more and more concerned with overall logistics.
Logistics comprise central planning and control of the movement of material and products to optimise their flow from procurement of materials through production and to the distribution to the customers. It may also be defined as the scientific planning, controlling and supervision of materials, persons, energy and information flows in systems. Surveying the logistical cost components, the inventory costs may amount up to 35% of total logistic costs.
It is important to understand that the isolated optimisation of individual functions will not result in an overall optimum solution. The objective is to achieve a high degree of overall efficiency and coordination. This is attained by optimising the interfaces between the various sections on the one hand, and suppliers, customers and providers of logistical services, on the other hand.
The isolated optimisation of single logistic components will not achieve the optimisation of the whole system. In order to reach synergy effects between the logistic components, various methods of system analysis are applied. Thus logistic is a cross section function which controls the entire flow of goods and materials. Taking these terms of reference as a starting point, attention must be paid to the application of system analysis in order to co-ordinate logistic procedures.
This external transport system starts with the interfaces of procurement at the beginning and distribution at the end of the production chain. Synergy and cost saving effects will be gained by reducing the level of inventory stocks and efficient, speedy and economic movement of materials through the system. Thus a determination of a co-ordinated procurement-orientated supply frequency will be the result.
For products which are largely identical in price and quantity, the speed and cost of delivery service are the dominant factor for their relative competitiveness.
THE DELIVERY SERVICE BASICALLY COMPRISES TWO COMPONENTS:
(1) AVAILABILITY: This is understood as the readiness of a product for delivery. A degree of availability of 100% means that the entire range of products will be immediately available: in the case of products to be made to customers specification, production and delivery can be realised within an insignificant time span.
(2) TIME OF DELIVERY: It is understood as the time span between the receipt of order and the delivery to the customers. A definite period is confirmed when accepting an order.
These two elements basically determine the level of delivery services. It should be the objective of logistics to produce the varying levels of delivery service to meet the expectations and requirements of the various markets, groups of customers or individual clients.
THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF LOGISTICS CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Increase in productivity.
(2) Reduction of costs.
(3) Improvement of services.
Conventional liner shipping was dominated by the regulating factory of the shipping conference. The extent of liability along the transport chain was liner shipping company to the sea transport only. In accordance to this market organisation, improvements of transport sully were directed to the individual sections.
The signal sector thinking was encouraged by technological aspects. Heterogeneous cargo units were not suitable for a uniform transport, information and documentation system. The traditional conference system was denoted by a typical supply orientated thinking of all partners within the transport chain.
Containerisation can be split into three major phases. In the first phase cargo flows between the highly industrialised economies were containerised. During the second phase of development some ports on the routes between highly industrialised countries were included in the container transport system.
During the third traffic between highly industrialised countries and countries with rich natural resources (eg oil producing countries) were included in the containerisation process. The reason for including these trades into the containerisation was the congestion in the middle cast ports caused by the repaid growth in imports.
The container transport system was promoted from the very beginning by trucking companies, which were not bound to the routes and regulations or liner shipping. In contrast to the shipping companies their philosophy was to provide an uninterrupted house-to-house service. From the very beginning the cost aspect was one of the dominating factors within the land/sea container logistics.
In the first stage of containerisation the lack of coordination of intermodal transport has resulted in high additional costs for turnaround time of ships, inland carriers, and handling facilities in the seaports as well as in the hinterland.
THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THE INCREASING USE OF INTEGRATED INTERMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ARE:
(1) Shorter time of delivery from origin to destination.
(2) Lower costs along the whole transport chain.
(3) Greater control of costs, schedules, cargo safety and conditions.
THE ADVANTAGES AND POTENTIAL SAVINGS DEPEND TO A LARGE EXTENT ON THE FOLLOWING FOUR FACTORS:
(1) Efficiency of intermodal transport and turnaround of transfer points in terms of both costs as well as time.
(2) Efficiency of modal split of intermodal operations.
(3) Maximisation continuity of flow, particularly intermodal flow, or large scale direct transport transfer with a minimum of double handling and storage at intermodal interfaces: and
(4) Effectiveness of information and documentation control and transfer.
The most important issue of intermodal transport is effective integration of operation, control and management of the diverse modal links and facilities. This means that not every art of the transport chain can expect an optimisation of its individual operation. If the total intermodal chain of operations is to operate optimally, modal integration requires close coordination of operation, technology, information flow and control with capacities, frequencies of service, routings, and schedules well co-ordinated among interfacing modes of transport.
In other words, intermodal transport to be effective, must have a co-ordinated management or be managed as one co-ordinated transport system. The criteria which accounts for the efficiency of transport system can be derived from quantitative requirements. In this area the prime consideration is the capacity of transport system. A transport system consists of an optimal coordination of:
-- Carrier (sea and land)
-- Transport infrastructure (sea and land)
-- Terminals (handling facilities inland and at the seaports>)
Bottlenecks are bound to occur wherever the three elements-route, vehicle and handling points cannot be adjusted to each other through flexible planning and scheduling.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The glorious history of shipping
Shipping plays a very vital and significant role in today's global economy. The transportation through sea routes is considered the most economical and cheapest mode of transport which gave rise to ship building and movement of trade by using available waterways internally for local transportation of goods and subsequently through sea for intercontinental trades.
The trade has been growing steadily with each passing day from the inception and recognition of interdependence on each others products, be it agricultural or industrial. Countries which are rich in raw materials and have surplus tend to export these resources to other countries which are industrialised and able to use theses materials to produce finished material by value addition and re-export to the needy countries.
Like-wise the countries having agro based economy, depend upon agricultural produce for export of their surplus commodities, however, the countries do face a situation of trade imbalance when their imports outweigh exports by value. Pakistan is facing trade imbalance of 8 billion plus.
Shipping has witnessed various ups and downs from the very inception of this mode of transport and has undergone various technological changes. Without shipping, intercontinental, trade, the bulk transport of raw materials and the import / export of affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not be possible.
Of all the sectors that make up the global transport infrastructure, shipping probably has the lowest public profile and the least representative public image.
Today, we live in a global world, and it is certainly true that international trade among all the nations and regions of the world is nothing new. The history of the world is a history of exploration. Conquest and trade by sea. But there is no doubt that we have now entered a new era of global interdependence from which there can be no turning back.
In today's world, national boundaries offer little impediment to multi-national corporation. The process of globalisation has been made possible by the progressive dismantling of barriers to trade and capital mobility.
Fundamental technological advances, steadily declining costs of transport, communication and computing, its integrative logic seems inexorable, its momentum irresistible.
Looking back into history, we can trace the stages through which we have progressed to arrive at this new world order. As the world became more developed, proximity to new materials and to markets became the factors that, above all others, shaped the world's economy and,. In particular, the major trade patterns and shipping routes, today, international trade has evolved to the point where almost no nation can be fully self-sufficient.
Every country is involved, at one level or another, in the process of selling what it produces and acquiring what it lacks: none can be dependent only on its domestic resources. Shipping has always provided the only really cost-effective method of bulk transport over any great distance, and the development of shipping and the establishment of a global system of trade have moved forward together, hand-in-hand.
The eternal triangle of producers, manufacturers and markers are brought together through shipping. This has always been the case and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Advance in technology have also made shipping an increasingly efficient and swift method of transport. Over the last four decades, total seaborne trade has more than quadrupled, from less than 6 thousand billion ton-miles in 1995 to over 27 thousand billion ton-miles in 2004 and continues to grow steadily. In the context of a global economy, the contribution made by shipping as a major industry in its own right is very significant, and increasingly so for the developing world.
Maritime activity already provides an important source of income to many developing countries, Indeed, developing countries now lead the world in some of shipping's most important ancillary business, including the registration of ships, the supply of sea-going manpower and ship recycling. They also play a significant part in shipowning and operating, shipbuilding and repair and port services, among others.
The history of shipping is a glorious and proud one. There is no doubt, for example, that the magnificent square riggers of the era of sail or the early ~ century's prestigious ocean liners could stir the hearts of all hose that beheld them. But the ships of today are just as worthy of our admiration, for shipping today is in another golden age.
Ships have never been so technically advanced, never been so sophisticated, never more immense, never carrier of so much cargo, never been safer and never been so environmentally-friendly after introduction of engine powered ships, as they are today.
