The master of the ill-fated tanker Prestige might be able to take his human rights case to the UN following the recent decision by the Grand Chamber European Court of Human Rights that a Spanish court acted reasonably in setting Capt Mangouras's bail at euros 3m. The ship's liability insurer, London Club, voluntarily paid the bail, allowing Capt Mangouras to return to his home in Greece.

The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) have issued a statement saying that, following their own legal analysis, decision was ‘deeply flawed’. The two organisations say they will now be making their objections known to the appropriate European institutions. They also say, however, that the judgement leaves it open to Capt Mangouras’s lawyers to explore the possibility of a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee.

They note: “The Committee has dealt extensively with pre-trial detention issues under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (CCPR). The CCPR, which Spain signed in 1976 and ratified in 1977, has a complaint procedure that would be open to the Master now that he has exhausted all domestic remedies.”

According to the ITF/ETF the Grand Chamber has decided that it would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for a national court to make two assumptions when fixing bail conditions in marine pollution cases. Firstly, that an employee’s attendance at trial can only be assured if the employer or its insurers put a large enough sum of their own money at risk. Implicit in this assumption is that the employer would otherwise make no effort or would actively encourage or incentivise non-attendance at trial. The second permitted assumption is that the employer or its insurers, in the absence of any legal obligation to do so, would feel morally obliged to come to the employee’s rescue. ITF and ETF claims that both of these assumptions mean that if bail is set beyond what the seafarer can afford, and there is no clear obligation on the shipowner or insurer to stand surety, then a game of bluff is legally sanctioned.

They continue: “Can the shipowner be made to feel a moral obligation to help or not? If the shipowner/insurer as a humanitarian gesture eventually offers surety then any period of detention for the seafarer whilst their bluff is being called is deemed compatible with the seafarer’s human rights. On the other hand if their bluff is not called and the shipowner walks away, it is inconceivable that it would then be compatible with the seafarer’s human rights to keep him/her in detention for the many years it would take to prepare for trial. How long can a seafarer be detained in this game of bluff? The proposition is quite illogical and for this reason the judgement is deeply flawed.”

The union organisations assert: “The European Court of Human Rights - whose responsibility it is to maintain high standards in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties - has badly let down seafarers. In marine pollution cases it has permitted them to be used as hostages in a game of bluff to secure on either a legal or moral basis the involvement of shipowners or their insurers in ensuring witnesses attend trial.”

back to top

Maritime London member the UK P&I Club says that its ship inspectors have found that most equipment used in the mooring of the club's insured ships was in good condition while the procedures and practices involved in berthing and casting off were generally carried out satisfactorily. However it was found that some vessels did not have appropriate procedures in place or carry out adequate working operations.

For example, nearly a quarter of the vessels inspected kept moorings on the drum ends instead of making them fast. This is not good practice as ropes made fast on drum ends are more likely to jump and cause expensive damage to the drum end bearings. Replacement ropes may be required. In some cases, crew were not properly trained or supervised; there was a dearth of non-slip mooring decks; and mooring ropes were frequently stored on drum ends which in turn were often covered in layers of paint instead of synthetic coating or resins.

UK Club loss prevention director Karl Lumbers said: “Taken overall, the inspectors were pleased with what they found but we cannot afford to be complacent. To reduce the risk of accidents, vessels and equipment must be maintained to a high standard. All personnel should be adequately trained with the correct personal protective equipment. Correct procedures should be in place and the required work permits issued with all mooring operations supervised by a competent person. Training in mooring operations should be incorporated into vessels’ regular schedules and include all personnel.”

In the year to March 2010, the UK Club’s in-house inspectors looked at the mooring arrangements, equipment and procedures on 373 ships, noted shortcomings and analysed reported mooring incidents. The aim was to gauge standards, highlighting areas which were doing well and others which needed improvement. The mooring arrangements on 14% of vessels were “not satisfactory.”

