Agenda notes for the meeting of the UK Chamber of
Shipping Offshore Panel
To be held on Monday 6 February at 1300 at the UK Chamber of Shipping, 30
Park Street, London, SE1 9EQ.
1. Opening and introduction
A general welcome will be made and members will be asked to reaffirm that they will comply
with the UK Chamber of Shipping’s competition law policy, which is attached at Annex 1.
2. Housekeeping and timings
Timekeeping arrangements will be confirmed, keeping in mind that a number of members
will be attending the UK Chamber annual dinner in the evening.
3. Minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 October 2016, are attached at Annex 2 and
will be presented for adoption. A review of the status of previous actions will also be
presented at the meeting.
Action points of the previous meeting are listed below:
Action
Members to provide the Secretariat with
details of prospective member
companies
The Chamber to push for a minimum of
12 months sea time employment under
the SMarT Plus scheme.
The Secretariat to provide further
clarifications about the Apprenticeship
Levy and to lobby for the levy fund to
support marine engineering
apprenticeships in Scotland. .
The Chamber to update members on
progress with regard to the mutual
recognition of the STCW standards and
OPITO training
The Chamber to raise with the NI the
concerns expressed with regard to their
communication of procedure changes.
The Chamber to discuss with IMCA the
possibility of development of an online
reporting system
The Chamber to circulate the link to the
IMCA’s reporting system website.
The secretariat to circulate the details of
the ‘’Introduction to UK Shipping’’
course.
Responsible
Members
Status
Pending
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Chamber
Completed
Comments
4. UK Chamber of Shipping developments
4.1 Membership developments
Talks with Technip and Esvagt UK are ongoing. Members will be invited to suggest any
additional companies that may be interested in Chamber membership.
4.2 Personnel
There have been no recent staffing changes within the Chamber.
5. Employment and training
5.1 Review of SMarT scheme
Members should be aware that the Department for Transport (DfT) SMarT scheme is
guaranteed until 2020 - for the lifetime of this parliament. The scheme is currently under
review by the DfT, to confirm the value and ongoing case for its retention, with the report due
to be published within the next month or so. The Chamber and MNTB have been involved in
the review, and the draft report makes very favourable reading for the retention of SMarT
well into the future.
Alongside, but separate to, the DfT Review of SMarT, the Chamber, MNTB and unions have
been developing the case for SMarT Plus – which would provide increased SMarT funding to
enable employers to train a greater number of officer cadets and provide sea employment
opportunities post certification. The business case has been well-developed and again is
receiving a very favourable hearing with government officials and the shipping minister. The
practical details would need to be fully worked up and the timescales for agreement have not
been defined, but we would be looking for a positive response hopefully by the summer.
Members will be invited to note the update.
5.2 Apprenticeship Levy funds for training
The apprenticeship levy comes into force as of 1 May this year for all companies with an
annual pay bill of more than £3m. Whilst this may not apply to the majority of companies in
this sector, it is the case that non-levy-paying companies will be able to access funds within
the levy ‘pot’ for apprenticeship training. The levy ‘pot’ is not specific to any one industry,
and the arrangements for its use will be different between England and Scotland. In
England, levy money can only be used for apprenticeship training, although an apprentice
does not necessarily have to be a new entrant. Apprenticeship training can apply to an
existing employee as long as they are being trained at either a higher level than they
currently have or in a new/different functional area. In Scotland, there is greater flexibility as
to the type of training that levy funds can be utilised for, in addition to Scottish Modern
Apprenticeships.
A range of Marine Engineering apprenticeships are available in England and Scotland – for
seafarers at rating level and for shore-based marine engineers across a range of disciplines
and job roles. Employers should also consider whether they would wish to look at
apprenticeships relevant to shore-based staff – including HR, admin, management and other
functions. A good starting point to help understand the levy arrangements is the briefing
papers
on
the
Maritime
Skills
Alliance
(MSA)
website
http://www.maritimeskills.org/apprenticeships.htm , which also gives details of the sector’s
range of apprenticeships – either currently available or in development, along with the MNTB
rating-specific
information
on
http://mntb.org.uk/education-training/ratings-andapprenticeships/ . The picture of apprenticeships and levy funding is complex and the
MNTB would be pleased to help with individual enquiries and to provide clarification as
required.
Members will be invited to comment.
5.3 Offshore Training and Certification (OPITO)
Discussions between the MNTB, MCA and OPITO with regard to the most appropriate way
to address the overlap between specific STCW mandatory safety training courses and oil
and gas industry-required OPITO courses are in their infancy. A meeting on 24 January
2017 to take this forward is being rescheduled due to the sad and untimely death of the
OPITO Chief executive, David Doig, at the end of December. The first stage of the work,
which was initiated by the MNTB, is to scope a project to identify the development process,
timescales, resource implications (and any issues to be addressed) etc to provide what
would likely be a combined course that would meet industry needs (employers and
employees) covering skills, knowledge and understanding in those areas of commonality
and overlap between existing MNTB (STCW) and OPITO defined courses. It is important
that this initial work is undertaken to define an appropriate outcome and process prior to any
formal discussions with other industry bodies, so that the thinking has been worked through
and potential implications for both the MCA and OPITO have been identified and fully
considered.
Members will be invited to comment.
5.4 National Minimum Wage
The shipping Minister, Rt Hon John Hayes MP, has announced a Government review of the
application of the National Minimum Wage (NMW), with the purpose of ensuring that it
applies to the offshore sector. The announcement was made in a reply to a parliamentary
question from Alistair Carmichael MP on 17 November 2016. No further details were given.
The UK Chamber wrote immediately to the Minister pointing out that any changes to the
scope of application of the NMW to seafarers would affect at least some of the chamber’s
members and might also have wider repercussions for other areas of employment law. For
these reasons the chamber requested a meeting with the Minister.
The Minister agreed to the chamber’s request and a team from the chamber is scheduled to
meet with him on 30 January. The minister also clarified that the review would involve the
Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and HM Revenue &
Customs (HMRC) as well as the Department for Transport (DfT), the chamber and the
maritime unions. A first meeting of the review group is likely to take place during the week
beginning 20 February.
Members will be aware that an RMT-led campaign to force Seatruck Ferries to pay the NMW
to all crew members on their vessels operating lifeline services between the Scottish
mainland and islands came to the attention of the Scottish Government. It was resolved
when Seatruck agreed to bareboat charter their ferries to Serco and transfer the employment
of the crews. Whilst it is helpful that the resolution was achieved without any changes to
legislation or guidance, RMT in particular will feel emboldened by these developments.
Members will be invited to give their views on the line the chamber should take in the
NMW review.
5.5 Merchant Navy Training Board – Vacancy for Main Board member
The Merchant Navy Training Board (MNTB) is the organisation dedicated to ensuring that
the current and future skills requirements of the UK shipping industry are met through the
highest quality training for the benefit of UK seafarers and ship operators. Its Main Board is
constituted from shipping and ship management companies, trade unions and maritime
education and training. The Department for Transport (DfT) and the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) have observer status.
The UK Chamber nominates eight members to the Main Board. At present, there is one
vacancy for a UK Chamber nominee. Nominees are expected to act in the interests of ship
operators generally, rather than representing their companies. Nominees should also be
from companies that have a demonstrable commitment to high quality training of personnel
for the maritime sector, with a view to their employment within the company fleet. The UK
Chamber also considers it important that its nominees should be of sufficient seniority within
their companies to take and implement strategic decisions in furtherance of the objectives of
the MNTB.
At present none of the chamber’s nominees are from companies involved in the offshore
sector of the industry and the chamber would be particularly pleased to receive a nomination
from such a company.
Members wishing to put themselves or colleagues forward for consideration are
kindly requested to notify the chamber secretariat accordingly, setting out the
reasons for their interest and the factors indicating their suitability for
nomination. Nominations should in all cases be accompanied by a testimonial from a
director of the nominee’s company confirming this information.
6. Dynamic Positioning
6.1 NI DP Training Scheme
The UK Chamber attended the Nautical Institute’s (NI) DPTEG meeting on 7 and 8
November as part of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). The group was updated
about the positive progress made by the NI on their DP scheme. During the meeting,
statistics relating to STCW qualifications of DPOs were provided. The early manual analysis
indicates that less than 0.5 % of the DPOs have engineering qualifications. It was agreed
that statics of nationalities of certified DPOs be presented in the next update in order to help
to establish regional trends. DPTEG agreed to add a statement in the Accreditation and
Certification Scheme Standard clarifying that DPOs should carry out sea time on a classed
vessel for the revalidation of a classed certificate. If the DPO had an Unclassed Certificate
then sea time on an Unclassed vessel could be used towards the revalidation of that
certificate. A statement was also agreed to be included regarding time keeping during
simulator exercises and reference that as a registered charity the NI is subject to the latest
existing version of the UK Bribery Act and subject to penalties and prosecution.
