 Retour au menu

|
|
ISM Code : The maritime industry and the management systems
(page Nº16)
|
Warning: The author expresses here his personal point of view and, in no way, he wants to present a reference on the subject.
- INTRODUCTION
That is now a dozen years since the management systems have appeared in our industry.
If the first systems were not mandatory but only strong recommendations, the economic situation, in particular some major maritime accidents, have boosted their implementation in making them increasingly obligatory (1)
Companies and ships were the first concerned, starting with the oil offshore industry.
Today, ports and all associated activities are concerned. Standards, specifications, management, mandatory or only recommended....... it is not always very clear, so it would be perhaps wise to check what is applied to day in the various sectors of our industry and especially how it is implemented!
Then we will be able to propose a global system without going through several systems which are, in theory, able to be integrated together.
- General
Born with the nuclear industry, the standards of management where extended gradually to other industries at risk more or less successfully.
Today the tendency is to apply them everywhere with an aim of pushing everyone upwards. They are quality, safety, security, health and hygiene, environmental protection requirements, all of them they can be implemented in our industry from the offshore to the harbour services while passing through the commercial marine transport itself.
- The Offshore industry
When I arrived in this industry, in the drilling or associated activities, the companies were strongly committed to a safety and environment management more or less imposed by the oil majors. These oil companies where already working in the NORTH SEA area with certain specifications, improved later following the PIPER ALFA disaster on July 6th 1983.
|
 |
|
They are HSE (health, safety and environment) or QHSE (addition of quality) and these systems are intended to manage the safety and health of the persons engaged in this activity and the marine environmental protection.
Vast program in an industry very much at risk which needed regulations after years of "do-it-yourself "! This management also applied, in theory, to the sub-contractors, and there it was more ambiguous because it seemed that the 3 famous letters HSE did not mean the same thing off Aberdeen on one side and off some other African ports on the other!
The reference frames suggested were mainly of a British origin and were more specifications than the strictly applicable standards than we know today.
Invited to explain the ISM code and what it involved with it, I found HSE specialists.... who were not able to adapt themselves to the ISM code!
|
When we set up a Safety Management System (or SMS) which wants to be in conformity with the ISM code, we start, as you know, to build an ISM structure around a very significant person: the designated person ashore (or DPA)! (Ref my former article in “Report” issue 4/2004). It was logical that the HSE or QHSE manager takes the function of the DPA: but NO… they all refused!
Astonishing, but… it is true!
I have quickly understood: HSE systems already in place specified that each manager and head of service are responsible for the application of the HSE system in their department – quite normal of course- and the persons in charge of the HSE system were only advisers (HSE ADVISORS) and especially are not responsible for safety! Strange isn’t it?
The HSE personnel were unable to accept about their responsibility for monitoring the operation of the SMS or to ensure the liaison between the crew (Captain included) and the highest level of the Company which are… the bases of the ISM code!
They were only "advisors" instructed to help these "poor" seafarers in improving their safety. The QHSE department was dealing with the controlled documentation and carrying out HSE audits sometimes at the same time… as the ISM audits! … there are still some sailors on board drilling platforms who do not understand that and it is not astonishing!
Exasperated by these internal problems many managers gave up, and are using an ISM structure and a HSE structure at the same time; Why not, if the shareholders are prepared to finance two parallel systems… they are always some employment gained in this industry, are not they?
In fact, the ISM works well in the offshore industry even if the ISM consultant is still called in from time to time for "re- framing" the system !
In fact, the ISPS code did not have too much problems to be established in this industry :
indeed, these kind of "ships" are always at sea and never in the port, the access on board is very regulated for a long time and, happy or not, your hand luggage - whoever you are- is screened before going up in the helicopter !
Regarding quality, it is in general the customer who gives the tone: for the subcontractor that you are, his vetting (2) should quickly prove your competence to meet his own requirements within a framework which he has defined himself. The customer here is in general a major oil Company… who sometimes has some difficulties in understanding HSE + ISM!
I must specify that certain companies understood the interest of a good SMS which works normally, gives satisfaction to the customer and… cost three times less than the option of our preceding operators!
The present remarks are also valid for servicing companies… who carry out certain operations on behalf of the contractor.
In conclusion for the offshore industry, HSE + ISM + ISPS…. that’s a lot and I am sure that a global system appealing to only one reference would be capable to satisfy these large companies which drill and exploit increasingly deep wells (production, storage and removal of oil).
