|
Ship Security Officer (SSO)
5.13
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 9 and 10) for the incorporation of a new regulation XI/7 on SSO, including specific training requirements and responsibilities for that officer to be developed on the basis of the current provisions of MSC/Circs. 443 and 754.
5.14
The ISWG took into account related documents by ICS, ISF, IPTA, INTERCARGO,INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/11, paragraph 6); ICS (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.1) and the Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3/1 , paragraph 11).
5.15
There was general support for the inclusion of a requirement for a SSO in SOLAS Chapter XL. It was accepted that the training needs of this officer needed to be developed in the context of the STCW Convention and that initially his responsibilities should include any necessary instruction to the crew of the ship.
5.16
The Chairman summed up as follows, namely that the ISWG had agreed
.1 to the designation of a Ship Security Officer (SSO);
.2 that such a requirement should be incorporated in the SOLAS rather than the STCW Convention;
.3 that training requirements for the SSO would need to be developed as a matter of urgency by the STW Sub-Committee (see amended decision in paragraph 5.76.4);
.4 to instruct the drafting group to prepare the new SOLAS regulation XI/7 on the designation of the SSO including the duties, responsibilities and training requirements of the SSO;
.5 that the SSO should be required to provide the basic training to the crew, rather than have basic training requirements for the crew as well.
Company Security Officer (CSO)
5.17
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 11 and 12) for the incorporation of a new SOLAS regulation XI/8 on the requirement of a CSO including responsibilities and training requirements.
5.18
The ISWG, taking into account related documents by ICS, ISF, IPTA, INTERCARGO,INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/ll, paragraph 4) and the Secretariat(MSC 75/ISWG/5/3, paragraph 18), agreed to the proposal and instructed the drafting group to prepare the text for new regulation Xl/8 and the ad-hoc group to prepare the guidance requirements for the CSO.
Port Facility Security Plans (PFSP)
5.19
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 7 and 8) for the incorporation of a new SOLAS regulation XI/6 on PFSPs supported by the requirements for PFSPs to be prepared from the provisions contained in MSC/Circ,443.
5.20
The ISWG also considered related proposals and information by Spain(MSC 75/ISWG/5/3), ILO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/10, paragraphs 15 & 16), ICS, ISF, IPTA,INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/ll, paragraphs 2 to 4),Argentina (MSC 75/ISWG/5/12), ICS (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.l), the Philippines(MSC 75/ISWG/INF.6) and Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraph 17).
5.21
While there was general support for the preparation of PFSPs, doubts were raised as to whether it was appropriate to include provisions for such plans in SOLAS. Many delegations considered that it would be more appropriate to develop a separate legal instrument. There was concern that it may not be appropriate to require such plans for small ports. It was acknowledged that IMO instruments already made provision for shore based facilities and that there was a need for early action. Delegations accepted that because of this need it would be appropriate to include provisions in SOLAS, requiring port security plans (PSP) which would cover only the ship/port interface (SPI).
5.22
The Chairman summed up as follows, namely that the ISWG had agreed to:
.1 work on the requirement for PSP;
.2 recommend to MSC 75 to incorporate such a requirement in SOLAS chapter XI, addressing only the SPI, which needed further identification and definition and to stipulate which ports it would apply to (e.g. ports frequently visited by ships engaged in international voyage);
.3 instruct the drafting group to prepare the text for a new SOLAS regulation XI/6 along these lines;
.4 instruct the ad hoc group to develop a definition of the SPI and the requirements for the PSPs from the provisions contained in MSC/Circ.443; and
.5 invite MSC 75 to authorize more detailed work to be undertaken in close co-operation with ILO on comprehensive PFSP requirements.
Port Vulnerability Assessment (PVA)
5.23
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 16 and 17) on the incorporation of a new SOLAS regulation XI/10 for PVA supported by requirements for PVA to be developed by IMO.
5.24
The ISWG also considered related proposals and information by ICS, ISF, IPTA,INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/11, paragraphs 2 to 5), and the Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraphs 16.4 and 17.1).
5.25
PVA was considered an essential part of the port facility security process and the ISWG agreed to:
.1 incorporate such a new regulation for PVA in SOLAS chapter XI;
.2 develop guidance/criteria for PVA based on the existing threat;
.3 instruct the drafting group to prepare the text of new regulation XI/10 on PVA, along these lines; and
.4 instruct the ad-hoc group to prepare the guidance requirements for PVA, establishing clearly what should be mandatory and recommendatory provisions, acknowledging regional/local specifics/particularities which needed to be taking into account.
Seafarer identification and background check
5.26
The ISWG considered the proposal by the United States (MSC75/ISWG/5/7, paragraphs 13 and 14) on the incorporation of a new regulation XI/9 on Seafarer Identification and Background check supported by requirements for verifiable positive identification to be developed by IMO.
5.27
The ISWG considered also related proposals and information by Marshall Islands(MSC 75/ISWG/5/1, paragraph 22), France (MSC 75/ISWG/5/8), ILO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/10),ICS, ISF, IPTA, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC75/ISWG/5/ll,paragraph 8), the Philippines (MSC 75/ISWG/INF.6, paragraphs 15 to 17) and the Secretariat(MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraph 17.7 and MSC 75/ISWG/3/lparagraphs 7 to 9).
5.28
Following a proposal by the Chairman, the ISWG considered the two views on seafarer background checks and seafarer identification verification separately.