The DPTEG considered a draft NI Standard for DP Knowledge for Technical Staff
(Engineers and ETOs). It was stated that due to the rewriting of IMCA M117 a number of
content changes had yet to be made. The NI told the group that there was stakeholder
support for the consistency with IMCA M117 as it provides a route for employers to comply
with the document. The NI added that the course itself focused on specialist technical
training without repeating training for STCW. Feedback received was that the course was on
route to being finalised. The NI established that the intention of the course was not for it to
be used as a requirement for the Offshore scheme or as a replacement for aspects of the
Offshore scheme. It was further advised that the content of the course is Part A which is
generic and Part B which is specific. Feedback received was that training centres would not
be able to run type specific Part B but they could run the generic element. The course would
run for five days with Part A and B and for four days with just Part A. The ICS raised
concerns that the course would appear to be a part of the scheme. Following discussions, it
was agreed that the course will not be part of the NI’s DP scheme, but rather an NI
accredited course. A draft of the course is attached as an Annex to this Agenda.
The group also agreed that the NI should clarify the guidelines for DP sea time for initial
certificate and revalidation focusing on windfarm vessels. Inter alia, the group clarified the
DP sea time requirements for the Revalidation Course. In particular, it was agreed to include
a statement in the Accreditation and Certification Scheme Standard, explaining that every
time a DPO completes the full 150 DP sea time requirements for revalidation, then he/she
can subsequently take the Revalidation Course again without the DP sea time requirement.
Discussions about the annual revision of standards were also held and there was an
agreement to hold a Global Technical DP Conference in London next year.
In the ensuing discussions, the Chamber stated that there was difficulty in keeping up with
circulars and the requirements that changed. The NI informed the group that the circulars
were available on the training centre platform and on the DPTEG platform. It was also
pointed out that some circulars could not be publicised. It was agreed that the appropriate
circulars be publicised on the Alexis Platform. The NI also requested specific evidence to be
provided with regard to the procedural changes in order to investigate this matter further.
The Chamber also commented that the format of reporting incidents through IMCA was not
always helpful and asked whether an online platform would be established to help reporting
and to counteract the number of under-reported DP incidents. IMCA responded that the
formatting of the form had been updated from word to PDF and the relevant incident form
was available on the website. IMCA explained that a platform was possible but it was not
considered due to feedback from members that the company might like to check the
information reported from the vessels prior submission.
Members will be invited to:
-
report any challenges faced with the NI DP scheme;
comment on the draft NI Standard for DP Knowledge for Technical Staff;
provide specific evidence regarding the challenges faced with the NI procedure
changes;
6.2 NI Emergency Shiphandling Course
The Nautical Institute DPTEG, which met on 7 and 8 November 2016, accepted a proposal
for the development of a DP Emergency Shiphandling course. The proposal was presented
following a request from the NI Annual General Meeting where the necessity for such a
course was highlighted. The DPTEG has agreed that the course shall not be added to the
Nautical Institute’s Accreditation and Certificate Scheme Standard. Instead, it will be part of
a separate NI recognised course.
The course has been designed to prepare DPOs who engage in manual ship handling
activities in vessels operating in Dynamic Positioning mode, including emergency situations
and system failures, which could not be achieved through the NI DP scheme.
A draft document was circulated to members on 14 December and is also attached as an
Annex to these agenda notes.
Members will be invited to raise any concerns with regard to the proposed course.
6.3 Nautical Institute DP Certificate Revalidation Memorandum
Members will be invited to note a circular issued by the Nautical Institute advising companies
and DPOs of revalidation requirements of existing NI DPO certificates. The circular is
provided as an Annex to these agenda notes and the key points of the circular are as
follows:
•
•
In 2016, NI is revalidating certificates issued from 2003 to 2004 and those
issued in 2011.
In 2017, NI is revalidating certificates issued from 2005 to 2006 and those
issued in 2012.
The “batch” revalidating approach was originally designed by the NI to assist in managing
processing times, to mitigate application backlogs, and to structure the transition to the new
scheme (from 1 January 2015). This NI approach will likely require review and consideration
in the future.
Information and guidance on the NI DPO training and certification scheme should also
already be received directly by most DPOs and companies via the NI’s online AlexisPlatform
(www.nialexisplatform.org).
Any feedback from companies on the communication of information by the NI direct
to DPOs and companies would be very welcome and could inform future chamber
suggestions/ proposals for enhancing the NI’s provision of information about the
scheme.
7. Safety and vessel standards
7.1 Carriage of industrial personnel
7.1.1 Interim solution
The IMO MSC 97 Committee, which met in November 2016, considered three options as
mechanisms in which an interim MSC resolution could be issued to facilitate the carriage of
industrial personnel on vessels engaged on international voyages, while the proposed
SOLAS Chapter on Industrial Personnel is being drafted. Despite the legal difficulties
presented to MSC 97, Option 1, i.e. to declare that industrial personnel were not
passengers, was the preferred option of most of the delegations. It was also decided that
this interim resolution was urgently needed and it was pointed out that governments
continued to be free to set their own standards for ships carrying industrial personnel – this
appeared to be the intention of states such as the US, Canada and Ireland.
During the meeting, the International Labour Organization (ILO) also made an intervention
regarding the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) for the purposes of the SOLAS
Chapter for the Industrial Personnel Code. It stated that seafarer “means any person who is
employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which this Convention
applies”; if there is any doubt as to whether someone working on board is a seafarer, this
needed to be decided by the tripartite group within the Flag State, taking into account criteria
set out in ILO Resolution concerning information on occupational groups, adopted 22
February 2006.
For the UK, the MCA has stated to the Chamber that if a vessel carries industrial personnel
within UK domestic waters, the agreed interim MSC resolution would not be applicable.
However, in practice, it already imposes similar requirements to vessels on domestic
voyages.
It is unclear if other nations intend to apply it to their domestic waters – though in practice, it
is highly likely that they already apply similar requirements and will use this to endorse their
position (such as Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Denmark – who were all supportive of
this MSC Resolution).
According to the interim MSC Resolution, industrial personnel means all persons who
are transported or accommodated on board for the purpose of offshore industrial
activities performed on board other vessels and/or other offshore facilities and meet
the criteria set out below:
‘’1. Such industrial personnel should not be considered or treated as passengers
under SOLAS regulation I/2(e).” The definition of industrial personnel was intended to
cover those offshore workers being transported or accommodated on a vessel in which they
are not working on. It was considered that offshore workers working on board Mobile
Offshore Units (MOU) or other vessels would already be covered by existing standards, such
as the SPS Code as “special personnel”, or the MODU Code. It was also considered that the
MSC resolution would apply in addition to those existing standards for special personnel, etc
– so for example, if a person who works on a vessel as special personnel is transferred to
that vessel on a different transfer vessel, that person would only be considered “industrial
personnel” on the transfer vessel until they disembarked. If the vessel transports and/or
accommodates workers to the offshore installation or windfarm, the MSC resolution would
be applicable in relation to those workers.
“2. Offshore industrial activities are the construction, maintenance, operation or
servicing of offshore facilities related, but not limited, to exploration, the renewable or
hydrocarbon energy sectors, aquaculture, ocean mining or similar activities.” The
inclusion of such a definition resulted from the International Transport Workers’ Federation’s
(ITF) concerns that this resolution could be used to undermine those workers who should
really be classed as seafarers. Although the Working Group intended for the definition of
“offshore industrial activities” to be broad, it could be interpreted that the activities appeared
to be drafted in a more limited manner than intended.
“3 For the purpose of these Interim Recommendations, all industrial personnel
should:
1. be not less than 16 years of age;
2. prior to boarding the ship, receive appropriate safety training, meeting the
standard in paragraph 2.1 of section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code. Administrations
may accept other industrial training standards such as those of the Global
Wind Organisation (GWO), Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation
(OPITO), Basic Offshore Safety Induction and Emergency Training (OPITO
accredited) if they consider these appropriate alternatives;
3. receive on board ship specific safety familiarization that includes, but is not
limited to, the layout of the ship, and handling of the safety equipment, as
appropriate. The standard in paragraph 1 of section A-VI/1 of the STCW Code,
or equivalent, should be used as the standard;
4. be familiarized with specific procedures, e.g. transfer procedures on and off
the ship while at sea, as appropriate;
a. be accounted for in the ship's life-saving equipment; and
b. be equipped with personal protective clothing and equipment suitable
for the safety risks to be encountered both whiles on board the ship and
being transferred at sea; and
5. meet appropriate medical standards. The standard in section A-I/9 of the STCW
Code, applicable to engineers, or equivalent, may be used as a standard.”
The age limit was inserted to enable apprentices who meet the subsequent criteria to be
carried on board. The reference to the STCW standards is only for the purpose of
establishing a baseline and, therefore, the relevant Flag/Coastal State may choose to use
different standards. However, there appears to be a distinction made for medical fitness
because this was one of the main justifications for not treating such workers as passengers
(sub-paragraph 6); it is intended that section A-I/9 of the STCW Code, applicable to
engineers, or equivalent standards, set out the minimum level – though the drafting of this is
arguably insufficient to reflect this intention. Whereas, Sub-paragraphs 4.a and 4.b are
intended to make clear that there is a difference between the vessel’s lifesaving provisions
and appliances (which is specific to the vessel), and the equipment carried by the worker
(which is for the charterer/personnel).
“4 IMO guidance (MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.10) or relevant industry standards should be
taken into account, to the extent possible, when transferring industrial personnel at
sea.”
