Nothing much to report

July the first has arrived and gone without the mass ship detentions predicted. However, a number of people that The Motor Ship has spoken to are surprised. “Where have all the ships gone,” asks Andy Mitchell manager of Lloyd?s Register?s marine management systems? “They don?t seem to be where there is all the control and compliance,” he says.

Mitchell wonders whether all ports are rigidly enforcing compliance or whether ports are telling ships to go away and not come back until their certification is in order. If this is the case, they have been granted an extension until the ship reaches the next port of call. This appears to be the case in Australia despite its original stance that it was going to be tough on non-compliance.

The US has, however, been extremely tough and had already denied entry to 19 foreign vessels and detained 30 in port in the first five days of code implementation. Thirty-six US vessels were also restricted and 20 US facilities either restricted or closed for non-compliance.

There has only been one detention in the UK of a Russian Maritime registered cargo vessel called the Sheksna, which was not just detained for security reasons. When The Motor Ship spoke to Mitchell, LR had only three reported detentions and Bureau Veritas? head of ships in service, Claude Maillot, said that BV only had one detention in Europe and one in the US. Maillot continued saying that, despite class societies not having essential guidelines, “we have prepared ourselves and managed to cope with demand”.

Statistics misleading

There still remains a question, however, over the number of ships that need to comply. Both Maillot and Mitchell told The Motor Ship that this was a grey area. “We had the same problem with ISM,” says Mitchell. “There is no list on which all these ships appear

.”

Phil White, head of maritime security for the Maritime Coastguard Association explains that the IMO statistics are based on a very small sample and they do not paint a true picture. He explains: “The MCA wasn?t giving figures into the IMO. We had taken a decision that we weren?t going to assist terrorists by saying how far we had got, or how far we hadn?t got

.”

White told The Motor Ship: “I don?t believe that the figures that say a large proportion of the ships haven?t got certificates is actually bearing out. I think enough countries have made loud noises early enough saying don?t bother coming near us if you haven?t got a certificate that it has been taken

seriously

by the shipping industry and the ship has got certificates and processes in place

.”

The MCA is not expecting problems with ships turning up in the future without the required certification but will be checking the security arrangements as part of its Port State Control (PSC) duties. White explains that: “When the PSC officer is going down to the ship he keeps his eyes open ? that first impression of what the ship looks like is very important

.”

Security is taken

seriously

He added: “While we?re examining the security system we?re not trying to break the system ? we?re just observing what systems are in place and in most cases we have found that the systems that are in place are good. That security is being taken

seriously

.”

He goes on to say that a lot has been learned from the introduction of the ISM code. “We didn?t get anywhere near 100% compliance on ISM introduction, although we?ve taken a very proactive role with our shipowners to encourage them to comply and we have 100% compliance on ISPS

.”

Mitchell concluded by saying: “We have been making noises along with many other countries that if ships didn?t comply then don?t bother coming to the UK. I think that ship owners, shipping companies and governments have woken up to the fact that this is one deadline they had to meet and we?ve got there

.”

n