The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code) is also part of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. The background to the introduction of the Code was a series of very high profile maritime losses during the 1980’s and early 1990s. In particular the total
loss of the Felixstowe – Rotterdam Ferry ‘Herald of Free Enterprise’ in 1987 with a large passenger death toll was almost entirely the result of a lack of safety management procedures. This was followed shortly after by the loss of the ferry
‘Estonia’ in the Baltic although there was more doubt about the proximate cause, safety management was certainly a factor. There were other ferry incidents not only in Europe but around the world.
However many of the total losses that occurred during this period were less high profile but a significant number of bulk carriers were very seriously damaged or lost, sometimes without trace of vessel or crew. Mostly large bulk carriers but there were also some new and well maintained container ships and a maiden voyage barge carrier. In some of these cases there was little doubt that a lack of maintenance played a large part in the tragedy and in particular there were failures of side shell plating due to corrosion particularly in the areas of side shell frames. In other cases the losses were due to failures in risk recognition and subsequent management.
Objectives
The stated objectives of the ISM Code are set out in the preamble, paragraph 1:
“The purpose of this code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention”
.
Section 1.2 (Objectives):
1.2.1 “The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment and to property.
1.2.2 Safety management objectives of the ‘Company’ should, inter alia:
1.2.2.1 provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment
1.2.2.2 establish safeguards against all identified risks; and
1.2.2.3 continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.
1.2.3 The safety management system should ensure:
1.2.3.1 compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and
1.2.3.2 that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the organisation, classification societies and maritime industry organisations are taken into account.”
ISM & Crew Training
There is nothing new in ship owners having to employ competent crew. However the ISM code now requires that records of the recruitment of key personnel be kept and that training records are up to date. Crew training is a requirement of STCW (Standards in Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) which is another IMO convention relating to training standards.
In respect of the Master, section 6.1 of the Code states:
“ The company should ensure that the Master is:
1. Properly qualified for command;
2. Fully conversant with the company’s Safety Management Systems (SMS);
3. Given the necessary support so that the Master’s duties can be safely performed.”
There is a further requirement that senior ships officers should have a working knowledge of the Code’s requirements while the crew must certainly be aware of the basic safety drill requirements.
ISM and the Charterer
Actual compliance with the code is the responsibility of the ship owner and the ship manager to whom the owner has entrusted the vessel. There are however some significant implications for the Charterer.
The introduction of the code was intended to create a new culture of safety at sea whereby accidents and particularly pollution incidents would not be tolerated. When an accident happens in ‘high profile’ waters the public want someone to blame. In the case of the loss of the tanker ‘Erika’ off the coast of France in 2000 much of the blame for the serious oil pollution of the French holiday beaches attached to the Charterers, the French oil company Elf TotalFina, because unlike the owners they had a very obvious public image.
Implementation of the ISM Code
Initially the major maritime states including the USA, European Community, Norway, Australia, Canada and Japan embraced the Code wholeheartedly while others especially some minor maritime nations in the Far East were less enthusiastic.
More recently the doubters have seen the benefits and today the Code is enforced by most flag and port states.
Procedures
The Code requires formal procedures for all activity relating to the safe management and operation of the vessel both in the offices ashore and in the ship afloat. In the same way as in other ‘quality systems’ the procedures need to be fully documented.
While documented Ship and Safety Management systems can be bought off the shelf these will still need to be substantially tailored to the requirements of the individual company, the types of vessels it operates and even the trade routes with which it is involved. The best practice is to write the procedures in-house so that they reflect the best actual practice used in the company. All employees both ashore and afloat need to be inducted into the system although the degree of involvement will vary greatly with seniority and areas of responsibility.
An important aspect of any management system is identifying and reporting non-conformities. This is particularly the case with accidents, near misses and navigational discrepancies which may be seen to impugn a particular officer. These may occur because the system is not being followed in which case corrective action needs to be taken to prevent re-occurrence. However non-conformance is often the result of a badly written procedure which does not reflect the reality of the activity, in such cases the procedure needs to be changed. Reporting and investigation of non-conformance is at the heart of systems improvement.
ISM Audit
The object of the Code is safe management coupled with continuous improvement.
There has to be an audit trail to prove this and the management office is audited annually by external auditors authorized by the flag state. Each vessel must be audited twice every five years. Between these external audits the managers must undertake internal audits to ensure that there is continuing compliance and must retain the documentary evidence of the internal audits. The audits have to show that what is written in the procedures actually takes place in practice and that there is evidence of this. Shipboard and office procedures are linked so that for example, Masters’ or Chief Engineers’ reports become quality records to support the vessel maintenance the office planned or ordered.
ISM and Port State Control
The proper knowledge and application by the ship’s command of the vessels Safety Management Systems (SMS) is subject to port state control inspection. The inspector’s role in this case is not to cancel the vessels safety management certificate, that is matter for the flag state, but the ship can be detained until any breaches of the SMS are corrected.
As one wise commentator said –“Safety is a culture but if you think safety is expensive, try accidents!”