“5 Industrial personnel may be carried on board ships meeting the provisions of the
2008 SPS Code or other standards, providing they meet an equivalent level of safety
acceptable to the Administration, taking into consideration the number of persons on
board.” This provision was subject to much dispute when it was first drafted at MSC 96,
which ensued at MSC 97. Some delegations wanted to impose the 2008 SPS Code as the
minimum standard, while others disputed this drafting. In any case, it is supposed to enable
other relevant standards to be considered, such as the High-Speed Craft Code, the Offshore
Support Vessel Code or national codes. What would be considered acceptable “other
standards” is up to the Flag and/or Coastal State, though the number of persons on board is
to be taken into account. On face value, it appears to be broad enough to present a case of
equivalent standards to the relevant State.
7.1.2 Roadmap
The roadmap envisages that by 2020 the drafting of the new SOLAS Chapter containing the
Industrial Personnel Code will be completed, with a provisional entry into force date of 2024.
This is considered an achievable but optimistic timetable, and there is the option of
accelerating the entry into force date by 2 years.
7.1.3 Next Steps – Industrial Personnel Code within SOLAS
At its 4th meeting of the Ship Design and Construction Sub-Committee (SDC 4), which is
currently scheduled for the week commencing 13 February 2017, a correspondence group
will be established to start work on the drafting of a new SOLAS Chapter on the ship design,
construction and equipment regulations for vessels carrying more than 12 industrial
personnel engaged on international voyages - with possible implications for existing ships.
It is anticipated that the 2008 SPS and the 2000 HSC Codes will form the basis for the
technical discussion of the draft Industrial Personnel Code. Bearing in mind that the 2008
SPS Code is not a mandatory instrument, proposals to reference only SOLAS are made.
Whereas for offshore service vessels being high-speed craft according to the definition in
SOLAS regulation X/1, the proposed text is expected to references the 2000 HSC Code.
Consideration is also expected to be given on the number of industrial personnel that the
ship is intended to carry, the ship’s activities, the various amounts and type of dangerous
goods will have to be carried, as well as the appropriateness to include 2008 IS Code
recommendations for lifting operations.
For the Chamber, the other more pressing issue will be the ability to grandfather existing
ships which already carry industrial personnel, by inserting appropriate grandfathering
provisions into the new SOLAS Chapter.
Members will be invited to comment.
7.2 Anchor handling - revision to the 2008 Intact Stability (IS) Code
The 97th session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (November 2016) adopted
revisions to the mandatory requirements of Part A and recommendatory requirements of
Part B of the IS Code, to include consideration of ships engaged in the following operations:
•
•
•
•
•
Anchor handling (deploying, recovering and repositioning of anchors and
associated mooring lines)
Harbour towing of ships and floating structures within sheltered waters
Coastal or ocean towing of ships and floating structures outside sheltered
waters
Lifting operations using winches, cranes, a-frames or other lifting devices
Escort towage (steering, braking and controlling an assisted ship)
The amendments are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2020. Details amending
SOLAS and the Load Line Convention and are given in resolutions MSC.413(97) and
MSC.414(97) respectively. MSC.415(97) revises Part B of the IS Code, providing
recommendations for ships engaged in the above operations.
Members will be invited to note the report provided.
7.3 Large Workboat Code
The MCA has established an industry working group with the aim to develop a new code for
cargo ships of up to 500 GT and over 24 metres in length.
Members will be invited to advise on whether there is any interest in this work and
suggest two representatives from member companies to attend the group.
7.4 UK Chamber of Shipping Safety Online Forum
The chamber launched a new online forum and knowledge-sharing platform for members,
alongside an industry-wide campaign to promote safety culture on 16 January 2017. The
initiative is the first step towards promoting a much stronger awareness of safety not just
within chamber member companies but also among all those who are involved in the
maritime industry and who can in one way or another influence safety at sea, even if only
inadvertently – the application of commercial pressure, for example, can lead to a dramatic
reduction in normal safety standards and procedures.
The forum is open to UK Chamber members to share thought leadership, near miss reports
and other incident reporting that will enhance the exchange of information and ideas thereby
allowing others to learn from common experiences and thus reduce the probability of
accidents happening across the membership as a whole. On the forum, one can post
information, comment on colleague's posts and link to documents or websites that would be
of benefit to the membership community. More information on the Safety Culture Project can
be found on the Forum’s website https://community.ukchamberofshipping.com/.
Members will be encouraged to take part in this initiative.
7.5 Marine Safety Forum (MSF)
A verbal report on the outcome of the November MSF meeting will be provided by
Derek Leiper, Chairman of the Marine Safety Forum, during the panel meeting.
7.6 OSV Chemical Code
The 4th session of the IMO Pollution Prevention and Response Sub-Committee (January
2017) finalised the draft OSV Chemical Code and the minimum carriage requirements for
contaminated backloads carried on OSVs. The draft OSV Chemical Code is expected to be
approved by MSC 98 (May 2017) and MEPC 71 (July 2017) with the view to adoption by the
IMO Assembly 30. The Code is not mandatory; however, it is expected to be made
mandatory in the future. The Code applies to OSVs engaged in the carriage of products
subject to the Code regardless of size or voyage. Existing OSVs may be permitted to carry
products identified as requiring Ship Type 2 carriage requirements in the IBC Code, provided
that they comply with the requirements of the Code except for the stability requirements in
chapter 2 and subject to the satisfaction of the Administration.
Products which may be carried subject to the Code are:
-
-
only offshore related products listed in chapters 17 & 18 of the IBC Code and the
latest edition of MEPC.2/ Circular and their related references to chapters 15 and 19
of the IBC Code can be carried subject to the Code;
oil-based/water-based mud containing mixtures of products listed in chapters 17 & 18
of the IBC Code and the MEPC.2/Circular;
liquid carbon dioxide and nitrogen or contaminated backloads;
With regard to the carriage requirements of the contaminated backloads carried on OSVs it
was agreed that unless expressly provided otherwise, the requirement should apply to new
and existing ships and the relevant requirements of chapter 17 of the IBC Code should apply
to the carriage of contaminated backloads.
Members will be invited to comment.
8. Environment
8.1 Ballast water management
8.1.1 IMO developments
The IMO finalised and approved the revised Guidelines (G8) at its last MEPC 70 meeting in
October. The revised Guidelines will be made mandatory, which will increase the industry’s
confidence that the systems approved under these guidelines will meet the Convention’s
standards and probably also meet the USCG requirements. However, as Administrations
might apply these guidelines as from October 2018 and installation on board ships is
required from 2020, a considerable number of vessels could be required to install existing
systems as from 8 September 2017. The industry submitted a paper at this session that
asked for the IMO to delay the installation of the existing systems till revised G8 approved
systems are available.
However, as the views were divided on the proposal and in order to reach a compromise, an
alternative text for the implementation schedule was drafted for consideration at the MEPC
meeting in July 2017.
The text is the follow:
‘’First renewal survey as determined by the Committee following the date of entry into
force of the Convention if this survey is completed on or after 8 September 2019.
‘’Second IOPP renewal survey if the first renewal survey following the date of entry
into force of the Convention is completed prior to 8 September 2019.
‘’A ship constructed on or after 8 September 2019 shall conduct Ballast Water
Management that at least meets the standard described in regulation D-2.’’.
However, as a decision on the alternative text is only going to be agreed just weeks before
the entry into force of the Convention, it would seem that the faith placed on the delay of the
implementation may well be misleading. Practically it is a delay only for ships which the first
renewal IOPP survey is completed prior to 8 September 2019. Ships that will decide to
decouple their IOPP certificate will most probably have their first renewal survey after 8
September 2019 and therefore, will not benefit from the potential delay. In addition, as the
final decision on the issue will be made at the MEPC 72 (Spring 2018) by Member States
that have already ratified the Convention, it is uncertain on whether shipwowners will take
the risk to not fit a system and wait or consider decoupling of the IOPP certificate before the
entry into force of the Convention in order to be on the safe side.
Nevertheless, the UK is working closely with other IMO Member States and the industry to
find a compromise at the next MEPC meeting in July and provide legal certainty on the
agreement.
Unfortunately, although expected, at the 4th session of the IMO Pollution Prevention and
Response Sub-Committee (PPR 4) meeting Ireland did not support a proposal made by the
Republic of Korea for the development of an IMO unified interpretation that will provide
clarity for vessels that trade in areas where ballast water exchange areas have not been
designated. Ireland, reinstated its position as communicated to the Chamber by the MCA,
i.e. D1 or D2 or any other equivalent method. Except for Ireland, all States that spoke
recognised the need for a unified interpretation. Taking into consideration the urgent need
for clarity to be provided on this matter before the entry into force of Convention, the
Republic of Korea advised of its intention to submit a circular at MEPC 71 (July 2017) for
approval. Unfortunately, the circular might not be enough to change the Irish position, as
States can apply more stringent requirements in their waters. Nevertheless, the Chamber
will continue to lobby for a successful outcome of this matter at the IMO.
8.1.2 US developments
In early December 2016, the USCG issued its first US type approval certificate to a system
which uses filtration and UV to treat the ballast water. In late December, the USCG issued
its second and third type approvals, also UV technology systems. The long-awaited
announcement was welcomed by the industry, however, more systems need to be approved
before the entry into force of the IMO BWM Convention in order to be able to meet the
demand. In addition, following recent the recent IMO review of the G8 Guidelines and the
discussions the industry is keen to see a full alignment of the IMO and the USCG type
approval.
