Commission staff working document - For the Council Shipping Working party IMO – European Community position to be adopted by the Council on maritime safety issues for the 84th session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 84) meeting in London from 7-16 May 2008 concerning improvements to the effective implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code
Date: 2008-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, maritime safety, maritime transport, safety standard













EUR-Lex - 52008SC0224 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52008SC0224

Commission staff working document - For the Council Shipping Working party IMO – European Community position to be adopted by the Council on maritime safety issues for the 84th session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 84) meeting in London from 7-16 May 2008 concerning improvements to the effective implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code  /* SEC/2008/0224 final */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 14.2.2008SEC(2008) 224COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTFor the Council Shipping Working partyIMO – European Community position to be adopted by the Council on maritime safety issues for the 84 th session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 84) meeting in London from 7-16 May 2008 concerning improvements to the effective implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) CodeCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTFor the Council Shipping Working partyIMO – European Community position to be adopted by the Council on maritime safety issues for the 84 th session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 84) meeting in London from 7-16 May 2008 concerning improvements to the effective implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) CodePurposeThis document seeks to improve effectiveness in implementing the ISM Code by proposing specific amendments to the Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Resolution.A.913(22)). These amendments address the scope of verification audits concerning the Interim Document of Compliance and the Safety Management Certificate. For audits concerned with the Interim Document of Compliance, five specific factors are set out which need to be taken into account. For audits related to the Safety Management Certificate following a ship detention for failings in ISM Code compliance, the scope of the intermediate audit is expanded to mirror that of an initial audit.Background2.1 At MSC 82 the Maritime Safety Committee agreed, following a recommendation from the Joint MSC/MEPC Human Element Working Group, that the Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations (resolution A.913(22)) should be revised to make the guidelines more effective and user-friendly.2.2 At MSC 83 the Committee confirmed that this revision work should be undertaken by the Joint MSC/MEPC Human Element Working Group at MSC 84, and so invited Member Governments, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations to submit proposals for discussion at the joint working group (MSC 83/28, paragraphs 15.4 to 15.6).2.3 At MSC 83 the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 83/28, paragraph 16.7) also approved MSC-MEPC.7/Circ 6 on Guidance on the qualifications, training and experience necessary for undertaking the role of the Designated Person under the provisions of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, a proposal put forward by the Member States and the Commission.2.4 The UK authorities have since asked the Commission services to come forward with a submission to IMO on two aspects of the implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations. This paper consequently considers the scope of two verification audits.2.5 Firstly, in terms of the Interim Document of Compliance, it takes up recommendations made by the UK authorities following an investigation into the grounding of the general cargo ship, Harvest Caroline, in October 2006. Within their recommendations, four factors were identified that should be taken into account in any verification audit:-  recent changes in ship ownership, flag State and classification society;-  maritime experience of the Company;-  knowledge of the Company in operating the ship type; and-  Company familiarity with the implementation of safety management systems.However, as this case concerned insufficient safety management measures in place prior to the issuing of the Interim Document of Compliance, the proposal has been limited to audit verification guidelines for this particular document.2.6 In addition to the above-mentioned four factors, and mindful of the recent approval at MSC 83 of the Circular MSC-MEPC.7/Circ 6 (see paragraph 2.3 above), a further relevant factor to be taken into account was added concerning the qualifications, training and experience of the Designated Person.2.7 The second proposal relates to the scope of the Safety Management Certificate verification audit following a ship detention for failure to abide by the ISM Code. The proposal indicates that an additional intermediate verification audit is required and specifies that its scope should equate to that normally used for an initial audit. This provides the basis for a more thorough inspection, to ensure all aspects of safety management are adequately covered. It also provides an incentive for companies to make sure that the ISM Code is effectively applied on their ships.COMMUNITY INTERESTRegulation (EC) 336/2006 applies the International Safety Management Code within the Community. Annex II of the Regulation includes provisions for the administration concerning the implementation of the ISM Code.Proposal4.1 The Commission proposes that MSC 84 should consider the two proposals to clarify the scope of the verification audits in the two above-mentioned cases to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of the ISM CodeACTION REQUESTEDThe Committee is invited to consider and approve the draft submission to the IMO annexed to this document.ANNEXINTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION | [pic] | E |MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 84th session Agenda item 15 | DE51/15/xx -- February 2008 Original: English |ROLE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENTSubmitted by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the European CommissionSUMMARYExecutive summary : | To improve the effectiveness of implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code this document proposes specific amendments to the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Res.A.913(22)). |Action to be taken: | Paragraph 11 |Related documents: | MSC83/16, MSC 83/28, Res.A.913(22), MEPC 56/17/1 |Introduction1.  