Ships are high value assets, with the larger of them costing over US $100/150 million to build. Ships today are modern, technologically advanced workplaces. Although general cargo ships are still largest single category, among new ships is more and more in favour of specialisation for specific trades, ie edible/non-edible product carriers to LPG/CNG carriers. Tankers make up the second largest category.
Most large modern tankers are in the 200-3 00,000 tonnage range. The world's largest ship today is a 564,765 dwt tanker. Bulk carriers are often called the workhorses of the international shipping fleet that typically transport commodities such as grain, coal and mineral ores. Passenger ships come next in the world fleet league table. One of the finest modern examples of passenger liner is the Queen Mary II, built in France for Carnival Corp's Cunard in 2004. QM2 is the largest, longest, tallest, widest ocean liner over and has cost an estimated 800 million US dollars.
But the one sector which can be said to have transformed the face of shipping, certainly in the latter half of the 20~ Century, is that of container shipping. Unheard of before the 1 960s, the containers are now ubiquitous and the standard unit of cargo for just about every form of manufactured item on the planet.
Of all the sectors that make up the global transport infrastructure, shipping probably has the lowesr public profile and the least representative public image. In terms of efficiency, safety, the environment and its contribution to global trade, shipping is unmatched by any other transport sector.
History may be the harshest of judges but this is also true that no form of commercial transport is likely to emerge to challenge shipping as the carrier of world trade in the foreseeable future.
As far as maritime security is concerned, it is appropriate to recall the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his report to the 2005 world summit: "we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not either without respect for human dignity. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed".
Shipping affects us all. No matter where you may be in the world, if you look around you it is almost certain that you will see something that either has been or will be transported by sea, whether in the form of raw materials, components or the finished article. The sea knows no international barriers and the ship is as important now as it ever was, perhaps more so. Standards of living in the industrialised and developed world, the jobs and livelihoods of billions in the developing world, all depend on ships and shipping.
The shipping industry remains the most neglected sector of our economy, being 100% dependent on foreign flag vessels as far as containerised trade of over 1.8 mill teas handled at both ports and also bulk trade. Having achieved a peak of 71 Pak flag vessel's of 749,046 dwt, now we are left with only 14 ships out of which 11 are nearing 30 years and that too in public sector only.
A very serious thought is necessitated by the government to plan replacement of 11 public sector ship's and inducing private sector as on the pattern of India in 1980's when new ship owners were induced by, offering loan at 4%.
It is not only freight bill of USD 2 bill burden on our exchequer, but we cant discount the fact that we are totally dependent on foreign lines, who can dictate us further making our impo/expo incompetitive and creating trade imbalance of over 10 bill USD. PNSC is the last monument of Pak Merchant Marine, thus be supported, as merchant navy club has been razed to the ground.
Indian fleet of 450 Vessel's 8.8 million gross tonnage is a good example of public and private sector co-operation. The shipping corporation of India (public sector) 80% government owned enterprise earned a profit of 2.06 billion IRS (50.8 m USD) and owns 79 vessels. It is managed by shipping professionals and board comprising commercial maritime members.
The chairman is optimistic to spend 3 billion USD to get 100 mark. SCI Chairman insists on level playing field in order compete with all players with edge on professional skills. Indian impo/expo is going to touch 1 / billion tons mark by 2010 compared to Pakistan 58 million tons which may touch 70/75 million tons by 2010.
I fail to understand, how any country can ignore this sector which is the lifeline of the country. The old adageis" who rules the sea, rules the world, ". Form a think tank of professionals and business related people to suggest how to overcome the problem of industry. There is no dearth of skilled shipping experts who may volunteer if given recognition in their country. Pakistanis have established Neptune orient line of Singapore and Abudhabi tanker company and many more.
The trade has been growing steadily with each passing day from the inception and recognition of interdependence on each others products, be it agricultural or industrial. Countries which are rich in raw materials and have surplus tend to export these resources to other countries which are industrialised and able to use theses materials to produce finished material by value addition and re-export to the needy countries.
Like-wise the countries having agro based economy, depend upon agricultural produce for export of their surplus commodities, however, the countries do face a situation of trade imbalance when their imports outweigh exports by value. Pakistan is facing trade imbalance of 8 billion plus.
Shipping has witnessed various ups and downs from the very inception of this mode of transport and has undergone various technological changes. Without shipping, intercontinental, trade, the bulk transport of raw materials and the import / export of affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not be possible.
Of all the sectors that make up the global transport infrastructure, shipping probably has the lowest public profile and the least representative public image.
Today, we live in a global world, and it is certainly true that international trade among all the nations and regions of the world is nothing new. The history of the world is a history of exploration. Conquest and trade by sea. But there is no doubt that we have now entered a new era of global interdependence from which there can be no turning back.
In today's world, national boundaries offer little impediment to multi-national corporation. The process of globalisation has been made possible by the progressive dismantling of barriers to trade and capital mobility.
Fundamental technological advances, steadily declining costs of transport, communication and computing, its integrative logic seems inexorable, its momentum irresistible.
Looking back into history, we can trace the stages through which we have progressed to arrive at this new world order. As the world became more developed, proximity to new materials and to markets became the factors that, above all others, shaped the world's economy and,. In particular, the major trade patterns and shipping routes, today, international trade has evolved to the point where almost no nation can be fully self-sufficient.
Every country is involved, at one level or another, in the process of selling what it produces and acquiring what it lacks: none can be dependent only on its domestic resources. Shipping has always provided the only really cost-effective method of bulk transport over any great distance, and the development of shipping and the establishment of a global system of trade have moved forward together, hand-in-hand.
The eternal triangle of producers, manufacturers and markers are brought together through shipping. This has always been the case and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Advance in technology have also made shipping an increasingly efficient and swift method of transport. Over the last four decades, total seaborne trade has more than quadrupled, from less than 6 thousand billion ton-miles in 1995 to over 27 thousand billion ton-miles in 2004 and continues to grow steadily. In the context of a global economy, the contribution made by shipping as a major industry in its own right is very significant, and increasingly so for the developing world.
Maritime activity already provides an important source of income to many developing countries, Indeed, developing countries now lead the world in some of shipping's most important ancillary business, including the registration of ships, the supply of sea-going manpower and ship recycling. They also play a significant part in shipowning and operating, shipbuilding and repair and port services, among others.
The history of shipping is a glorious and proud one. There is no doubt, for example, that the magnificent square riggers of the era of sail or the early ~ century's prestigious ocean liners could stir the hearts of all hose that beheld them. But the ships of today are just as worthy of our admiration, for shipping today is in another golden age.
Ships have never been so technically advanced, never been so sophisticated, never more immense, never carrier of so much cargo, never been safer and never been so environmentally-friendly after introduction of engine powered ships, as they are today.
Ships are high value assets, with the larger of them costing over US $100/150 million to build. Ships today are modern, technologically advanced workplaces. Although general cargo ships are still largest single category, among new ships is more and more in favour of specialisation for specific trades, ie edible/non-edible product carriers to LPG/CNG carriers. Tankers make up the second largest category.
Most large modern tankers are in the 200-3 00,000 tonnage range. The world's largest ship today is a 564,765 dwt tanker. Bulk carriers are often called the workhorses of the international shipping fleet that typically transport commodities such as grain, coal and mineral ores. Passenger ships come next in the world fleet league table. One of the finest modern examples of passenger liner is the Queen Mary II, built in France for Carnival Corp's Cunard in 2004. QM2 is the largest, longest, tallest, widest ocean liner over and has cost an estimated 800 million US dollars.
But the one sector which can be said to have transformed the face of shipping, certainly in the latter half of the 20~ Century, is that of container shipping. Unheard of before the 1 960s, the containers are now ubiquitous and the standard unit of cargo for just about every form of manufactured item on the planet.
Of all the sectors that make up the global transport infrastructure, shipping probably has the lowesr public profile and the least representative public image. In terms of efficiency, safety, the environment and its contribution to global trade, shipping is unmatched by any other transport sector.
History may be the harshest of judges but this is also true that no form of commercial transport is likely to emerge to challenge shipping as the carrier of world trade in the foreseeable future.
As far as maritime security is concerned, it is appropriate to recall the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his report to the 2005 world summit: "we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not either without respect for human dignity. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed".