8.1.3 UK developments
The UK intends to ratify the Convention within the next 12-18 months. As it has been
advised in previous notes, the UK does not intend to extend the requirements of the
Convention to vessels that trade domestically and exclusively in the UKCS. To this end,
offshore vessels that intend to trade domestically can make use of the circular
BWM.2/Circ.52 which provides guidance on entry or re-entry of ships into exclusive
operation within waters under the jurisdiction of a single Party. This guidance applies in
situations where the vessel that is trading exclusively in waters of a Party and is not required
to fit a system, changes trading area or goes to a dry-dock. The circular provides for shortterm compliance are:
a) Exemptions: This method needs a risk assessment to be performed. If the dry-dock or the
next trading area is located within an approved SRA then this could be a viable solution.
Otherwise, it may not be practicable when considering the very limited number of such
voyages within a 5 years period.
b) Reception facilities: This is could be a feasible option for OSVs, however, members are
advised to check with the relevant ports on their intention to provide such a service.
c) Other methods approved by the IMO.
The MCA has advised that FAQs on the UK’s interpenetration of the Convention will be
published within the next months and that it is in discussion with France and Belgium
regarding the potential of the designation of the English Channel as a same risk area, which
will enable ships operating exclusively in the area to apply for an exemption. In addition, the
MCA will initiate discussions with Norway with regard to the application of the Convention to
offshore vessels, which may occasionally perform international voyages when changing
trading area.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.2 Carbon emissions
8.2.1 Data collection system
The MEPC 70 (October 2016) adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI related to the
data collection system for fuel consumption. The Committee also made progress on the
development of guidelines for the implementation of the data collection system. Proposals
on a proxy for transport work for ships that do not carry cargo were invited to be submitted to
a future session of the Committee. To this end, members may recall the offshore vessels,
based on the work chaired by the Chamber, are excluded by the EU MRV regulation and EC
FAQs stating such exemptions are excepted to be issued imminently. The Chamber is part
of the IMO data collection correspondence group and has already raised concerns with
regard to the requirement to develop operational energy efficiency index for offshore
vessels. The UK Chamber is now in discussion with IMCA for a submission at the next
MEPC 71 in order to properly address the application of the IMO data collection system to
offshore vessels.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.2.2 Carbon reduction strategy
The MEPC 70 approved a Roadmap for developing an IMO strategy on the reduction of
GHG emissions from ships, which indicates that decisions on carbon reduction measures
will not be agreed till 2023. The Roadmap was welcomed by developing countries, which
have for a long time being reluctant to engage in discussions for carbon reduction targets.
However, it seems not to have satisfied EU MEPs that have been lobbying for the
establishment of an EU ETS for shipping. With regard to offshore vessels, as their activities
are excluded from the EU MRV, they are expected to be out of the scope of the EU ETS.
Meanwhile, the ICS organised a two day carbon meeting in January that the chamber
attended, the intent of which was to agree their levy paper and to discuss the need or
otherwise for the industry to promote aspirational carbon objectives, an approach taken
recently by ICAO with some success. This has become particularly important given the
decision by the EU ENVI Committee to promote the inclusion of shipping into the EU ETS.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.3 SOx – NOx emissions
The IMO agreed at its October MEPC meeting to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of
implementation for ships to comply with 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement
as set out in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI. Following this decision, the IMO PPR 4
Sub-Committee prepared and recommended to the MEPC 71 new output on consistent
implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit with the view to be completed latest by the end of
2019. Its scope is welcomed by the industry as it considers also safety aspects, which the
IMO has been reluctant to address for a long time. To assist its members with the
forthcoming sulphur requirements the Chamber in partnership with IBIA is organising a
Technological Forum ‘’20:20 - Getting down to Business’’ on 19 April 2017. The Chamber
will also be participating in the European Commission’s ESSF Air Emissions from Ships
subgroup, which will be developing guidelines for the implementation of the regulation.
The IMO also agreed at its MEPC 70 meeting to designate the North Sea and the Baltic Sea
as emission control areas for NOX Tier III control with an effective date of 1 January 2021.
Single voyage exemptions were also agreed to allow ships fitted with dual fuel engines or
with only Tier II engines to be built, converted, repaired and/or maintained at shipyards
located in NOX Tier III ECAs.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.4 Black Carbon
At the IMO PPR 4 Sub-Committee (January 2017), European States and environmental
NGOs were very keen to see control measures being introduced in the very near future,
despite the fact that the IMO has yet to agree how these emissions will be measured. Russia
and likeminded countries were against such a proposal and therefore the proposal did not go
far. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the industry may have to deal with Black Carbon sooner
than expected.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.5 Ship Recycling
8.5.1 IMO Hong Kong Convention (HKC) – updates
The 2009 IMO Convention on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, also
known as the Hong Kong Convention (HKC), aims to govern ship recycling practices in a
sustainable way. To trigger entry into force of the Convention to enter into force, 15 states
need to ratify, representing 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage and a
combined maximum annual ship recycling volume not less than 3% of their combined
tonnage. To date, five IMO Member States have ratified the Convention: Norway, France,
Congo, Belgium and Panama – so one major flag state but no major recycling states.
Denmark has initiated the accession process. Encouragingly, India and Turkey have
expressed intent to ratify the Convention, which would be a significant step towards the entry
into force of the Hong Kong Convention.
8.5.2 EU Ship Recycling – general and compliance dates
In 2013, the European Union adopted its own Regulation on ship recycling. It contains a
general obligation for EU flagged ships to be recycled in EU approved recycling facilities.
This obligation applies either:
A. six months after the combined output of the EU recognised ship recycling facilities is 2.5
million LDTs, or
B. latest by 31 December 2018.
The EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU SRR) largely mirrors the provisions of the IMO HKC,
but with some differences.
Other articles of the EU SSR came into force on 31 December 2014 which largely related to
the ship recycling facilities and the EU approved list – and a later compliance date of 31
December 2020 for existing ships calling at EU ports to maintain an Inventory of Hazardous
Materials (IHM) on board.
To this end, the European Commission published on 19 December 2016 the first list of
approved facilities as required by the EU Regulation on ship recycling 1257/2013 (EU SRR).
The list includes 18 ship recycling facilities, all located in the EU; applications received from
third countries have not been finalised yet as they require more in-depth assessment. The
recycling capacity of these 18 European recycling facilities amounts only to ca. 0.3 million
LDT, which is not sufficient to trigger application of the Regulation. It is also interesting to
note that the current list has some limitation in terms of the size of ships enabled to be
dismantled. However, with the amount of applications received from third countries, the 2.5
million LDTs threshold could potentially be reached before the 31 December 2018 deadline.
This would then trigger the application of the EU Ship Recycling Regulation six months later.
Members should also note that following Article 26 on Transitional provision, as of the date
of publication of the European List, EU Member States may, prior to the date of application
of this Regulation, authorise the recycling of ships in ship recycling facilities included in the
European List. In such circumstances, the Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006 will not
apply anymore.
8.5.3 EU Ship Recycling – Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM)
Maintaining an up-to-date Inventory (IHM) on aboard a ship through its life-cycle is required
by the HKC as well as the EU SRR. The EU SRR mirrors the HKC, but adds to the IHM list.
The EU SSR requires all EU flagged ships shall have on board an IHM. In addition, all non
EU/EEA flagged ships shall also have on board an IHM when calling at an EU/EEA country,
and non EU/EEA flagged ships will be treated as if they were ‘existing ships’ for the
purposes of EU SRR. New EU flagged ships will have to have an IHM on board either from
six months after the combined output of the EU recognised ship recycling facilities is 2.5
million LDTs, or latest by 31 December 2018. Existing ships which call at EU ports will have
to have an IHM on board from 31 December 2020, and are expected to comply “as far as
practicable”. New non-EU flagged ships which call at EU ports will have to have an IHM on
board from 31 December 2020. For EU flagged ships going into recycling, they will need to
maintain an IHM from the date of publication of the European List of ship recycling facilities.
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) has been tasked to work out best practice
guidance on Inventories of Hazardous Materials (IHM). This is directed to EU Member
States’ administrations as an assessment tool of IHM inventories which may vary in terms of
quality (and costs). Whilst based on IMO guidelines, the EMSA document specifically
provides further guidance on the accreditation process and on the two additional hazardous
materials (PFOS and HBCDD) to be listed under the EU Regulation. The EMSA guidance
should be considered as a non-legally binding document.
8.5.4 UK implementation
The Chamber attended a meeting with the DfT and the MCA on 7 December to discuss the
implementation and enforcement of the EU Ship Recycling Regulation in the UK. The DfT
advised that it is likely that the recycling tonnage will be met by mid of 2017, hence the
general provisions are expected to apply by the end of 2017. For this reason an 8-week
consultation on the UK legislation is planned to be launched in February 2017. To this end,
the Chamber sought clarifications with regard to the implementation of the EU SRR to ships
that trade domestically and non-EU flag survey regime. The DfT agreed to clarify with the
Commission the issues raised. With regard to the Hong Kong Convention it was advised that
although the Commission has encouraged the EU Member States to proceed with its
ratification, the UK intends to ratify once the criteria for its entry into force is met. The UK,
noting the progress made by India and Turkey, was confident that the Hong Kong
Convention will be ratified by 2020.