- Maritime transport itself
We are to speaking here about everything floating in an international way or not.
We take into consideration deep sea transport as well as coastal traffic, the connections with the islands or the harbour boats (tug boats, ferries, various high-speed motorboats or other bunker tankers)
|
 |
|
Some ship-owners, who have already implemented a quality system as the former standard ISO 9002 -finally not well adapted to our industry- have been constrained and forced to set up the ISM. To say that everything is perfect is far from the truth!
Well built systems, well understood by the sailors are … going well, thanks to the DPAs, well trained sailors and motivated Captains! They are not afraid of conformity… they are very often several lengths in advance on the certifier himself and much more on the Port State Controller!
Unfortunately, everywhere, there are too many very poor systems, but superbly certified and re-certified in conformity, so much so that the sailors who try to apply them still do not understand for what these systems are made!
I do not speak here about the phoney copied systems (always not very well copied)! If I were in the position of the certifiers of these phoney systems, I would be concerned, because, I must point out here their personal liability is committed there!
|
As long as there is no loss of human life only their wallet will be in jeopardy (3); if not… I do not need to say anymore!
Even if there remains much work to do, it is necessary to remain confident: the future generations will not support any more the phoney or poor systems believe me! This is the normal evolution, of the continuous improvement of our safety culture.
Regarding the ISPS, there is also a “little of everything” but in general the ships’ personnel, already well trained in the ISM code, quickly set up the ISPS on its way… while complaining a little bit as usual! But here we are speaking of the sailors lives and then this is very serious isn’t it?
There is, of course, still here on board ships some phoney copied systems or documents. This is unacceptable certainly but compared to the ports in general it is good! (This item will be developed further).
Roughly speaking, the phenomenon is to be compared with the installation of the ISM Code, except that at this time the consequences of a terrorist attack will be such that all responsibilities will be examined through a magnifying glass.... by the insurers, and by the court! Misfortune to those who have not well evaluated their security, worked out, applied, maintained, checked, modified or adapted their security plans! (4)
Regarding quality and more precisely the customer’s satisfaction, for a long time certain companies were concerned with their customers and were working with quality systems. The change of ISO 9002 to 9001- 2000 version was done easily and sometimes certain companies, sure of their customer’s satisfaction policy, esteemed not to require any certification! Money saved certainly, therefore meaning more money in the pocket of the shareholders but less in those of the certification companies and an unhappy contribution to the reduction in the employment! Here also, the happiness of someone always makes the misfortune of others!
ISM and ISPS will extend soon to the sectors still unconcerned: I say national navigation for the both codes!
In conclusion, for ships and their owners the way seems very well marked: ISM + ISPS (if the ISM and the ISPS do not concern you already … it is imminent!). Regarding quality, do not despair, it will follow sooner or late and if your SMS is good and works well, you will not have problems to install quality because this will be a normal process… I wish you good luck!
- Ports and Ports facilities
|
 |
|
It is not a secret for anybody in our business if there are “dustbins ships” there are also “miserable ports”. But contrary to the ships, the ports do not “move away” and the governments theoretically remain responsible for the conformity or the quality of their ports.
In general, depending directly on the governmental authorities for strategic or economic reasons, neither safety nor security were not a daily concern for the ports and still today the emergency plans of many large ports are summarized by ... a telephone number list! I explain, the safety and security of the port or the facility were entrusted to somebody else like firemen, police, customs, ambulances which acted as subcontractors for them. With some exceptions of course, the technical installations for safety and security, specific to the ports, did not exist, except in some main ports at risk and sometimes still at a dramatically low level.
For the quality or the satisfaction of the customer, it is different. Indeed a ship-owner is an important customer… ships’ calls mean money and the ports like that!
|
The situation was thus paradoxical… a search for quality without sometimes the most elementary safety measures!
For the quality or the satisfaction of the customer, it is different. Indeed a ship-owner is an important customer… ships’ calls mean money and the ports like that! The situation was thus paradoxical… a search for quality without sometimes the most elementary safety measures!
This situation is the same in our country or elsewhere.
Knowing how this attitude is no longer accepted today in particular with insurance companies and legal system, mentalities have fortunately a tendency to change (even in the fishing industry) and for the ports, the preventive measures, mainly based on training, are beginning to function!