Shipping affects us all. No matter where you may be in the world, if you look around you it is almost certain that you will see something that either has been or will be transported by sea, whether in the form of raw materials, components or the finished article. The sea knows no international barriers and the ship is as important now as it ever was, perhaps more so. Standards of living in the industrialised and developed world, the jobs and livelihoods of billions in the developing world, all depend on ships and shipping.
The shipping industry remains the most neglected sector of our economy, being 100% dependent on foreign flag vessels as far as containerised trade of over 1.8 mill teas handled at both ports and also bulk trade. Having achieved a peak of 71 Pak flag vessel's of 749,046 dwt, now we are left with only 14 ships out of which 11 are nearing 30 years and that too in public sector only.
A very serious thought is necessitated by the government to plan replacement of 11 public sector ship's and inducing private sector as on the pattern of India in 1980's when new ship owners were induced by, offering loan at 4%.
It is not only freight bill of USD 2 bill burden on our exchequer, but we cant discount the fact that we are totally dependent on foreign lines, who can dictate us further making our impo/expo incompetitive and creating trade imbalance of over 10 bill USD. PNSC is the last monument of Pak Merchant Marine, thus be supported, as merchant navy club has been razed to the ground.
Indian fleet of 450 Vessel's 8.8 million gross tonnage is a good example of public and private sector co-operation. The shipping corporation of India (public sector) 80% government owned enterprise earned a profit of 2.06 billion IRS (50.8 m USD) and owns 79 vessels. It is managed by shipping professionals and board comprising commercial maritime members.
The chairman is optimistic to spend 3 billion USD to get 100 mark. SCI Chairman insists on level playing field in order compete with all players with edge on professional skills. Indian impo/expo is going to touch 1 / billion tons mark by 2010 compared to Pakistan 58 million tons which may touch 70/75 million tons by 2010.
I fail to understand, how any country can ignore this sector which is the lifeline of the country. The old adageis" who rules the sea, rules the world, ". Form a think tank of professionals and business related people to suggest how to overcome the problem of industry. There is no dearth of skilled shipping experts who may volunteer if given recognition in their country. Pakistanis have established Neptune orient line of Singapore and Abudhabi tanker company and many more.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Environment protection in seaports
The debacles of oil tanker M.T. "GOLDEN GATE" which spilled 1800 M/Tons oil on August 2002 and thereafter massive oil spill of 30,000 M/Tons by oil tanker M.T. "TASMAN SPIRIT" in August 2003 at Karachi Port caused havoc to our beaches and forced residents of DHA and Clifton to move out due to pungent smell.
The spill had created havoc not only to marine life but resident ashore were equally affected. The both oil tankers were said to be owned by one company which as per records / sire inspection of vessel was black listed in USA with poor track record of seaworthiness.
On both instances port management was caught unaware as port has limitation to deal with oil spill, thus foreign assistance was necessitated to salvage the situation. The MPCD of KPT did its best with limited resources.
Karachi Port receives untreated sewerage of city and accident of a oil tanker can cause havoc to marine life and mangroves, thus the only way to check recurrence is to equip ports to OPRC II level and train all staff in environmental protection. "Prevention is better than cure".
We, must learn from the past thus enquiry report of incidents be made public and debated, where we went wrong. The owners of the vessel having revoked the arbitration clause as per English law and it is said that arbitration award has been made, thus document be made public for benefit of all.
The level of operational safety and the quality of the environmental protection in a port is a function of various factors: awareness and skill of personnel, quality of facilities and administrative and organisational structures. Greater emphasis is now attached to protection of the environment in ports since tremendous damage has been done to the environment.
There is no part of the environment that is not affected. There is a wide range of sources for pollution but activities to fight and reduce pollution are as yet inadequate. It is, therefore, considered essential that priority is given to the avoidance of pollution of any kind rather than to fight pollution.
At the same time, as the risk of pollution will remain imminent, preparations have to be made to fight pollution and reduce damage to the environment as far as possible. Ports have to cover items of environmental protection and to assist ships in complying with internationally agreed rules to protect the marine environment by providing reception facilities for the different residues originating from ship-operation and to enforce national regulations for the protection of the environment against advance effects of port operation.
The only regulation applicable world-wide for the protection of a vital part of the environment is the "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973" as amended by the "Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78).
This convention consists of the convention itself, covering basic items as are: general obligations of contracting parties, rules for ratification, entry into force, amendments and denunciation, a protocol I dealing with incident reporting, a protocol II which contains rules for arbitration and 5 annexes covering details of pollution prevention from various sources annexure-I, and annexure-II, are "Mandatory Annexes".
That means, any state becoming party to the convention will automatically be bound to apply these two annexes while annexure-III, annexure-IV and annexure-V are "Optional annexes". This means, a state becoming or being party to the Convention has to declare whether it accepts any or all of these annexes.
For ports the obligations to make available reception facilities is an indirect result of the MARPOL-convention. Only by a national law that makes the contents of the convention binding for its nationals and foreign port users, the Convention is given its operational basis.
In most countries there are more specialised laws, regulations and recommendations to protect the environment and avoid or fight any pollution. Rule making is only one part of the protection of the environment in a port. The other part is to provide for the technical means or special installations to meet the requirements.
Annexure-I, II, IV and V to MARPOL 73/78 require that ships shall not or only under certain conditions and in limited quantities discharge oily residues, liquid noxious substances, sewage or garbage into the sea: such residues have to be delivered to shore-reception facilities and ports should provide such facilities and ports should be free to decide on their own whether they will charge a ship for using reception facilities on a case by case basis, including a certain amount in the harbour dues or make the use free for ships and pay the changes out of public funds. Garbage from ships may consist of domestic waste. Accordingly, collecting services in a port should be set up by installing a regular collection for domestic waste.
By setting up rules of procedures and enforcing technical safety measures and/or installations, ports and terminal operations, as the competencies may be divided locally, have to do whatever possible to prevent damage to the environment. It could be wrongly taken that damage to the environment is just caused by different kinds of technical operations.
It has to be clearly seen that behind all these operations are people who design, operate and execute. People who are engaged in port planning and operation have to be made aware of possible sources of pollution and the adverse result of pollution for the environment. They should know how to prevent and fight pollution in case it has happen. Environmental protection should, therefore, be included in all kinds of training at all levels.
The spill had created havoc not only to marine life but resident ashore were equally affected. The both oil tankers were said to be owned by one company which as per records / sire inspection of vessel was black listed in USA with poor track record of seaworthiness.
On both instances port management was caught unaware as port has limitation to deal with oil spill, thus foreign assistance was necessitated to salvage the situation. The MPCD of KPT did its best with limited resources.
Karachi Port receives untreated sewerage of city and accident of a oil tanker can cause havoc to marine life and mangroves, thus the only way to check recurrence is to equip ports to OPRC II level and train all staff in environmental protection. "Prevention is better than cure".
We, must learn from the past thus enquiry report of incidents be made public and debated, where we went wrong. The owners of the vessel having revoked the arbitration clause as per English law and it is said that arbitration award has been made, thus document be made public for benefit of all.
The level of operational safety and the quality of the environmental protection in a port is a function of various factors: awareness and skill of personnel, quality of facilities and administrative and organisational structures. Greater emphasis is now attached to protection of the environment in ports since tremendous damage has been done to the environment.
There is no part of the environment that is not affected. There is a wide range of sources for pollution but activities to fight and reduce pollution are as yet inadequate. It is, therefore, considered essential that priority is given to the avoidance of pollution of any kind rather than to fight pollution.
At the same time, as the risk of pollution will remain imminent, preparations have to be made to fight pollution and reduce damage to the environment as far as possible. Ports have to cover items of environmental protection and to assist ships in complying with internationally agreed rules to protect the marine environment by providing reception facilities for the different residues originating from ship-operation and to enforce national regulations for the protection of the environment against advance effects of port operation.
The only regulation applicable world-wide for the protection of a vital part of the environment is the "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973" as amended by the "Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78).
This convention consists of the convention itself, covering basic items as are: general obligations of contracting parties, rules for ratification, entry into force, amendments and denunciation, a protocol I dealing with incident reporting, a protocol II which contains rules for arbitration and 5 annexes covering details of pollution prevention from various sources annexure-I, and annexure-II, are "Mandatory Annexes".