Members will be invited to comment.
8.6 EU Environmental Liability Directive and preserving the application of IMO
conventions regarding shipowner liability
Exceptions for shipping to the EU Environmental Liability Directive are contained in two
places in the Directive. Article 4(3) provides that the directive takes effect subject to the
International Convention on Limitation of liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 (LLMC). In
addition, Article 4(2) of the Directive excludes environmental damage or to any imminent
threat of such damage arising from an incident in respect of which liability or compensation
falls within the scope of any of the International Conventions listed in Annex IV, including any
future amendments thereof, which is in force in the Member State concerned. The
International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the
Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS Convention) is one of those
listed in Annex IV. This means that incidents in which liability would be limited under the
HNS Convention are excluded from the Directive's coverage, provided that it has entered
into
force
for
the
Member
State
concerned.
In April 2016, the European Commission adopted an implementation report on the
Environmental Liability directive, along with a Regulatory Fitness (REFIT) Evaluation of the
directive – wherein it was decided to retain the exceptions for environmental damage from
shipping incidents that are covered by the IMO liability and compensation conventions.
However, the REFIT evaluation expressed concerns about the slow uptake of the HNS
Convention and recommended that “the possibility of its deletion from the list of IMO
Conventions in Annex IV should be further examined’’.
The European Parliament prepared an own initiative report thereon and has entrusted this to
the EP JURI committee (2016/2251(INI). The Council, on its part, did not provide any
reaction and only received a presentation by the Commission on its report in September
2016 at the Environment Working Party.
On 29 November 2016, the Commission’s implementation report was presented to the JURI
committee and the rapporteur held a first exchange of views on this matter with the
Commission and in the presence of the rapporteur for opinion in ENVI.
The Commission explained that the results of the report and the need to develop a joint work
programme or action plan of Commission and Member States (a draft of which will be
submitted for consideration/approval of Member States experts at their meeting of February
2017) containing three pillars:
i.
ii.
iii.
the need to improve the evidence and knowledge base for the evaluation of the ELD
in view of the next REFIT exercise. They are working to develop a better conception
framework to be tested and implemented as from 2018 – suggesting that Member
States should systematically record data on incidents falling under the scope of the
ELD and report it to national and EU level;
means of harmonising the implementation of the directive through a common
understanding of key terms and concepts, the exchange of experiences and best
practices, guidance documents, training and consolidation of the interpretation of the
damage threshold;
financial security and investigation of the availability of and demand for ELD liabilities
in Member States.
Some influential voices in the Parliament have questioned whether the objectives of the
Directive are being met. One of the rapporteurs believes that the scope of the Directive
should be extended by redefining the definitions and removing exemptions that contribute to
the diverse patchwork of implementation. He said he wants to push for a system where
those paying for pollution are those that pollute and not the state and taxation systems. The
Commission’s main focus at present is the creation of better statistical data on which to
assess implementation. No discussions on the exemptions in the annexes are currently
taking place and such are not expected to take place soon. The Commission is unlikely to
consider this again until at least the preparation for the next refit exercise due in 2021/23.
Members will be invited to note the developments.
9. Government liaisons
9.1 BREXIT
Following the referendum vote the UK Chamber has consulted widely with the membership
to ensure the key challenges and opportunities with the UK leaving the European Union are
identified. As a result of this consultation the chamber has published a ‘Blueprint for Growth’
both in a short concise document and a longer one covering more detailed areas of policy.
The chamber has also engaged extensively with Government and met various Ministers and
senior officials, both in Westminster and in Scotland. The chamber is also reaching out to a
number of other industry bodies to share ideas and potentially to bring about greater
leverage as well as responding to a number of consultations, both government and industry
led.
In January the chamber hosted an event at which Lord Lamont, former Conservative
Chancellor of the Exchequer and noted treaty negotiation expert, spoke. This was very well
attended and the debate lively; timing was also perfect as that morning the Supreme Court
gave its ruling on Parliament and Brexit. The chamber has also responded to a Treasury
Select Committee enquiry into transitional arrangements and will also be meeting with the
Channel Group which is an independent trade and investment think tank that has produced
thought leadership papers on a variety of topics, including trade tariffs and UK infrastructure
investment.
Meanwhile internal discussions continue regarding the formation of a UK Chamber Brexit
Forum that will allow interested members to become more closely involved in future strategy
in terms of shaping the outcome to best suit the needs of the shipping industry. Specifically,
it will promote two way communications between members and the chamber and between
members themselves on this important issue. It is intended that the first meeting should be
held in early March at the latest.
Members will be invited to comment.
9.2 Offshore strategy
The UK Chamber, together with a small delegation of the Offshore Panel held a series of
successful meetings with David Mundell MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and a number
of SNP MPs on 31 October 2016, where inter alia the UK content was discussed.
Specifically, the Secretary of State for Scotland was particularly receptive to the arguments
regarding UK content and including access for OSV companies to foreign markets akin to
what foreign companies have in the U.K as part of future trade deals. The Secretary of State
for Scotland also resolved to set up an official meeting with BEIS to take forward the UK
content issue and find ways of including it in future government contract tenders. It was
agreed that his special adviser will take forward foreign market access with SPADs at DIT
and DfT. During the meeting, it was also agreed that a visit on board an OSV in Aberdeen
will be arranged in the near future. Following a meeting the Chamber addressed a letter to
the SoS for Scotland outlining the issues raised during the meeting. A reply to the letter was
received on 21st December and a copy is includes as an annex to these agenda notes.
Although the letter does not include any firm commitment, nevertheless is reasonably
positive and helpful.
The delegation also met with Stewart Hosie MP (SNP Economy Spokesperson), Callum
McCaig MP (SNP Spokesperson for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), Roger Mullin
MP (SNP Finance Spokesperson), Hannah Bardell MP (SNP Business and Economy
Engagement) and special advisers. This meeting took a similar direction but with certain
political nuances, focusing on jobs. They resolved to set up a meeting with UK Oil and Gas
to highlight their concerns about job losses and to encourage greater sensitivity towards the
OSV sector, and to ask a series of parliamentary questions which the Chamber will help
draft. The group was advised of a forthcoming meeting with RBS where SNPs will raise
concerns about ship owners being forced to break their covenants. They were keen also to
push the flag issue and will do so directly with the Minister, as well as to explore the UK
content line and have added it to the agenda of their forthcoming meeting of SNP MPs to
see what pressure they can apply through the parliamentary process.
The UK content will be at the centre of the Chamber’s campaign in relation to the Brexit
discussions that the Chamber will hold with Lord Prior, Parliamentary Under Secretary of
State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who has direct
responsibility for this policy. The Chamber will also coordinate with SNP MPs to ask a series
of parliamentary questions during the BEIS meeting.
Members will be invited to comment.
9.3 MCA service standards
Doug Barrow was appointed as Director of the UK Ship Register at the Maritime
Parliamentary Reception on Monday 16 January 2017. Doug started his career sailing for
seven years under the Red Ensign and has been the Chief Executive of Maritime London
since 2006 promoting the UK as the world’s premier maritime business centre. The Chamber
will arrange for a meeting with the newly appointed Director to be held at the next panel
meeting.
Meanwhile, following extensive consultations with unions and ship-owners, the Maritime &
Coastguard Agency’s Survey and Inspection Transformation Programme was given the
green light to implement the proposed changes to the grades and terms and conditions of
Marine Surveyors.
Finally, the Chamber is consulting with members with the view to respond to an inquiry
launched by the Transport Committee into industry and government action in response to
the Maritime Growth Study, published by the Department for Transport in September 2015.
The inquiry addresses the following points:









The work of the UK maritime industry and the UK Government in providing
leadership and a coherent vision for the maritime sector as a whole;
The success to date of actions to increase the commercial focus and culture of the
Maritime and Coastguard Agency;
The success to date of actions to grow the UK Ship Register (the "UK Flag");
Steps taken by the industry and the UK Government to identify and address maritime
skills shortages, including the Maritime Skills Investment Fund, maritime
apprenticeships, training schemes and promotion of maritime careers;
Industry progress towards the development of a single marketing strategy for the UK
maritime sector;
The UK Government's progress towards the promotion of the maritime sector to
inward investors, including through UK Trade and Investment and foreign embassies;
Industry and UK Government progress towards increasing the competitiveness of UK
ports, including through investment in surface access;
Industry and UK Government support for the UK cruise industry;
The adequacy of the overall plan for the UK maritime sector, including in the context
of the potential implications of the UK exiting the European Union and how the
strategy may need to evolve;
Members will be invited to comment.
10. BIMCO Offshore Structure Dismantling Contract
Progress is ongoing on this contract, and the UK Chamber is participating in this BIMCO
drafting sub-committee alongside other UK Chamber members such as Bibby Offshore,
Maersk Supply Service, the Standard Club and Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW). The
objective is to create a global “industry standard” scalable contract for offshore structure
dismantling work. It is envisaged to be a marine services contract written to appeal equally to
small/medium sized oil companies and the marine contractors whose services they
use. The scope of the contract is to provide specified services with estimated time
schedules and prices and staged payments as part of an offshore structure dismantling
project. The contract will be designed for the removal of any offshore field architecture and
will have global application.
