The Hindu Business Line : The Frankenstein of port-state control

MORE THAN 20 years of port-state control have not succeeded in eliminating sub-standard ships. This conclusion is confirmed by the 2003 Annual Report of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port-State Control (Paris MoU).

Citing the port-state control results for 2002, the report emphasises the need to step up efforts to achieve a substantial reduction in the number of sub-standard ships in operation. This view is contained in a paper on "Problems of global governance: Port-state control & ILO convention," presented by Mr Michael Bloor at the third international symposium organised last year by the Seafarers International Research Centre, Cardiff University.

The finding is important for India because the paper is part of a much bigger study being undertaken jointly by the Cardiff University, UK, the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, and the International Labour Organisation, Geneva.

The study involves the shadowing of inspectors on their ship inspections in the UK, India and Russia, and interviews with inspectors and key stakeholders in the three countries. However, the paper presented by Mr Bloor provides an early report on the basis of the UK data as the comparative study will take some more time to complete.

The main study involved shadowing 33 ship inspections over a seven-month period, conducted by 12 different inspectors working in two different marine offices, those offices between them being responsible for around 270 port-state inspections per year.

The inspections covered a variety of ships such as crude and product tankers, specialised general cargo ships and bulk carriers, and were undertaken in nine ports.

The interviews were conducted with inspectors and various key stakeholders with particular perspectives on port-state control, namely, ship operators, national and international regulators, ship agents, union officials and P&I Club managers.

A major finding of the paper is that there is a clear case against port-state control. Among ship operators there is a perception that port-state control is a "Frankenstein's Monster", created by the regulatory authorities with the best of intentions but now going out of control. There is a belief that the port-state control has not fully served its purpose, as sub-standard ships have not disappeared from the major ports.

At the same time, port-state control is being viewed simply as a cost burden on operators, requiring major efforts to rectify at short notices minor deficiencies, particularly those relating to documentation and equipment listed by inspectors but actually of little importance to the safe operation of the ship or health of the seafarers.

This is not to suggest that the inspectors are unworthy of their jobs. Quite the opposite. They are hard-working, experienced and knowledgeable professionals.

Many of them are ex-seafarers and all of them are committed to saving and improving the lives of seafarers.

But there are a number of problems in respect of the governance of health and safety in shipping industry — problems of resourcing and targeting and problems of inconsistency.

It is clear that the problem of governance arises primarily out a regulatory deficit, not of enforcement, the paper observes.

There is example of one ship, m/v Panagia Odigitria, which was detained at a UK port in December 2002 while discharging coal brought from South Africa. It was 46,000-dwt, 1984 built, Greek-operated, Marshall Islands flagged, DNV-classed bulk carrier employing 21 crew of six nationalities, the senior officers being Ukranians.

The ratings had not been paid since joining the ship nearly four months before and five of them had jumped the ship leaving a note of complaint. The inspectors listed 42 deficiencies in an inspection.

In respect of ILO Conventions, there appeared to be insufficient food, bedding, bed linen and soap. Most of the showers and WCs were broken. The list was fairly long. The detention of the ship cost the operator at least 100,000 pound sterling.

All this brought to the fore several pertinent issues: That such a ship could still come to a British port only suggests that the port-state control is not operating effectively; a significant percentage of ship operators have no idea how bad their ship are or many of them believe that the chance of deficiencies being detected is minimal.

There are other problems also. All member-states of the Paris MoU are supposed to inspect every year a minimum of 25 per cent of foreign-flagged ships visiting home ports. But France failed to hit the target, only managing to inspect 15 per cent of the foreign ships in 2002 and 10 per cent in 2001.

The failure of one major maritime administration to hit inspection targets, it is felt, can set a bad example. Many national maritime administrations try to concentrate on high target ships to reach their 25 per cent more quickly with fewer inspections.

There are times when even very high-target ships are not inspected simply because no inspectors are available.

Yet, as the paper suggests, there is ground for optimism. Within the industry, there is a perception that while the port-state control has not succeeded in eliminating sub-standard ships, it has nevertheless made it more difficult to operate them and many operators have been encouraged to re-position themselves in the market place and move towards better quality ships and crew.

After all, the ship operators too are realising that once detected, the cost of correcting deficiencies, the cost of detention, loss of freight earnings and loss of reputation, if taken together, may well exceed the perceived `savings' in operating a sub-standard ship and avoiding the regulatory authorities.

Perhaps, as Mr Bloor adds, the market forces will signal the demise of sub-standard ships eventually.

More Stories on : Shipping | Standards & Benchmarks | On the move

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Kerala: Daredevil aviators to do an encore today

Royalty to Tuticorin Port Trust — A cost item for PSA-SICAL

Storm over ship-breaking proposal at Kakinada

The Frankenstein of port-state control

The potential of inland waterways

Submarine rescue system

Motor detariffing process — Insurers flay `piecemeal approach'

Trade with Myanmar: Better road links needed