That means, any state becoming party to the convention will automatically be bound to apply these two annexes while annexure-III, annexure-IV and annexure-V are "Optional annexes". This means, a state becoming or being party to the Convention has to declare whether it accepts any or all of these annexes.
For ports the obligations to make available reception facilities is an indirect result of the MARPOL-convention. Only by a national law that makes the contents of the convention binding for its nationals and foreign port users, the Convention is given its operational basis.
In most countries there are more specialised laws, regulations and recommendations to protect the environment and avoid or fight any pollution. Rule making is only one part of the protection of the environment in a port. The other part is to provide for the technical means or special installations to meet the requirements.
Annexure-I, II, IV and V to MARPOL 73/78 require that ships shall not or only under certain conditions and in limited quantities discharge oily residues, liquid noxious substances, sewage or garbage into the sea: such residues have to be delivered to shore-reception facilities and ports should provide such facilities and ports should be free to decide on their own whether they will charge a ship for using reception facilities on a case by case basis, including a certain amount in the harbour dues or make the use free for ships and pay the changes out of public funds. Garbage from ships may consist of domestic waste. Accordingly, collecting services in a port should be set up by installing a regular collection for domestic waste.
By setting up rules of procedures and enforcing technical safety measures and/or installations, ports and terminal operations, as the competencies may be divided locally, have to do whatever possible to prevent damage to the environment. It could be wrongly taken that damage to the environment is just caused by different kinds of technical operations.
It has to be clearly seen that behind all these operations are people who design, operate and execute. People who are engaged in port planning and operation have to be made aware of possible sources of pollution and the adverse result of pollution for the environment. They should know how to prevent and fight pollution in case it has happen. Environmental protection should, therefore, be included in all kinds of training at all levels.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Government must take immediate steps to revive ship-breaking
Ship-breaking industry is also referred to as ship scrapping, ship dismantling and even ship re-cycling. Whatever name we call it by, it involves breaking up a ship at the end of its useful life and then to re-cycle various components. Most of the steel finds their way to re-rolling mills.
While the western world is engaged in high technology industry, some of the third world countries developed the skill in ship breaking. A large number of people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China are engaged in this industry directly and many others in associated industries as its by product.
The ship-breaking industry is making substantial contribution to their national economies. It has its down side as well. The health and safety standards are poor resulting into frequent accidents and casualties. The industry with no environmental control or protection has been also causing long term environmental damage.
The industry needs to be regulated to provide safety and environmental safeguards without disturbing its natural growth based on supply demand and expertise. Recently various UN agencies with no respect or regard for each other's role and competence got engaged into the matter. Is it all genuine love for safety and environment or an attempt to build up respective empire or even make it another high technology industry for the western world?
Any attempt to improve safety and environmental standards must not be so radical to deprive the third world countries. It has to be a slow and gradual process otherwise it will disturb the present balance. Any radical attempt will be viewed as a conspiracy to deprive the third world countries of their cheap labour intensive industry.
The International Maritime Organisation is a specialised agency of the United Nations dealing with maritime safety and protection of the maritime environment. It uses the slogan "safe ships and cleaner seas", Till this time IMO has developed a number of International instruments consistent to its role and function.
The Member States implement the provisions of those instruments to make the seas much safer and cleaner then what they would have been without such internationally agreed standards. SOLAS is the paramount IMO Convention and ISM Code (under SOLAS) deals with safe operation of ships and protection of the marine environment.
The important part is "safe operation". Recently IMO has been deliberating a lot about ship-breaking - its safety and environmental impact. The question is whether such matters are IMO remit. Ship-breaking is certainly not a part of the maritime industry and by no means a part of the "safe operation". As a matter of fact when a ship is withdrawn from service and de-registered, it is no more a ship.
It is then merely a structure. At this point the structure is out of the IMO remit. Breaking up such a structure ashore is a shore-based industry. The health and safety aspect including other conditions should be the remit of the ILO and its national link body such as the ministry of industry or labour.
The environmental matter should be of UNEP concern and its national link body dealing with environment in general (and not marine environment alone). There is apparently no role for IMO. It is not clear as to why IMO is trying to get so much involved in this matter.
IMO has done real good work in the field of maritime safety and protection of the maritime environment and has set up a reputation for itself as one of the most effective UN agency. Perhaps it should not tarnish its image by unnecessary involvement in matters beyond its filed of competence.
Talking in terms of 'Flag State' and ' last owner' - are all counter-productive and waste of time. Who is going to declare himself as the last owner? When the ship-owner thinks that further operation of the ship is not viable, he will sell it off. He does not have to declare that he is selling it for scrapping.
The question of "Green Passport" is unrealistic. If the ship has to obtain a green passport' from a highly industrialised country when why should it go to the third world country any more? That is the end of the game. The discussion that took place at IMO even referred to contract between ship-owner and the breaking yard as if it is that simple.
In practice it is a different world. The ship may pass through five different hands before it ends up in the breaking yard. The breaking yard may not own the vessel or any part thereof at any time. The breaking yard may merely be taken on lease by a person or company undertaking the business. References to so many different parties are totally unnecessary and would not provide any practicable solution.
The Basel Convention exists to regulate the transport of hazardous materials to developing countries by making the ship and its exporter responsible. I agree with the philosophy that a developing country should not be the dumping ground but how can a live operational ship be regarded as waste. Application of the concept of export-import (to operational ships) will complicate the whole issue. The Basle Convention certainly does not apply to ships.
The Flag State remains responsible so long the vessel operates under its Flag. Once the vessel is de-registered then it is no more the extended floating territory of the Flag State. Then the structure should be under full control and jurisdiction of the State where it is located. An operational ship sailing for a destination is under no obligation to disclose in advance its future intention of scrapping.
This will only encourage ship-owners and scrap-buyers to indulge into illegal activities, perhaps at sea, to avoid the eyes of law. Until the last day of operation under its own power the ship must comply with all requirements of survey, audit and certification under applicable IMO instruments for safe operation and protection of the environment. A ship should be considered as an export commodity only if it is being towed to another country for scrap.
The ideal solution is perhaps to draw a Convention specifically on ship-breaking. The world maritime community at IMP should adopt a resolution calling up on the competent UN agencies to act without further delay. The lead agency should be ILO with UNEP providing necessary guidance on environment related matters.
Any international instrument must focus on the recycling country because it is only that Party who can exercise effective jurisdiction and control. A broad outline of such an international instrument is suggested below.
Member States should not allow a ship to be abandoned, dumped or broken up within its jurisdiction unless it complies with the requirements of the instrument;
Member States shall after necessary verification license scrapping yards within its jurisdiction that meet the standards of health, safety and environment as stipulate in the instrument. The Member States shall subject the continuation of the license to periodic inspection and review to ensure the compliance of the standards at all times. The owner (person or company) responsible for the ship intended to be scrapped in Member State shall apply to a designated authority for a permit.
The application shall contain the following details:
-- particulars of the company or persons involved in the business ;
-- particulars of the ship:
-- particulars of the licensed breaking yard;
-- brief description of any pollutant, toxic or hazardous substances still remaining on board and plans for their safe disposal;
-- an outline of the ship-breaking programme.
-- Once the authority is satisfied with the proposed plan, it shall grant necessary permit. The authority may attach any clause or condition if deemed necessary;
-- The authority while granting such a permit shall keep the State, under whose Flag the vessel arrived to the recycling State informed.
This will be a simple, workable and effective way of dealing with all aspects (health, safety and environment of the ship-breaking without involving too many parties and certainly without creating any conflict or overlapping of responsibilities of various agencies. The Ministry of Environment shall act as a focal point for recycling of ships, as it is a shore-based industry.
REGIONAL SCENARIO: Record prices for scrap, rising freight market and dearth of vessels on sale has created difficulty for demo business and all yards in the subcontinent are suffering except Bangladesh which demolished 4.8m DWT during 2006, way ahead of Indian's 1m dwt, whilst Pakistan and China Shared 0.25m DWT.
The ship-breaking at Gaddani was flourishing prior to 2004 and offering employment, has virtually collapsed rendering thousands jobless. The historical average till 2004 was 155 USD per LDT, prices are now 500/USD/LDT plus. Bangladesh buyers are offering USD 530/LDT for clean tanker and USD 470/LDT for bulker whereas Indians and Pakistanis can offer Max USD: 470.00 and USD: 435.00 respectively for wet and dry tonnage.