Efforts to involve an oil company representative were still ongoing. The help of a small to
medium sized oil company was thought to be a possibility, and contacts were being sought
through the drafting sub-committee.
The next meeting of the drafting sub-committee is scheduled to take place on 24 January
2017.
Members will be invited to comment.
11. Revision of SUPPLYTIME 2005 - BIMCO Time Charter Party
In November 2016 BIMCO circulated a draft on the progress made on the revised
SUPPLYTIME charterparty, which was reported on at the BIMCO Documentary Committee
meeting in Copenhagen on 17 November 2016. BIMCO reported that they had carried out a
consultation process in the summer of 2016, and had received a lot of feedback from all the
key stakeholder from many parts of the world. Despite the rather poor conditions in the
offshore market people were really engaged with the project. BIMCO was confident that at
the next BIMCO Documentary Committee meeting (scheduled for Tuesday 6 June) the
revised SUPPLYTIME would be ready for adoption by the Committee.
A summary of some of the changes are as follows:






More detailed description of when the Charter period can be automatically extended
(Sub-clause 1(c));
The exception of fair wear and tear allowed when the Charterer returns the vessel in
its original condition by reversing structural alterations and removing additional
equipment (Clause 4);
Permitting audits, assessments surveys or inspections of the vessel to be conducted
more easily (Clause 5);
Charterers to assist Owners in securing visas/work permits for crew where necessary
(Sub-clause 6(c));
More detailed description of operations Charterers are to Provide, and charterers to
provide any financial security if drugs/contraband are found to have been shipped
(unless the Crew were involved) (Sub-clause 9(f));
More detailed description of accounting for and paying fuel due to either the Owner
or Charterer (Sub-clauses 10(a) - (c));










Charterers to pay for costs of fuel sampling if there is a claim for fuel quality and it is
found to be non-compliant with specifications as detailed in the charterparty - the
testing laboratory to be jointly agreed (Sub-clause 10(d));
Allowing the Vessel's Chief Engineer to stop the loading of fuel if there is a
reasonable belief that it does not comply with the specifications (Sub-clause 10(e));
More detailed provisions for the Vessel to remain on hire up to a specified number of
hours per month cumulative for maintenance and dry docking (Sub-clause 13(c));
Knock for Knock Clause - allowing for fewer exceptions to the principle that parties
should assume their own responsibility for any damage or loss regardless of the
other party’s negligence or failure to perform the contract, and providing more detail
on consequential damages (Sub-clause 14(a));
Clarification of Pollution indemnities (Clause 15);
Deletion of Charterer's obligation to indemnify and hold the Owners harmless against
any lien of whatsoever nature arising upon the Vessel (Clause 19);
No clauses covering general average or both-to-blame collisions (deletion of clauses
26 and 27);
Clarification of procedure to terminate charter party early for cause (Sub-clause
33(b)) and how to deal with offhire issues on early termination (Sub-clause 33(d));
Inclusion of BIMCO's new/updated standard clauses on anti-corruption, infectious
disease, war risks, Maritime Labour Convention, sanctions, etc;
Clarification of procedure to give notice (Clause 37).
Members will be invited to comment.
12. Protocol of 2010 to the International Convention on Liability and
Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and
Noxious Substances by Sea (the HNS Convention)
12.1 IMO developments
At the moment, shipowner liability in respect of any incidents resulting in damage from
hazardous or noxious substances (HNS) carried on ships remains subject to the
International Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). On entry
into force, the 2010 HNS Convention would establish a two-tier compensation system to be
paid in the event of accidents at sea involving HNS. The first tier one would consist of
compulsory insurance taken out by shipowners, who would be able to limit their liability. If
the insurance does not cover an incident, or is insufficient to satisfy the claim, a second tier
of compensation would be paid from a Fund, made up of contributions from the receivers of
HNS.
The ICS is campaigning to encourage States to ratify the 2010 HNS Convention. To enter
into force, the 2010 HNS Convention needs to be ratified by at least twelve States, including
four States each with not less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, and having received
during the preceding calendar year a total quantity of at least 40 million tonnes of cargo that
would be contributing to the general account. To date, Norway has signed the 2010 HNS
Convention, along with Denmark, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey –
though no ratifications have been made. The UK Government, which would be a major
receiver of HNS cargo and therefore would contribute to the general account, is not in favour
of the 2010 HNS Convention. Promoting the ratification of the 2010 HNS Convention is
underway at the IMO.
The UK Chamber supports the 2010 HNS Convention in principle but recognises that it
remains unpopular with numerous governments and hence is unlikely to enter into force in
the foreseeable future. The main concern of shipowners in Europe is that the non-entry into
force of the HNS Convention might lead to pressure to amend the European Environmental
Liability Directive (ELD), which could in turn impact upon the ability of shipowners to limit
their liability under international conventions. The UK Chamber has suggested to both the
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the European Community Shipowners’
Associations (ECSA) that other lobbying measures might be necessary to ensure that no
such
amendments
to
the
directive
are
made.
Members will be invited to note the developments.
12.2 EU developments
The European Parliament is continuing to press the European Council to issue a Decision
authorising – and encouraging – Member States to ratify the 2010 HNS Convention. In June
2016 the European Parliament attempted to engage both the Commission and national
governments in discussions, but the Council unanimously agreed not to participate. The
position has remained deadlocked since then. The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs
(JURI) committee is expected to decide on the next steps by the end of January 2017. The
Commission is understood to support the ratification of the Convention by all Member
States. However, in the absence of any willingness of the Council to act, it is now again up
to EP to decide whether it will simply give consent to the current text of the authorising
decisions. No progress can be made without the consent of the Council.
The position of the European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) – and the
International Chamber of Shipping ICS) – is in favour of the 2010 HNS Convention and its
efforts are focused on ensuring that it obtains sufficient ratifications to enter into
force. ECSA has been engaging with the European Parliament’s JURI secretariat, members
in the JURI and transport committees and the Slovak and Maltese Presidencies in order to
try to move this file forward. Renewed lobbying efforts will be undertaken over the coming
weeks in view of the European Parliament’s expected decision at the end of the month.
ECSA is also considering engaging MEPs in the ratification campaign by holding a briefing,
possibly at the end of February during European Shipping Week.
Members will be invited to note the developments.
13. Maritime Security & Piracy
A complex combination of military and terrorist threats prevails in the eastern and central
Mediterranean, southern Red Sea, Bab el Mandeb areas, further exacerbated by migrant
flows through the region and coalition military operations off Yemen.
The migrants’ crisis has many aspects and wider impacts for the EU and the international
community; Chamber policy focuses on the SAR issues only.
The start of the new mandate of EUNAVFOR (2017/2018) in the Gulf of Aden has coincided
with several recent piracy incidents including ones off the eastern coast of Somalia which
have been classified as attacks. This activity confirms that although pirate activity is currently
supressed by the military presence in the region and by the use of BMP and additionally the
carriage of PAST but the potential for both random attacks and conceivably a resurgence of
pirate activity are thought possible.
Threat levels are focused on the terrorist threat by ISIS groups and although there is
presently no proven maritime component to the threat the possibility of collateral or targeted
incidents in the maritime sector are now being considered.
The Maritime Domain Awareness Trade Gulf of Guinea (MDAT GoG) reporting
arrangements continue to work well and attract an increasing number of reports. A review of
the first operating phase of this joint UK/France initiative has been conducted and the
operation will be continued. The longer term ambition is to integrate the MDAT into the
regional reporting architecture. Reporting to MDAT GoG is to be encouraged.
Dialogue continues with BIMCO, ICS and OCIMF regarding new draft Global BMPs which
are in an advanced stage of preparation. OCIMF and UK Chamber support the concept of a
consolidated global document but have residual concerns that the existing draft falls short of
meeting current and evolving security needs.
Threats in the Mediterranean were reassessed and adjustments to security levels were
made in the middle of 2016. At the end of the year attention was focused on Yemen and the
Bab el Mandeb (BAM) following the rebel launched missile attacks on US naval units close
to the traffic separation zones and incidents involving civilian vessels in the last week of
October and November. The recent attack on a Teekay LNG vessel was classified as having
the characteristics of a pirate attack although a fuller picture is likely to emerge once forensic
tests have been completed. In the meantime the threat situation close to Yemen is complex
and should not be underestimated.
Although not relevant to offshore operations for completeness members should note that
since the summer the French authorities working with French ferry operators, have
established arrangements for Marine Gendarme units to provide armed teams, sometimes
referred to as Sea Marshalls to police cross-channel services and exercises have been held
since the summer. While deployments continue the chamber is working with DfT and ferry
members to investigate what measures might be appropriate on UK flag ships. A UK/France
MOU has been agreed to allow French law enforcement officials to be carried onboard
French flagged vessels when in UK Territorial Waters and ports.
Members will be aware that the threat environment is continually changing and the
threats themselves evolving. Members should not hesitate to obtain latest input from
UK Chamber.
