Courtesy of ConsultISM

On 1st July 2010 a number of new amendments will come into force with regard to IMO Resolution A.741(18) as amended by MSC.104(73) - the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and IMO Resolution A.913(22) ‘Revised Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations’ – will be replaced with new ‘Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations’.

Clearly it is important that each Company ensures that its own Safety Management Systems (SMS) accommodates these new requirements. It is also important that Flag State Administrations and Recognised Organisations – and other stakeholders are fully informed. The new requirements as far as the ISM Code is concerned are set out in IMO Resolution MSC.273(85). In this article we set out side by side the ‘old’ and ‘new’ versions of the Code – highlighting the amendments which are to be made and will then provide a brief commentary on what we understand the amendments intend to achieve. Where the amendment is a new, additional, requirement then we set that out and provide our commentary.

The method to be adopted for assessing risk and establishing safeguards is left to each individual Company – subject to approval by the relevant Administration. A number of basic risk assessment models are readily available – such as that contained in the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) ‘Code of Safe Working Practices for Merchant Seamen’ in Chapter 1.

In the original text there was a level of uncertainty – not so much as to what the Master should be doing – but how frequently he / she should be doing it. By including the word ‘periodically’ – this level of uncertainty has been reduced to some extent but is still left to the Company to decide what that period between Master’s reviews of the SMS should be. We would suggest that industry standard practice is that such reviews are carried out at least once per year. Industry best practice is at least once per tour of duty of each Master – although that may be dependent upon the type of vessel involved.

Although the vast majority of Companies and Administrations had correctly interpreted the intention of the Code, it is correct that the requirement of the original wording was actually for the Company to establish procedures ‘for the preparation’ of plans and instructions etc – whereby the intention was clearly that the Company was required to establish the actual plans and instructions etc. themselves. The amended text should now make that very clear. The scope of the requirement for establishing those procedures and plans etc has been extended beyond just the ship and pollution but also to include personnel and the environment generally.

Again this is the same issue as was addressed in regard to Section 7 of the Code – discussed on page above.

Although this was clearly intended and implied in the original text, the amendment to Section 9.2 makes it very clear that a crucial part of the process of implementing corrective action is to prevent a similar accident or incident occurring again.

The amendments to this Section result in a much clearer risk assessment type approach whereby the hazards are initially to be identified by the Company and the role of the SMS procedures is to introduce risk control measures.

The original wording of the Code left the frequency of the Internal Audits to the discretion of the Company – although industry standard practice and requirements of certain Administrations required Internal Audits to be carried out at least annually. This was also clarified in IMO Circular – MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.5 ‘Guidelines for the Operational Implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Companies’ – dated 10 October 2007. This has now been confirmed by these most recent amendments. There is a possibility of an extension of 3 months beyond the 12 months – but this is qualified that such an extension should only be allowed in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Companies will need to ensure that they very carefully plan their Internal Audits and ensure that they are carried out within the 12 month stipulated period.

The opportunity was also taken to clarify an ambiguity which had previously existed – such that it is now very clear that the Internal Audits apply to both on board ship and office audits.

This is an interesting linguistic amendment – and makes it clear that it is not necessarily the efficiency of the SMS which the Company should be evaluating but, rather, it is the effectiveness.

This is a new provision and clarifies the situation as to the effective dates which should be applied to SMCs should the renewal verification be completed after the existing SMS has expired. For example: existing SMC expired 2nd December, 2009, renewal verification completed 3rd April, 2010 – the new SMC would have an expiry date of 1st December, 2014 not 2nd April 2015. This will effectively prevent any Company from profiting from delays in complying with the requirements of the Code with regard to revalidation of their SMCs.

This is also a new provision and provides a pragmatic solution to a practical problem which may arise whereby a Company / Vessel have complied with the requirements of the Code – in that the renewal has been completed within the prescribed period – but there may be a delay in preparing the new paperwork and the vessels trading may be such that it will not be possible to place the new SMC on board immediately. However, the new SMC must be placed on board within a 5 month grace period.

This new provision recognises the fact that, on occasions, even though the vessel may be in port, it simply may not be feasible to conduct a renewal verification at that time. It could be that it is simply not possible for the Auditor from the Administration / RO to reach the particular port. In such circumstances the vessel would be allowed to proceed to the next port where such arrangements could be made. However, it is unlikely that an extension would be allowed for ‘commercial reasons’ – e.g. rapid turnaround or need to sail to make the next fixture. These would not be considered acceptable reasons.

It is very important that the Company carefully manages and plans the timing of renewal verifications of SMCs and ensures that the verification is undertaken well within the time allowed and is not left to the very last minute.

This amendment is simply to clarify that the audit which must be planned within three months of an Interim Safety Management Certificate being issued is an Internal Audit.

It should also be noted that IMO Resolution A.913(22) ‘Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations’ is to be replaced with a new set of ‘Guidelines’ which will take into account the amendments to the ISM Code highlighted in IMO Resolution MSC.273(85).

ARCHIVE
Mega Yachts Need to Prepare for the Seafarer's "Bill of Rights"
Maritime Labour Convention- An Adequate Guarantee of Seafarer Rights, or an Impediment to True Reforms?

Let ISM for Yachts exceed your expectations in professionalism and honesty.