China has forbidden beaching due to environmental consideration and only scraps in docks, with new docks built in China to make demo environmental friendly recycling sites. Only Pakistan, India and Bangladesh allow beaching which is likely to be forbidden by new basell/IMO convention and the efforts of Green peace.
Pakistan's ship-breakers, already reeling from impossible price competition, have been further hit with increase in import and sales tax on scrap tonnage effective July, 1, 2007. The Pakistani ship-breakers are now in no position to compete and will shut down their demo operation/business.
The west was quite upset as most of the demo industry was flourishing in the subcontinent, thus new regulation of green passports and recycling in docks only has been introduced, so that idle yards of west may be re-activated/used.
The Directorate General of Ports and Shipping, being focal point of IMO, must resist the move of passing convention on recycling in the Marine environmental protection committee meeting and in recent IMO assembly of 18th November 2007. We, must save our nascent industry by telling IMO, that its jurisdiction, does not apply, as ship recycling is shore based industry.
The searching question is, does any one is concerned or aware of these developments or are they able to comprehend the negative effects of new international convention on our demo industry. The answer is No Atleast we can support India and Bangladesh who send qualified and competent people to international forums to safeguard their national interest.
We must make efforts to revive the ship breaking industry to meet our needs of iron and steel and employment of thousand of workers attached to this industry, otherwise developed countries with international regulation will bar beaching on shore. We have no dry docks available to comply with the forthcoming regulation, we must educate ship breaking industry for its survival in future.
While the western world is engaged in high technology industry, some of the third world countries developed the skill in ship breaking. A large number of people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China are engaged in this industry directly and many others in associated industries as its by product.
The ship-breaking industry is making substantial contribution to their national economies. It has its down side as well. The health and safety standards are poor resulting into frequent accidents and casualties. The industry with no environmental control or protection has been also causing long term environmental damage.
The industry needs to be regulated to provide safety and environmental safeguards without disturbing its natural growth based on supply demand and expertise. Recently various UN agencies with no respect or regard for each other's role and competence got engaged into the matter. Is it all genuine love for safety and environment or an attempt to build up respective empire or even make it another high technology industry for the western world?
Any attempt to improve safety and environmental standards must not be so radical to deprive the third world countries. It has to be a slow and gradual process otherwise it will disturb the present balance. Any radical attempt will be viewed as a conspiracy to deprive the third world countries of their cheap labour intensive industry.
The International Maritime Organisation is a specialised agency of the United Nations dealing with maritime safety and protection of the maritime environment. It uses the slogan "safe ships and cleaner seas", Till this time IMO has developed a number of International instruments consistent to its role and function.
The Member States implement the provisions of those instruments to make the seas much safer and cleaner then what they would have been without such internationally agreed standards. SOLAS is the paramount IMO Convention and ISM Code (under SOLAS) deals with safe operation of ships and protection of the marine environment.
The important part is "safe operation". Recently IMO has been deliberating a lot about ship-breaking - its safety and environmental impact. The question is whether such matters are IMO remit. Ship-breaking is certainly not a part of the maritime industry and by no means a part of the "safe operation". As a matter of fact when a ship is withdrawn from service and de-registered, it is no more a ship.
It is then merely a structure. At this point the structure is out of the IMO remit. Breaking up such a structure ashore is a shore-based industry. The health and safety aspect including other conditions should be the remit of the ILO and its national link body such as the ministry of industry or labour.
The environmental matter should be of UNEP concern and its national link body dealing with environment in general (and not marine environment alone). There is apparently no role for IMO. It is not clear as to why IMO is trying to get so much involved in this matter.
IMO has done real good work in the field of maritime safety and protection of the maritime environment and has set up a reputation for itself as one of the most effective UN agency. Perhaps it should not tarnish its image by unnecessary involvement in matters beyond its filed of competence.
Talking in terms of 'Flag State' and ' last owner' - are all counter-productive and waste of time. Who is going to declare himself as the last owner? When the ship-owner thinks that further operation of the ship is not viable, he will sell it off. He does not have to declare that he is selling it for scrapping.
The question of "Green Passport" is unrealistic. If the ship has to obtain a green passport' from a highly industrialised country when why should it go to the third world country any more? That is the end of the game. The discussion that took place at IMO even referred to contract between ship-owner and the breaking yard as if it is that simple.
In practice it is a different world. The ship may pass through five different hands before it ends up in the breaking yard. The breaking yard may not own the vessel or any part thereof at any time. The breaking yard may merely be taken on lease by a person or company undertaking the business. References to so many different parties are totally unnecessary and would not provide any practicable solution.
The Basel Convention exists to regulate the transport of hazardous materials to developing countries by making the ship and its exporter responsible. I agree with the philosophy that a developing country should not be the dumping ground but how can a live operational ship be regarded as waste. Application of the concept of export-import (to operational ships) will complicate the whole issue. The Basle Convention certainly does not apply to ships.
The Flag State remains responsible so long the vessel operates under its Flag. Once the vessel is de-registered then it is no more the extended floating territory of the Flag State. Then the structure should be under full control and jurisdiction of the State where it is located. An operational ship sailing for a destination is under no obligation to disclose in advance its future intention of scrapping.
This will only encourage ship-owners and scrap-buyers to indulge into illegal activities, perhaps at sea, to avoid the eyes of law. Until the last day of operation under its own power the ship must comply with all requirements of survey, audit and certification under applicable IMO instruments for safe operation and protection of the environment. A ship should be considered as an export commodity only if it is being towed to another country for scrap.
The ideal solution is perhaps to draw a Convention specifically on ship-breaking. The world maritime community at IMP should adopt a resolution calling up on the competent UN agencies to act without further delay. The lead agency should be ILO with UNEP providing necessary guidance on environment related matters.
Any international instrument must focus on the recycling country because it is only that Party who can exercise effective jurisdiction and control. A broad outline of such an international instrument is suggested below.
Member States should not allow a ship to be abandoned, dumped or broken up within its jurisdiction unless it complies with the requirements of the instrument;
Member States shall after necessary verification license scrapping yards within its jurisdiction that meet the standards of health, safety and environment as stipulate in the instrument. The Member States shall subject the continuation of the license to periodic inspection and review to ensure the compliance of the standards at all times. The owner (person or company) responsible for the ship intended to be scrapped in Member State shall apply to a designated authority for a permit.
The application shall contain the following details:
-- particulars of the company or persons involved in the business ;
-- particulars of the ship:
-- particulars of the licensed breaking yard;
-- brief description of any pollutant, toxic or hazardous substances still remaining on board and plans for their safe disposal;
-- an outline of the ship-breaking programme.
-- Once the authority is satisfied with the proposed plan, it shall grant necessary permit. The authority may attach any clause or condition if deemed necessary;
-- The authority while granting such a permit shall keep the State, under whose Flag the vessel arrived to the recycling State informed.
This will be a simple, workable and effective way of dealing with all aspects (health, safety and environment of the ship-breaking without involving too many parties and certainly without creating any conflict or overlapping of responsibilities of various agencies. The Ministry of Environment shall act as a focal point for recycling of ships, as it is a shore-based industry.
REGIONAL SCENARIO: Record prices for scrap, rising freight market and dearth of vessels on sale has created difficulty for demo business and all yards in the subcontinent are suffering except Bangladesh which demolished 4.8m DWT during 2006, way ahead of Indian's 1m dwt, whilst Pakistan and China Shared 0.25m DWT.
The ship-breaking at Gaddani was flourishing prior to 2004 and offering employment, has virtually collapsed rendering thousands jobless. The historical average till 2004 was 155 USD per LDT, prices are now 500/USD/LDT plus. Bangladesh buyers are offering USD 530/LDT for clean tanker and USD 470/LDT for bulker whereas Indians and Pakistanis can offer Max USD: 470.00 and USD: 435.00 respectively for wet and dry tonnage.
China has forbidden beaching due to environmental consideration and only scraps in docks, with new docks built in China to make demo environmental friendly recycling sites. Only Pakistan, India and Bangladesh allow beaching which is likely to be forbidden by new basell/IMO convention and the efforts of Green peace.