Recently, in collaboration with the IMO, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) which is also an UN agency, has updated a practical guide (code of practice) concerning safety and health in ports… which supplements the "practical guide for safety on ships at sea or in the port". This guide is invaluable and it insists amongst other things on the dangers of handling containers… today, a very important subject when the first ships with 10.000 containers are ordered!
Regarding security in ports, the SUA Convention (1988) – actually in the course of revision- had required some measures but not really implemented because it had forgotten a little bit that the principal risk for the port facility is… the ship!
The ISPS code came to specify the obligations of the ports for the measures which they must take to avoid a security threat caused by the ship and vice/versa the measures that it must take itself to prevent that the ship does not become, during its stay in the port, a prey for badly disposed persons.
|
 |
|
If in the ports of developed countries, the security plans are sometimes set up slowly and in a empiric manner, in the emerging countries it is not the same thing at all! The "yes" introduced into the IMO/GISIS data base (does the port facility has an approved security plan?) does not necessarily mean that this plan exists and in any case with or without a plan, little or very little has been done in the port!
If in the ports of developed countries, the security plans are sometimes set up slowly and in a empiric manner, in the emerging countries it is not the same thing at all! The "yes" introduced into the IMO/GISIS data base (does the port facility has an approved security plan?) does not necessarily mean that this plan exists and in any case with or without a plan, little or very little has been done in the port!
We can only hope that the ports, even those reluctant to, will invest… the economic threats added to the USCG or insurers warnings should modify their current laicism!
|
It should be noted that certain governments, thus showing a remarkable honesty, have delayed the approval of the security plans of their facilities, until real measures have been taken, in particular, in the monitoring of the approaches of the port. Indeed, it is logical to think that only terrestrial measures are enough, whereas history has told us that the majority of attacks against ships in a port take place from the sea side (USS Cole- M/T LIMBURG - Terminal of BASSORAH). While the evaluation of security (simple common sense is enough sometimes) will have shown easily that certain sea areas do not require particular monitoring (terminals in rivers for example), others are proud to have superb security plans in complete conformity whereas the means of monitoring exist (VTS).... but there are no means of intervention at sea at all !.... whereas the ISPS code requires nautical means for possible checks before the entry of a target ship in the port, and the armed boarding of a suspect ship!
We have also to note that the non satisfaction of this requirement prevents the approval of conformity only if:
- The installation of these nautical means, found obligatory by the risk assessment, is not considered at all or not in a reasonable way
- The budgets released are such as these means will never see the light of day (more frequent case)!
Regarding the quality management of services rendered by the ports, many of them have implemented and benefit from the possibilities that offers the ISO 9000 to limit the field of certification. They start with the services of the Harbour office (reception and placement), those of the pilots, the tug boats and the mooring gangs and can program later the largest part: commercial activities.
Among these activities of service, the stevedoring and especially lashing of containers poses a significant problem of safety… therefore a problem of quality of service rendered to the customer!
In conclusion for the ports they are often satisfied with the ISPS but the way towards security is laborious and the other towards safety must be taken before aspiring for quality.
- CONCLUSION :
These three parts of our industry started in management systems with in theory different goals but use the same methods of human resources management. Operations of these various systems are complementary sometimes, but, too often, they overlap and are likely to discourage all the actors who become moreover logged down in repetitive and useless bumf.
May be it is time to consider a global or total management system, which has the advantage of including safety, health, security, environment protection and customer’s satisfaction?
(Possible next article: the “E3S-2005 management system”)
Capt. Bertrand APPERRY MIIMS
Director for ISM/ISPS and other marine managements systems
The British culture does not want to systematically impose, it prefers to recommend - strongly if it is needed - and leave a certain freedom to the citizens.... but at their own risk and peril! In the event of an accident the consequences will be at the level of your intellectual laxness.
On the continent- I have realized recently that the Belgians are doing the same – we are carried to make only what is obligatory and… nevertheless we will try to obtain a privilege or an exemption!
”Vetting” comes from Vet (veterinary in English) which consists of a complete check up, down to the smallest detail as a "vet" who examines entirely an animal from top to tail, as he is unable to say where he hurts.
For a captain, a designated person or an expert, the personal fines begin at 15.000 US $!
Referring to the warning of Capt Mc GRATH on the responsibility for the CSO, SSO and PFSO (www.imsso.com)
A ship having called in a port which is not in conformity with the ISPS Code becomes itself suspect with all the foreseeable disadvantages (mainly: inspections and delay in all the following ports!)
Retour au menu
|