5.29
The overwhelming majority of the ISWG did not support the proposal for seafarer background checks. This opposition was based on legal and constitutional restrictions in national law and concern about issues of human rights, privacy and data protection. The ISWG agreed that this proposal should not be taken forward.
5.30
The proposal for the seafarer identification document was discussed also in detail. While there was general agreement that there was a need for an updated seafarer identification document there was a clear division within the ISWG with some delegations supporting inclusion of a requirement within SOLAS as proposed by the United States and a slight majority supporting action through revision of the ILO Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958(No.108).
5.31
The Chairman summed up on this issue as follows:
.1 All delegates who spoke supported the need for urgent action on an up to date seafarer identification document. A clear majority considered it was more appropriate for this work to be done through ILO, though there was a desire for the closest possible co-operation between IMO and ILO thereon.
.2 The relevant ILO Convention No. 108 was adopted in 1958 and its revision was already included in a comprehensive revision and updating of ILO's maritime Conventions. The issue was whether an early revision of the seafarer identification document provisions could be achieved without disrupting ILO's aim of achieving their comprehensive review of their Conventions.
.3 Having discussed this issue with the representatives of the ILO Secretariat and a number of interested parties he recommended the following course of action:
.1 To request the Secretary-General to write to the Director-General of ILO, emphasising the importance the Member States of IMO give to updating the ILO seafarer identification document as a significant contribution to enhanced maritime security and requesting early action on this matter, offering the assistance of IMO in this process.
.2 On receipt of this letter it was hoped that the ILO Director-General would bring this matter to the attention of his Governing Body in March 2002,proposing that a new protocol to ILO No.108 be developed for adoption by the ILO general Conference in June 2003.
.3 Such a Protocol, if adopted, would enter into force twelve months after it had been ratified by at least two States, parties to ILO No.108 and, as explained, could be implemented as a port State control measure through ILO Convention No. 147.
.4 A number of issues, including the budgetary implications for ILO would have to be resolved.
.5 MSC 75 in May would be in a position to establish clearly whether ILO had agreed to the preparation of a Protocol to No.108. In that case MSC 75 would be able to monitor developments thereafter and by December 2002 should have a clear indication whether the ILO iniative was likely to bear fruit.
.6 However, the ISWG should have a Plan B in case Plan A failed
.7 In the current exceptional circumstances and the uncertainties that surrounded the ILO initiative he recommended to safe guard IMO's position. To that end he suggested that the ISWG forwarded to MSC 75 in double square brackets a draft Regulation 9 in Chapter XI of SOLAS which would read as follows.
"[[Regulation 9
Seafarer Identification Document
All Contracting Parties shall issue a seafarer identification document* to each of its nationals who is a member of a ship's crew or is another person employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of that ship.
.8 MSC 75 would be in a position to establish whether the ILO Governing body had agreed to the development of a Protocol to ILO No.108 on an accelerated timescale and could then decide what to do with the text he had proposed to retain in double square brackets.
5.32
The ISWG endorsed the Chairman's summation.
Information on the ship, its cargo and people
5.33
The ISWG considered the proposals and information by the United States(MSC 75/ISWG/5/7, paragraph21) for the MSC to further discuss the issue of information exchange between ships/port States, flag States/port States and port States/port States on the ship, its cargo, its crew and its passengers to determine if additional measures should be implemented to enhance the current information exchange that takes place to further increase maritime domain awareness worldwide.
5.34
The ISWG also considered related proposals and information by Marshall Islands(MSC75/ISWG/5/1, paragraph 18), ICFTU (MSC75/ISWG/5/9), ICS, ISF, IPTA,INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and SIGTTO (MSC 75/ISWG/5/ll, paragraph 14), ISO(MSC 75/ISWG/INF.2) and the Secretariat (MSC 75/ISWG/3, paragraphs 19 to 22).
5.35
The ISWG in considering the issue of ownership and control of the ship, agreed that full transparency in ownership information was desirable, but could be difficult to achieve (e.g. thousands of shareholders of an international banking consortium). Nevertheless the owner of a ship needed to be defined in future, bearing in mind that many IMO instruments place responsibilities on the shipowner, who may, however, not be easy to identify. Again information exchange between parties concerned, utilizing all available systems (e.g. flag State agreements, Equasis, PSC data, FAL Form information, Qualship, 21, etc.) was necessary.
5.36
To avoid overlap, e.g. with other law enforcement agencies, co-operation as per operative paragraph.2 of resolution A.924(22) between international organizations was paramount.
5.37
The ISWG agreed that the issue needed to be further considered by the MSC, on the basis of substantive proposals to be submitted to MSC 75. Member Governments and Organizations were urged to submit documents accordingly.
5.38
The Chairman summed up as follows, namely that the ISWG agreed that:
.1 there was a strong desire to take the matter of improvement of information exchange further;
.2 the IMO FAL forms and the corresponding EDI messages should, inter alia, be used for this purpose;
.3 there was a need to establish who controls the ship;
.4 the question on the ownership and control of the ship was referred to LEG 84 for comments on the effective control of the ship to MSC 75 (see annex 4);
.5 the issue should be further considered at MSC 75, based on substantive proposals submitted.
| * |
Reference is made to the provisions of the ILO Seafarers' Identity Document Convention, 1958 (No. 108), as amended]]" |
|