Pakistan's ship-breakers, already reeling from impossible price competition, have been further hit with increase in import and sales tax on scrap tonnage effective July, 1, 2007. The Pakistani ship-breakers are now in no position to compete and will shut down their demo operation/business.
The west was quite upset as most of the demo industry was flourishing in the subcontinent, thus new regulation of green passports and recycling in docks only has been introduced, so that idle yards of west may be re-activated/used.
The Directorate General of Ports and Shipping, being focal point of IMO, must resist the move of passing convention on recycling in the Marine environmental protection committee meeting and in recent IMO assembly of 18th November 2007. We, must save our nascent industry by telling IMO, that its jurisdiction, does not apply, as ship recycling is shore based industry.
The searching question is, does any one is concerned or aware of these developments or are they able to comprehend the negative effects of new international convention on our demo industry. The answer is No Atleast we can support India and Bangladesh who send qualified and competent people to international forums to safeguard their national interest.
We must make efforts to revive the ship breaking industry to meet our needs of iron and steel and employment of thousand of workers attached to this industry, otherwise developed countries with international regulation will bar beaching on shore. We have no dry docks available to comply with the forthcoming regulation, we must educate ship breaking industry for its survival in future.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Maritime safety and protection of environment
While going through news items in periodicals of internationally repute on maritime industry, the first one states that the Government of Cambodia received a sum of $360,000.00 in a mere nine months from the new contract with the international shipping Registry of Cambodia as compared to $350,000.00 in over 8 years of contract with the previous operator "Cambodia Shipping Corporation".
The second news is that since the transitional Government took office in Liberia in October 2003 it received a sum of $5.5 million from its registry of ships operated by LISCR Liberian International Ships and Corporate Registry. I always thought that the Cambodia Shipping Corporation was a state owned and operated shipping or ship management company until a friend of mine explained to me that it was the Cambodian register or in other words their maritime administration. Panama also makes substantial amounts followed by Malta, Cyprus and Marshall Islands.
To the common people the news may not mean much except that some companies made good profit. Having spent nearly 45 years of my life in maritime industry, the news sounded alarm bells to my ears. What are we talking about? Are we talking of commercial enterprises? Unfortunately, not. We are talking about States and Governments whose responsibility it is to ensure maritime safety. How can we measure their success in terms of money?
I shall explain my worries and anxieties about the news in a later paragraph but firstly I want to express my satisfaction to know that the Liberian Government has been able to pay its civil servants their salaries which were perhaps not paid for quite some time. It has been suggested that previously such revenue generated by the register were spent in arming groups of people to kill one another.
I come to the real issue. A state operates a register presumably to make its contribution in facilitating world trade and commerce. It is also a commitment to the world community to uphold international standards on maritime safety and environmental protection. I say this because no UN organ or agency acts like a sovereign entity or has any administration or policing device to implement the provisions of international instruments.
The signatory member states inherit the responsibility for implementation. It is the responsibility of the Government of the State to fulfil its legal and moral obligations. This is a governmental function that has to be taken care of by the government machinery (civil service). It cannot be a commercial venture. How can your goal be to make money when the primary obligations are to ensure safety and environmental protection?
It is an accepted fact that in today's world of global shipping it is not possible for a State to conduct the total range of survey, audit and certification using its own resources. It has to accept the services of good classification societies to utilise the extensive global network.
However, the State will still remain responsible for discharge of its obligations under international treaties and protocols. It must be absolutely clear that only functions may be delegated but not the responsibilities. (Please refer recent remarks of Judge Trial Court in Paris during Erika Tanker oil spill hearing).
There must be some mechanism left with the Flag Administration to check and ensure that ships flying its Flag operate in a responsible manner complying with the Internationally agreed standards.
The first step in this direction is to have appropriate legislation and apply the rule of law. The court will only accept a case for violation or contravention of the law ie law of the land. It is, therefore, necessary to transpose the provisions of the applicable provisions of the international conventions and protocols into national legislation with necessary penal provision.
The second step is to set up and maintain a competent administration (preferably within the civil service structure). This will require the State to designate or create an exclusive Department, Division or Directorate to look after the Maritime administration.
Such unit of the Administration should have the services of competent persons such as those with the highest sea going qualifications or others with either degrees in naval architecture or lawyers with an understanding of international treaties and protocols.
The third requirement relates to documented procedures without which we cannot ensure a uniform standard of implementation. The fourth is "record keeping" which means to say faithful records of all activities undertaken must be maintained. Finally there must be provision for review, analysis and audit so that future improvements can be made in the light of past omissions or mistakes.
Investigation of maritime accidents and casualties is a very important step in the right direction of avoiding same mistake time and again. The findings of such investigation should be made public so that others can benefit from it. Commercial companies operating registers will have no interest in casualty investigation or Port State Control, because they do not generate any fees.
All casualty reports in particular M.T. Golden Gate and M.T. Tasman Spirit be made public for education of maritime fraternity in order arrest recurrence of errors/omissions and players be identified and be made accountable.
In respect of a ship and the seafarers sailing on the ship, flag state is the ultimate authority whose law shall apply. There is also legal jurisdiction of a state in whose waters the ship may be, for the time being, commonly referred to as Port State Control. This control must be exercised without any discrimination however, there is a big ethical question - can we exercise control over others on issues that we do not practice?
This obviously implies that we should have in place all the essential ingredients to meet our obligation both as a Flag State as well as a Port State. There are states which, as part of their responsibility, conduct audit of the classification societies that carry out functions on their behalf. There are states which, depending on their resources, may like to conduct surveys of their passenger ships instead of delegating the same to a recognised organisation.
These are various ways of expressing the State's concern for its duties and obligations. However, with the introduction of ISM Code, it is apparent that if the administration keeps ISM audit and certification to itself, then it gains a controlling hand in monitoring the way a particular ship operates, the way its operates (company) response to its needs and requirements and finally how well the classification society has done its job in surveying and issuing various statutory certificates on behalf of the administration.
It is for the administration to decide how they want to ensure their role and responsibility but they should do so in an effective manner. To delegate every thing to the classification societies without any monitoring device is a negative way of discharging international obligations.
It is only the Flag State that can deal with matters relating to human rights and privileges. It is for them to ensure that there are fundamental rights of freedom of association. The Flag State can ensure that no seafarer should be employed on the ship without being signed on a proper. "Article of Agreement." It is for the Flag State to ensure that the wages and other employment conditions are determined mutually in consultation with the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agency).
These may cover wide range of matters including wages, period of rest, work and living conditions, food and hygiene, medical facilities and repatriation. Flag State must have legal instruments in place to prosecute those who violate the rights and privileges of the seafarers.
If all Flag States take upon themselves these responsibilities then we will not come across seafarers from third world countries being exploited in the most inhuman manner and then stranded around the world. Every year many Pakistani seafarers lose their lives or are exploited by unscrupulous employers/agents due to absence of legal instruments to check the exploitation.
What I am saying so far relates to Government responsibilities. These responsibilities cannot be commercialised. They cannot be compared with port facilities that can be privatised or commercialised. I simply cannot understand how a responsible Government can allow commercial companies to play around with the Flag name and image of the country.
In most cases the companies running registration business operate from outside the country and beyond any control or supervision. Recently I read a brochure "International Registries (Far East) Ltd 30th Anniversary" which read "Companies may issue bearer shares and are not required to disclose the names of shareholders or officers to the Registrar, Registered Agent, or any other Governmental authority in the jurisdiction".
In another place it is written "IRI can produce a full set of company's constitutional documents within a few hours and a certificate of Good standing can also be issued in an hour."
This is the company that calls itself the Corporate and Maritime Administrator for the Republic of Marshall Islands. What more one needs to know about these Administration run by companies with no regard to common international practice and procedure? States having the slightest self respect must say "NO" to such practices and must take its own affairs in its own hand.
Take the case of a traditional maritime nation like, UK, Norway, Germany, Denmark or even India. Ask them how much they spend for the cause of maritime safety. Their expenditure can never be recovered fully from fees received by the Government for registration, survey or certification. Well, we have to co-exist amongst the civilised nations of the world; we have to do it.
This is our contribution to human safety and dignity. May be with utmost efficiency we can reduce our expenses or even at best break even. There is certainly no room for commercialisation or profit. Government must not be up for grab by the highest bidder.