14. Seafarers restrictions for foreign flag vessels in the USA OCS
US Customs and Border Protection have issued a notice of their intention to withdraw rulings
which have allowed certain offshore activities to be undertaken by non-US vessels within the
OCS. The proposal is an initiative of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) which
is seeking to amend certain provisions which allow non-US flag vessels and non-US
seafarers to work on offshore vessels deployed in the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
The Jones Act imposes strict restrictions on ships operating within US waters, including
requirements on ownership, place of construction and crew nationality. Heavy lift vessels
have received some exemptions based on the fact that there have been insufficient US flag
vessels and US technical expertise to service the OCS without allowing non-US flagged
vessels and seafarers. US Customs & Border Protection (CBP) along with the USCG and
BSEE have confirmed that transport of structures, such as topsides, is transportation and
within the scope of the Jones Act. However, they allow foreign flag vessels to conduct lifting
operations at the location provided that no US vessels are available to undertake the
operation. OMSA are seeking to remove some of these exemptions, particularly those
related to seafarers, and are using arguments that US operators are disadvantaged by
foreign competition using seafarers from low wage countries and that this is a threat to US
security and safety and is a threat to US shipyards.
CBP’s published withdrawal proposal, which is included as an annex in the circular of the
agenda notes, refers to all existing rulings for vessels in the OCS, which could mean that it is
no longer just a lifting issue.
Members will be invited to review the CBP’s proposal and provide input regarding the
implications of this decision and additional insight on whether this may have an
overall negative impact in the OCS.
15. Suez Canal Charges for OSVs
It has been brought to the attention of the Chamber that OSV vessels without rudder or
rudder indicator are classified by the Suez Canal Authorities as “Special Designed Ship”
hence permitting transiting SC only while being escorted by an imposed tug, imposing to the
companies high transit costs.
This issue has been discussed with the International Chamber of Shipping which considers
the level of tug cost high and is looking for more information to identify if this is a common
practice in order to raise it with the Suez Authorities.
Members will be invited to report on whether they encountered similar practice by the
Suez Authorities.
16. Engagement with offshore renewables industry
The European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) is holding an event on
‘'Shipping: enabling the offshore wind energy revolution in Europe" on 27 February
2017 in Brussels, at the Permanent Representation of Malta to the European Union. The
event will be attended by the Chamber which will provide a good starting point for start
engaging with Renewables UK.
Members will be invited to note the report.
17. Any other business
17.1 Panel priorities
The Panel’s current priorities, as agreed at the previous meeting, are OCIMF engagement,
offshore vessel standards, reform of the MCA, OPITO and DP training.
Members will be invited to recommend any changes to the list of priorities.
18. Date of next meeting
The Secretariat proposes that the meeting to be held on Tuesday 13 June 2017, ahead of
the Second Summer Lunch will take place at the Mansfield Traquair, Edinburgh on
Wednesday 14 June.
THE CHAMBER OF SHIPPING
COMPETITION LAW COMPLIANCE POLICY
At its meeting on 20 September 2006 the Board of the Chamber of Shipping adopted
the following policy statement and resolved that this paper should be circulated to all
members of the Chamber:
The Chamber of Shipping is committed to a culture of competition law compliance
and it is the policy of the Chamber of Shipping to comply in all respects with the
Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 and all other applicable competition laws
such as Articles 81 and 82 of the EU Treaty. All formal and informal meetings of the
Chamber must be held in accordance with the law. Failure to do so places all
participants at serious risk, including the possibility of criminal penalties, including
major fines, and disqualification from directorships. It will also damage the credibility
of the industry. For these reasons, any breach of these guidelines or competition
law generally will be treated as a serious matter and may result in disqualification
from the Chamber.
Guidance information:
1.
Prohibited Activities
1.1
Chamber activities must not involve discussions or agreements between
members on:
•
prices, discounts, rebates or allowances
•
territory or customer allocation
•
co-ordinated action to eliminate a competitor or collective boycotts
•
limitation of output or supply
•
bids to customer
1.2
exchange of information on prices, discounts, rebates or allowances is
generally only unproblematic if the information exchanged is historical and
presented to members in aggregated form (see further below on exchange
of information in the context of trade associations).
2.
Other Potential Problem Areas
Agreements under the auspices of, or decisions/recommendations by, the Chamber
on the following may give rise to an infringement of the competition law rules:
•
Joint buying/selling (generally, joint buying/selling will only be allowed if those
participating are minor players in the market concerned);
/tmp/CoS 37-06 - Complliance with Competition Law.doc
•
Adopting uniform technical standards if they limit the range of products or
services that members can offer or if they act to exclude non-members from the
market in question;
•
Obliging members to use a standard set of terms and conditions of sale or
purchase;
•
Exchanging certain business statistics (see further below for details of which
exchanges of information would be permitted).
3.
Exchange of Business Statistics
Chamber members must not exchange current business statistics directly between
themselves.
The provision of historical information concerning such matters to the Chamber is
perfectly lawful although it should not be necessary to reveal even to the trade
association the identity of individual suppliers or customers. In general terms data
over 3-6 months old may be provided to the Chamber but for types of data older than
this which may remain "live" and of current commercial sensitivity, the information
should not be provided to the Chamber until it is only of historical interest. If there is
any uncertainty on this point, Members should err on the side of caution.
Members must not seek or obtain from the Chamber access to any business
information submitted by any other member, or information as to a member's position
relative to other individual members.
The receipt from the Chamber of aggregated statistics, which do not permit the
performance of any individual member to be revealed, is lawful. However, if there are
so few companies contributing that even the aggregated statistics allow individual
performance to be revealed, this needs separate consideration.
4.
Legitimate Topics
Competition law recognises that trade associations exist for the benefit of their
members. Therefore general discussions and expressions of opinion concerning
market outlook or conditions affecting suppliers or customers generally are usually
unobjectionable, provided they do not have the purpose, and would not be materially
influential in, determining the future conduct of the other participants to the
discussions. The more specific the information revealed, the more likely it is to be
regarded as unlawful.
Joint discussions on health & safety issues, potential future legislation and the like
are almost invariably unobjectionable.
5.
In the event of a "Suspect" Matter Arising
Each member of the Chamber’s staff is required to act in such a way as to avoid any
breach of applicable competition laws. Secretaries of committees have additional
responsibilities in respect of the committees for which they are responsible. In
particular, they must ensure that the committee does not infringe any applicable
/tmp/CoS 37-06 - Complliance with Competition Law.doc
competition laws. Any actual or potential breach of competition law must be advised
immediately to the Director-General.
If a member of staff has any concerns relating to competition law, he or she should:
o
o
refer the matter promptly to his or her line manager, or to the DirectorGeneral; and/or
seek advice from the Company Secretary.
An audit will be undertaken on a periodic basis as agreed with the Director-General
to provide reasonable assurance that the policy is working properly and to enable
risk areas to be identified and addressed.
6.
Membership of the Chamber
The rules relating to membership of the Chamber must comply with the competition
law rules. Competition law may be infringed where a company is excluded from the
Chamber and the effect of that exclusion is to put it at a competitive disadvantage
compared with those who are members of the Chamber. The following may raise
issues:
•
The rules of admission. These should be proportionate, non-discriminatory and
based on objective standards. For example, a requirement that members have a
certain minimum turnover may be anti-competitive, as it excludes smaller players
from the Chamber.
•
Contributions to the Chamber. Where members are required to contribute
financially or otherwise to the Chamber, the contributions should be divided
amongst the members in a non-discriminatory way.
----------------------------------------------------------------
/tmp/CoS 37-06 - Complliance with Competition Law.doc
Minutes of the meeting of the UK Chamber of Shipping
Offshore Panel
Held at 1000 on Tuesday 4 October at the Northern Marine, 20 Abercrombie
Court, Prospect Road, Arnhall Business Park, Westhill Aberdeenshire, AB32
6FE.
In attendance:
Ewan Geddes
Tom Paling
Duncan MacLean
Harry Knox
Ross Finlayson
Steve Struthers
Adrian Torry
Martin Sinclair
Mike Inglis
Neil McDonald
Andy Holt
Craig Harvie
Derek Leiper
Bruce Craig
Gulfmark
Bibby Offshore
Brodies LLP
DOF (UK) Limited
DOF (UK) Limited
Gulfmark
LOC (Aberdeen) Limited
Mackinnons
Northern Marine Management
Subsea7
V Ships Offshore
Vroon Offshore Services Ltd
Vroon Offshore Services Ltd
Pinsent Masons LLP
Panel Chairman
Secretariat
Panel Secretary
With:
Anna Ziou
Apologies received:
Matthew Gordon
Chris Darville
Ivan Goodlad
Atlantic Offshore Scotland Limited
Helix
North Star Shipping Ltd
1. Opening and introduction
Members were welcomed to the meeting by the Chairman and introduced themselves
around the table.
Members agreed to abide by the UK Chamber’s competition law policy.
2. Housekeeping and timings
It was advised that an MCA stakeholder consultation meeting and a drink reception was
scheduled to take place after the Panel meeting.
3. Minutes of the previous meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 June 2016, were approved and duly adopted.
The Panel noted the status of the previous actions as presented in the agenda notes.
4. UK Chamber of Shipping developments
Members were invited to suggest any potential opportunities for membership development.
Action: Members to provide the Secretariat with details of prospective member
companies.