At MSC 82 the Committee agreed, following a recommendation from the Joint MSC/MEPC Human Element Working Group, that the Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations (resolution A.913(22)) should be revised to make the guidelines more effective and user-friendly.2.  At MSC 83 the Committee confirmed that this revision work should be undertaken by the Joint MSC/MEPC Human Element Working Group at MSC 84, and so invited Member Governments, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations to submit proposals for discussion at the joint working group (MSC 83/28, paragraphs 15.4 to 15.6).3.  This paper considers issues relating to the audit and enforcement of the ISM Code by Administrations and so proposes specific amendments be made to the Revised Guidelines on the implementation of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations.Issues4.  Two issues have been identified that influence the effectiveness of implementation of the International Safety Management Code, namely:5.  the scope of the Interim Document of Compliance verification audit, and6.  the scope of the Safety Management Certificate verification audit following a ship detention.Scope of Interim Document of Compliance verification audit7.  The Revised Guidelines provide guidance to Administrations on verifying compliance with the ISM Code. It is recognized that the verification audits undertaken by Administrations or by an organization recognized by the Administration, or, at the request of the Administration, by another Contracting Government are based upon a sampling strategy of the Safety Management System be it either on board or ashore.8.  The United Kingdom’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) report into the grounding of the Harvest Caroline in October 2006 identifies that verification audits should take into account factors including:9.  recent changes in ship ownership, flag State and classification society;10.  maritime experience of the Company;11.  knowledge of the Company in operating the ship type; and12.  Company familiarity with the implementation of safety management systems.13.  Further, at its 83rd session the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 83/28, paragraph 16.7) approved MSC-MEPC.7/Circ 6 on Guidance on the qualifications, training and experience necessary for undertaking the role of the Designated Person under the provisions of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and so interim Document of Compliance verification audits should additionally take into account the qualifications, training and experience of the Company’s Designated Person.14.  It is proposed that the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Res.A.913(22)) be amended to include a requirement for Administrations to consider and seek additional assurance on the risk factors identified above in paragraphs 6 and 7 when undertaking interim Document of Compliance verification audits. Draft text for the proposed amendment is provided in the Annex.Scope of Safety Management Certificate verification audit following a ship detention15.  IMO document MEPC 56/17/1 noted that an increasing number of Port State Control inspections are recording deficiencies under ISM related codes. It is evident that these deficiencies are a consequence of ineffective implementation of the ISM Code on board a ship. The identification of multiple deficiencies during a Port State Control inspection alludes to a systemic failure of the Safety Management System with the result that the ship is detained.16.  It is proposed that the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Res.A.913(22)) are amended to include a specific requirement that, following a Port State Control detention under the ISM Code, a ship should undergo an intermediate verification audit of the on-board Safety Management System to assure conformity with all the requirements of the ISM Code. Draft text for the proposed amendment is provided in the Annex.Action requested of the Committee17.  The Committee is invited to consider the issues highlighted and the proposed amendments to the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Res.A.913(22)) outlined in the Annex, and to take action as appropriate.ANNEXDraft text for the proposed amendments to the Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations (Res.A.913(22)) is provided below.Scope of Interim Document of Compliance Verification AuditsUnder clause 2 Verifying Compliance with the ISM Code add the following sub-clause:“2.1.5 For interim Document of Compliance verification audits undertaken by Administrations or by an organisation recognized by the Administration or at the request of the Administration by another Contracting Government, it is necessary to ensure that a Company operating a ship has the required experience and understanding to effectively implement a Safety Management System as required under the ISM Code. Where there is limited objective evidence, the Administration should consider and seek additional assurance to take into account factors including:18.  recent changes in ownership, flag State and classification society;19.  maritime experience of the Company;20.  knowledge of the Company in operating the ship type;21.  Company familiarity with the implementation of safety management systems; and22.  qualifications, training and experience of the Designated Person.”Scope of verification audit of Safety Management Certificate following a ship detentionUnder clause 3.4 Intermediate verification of Safety Management Certificate add the following sub-clause:“3.4.3 Where a ship is detained by Port State Control under the ISM Code, the ship should be subjected to an additional intermediate verification audit with the scope of an initial audit by the Administration or by an organization recognized by the Administration, or, at the request of the Administration, by another Contracting Government to assure conformity with all the requirements of the ISM Code.”