Finally I have a word of advice for the Member States who feel proud of their register having made good profit. Please read this paper and develop your sense of responsibility and national pride. Get rid of the middlemen playing around with your Flag and reputation. Take it in your own hands. In the long run you have more to gain. You will have full and direct control over ships in your register. You will develop expertise. (The companies will never transfer technology.
They do not want you to learn anything lest they lose the business). You will have contact and influence over the ship owners and you may be able to send cadets to train as future officers. You may find employment opportunities for your seafarers.
Your corporate legislation and administration may improve. You may turn out to be a financial center for ship mortgaging. You may even become a center of ship management. All these will not give you an exact figure of profit but when you consider all the good indirect benefits, you will be much better off.
However you may need advice and guidance. Ask for help from IMO. In extreme need employ some consultants but keep matters in your hand. I was quite surprised when I talked to an IMO official regarding their technical assistance programme. I was told that the registration of ships is not within IMO remit. I was surprised in the sense that FSI is an IMO remit and a State becomes a Flag State only when it has or opens a register.
Whey not guide a State from the very beginning as to what responsibilities it is taking upon itself by opening a register? Once given the wrong impression of a register being a commercial venture, it becomes difficult to get them back on track.
I am further surprised by the fact that IMO considers scrapping or recycling of ships to be its remit. IMO is the specialised agency of the United Nations to look after maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. How can dead and disused ships be a concern for safe operation when they do not operate any more?
Why not leave that with UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) and take on board more important things like registration of ships which has a direct bearing with compliance of international maritime legislation. I feel the environmental aspects of ship scrapping or recycling should be a matter for UNEP to look after where IMO could work jointly to lend its expertise and let safety and the working conditions of those involved in the industry be looked after by the ILO.
There is a duty for the world community most of whom operate their registers in a responsible manner to do something so that the core elements of governmental functions cannot be commercialised. Why not amend SOLAS, the paramount Convention on safety to include something like; "Member states undertake to set up or to designate one of its existing branches, agencies or departments as the Maritime Administration to look after all aspects of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment.
The organisation, so created or designated must be under full and effective control of the Government. It must have the services of highly qualified professional people such as persons with highest sea-going qualifications or those with university degree in naval architecture and marine engineering or lawyers with sound knowledge of application o the international treaties and protocols.
The Administration must work together with others on the floor of IMO to develop common international standards and implement the same". I would like to see Directorate General of Ports and Shipping in Pakistan to set an example but you need right competent human resource.
The IMO has developed a voluntary scheme of SAF (Self-Assessment Form) under the FSI (Flag State Implementation) sub-committee. Most countries that turn a blind eye to their responsibilities and international obligations also turn a blind eye to SAF. It is time it should be made compulsory.
States failing repeatedly to make any submission should be considered to have denounced the SOLAS Convention. I am sure such mandatory provision will keep Member States aware of their responsibilities.
Perhaps such commitments on the part of the Member States (to have its own maritime administration and work within the IMO) - will discourage them from developing unilateral or regional standards. We have one world and to save and protect the earth we must work together for global compliance. If the issue has anything to do with maritime safety and marine environment then we must talk and discuss at IMO. Only global action can save the earth for the future generations.
Maritime Administration in Pakistan may receive a shock the day IMO will make voluntary self assessment scheme mandatory. In a few years the comprehensive maritime labour convention approved in ILO Geneva will be implemented, requiring vessels to carry additional certificates and inspectors ashore duly trained to check the vessel. Are we ready, have we made any efforts or this may be another shock for the generalists or be UFO (unidentified foreign object).
I humbly submit to Ministry of Ports and Shipping to induct good knowledgeable maritime professional at least on 5 years contract with market salary and privileges, so that these will be competent people first to comprehend and then to implement all international conventions/protocols. Time is running out fast for us.
Let it be understood to all that the world is highly skilled/professional and thinking that a generalist can manage all is bygone theory. The government must understand that it pays very little in shape of salaries to qualified professionals but lose substantially due to lack of knowledge.
Tasman Spirit case where we got nothing out of 8 billion USD losses claimed by generalists unaware, that CLC convention was not ratified nor Fund - 92 nor having ability to make claims on ITOP format.
We have to make it clear that, are we ready to go along with the world or remain in isolation and due lack of our knowledge/expertise do not recover our legitimate losses.
Whilst conveying and writing this article or previous ones, all may professionals friends question that who you are targeting too, those at helm of affairs, do not comprehend nor they have slightest concept of this business what you are preaching. Don't waste your time.
I tend to disagree with my friends and I am confident that a new day will not only dawn for Pakistan but for our maritime industry. By writing these researched papers in my opinion if only 10% is comprehended and 5% is implemented it will give me immense satisfaction of having contributed towards the righteous cause as I myself admit that one learns with every new day.
"Heraclitus" remarked that learning is only a means to an end, which is understanding and understanding is the ultimate value in education and its application.
The second news is that since the transitional Government took office in Liberia in October 2003 it received a sum of $5.5 million from its registry of ships operated by LISCR Liberian International Ships and Corporate Registry. I always thought that the Cambodia Shipping Corporation was a state owned and operated shipping or ship management company until a friend of mine explained to me that it was the Cambodian register or in other words their maritime administration. Panama also makes substantial amounts followed by Malta, Cyprus and Marshall Islands.
To the common people the news may not mean much except that some companies made good profit. Having spent nearly 45 years of my life in maritime industry, the news sounded alarm bells to my ears. What are we talking about? Are we talking of commercial enterprises? Unfortunately, not. We are talking about States and Governments whose responsibility it is to ensure maritime safety. How can we measure their success in terms of money?
I shall explain my worries and anxieties about the news in a later paragraph but firstly I want to express my satisfaction to know that the Liberian Government has been able to pay its civil servants their salaries which were perhaps not paid for quite some time. It has been suggested that previously such revenue generated by the register were spent in arming groups of people to kill one another.
I come to the real issue. A state operates a register presumably to make its contribution in facilitating world trade and commerce. It is also a commitment to the world community to uphold international standards on maritime safety and environmental protection. I say this because no UN organ or agency acts like a sovereign entity or has any administration or policing device to implement the provisions of international instruments.
The signatory member states inherit the responsibility for implementation. It is the responsibility of the Government of the State to fulfil its legal and moral obligations. This is a governmental function that has to be taken care of by the government machinery (civil service). It cannot be a commercial venture. How can your goal be to make money when the primary obligations are to ensure safety and environmental protection?
It is an accepted fact that in today's world of global shipping it is not possible for a State to conduct the total range of survey, audit and certification using its own resources. It has to accept the services of good classification societies to utilise the extensive global network.
However, the State will still remain responsible for discharge of its obligations under international treaties and protocols. It must be absolutely clear that only functions may be delegated but not the responsibilities. (Please refer recent remarks of Judge Trial Court in Paris during Erika Tanker oil spill hearing).
There must be some mechanism left with the Flag Administration to check and ensure that ships flying its Flag operate in a responsible manner complying with the Internationally agreed standards.
The first step in this direction is to have appropriate legislation and apply the rule of law. The court will only accept a case for violation or contravention of the law ie law of the land. It is, therefore, necessary to transpose the provisions of the applicable provisions of the international conventions and protocols into national legislation with necessary penal provision.
The second step is to set up and maintain a competent administration (preferably within the civil service structure). This will require the State to designate or create an exclusive Department, Division or Directorate to look after the Maritime administration.
Such unit of the Administration should have the services of competent persons such as those with the highest sea going qualifications or others with either degrees in naval architecture or lawyers with an understanding of international treaties and protocols.
The third requirement relates to documented procedures without which we cannot ensure a uniform standard of implementation. The fourth is "record keeping" which means to say faithful records of all activities undertaken must be maintained. Finally there must be provision for review, analysis and audit so that future improvements can be made in the light of past omissions or mistakes.
Investigation of maritime accidents and casualties is a very important step in the right direction of avoiding same mistake time and again. The findings of such investigation should be made public so that others can benefit from it. Commercial companies operating registers will have no interest in casualty investigation or Port State Control, because they do not generate any fees.
All casualty reports in particular M.T. Golden Gate and M.T. Tasman Spirit be made public for education of maritime fraternity in order arrest recurrence of errors/omissions and players be identified and be made accountable.
