PORT STATE CONTROL Conference 2005, London Increased Information Sharing The Issue of Transparency Peter M Swift.

PORT STATE CONTROLPORT STATE CONTROLConference 2005, LondonConference 2005, London

Increased Information SharingIncreased Information SharingThe Issue of TransparencyThe Issue of Transparency

Peter M SwiftPeter M Swift

Responsible parties working together......Responsible parties working together......

SHIPOWNER

SHIPYARDS

INSURERS

BANKS &INVESTORS

CARGO OWNER

CHARTERER

PORTS & TERMINALS

CLASSSOCIETIES

FLAG STATES

PARTNERSHIP:Working closely with regulators and legislators to ensure EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS

Coastal States – Part of the safety Coastal States – Part of the safety chainchain

Industry participation in EQUASIS and

with MoUs

SHIPOWNER

SHIPYARDS

INSURERS

BANKS &INVESTORS

CARGO OWNER

CHARTERER

PORTS & TERMINALS

CLASSSOCIETIES

FLAG STATES

But .... The reality ?But .... The reality ?

SHIPOWNER

SHIPYARDS

INSURERS

BANKS &INVESTORS

CARGO OWNER

CHARTERER

PORTS & TERMINALS

CLASSSOCIETIES

FLAG STATES

• Feedback Mechanisms and Information Sharing often weak

• Openness and transparency questioned

• Greater Openness and Trust

• Free flow of relevant information without the fear of recrimination or commercial loss

The vision……..

Many examples of good practice:

• Inter- and Intra- Association dialogues• Industry User Groups• Class societies’ committees• Industry databases –

EQUASIS, CDI, VPQ/Q88, etc.

but always subject to further improvement

Information Sharing

Examples of where we could do better:

• OCIMF-SIRE Data• Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum• Industry guidelines and standards• IACS development of Requirements and Procedures• Incident statistics

Information Sharing

Examples of where we are failing:

• Accident investigations• Design and in-service fault reporting and early warning systems• Waterways information exchange• Proliferation of ship inspections • Marine Safety Data Sheets• Abuse of information in internal audits and quality control systems

Information Sharing

Impediments to information sharing:

• commercial competitiveness• legal liability• professional jealousy• lack of incentives

Information Sharing

Shipowners and Port State Control

Why PSC is important…….

Licences to trade provided by:

Flag state Classification society P&I insurance Charterer (through vetting) Coastal state (through PSC)

Port State Control Is The Industry Policeman

Why PSC is important…….

PSC RECORDS:

Used by charterers (brokers and agents)

Used by media

Used in assessments by flags, insurers and others

Used as membership criteria by associations

Why PSC is supported …….

• PSC is vital complement to flag state enforcement of global rules

• Effective PSC should prevent genuinely sub-standard ships from trading

But:• Sub-standard ships continue to operate (albeit in

declining numbers)• Well run ships sometimes feel they are

unnecessarily subjected to PSC inspection

PSC: Room for improvement………Need: More to be done to ensure harmonised standards and training

of inspectors Global approach to inspection and Targeting criteria Mutual sharing and recognition of inspection information

across different MoUs (and thus reduction in the number of inspections)

To extend the number of MoUs covered by EQUASIS (subject their meeting appropriate standard)

Consistency regarding Clear Grounds for Detention Standardised procedures for independent Detention Appeals To guarantee accuracy and topicality of information in PSC

databases To make more/better use of information obtained from PSC

inspections Development of more rewards/incentives for good owners To ensure that the integrity of PSC is maintained

PSC: Room for improvement………and some possible solutions ……..

Consistency of standards built around ”beacon” MoUs – encouragement to other MoUs to be recorded in EQUASIS

Targeting criteria built around ”fact” – harmonised between MoUs, and not too complicated

Abolition of targeting based on quota systems Greater involvement of Industry representatives on MoU

committees Expanded IMO workshops on PSC practices and issues Adoption of universal appeal procedures against unwarranted

detentions Implementatin of procedures to record deficiencies closed out Government-industry partnership on analysis of PSC

performance data Extension of ”Qualship21” / ”reduced frequency of inspections”

to compliant/good owners Open discussion of ”integrity” in the system

Making the most of PSC inspection information: Port State Control – detentions by ship size

Tanker detentions 2002-03 by size of ship

133

26

43

10

22

6 4

44

168

18

60

13 179

1

40

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

<10,000 10,000-19,999

20,000-59,999

60,000-79,999

80,000-119,999

120,000-199,999

>200,000 Dw t notfound

Nu

mb

er o

f sh

ips

2002

2003

Making the most of PSC inspection information:

Port State Control – detentions by year of buildTanker detentions 2002-03 by year of build

11

32

50

105

45

29

1621

40

55

102

57

2427

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

<1970 1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2002/3

2002

2003

Making the most of PSC inspection information: Port State Control – detentions by year of build

Tanker detentions 2003 by year of buildcompared to total tanker fleet

6%

12%

17%

31%

17%

7% 8%7% 8%

13%15%

11%

18%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

<1970 1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2003

tanker detentions

total fleet (1,000 dwt+)

PSC: Room for improvement………Need to ensure Integrity of PSC ........

”Overly enthusiastic” inspectors

”Selective” targeting

”Soft option or easy” targeting

”Malpractice”- self interest or third party interest

BUT Not all owners are ”guilt free”

Ideas to ensure Integrity of PSC ........

Regular and open dialogue between responsible owners Industry associations and PSC officials

Development of ”best practices” within PSC regimes

Appropriate mechansims for confidential feedback Reports back to IMO of PSC performance

Industry and PSC

Summary:

PSC is actively supported by industry – but MoUs should encourage greater discussion with industry partners, e.g. with permanent presence on appropriate committees

More to be done to ensure harmonised standards and training

Greater sharing of inspection records would be beneficialwith mutual recognition of inspections in different regions

Consistency in targeting criteria necessary – and could benefit from additional analysis of PSC records

Further rewards/incentives should be developed for good owners

It is an imperative that the integrity of PSC is maintained

Thank you www.intertanko.com

www.shippingfacts.com