IACS commitment

During a first conference of International classification societies way back in 1939, it was agreed by the representatives of the of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Det Norske Veritas (DN), Germanischer Lloyds (GL), Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR), Nippon Kaiji KyoKai (NK) and Registro Italiano Navale (RINA) for developing co-operation between the classification societies.

The next conference was held in Paris in 1955 followed by several meetings. It was during the Oslo conference in 1968 that the establishment of International Association of the Classification Societies was agreed upon.

The aim of IACS agreed upon by all members was:

• to promote the improvement of standards of safety at sea and prevention of pollution of the marine environment;

• to consult and cooperate with relevant international and maritime organization; • to maintain close co-operation with the world’s maritime industry.

As back as in 1992, IACS submitted the following statement to the IMO at the 61st

session of the Maritime Committee;

“The International Association of the Classification Societies (IACS) wishes to inform IMO member States that its member societies have agreed to common procedures

inspections. A member society will attend on board a vessel classed by that society when so requested by a port State in order to facilitate the rectification of reported deficiencies or other discrepancies. The individual IACS member society concerned will, where appropriate, duly notify the vessels flag State and owners of such attendance and will fully co-operate with the port State in the ratification of any such safety related matter of either classification or statutory nature within its purview or authority delegated to it” (Reilly).

In short IACS has done the following for port State control:

• provided training assistance, especially in the vital link between IMO Conventions and class rules;

• made data available on class transfer; established databases on port State control detentions

• actively co-operated with IMO and newly developed MOU’s;

• maintained dialogue with MOU Secretariats (IACS briefing No.6 March 1998). Port State control can only be successful if the officers carrying out inspections are well versed with the IMO conventions and the classification societies technical rules. The rules of the leading classification societies provide a common reference point and IACS and its members are ready to assist in meeting the training needs of port State control organizations.

On the invitation of MOU’s, IACS has provided training support to the Paris and Tokyo MOU’s on port State control, and in future may provide to Caribbean and Mediterranean counterparts To improve international maritime safety, IACS is committed to full co-operation and information exchange with port State control (IACS briefing 2, July 1996).

The IACS program of seven key Maritime Safety Initiatives was formally implemented on 1 January 1996, which focussed to restrict the operation of shipping that fails to comply with the standards set by IACS members. The program includes:

• greater transparency of Class and Statutory information and automatic suspension of Class under specified circumstances ;

• tightening of the Transfer of Class agreement; • qualification /certification and training of surveyors; • relations with port State control.

The procedure for responding to port State control defines the co-operation and assistance to be given by surveyors during port State control inspections, including prompt and positive response to a port State request for a surveyor to attend on board. The brief summary of procedures responding to port State control, by IACS members and associates are listed in Annex 4 (IACS briefing 2, July 1996).

From the above we see that there is a willingness on the part of the classification societies to co-operate with the port States, when notified. Classification societies are expected to assess the situation, provide advice and guidance and, when appropriate, make recommendations. The role of the classification society depends largely on flag States, as they are the ones who are delegating the authority to the classification societies. If the flag States have machinery to monitor the classification societies, the problem of substandard ships can be dealt with to some extent.

There are instances during the lifetime of a vessel, that change of classification societies might take place from one society to another. There may be many legitimate reasons, including a change in ownership, flag, underwriter or trading pattern etc. Also, instances where a vessel owner might consider changing society to avoid dealing with outstanding recommendations made by the existing classification society.

To keep a check on such transfers, IACS members have adopted a transfer of classification agreement and have established a database tracking each administrative and technical step in such transactions. These steps will safeguard the system to prevent a vessel from effectively changing classification society without satisfactorily dealing with all outstanding recommendations.

does not always happen, as we have learnt from the recent Erika disaster. The objective of IACS is not realized, if one member of IACS is not committed in following the guidelines. What happens after an incident is criticized by all affected parties and in case of oil spills by the public and press also.

After the Erika incident, in shipping press, the oil companies appear to be criticizing each other for inefficient safety policies, while the classification societies, which have the responsibility of inspecting all ships, are also breaking ranks (Carlsson). With the aim of tightening the safety net particularly for older tankers, IACS held an extraordinary council meeting on 16th _{February 2000 in the wake of the Erika}

accident. The Council decided to strengthen self-policing in various respects:

• vertical contract audits of old ships having changed class will be performed within the next few months;

• vertical audits will start on 10 RINA ships including the Erika. The history of Erika will be investigated for the past two years.

A number of significant decisions strengthening survey procedures were taken including:

• internal examination of all ballast tanks adjacent to cargo tanks with heating coils of ships of 15 years and more on an annual basis ;

• for tankers and bulk carriers of 15 years and older intermediate surveys will be enhanced to the scope of a special hull survey, with the exception of the dry- docking requirements

• an exclusive surveyor will monitor thickness measurements more closely

(IACS press release, 2000, Feb.17).

How many more such accidents are required to eradicate substandard ships from operations? The question that comes to everybody’s mind and the answer is not easy. Days are not far off when apart from targeting substandard ships we will have to identify substandard classification societies or substandard shipowners or may be even Administrations. A white list of Administrations, classification societies,

shipowners and others as in the case of STCW Convention may be seen in the future.

Recently another bulk carrier, Leader L sank. Eighteen crewmembers lost their life. It appears that Leader L had nine conditions of class, many of them related to corrosion, imposed during an abortive special survey in February 1997, by Lloyd’s Register. However, the owner transferred the Class to Poliski Regestr Statkow, before the survey was completed. The transfer of class took place in May 1997. Problems included wastage on main frames, lower frames brackets and topside tank web frame faceplates (Osler, 2000a). All parties concerned have started

investigations. Whatever may be the result of the enquiry, lives have been lost. Leader L may not be the last one, more may follow, if the attitudes of the concerned persons are not going to change.