In respect of a ship and the seafarers sailing on the ship, flag state is the ultimate authority whose law shall apply. There is also legal jurisdiction of a state in whose waters the ship may be, for the time being, commonly referred to as Port State Control. This control must be exercised without any discrimination however, there is a big ethical question - can we exercise control over others on issues that we do not practice?
This obviously implies that we should have in place all the essential ingredients to meet our obligation both as a Flag State as well as a Port State. There are states which, as part of their responsibility, conduct audit of the classification societies that carry out functions on their behalf. There are states which, depending on their resources, may like to conduct surveys of their passenger ships instead of delegating the same to a recognised organisation.
These are various ways of expressing the State's concern for its duties and obligations. However, with the introduction of ISM Code, it is apparent that if the administration keeps ISM audit and certification to itself, then it gains a controlling hand in monitoring the way a particular ship operates, the way its operates (company) response to its needs and requirements and finally how well the classification society has done its job in surveying and issuing various statutory certificates on behalf of the administration.
It is for the administration to decide how they want to ensure their role and responsibility but they should do so in an effective manner. To delegate every thing to the classification societies without any monitoring device is a negative way of discharging international obligations.
It is only the Flag State that can deal with matters relating to human rights and privileges. It is for them to ensure that there are fundamental rights of freedom of association. The Flag State can ensure that no seafarer should be employed on the ship without being signed on a proper. "Article of Agreement." It is for the Flag State to ensure that the wages and other employment conditions are determined mutually in consultation with the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agency).
These may cover wide range of matters including wages, period of rest, work and living conditions, food and hygiene, medical facilities and repatriation. Flag State must have legal instruments in place to prosecute those who violate the rights and privileges of the seafarers.
If all Flag States take upon themselves these responsibilities then we will not come across seafarers from third world countries being exploited in the most inhuman manner and then stranded around the world. Every year many Pakistani seafarers lose their lives or are exploited by unscrupulous employers/agents due to absence of legal instruments to check the exploitation.
What I am saying so far relates to Government responsibilities. These responsibilities cannot be commercialised. They cannot be compared with port facilities that can be privatised or commercialised. I simply cannot understand how a responsible Government can allow commercial companies to play around with the Flag name and image of the country.
In most cases the companies running registration business operate from outside the country and beyond any control or supervision. Recently I read a brochure "International Registries (Far East) Ltd 30th Anniversary" which read "Companies may issue bearer shares and are not required to disclose the names of shareholders or officers to the Registrar, Registered Agent, or any other Governmental authority in the jurisdiction".
In another place it is written "IRI can produce a full set of company's constitutional documents within a few hours and a certificate of Good standing can also be issued in an hour."
This is the company that calls itself the Corporate and Maritime Administrator for the Republic of Marshall Islands. What more one needs to know about these Administration run by companies with no regard to common international practice and procedure? States having the slightest self respect must say "NO" to such practices and must take its own affairs in its own hand.
Take the case of a traditional maritime nation like, UK, Norway, Germany, Denmark or even India. Ask them how much they spend for the cause of maritime safety. Their expenditure can never be recovered fully from fees received by the Government for registration, survey or certification. Well, we have to co-exist amongst the civilised nations of the world; we have to do it.
This is our contribution to human safety and dignity. May be with utmost efficiency we can reduce our expenses or even at best break even. There is certainly no room for commercialisation or profit. Government must not be up for grab by the highest bidder.
Finally I have a word of advice for the Member States who feel proud of their register having made good profit. Please read this paper and develop your sense of responsibility and national pride. Get rid of the middlemen playing around with your Flag and reputation. Take it in your own hands. In the long run you have more to gain. You will have full and direct control over ships in your register. You will develop expertise. (The companies will never transfer technology.
They do not want you to learn anything lest they lose the business). You will have contact and influence over the ship owners and you may be able to send cadets to train as future officers. You may find employment opportunities for your seafarers.
Your corporate legislation and administration may improve. You may turn out to be a financial center for ship mortgaging. You may even become a center of ship management. All these will not give you an exact figure of profit but when you consider all the good indirect benefits, you will be much better off.
However you may need advice and guidance. Ask for help from IMO. In extreme need employ some consultants but keep matters in your hand. I was quite surprised when I talked to an IMO official regarding their technical assistance programme. I was told that the registration of ships is not within IMO remit. I was surprised in the sense that FSI is an IMO remit and a State becomes a Flag State only when it has or opens a register.
Whey not guide a State from the very beginning as to what responsibilities it is taking upon itself by opening a register? Once given the wrong impression of a register being a commercial venture, it becomes difficult to get them back on track.
I am further surprised by the fact that IMO considers scrapping or recycling of ships to be its remit. IMO is the specialised agency of the United Nations to look after maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. How can dead and disused ships be a concern for safe operation when they do not operate any more?
Why not leave that with UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) and take on board more important things like registration of ships which has a direct bearing with compliance of international maritime legislation. I feel the environmental aspects of ship scrapping or recycling should be a matter for UNEP to look after where IMO could work jointly to lend its expertise and let safety and the working conditions of those involved in the industry be looked after by the ILO.
There is a duty for the world community most of whom operate their registers in a responsible manner to do something so that the core elements of governmental functions cannot be commercialised. Why not amend SOLAS, the paramount Convention on safety to include something like; "Member states undertake to set up or to designate one of its existing branches, agencies or departments as the Maritime Administration to look after all aspects of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment.
The organisation, so created or designated must be under full and effective control of the Government. It must have the services of highly qualified professional people such as persons with highest sea-going qualifications or those with university degree in naval architecture and marine engineering or lawyers with sound knowledge of application o the international treaties and protocols.
The Administration must work together with others on the floor of IMO to develop common international standards and implement the same". I would like to see Directorate General of Ports and Shipping in Pakistan to set an example but you need right competent human resource.
The IMO has developed a voluntary scheme of SAF (Self-Assessment Form) under the FSI (Flag State Implementation) sub-committee. Most countries that turn a blind eye to their responsibilities and international obligations also turn a blind eye to SAF. It is time it should be made compulsory.
States failing repeatedly to make any submission should be considered to have denounced the SOLAS Convention. I am sure such mandatory provision will keep Member States aware of their responsibilities.
Perhaps such commitments on the part of the Member States (to have its own maritime administration and work within the IMO) - will discourage them from developing unilateral or regional standards. We have one world and to save and protect the earth we must work together for global compliance. If the issue has anything to do with maritime safety and marine environment then we must talk and discuss at IMO. Only global action can save the earth for the future generations.
Maritime Administration in Pakistan may receive a shock the day IMO will make voluntary self assessment scheme mandatory. In a few years the comprehensive maritime labour convention approved in ILO Geneva will be implemented, requiring vessels to carry additional certificates and inspectors ashore duly trained to check the vessel. Are we ready, have we made any efforts or this may be another shock for the generalists or be UFO (unidentified foreign object).
I humbly submit to Ministry of Ports and Shipping to induct good knowledgeable maritime professional at least on 5 years contract with market salary and privileges, so that these will be competent people first to comprehend and then to implement all international conventions/protocols. Time is running out fast for us.
Let it be understood to all that the world is highly skilled/professional and thinking that a generalist can manage all is bygone theory. The government must understand that it pays very little in shape of salaries to qualified professionals but lose substantially due to lack of knowledge.
Tasman Spirit case where we got nothing out of 8 billion USD losses claimed by generalists unaware, that CLC convention was not ratified nor Fund - 92 nor having ability to make claims on ITOP format.
We have to make it clear that, are we ready to go along with the world or remain in isolation and due lack of our knowledge/expertise do not recover our legitimate losses.
Whilst conveying and writing this article or previous ones, all may professionals friends question that who you are targeting too, those at helm of affairs, do not comprehend nor they have slightest concept of this business what you are preaching. Don't waste your time.
I tend to disagree with my friends and I am confident that a new day will not only dawn for Pakistan but for our maritime industry. By writing these researched papers in my opinion if only 10% is comprehended and 5% is implemented it will give me immense satisfaction of having contributed towards the righteous cause as I myself admit that one learns with every new day.
"Heraclitus" remarked that learning is only a means to an end, which is understanding and understanding is the ultimate value in education and its application.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)