The USCG and the European Commission appear to be taking a hard line on enforcement of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code – no matter what the consequences.
So what will happen on July 1, 2004 ? Two scenarios appear likely, yet both seem almost too extreme to actually occur. Enforcement of the code is coming down to an either/or situation: either the code is enforced and the majority of the world’s fleet cannot trade, or the code becomes a virtual nullity.
In connection with DNV’s first-ever security audit onboard Bergesen’s Berge Boston, the USCG commanding officer and captain of the Port Boston, Brian M Salerno said that "although enforcement guidelines are not yet on the street, I anticipate that the Coast Guard will require strict compliance with the code."
Full compliance
From the perception of an individual port, captain Salerno expects that ships entering Boston will comply with all of the requirements of the code, as well as with the soon to be published U.S. regulations promulgated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act. As for ‘bought’ certificates, Captain Salerno states: "We will evaluate the certificate in accordance with the code and our own requirements. If we go onboard a ship and find the security plan and system do not conform to requirements, we’ll have questions to ask."
The USCG is not alone; the European Commission is also reported to be taking a hard line on enforcement. It has made it clear that compliance checking will commence on the due date and that ships which fail will be in trouble.
In Asia too, authorities seem to be prepared to cut owners and operators little slack on the issue. "Owners and operators must ensure that all maritime security measures are in place by the deadline. Maritime security is here to stay and we all have a part to play," stated Lee Seng Kong, the senior director of Singapore's Maritime Port Authority (MPA), in his opening speech at a recent maritime security seminar in Singapore.
Many companies do not appear to be taking the code very seriously, if the numbers are anything to go by. Even now, with little more than a year to go, only a few of the world’s shipowners/operators have actually complied with code requirements. Given that there are an estimated 40,000 ships requiring compliance with the code, and that meeting the tenets of the code can take between two and six months per vessel, the outlook looks quite gloomy to say the least.
Awesome task
At the recent Nor-Shipping conference, DNV Maritime Industries’ chief operating officer Tor Svensen gave a thoughtful exposé of the security situation and the huge amount left to do before the code comes into force next summer. Speaking about how the risk picture has changed, he reminded his audience that the ISPS Code represents the fastest ever implementation of International Maritime Organisation legislation. "The shipping industry now knows reasonably well what it is expected to contribute to this development in the shape of security officers, plans and the all-important International Ship Security Certificate," he said.
However he suggested that, for ports, the situation is a lot more complicated while there are many questions that remain to be settled on the security front. According to Svensen, many countries have yet to settle the question of which government body is to be responsible for ship and port security. "Administrations sometimes move slowly, and time is running out," he said and warned, "It is the industry that will suffer if the authorities remain dilatory or fail to delegate their security remit to responsible organisations."
Wait-and-see attitude
In an effort to assist its shipowner clients, DNV, like several other classification societies, has introduced model training courses and has trained staff to deal with the demands likely to be brought on by the code. "The expected rush to certify has not materialised, however. This is mainly due to the fact that most flag administrations are adopting a wait-and-see attitude before they approve the major classification societies as their Recognised Security Organisations," says Finn-Erik Dahl, DNV’s senior security advisor.
He continues, "What many shipowners and management companies do not seem to realise is that port state control on ISPS matters is going to be very tight. One prominent example here is the US, which has been indicating for a long time that ships which do not have a security plan that meets the requirements of the code or whose plan has not been implemented according to the code, may be deferred from entering ports."
Dahl emphasises it is not enough for owners just to have a certificate. "The security plan and its implementation must be according to the code’s regulations. And if an owner loses the certificate, it will not be able to trade internationally until it has been approved once more," he says and warns, "But by then, the owner will have been put on the high-interest list in some countries and can expect frequent port state inspections. To avoid this, owners must have a security plan that has been implemented properly so it can stand port state inspections."