5. Employment and training
5.1 Review of SMarT scheme
The Panel noted the report provided and supported the concept of SMarT Plus and
expressed that the scheme will encourage companies to employ qualified UK cadets for a
minimum of 12 months. It was suggested that the Chamber should lobby for 12 months sea
time. However, it was suggested that the funding would not result in an increased number of
UK cadets for the offshore sector. It was advised that in view of the current market
conditions and the high number of ships laid up, the scheme will assist to retain the current
levels of UK cadets. In addition, it was reported that the UK training support is significantly
less in comparison with those offered by other European nations, which subsequently puts
UK seafarers at a disadvantage position.
Action: The Chamber to push for a minimum of 12 months sea time employment
under the SMarT Plus scheme.
5.2 Apprenticeship Levy funds for training
The report in the agenda notes was noted. Members reiterated that they would not be
required to pay the levy, however, it was expressed that it would be helpful if a percentage of
the levy could be allocated to the shipping industry. One member asked clarifications about
the criteria that make someone eligible for an apprenticeship and how non-payers of the levy
can access the funds. Members emphasised the need for marine engineering
apprenticeships to be made available in Scotland.
Action: The Secretariat to provide further clarifications about the Apprenticeship Levy
and to lobby for the levy fund to support marine engineering apprenticeships in
Scotland.
5.3 Training in food hygiene, handling and safety
The update provided in the agenda was noted.
5.4 Offshore Training and Certification
The Panel noted the report provided in the agenda with regard to the MNTB, MCA and
OPITO initiative to identify overlaps between existing STCW mandatory training and OPITO
training with the view to achieving mutual recognition. The Panel expressed its full support
for this initiative, which will benefit shipowners and charterers by removing duplication and
reduce unnecessary training cost. In the ensuing discussions, it was suggested that the
industry should take ownership of this initiative and engaged in discussions with OCIMF and
Oil & Gas UK for a positive outcome. Clarification was sought with regard to the role of
OPITO in the context of the review.
Action: The Chamber to update members on progress with regard to the mutual
recognition of the STCW standards and OPITO training
6. Dynamic Positioning
6.1 NI DP Training Scheme
The Panel noted the update provided on the NI scheme and expressed its objection with
regard to the proposal that aims to introduce a new NI DP system maintenance course.
Members mentioned that a number of DP officers had experienced difficulties with the
application and revalidation of the NI DPO certificates as a result of the NI’s continues
requirement and process changes. One member reported that OCIMF may become more
flexible with regard to the DNV GL scheme. Noting that the OSVDPA is a US specific
scheme, the Panel expressed doubt that it can be applied worldwide.
Action: The Chamber to raise with the NI the concerns expressed with regard to their
communication of procedure changes.
6.2 Incidents reporting schemes
The Panel discussed the DP incidents reporting culture. It was generally recognised that
underreporting of DP incidents occur and in particular with regard to minor incidents.
Reasons for non-reporting of minor incidents were discussed. It was advised that some
companies with the view to avoiding double reporting follow only their internal reporting
procedures and subsequently do not report DP station events to IMCA’s database. Other
members raised concerns with regard to the manufacturer’s responsibility when the
equipment does not operate as designed or specified.
The Panel supported that incidents reports provide valuable experience transfer within the
DP offshore industry for the DP training centres and vessel companies, but also for various
DP manufacturers worldwide that help to prevent accidents. Therefore members were
encouraged to report to IMCA database. It was suggested that an online IMCA reporting
system would encourage further reporting.
Action: The Chamber to discuss with IMCA the possibility of development of an online
reporting system.
Action: The Chamber to circulate the link to the IMCA’s reporting system website.
Post meeting note: Please follow this link to download IMCA’s DP incidents report form and
the relevant reporting procedures: http://www.imca-int.com/safety-environment-andlegislation/safety/incident-reporting.aspx.
6.3 Revision of IMCA M 117 - The Training and Experience of Key DP
Personnel
The Panel noted and endorsed the finalisation of the revised guidance document IMCA M
117.
7. Safety and vessel standards
7.1 Carriage of industrial personnel
The Panel discussed the legal implications of the three options proposed at the IMO with
regard to the interim solution for the carriage of industrial personnel. Noting the uncertainties
surrounding the interim solution, members did not show a preference for any of the three
options presented. Nevertheless, members expressed that if the IMO decides to proceed
with option 3, the regulation should not specify the ship types engaged in the carriage of
industrial personnel. The Panel asked for a practical approach with regard to grandfathering.
Post meeting note: During the MCA stakeholder meeting, the Panel agreed that the UK
should push for the IMO to refrain from developing an interim proposal. Instead, it was
supported that the IMO should focus its work in developing a long-term practical mandatory
solution. With respect to grandfathering, in the context of a mandatory requirement, Katy
Ware (MCA) advised that the matter will be considered at a later stage.
7.2 Lifeboat operational and test procedures
The report in the agenda paper was noted.
9. Environment
9.1 Ballast water management
The report in the agenda paper was noted.
9.2 Carbon emissions
The report in the agenda paper was noted.
9.3 SOx – NOx emissions
The report in the agenda paper was noted.
9.4 Ship recycling
The report in the agenda paper was noted.
9.5 Port reception facilities
The report was noted. No concerns were expressed with regard to port reception facilities.
10. Contract issues
Members noted the investigation initiated by the Norwegian government on the Statoil
practices. Members advised that no similar practices were experienced from Statoil UK,
however, it was reported that such practices were in general experienced from other oil
major companies.
11 Government liaisons
11.1 BREXIT
The Panel noted the information provided on the potential impact of BREXIT to the offshore
sector. The chamber’s manifesto that sets out its strategy to ensure that UK shipping enjoys
an optimum operating environment out of the EU was noted. Members supported the
principles laid out in the agenda notes and in particular the proposal that aims to increase
the UK content in the offshore sector. It was emphasised that the commitment of the UK
shipping companies in delivering economic benefits in the UK should not be disregarded by
the developers when awarding contracts.
Post meeting notes: The Chamber, together with a small delegation of the offshore panel
held a series of successful meetings with David Mundell MP, Secretary of State for Scotland
and a number of SNP MPs on 31 October 2016, where inter alia the UK content was
discussed. Specifically, the SoS was particularly receptive to the arguments regarding UK
content and including access for OSV companies to foreign markets akin to what foreign
companies have in the U.K as part of future trade deals. It was agreed that the Chamber will
write a detailed note to him post the meeting for him to take to cabinet colleagues. He also
resolved to set up an official meeting with BEIS to take forward the UK content issue and
find ways of including it in future government contract tenders. His special adviser will take
forward foreign market access with SPADs at DIT and DfT. He was also very interested in
the flag and is willing to push John Hayes to make reform a priority, arguing it is critical to
Scottish interests. It was also agreed that a visit on board an OSV in Aberdeen will be
arranged in the near future.
As reported above, the delegation also met with Stewart Hosie MP (SNP Economy
Spokesperson), Callum McCaig MP (SNP Spokesperson for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy), Roger Mullin MP ( SNP Finance Spokesperson), Hannah Bardell MP (SNP
Business and Economy Engagement) and special advisers. This meeting took a similar
direction but with certain political nuances, focusing on jobs. They resolved to set up a
meeting with UK Oil and Gas to highlight their concerns about job losses and to encourage
greater sensitivity towards the OSV sector, and to ask a series of parliamentary questions
which the Chamber will help draft. They have a forthcoming meeting with RBS where they
will raise concerns about shipowners being forced to break their covenants. They were keen
also to push the flag issue and will do so directly with the Minister. They were also keen to
explore the U.K. content line and have added it to the agenda of their forthcoming meeting of
SNP MPs to see what pressure they can apply through the parliamentary process.
11.2 MCA service standards
The report was noted. It was further reported that the MCA had launched a fee consultation
and members were invited to contribute. The Chamber’s position that any increase in fees
should be accompanied by improvements in service was also noted and endorsed.
11.3 Offshore strategy
Members advised the renewable sector is important however not a priority to their
operations.
12. Any other business
One member brought to the attention of the Panel the chamber’s one-day course
‘’Introduction to UK Shipping’’ and encouraged interested companies to enrol in with the view
to run one course in Aberdeen.
Members were also encouraged to attend the Scottish Parliamentary Maritime Reception
planned to be held on 16 November in the Scottish Parliament from 6pm – 8pm.
Action: The secretariat to circulate the details of the ‘’Introduction to UK Shipping’’
course.
Post meeting notes: The Introduction to UK Shipping is a one day course which will give
participants an understanding of how the UK shipping industry operates, the regulations,
constraints and current issues.
Participants will learn from a variety of subject matter experts on regulatory, business,
political, legal, employment and training in the shipping industry. The course will be
interactive and up to date with sessions on current issues and opportunities to tailor the
course to the participants on the day; spaces are strictly limited to a maximum of 20.
The Chamber can run the course in Aberdeen if a sufficient number of participants sign up
Members interested in participating in the course are encouraged to contact Felicity Nelson
([email protected], tel: 020 7417 2835).
Members interested in attending the Scottish Parliamentary Maritime Reception can register
here:
https://www.ukchamberofshipping.com/events/scottish-parliamentary-maritimereception/
12.1 Panel priorities
Members agreed that the Panel’s priorities ahead of the next meeting should be OCIMF
engagement, offshore vessel standards, reform of the MCA, OPITO training and DP training.
13. Date of next meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on Monday 6 February at the UK
Chamber in London. It was reminded that the Chamber’s annual dinner will be held that
evening at the Park Lane Hilton.