Seven per cent of ISM mooring procedures were found unacceptable. A significant portion had some way to go to improve mooring procedures to an appropriate standard. The club adds that, within the past 24 months, only 4% of ships had reported a “near miss” relating to mooring operations, involving spring lines snapping back, men standing in the rope bight and parted lines.

The club noted there was concern about insufficient skilled personnel being deployed to moor a vessel safely and effectively. The most common number both forward and aft was four but ranged between two and seven.

back to top

Ballast water guidance

Maritime London member Lloyd's Register has issued new guidance notes to help ship-owners and operators who are preparing to install ballast-water treatment systems on their ships.

The new guidance, developed to complement the Lloyd’s Register Ballast Water Treatment Technology Guide, reflects the current status of regulations proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and provides owners with recommendations that will help them to prepare their ships, ensuring they remain compliant.

“The need to reduce the international merchant fleet’s carbon emissions may have captured all the headlines recently, but the shipping community knows that finding effective solutions for ballast-water management is just as big an environmental challenge for the industry,” said Dr Anne Marie Warris, environmental advisor to the Lloyd’s Register Group.

“With the ballast-water convention awaiting ratification, ship-owners and managers are working hard to determine the consequences for their ships – including the associated costs – and whether the skills of their crews will need to be upgraded to effectively and safely operate any new equipment and technology.”

The IMO in 2004 presented the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) to regulate the discharges of ballast water and reduce the risk of introducing non-native species to the world's waterways. Once ratified by the required number of states, which represent a predetermined proportion of the merchant fleet, the convention will require ballast-water treatment to be used instead of ballast-water exchanges. This requirement will be phased in. The BWM Convention will apply to all ships trading internationally that carry ballast water, with a few exceptions and in accordance with specific territorial requirements. These exceptions and conditions are detailed in Lloyd's Register's National Ballast Water Management Requirements guide.

The BWM Convention will come into force 12 months after at least 30 states (the combined merchant fleet of which must constitute at least 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping fleet) have ratified it. To date, it has been ratified by 26 states constituting 24% of the merchant fleet.

back to top

Maritime London chief executive Doug Barrow will be taking part in a seminar looking at seafarer recruitment from the point of view of UK based shipping businesses, including implications for maritime London.

Organised by the Nautical Institute’s London branch, “Manning for the UK’s Maritime Future” is free and takes place on 1 November aboard HQS Wellington.

Chaired by Andrew Craig-Bennett of Cosco Maritime (UK), other speakers include Mark Brownrigg director-general, the Chamber of Shipping, Paul Moloney Asst General Secretary, Nautilus International.

The event is a joint meeting of Imarest, RINA, the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, the Royal Institute of Navigation and the British Association of Cargo Surveyors.

Please contact Andrew Bell for further details Email: andrewj-bell@talktalk.net.

back to top

PThe Joint Hull Committee celebrates its centenary with the first Lord Donaldson memorial lecture by Lord Mance on 10 November in Lloyd’s Old Library. A Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Mance will deliver a paper on a topical subject of his choice (to be announced). Lord Mance's lecture will be followed by a reception.

The Committee was founded in 1910 and comprises underwriting representatives from both the Lloyd’s and IUA company markets. It discusses all matters connected with hull insurance, including developments in the shipping industry, represents the interests of those writing marine hull business within the London market.

To attend please contact Jane White at the Lloyd’s Market Association. Email: Jane.white@lmalloyds.com

back to top

back to top

International Chamber of Shipping chairman Spyros M Polemis has repeated his warning made earlier this year that shipping could be seen as a “cash cow” when it comes to looking for money to fund measures to counter global warming. He has now however also warned that a non-IMO solution could be imposed on shipping.

Speaking at a recent Greek Shipping Summit he cautioned: “However, while we strongly support a bankable deal being negotiated at IMO, we also have to be aware of the parallel discussions taking place within United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) circles, following the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ last year, which will be much harder for us to influence.”

He continued: “Within UNFCCC circles, as opposed to IMO, we are greatly concerned that environment ministries may give much more attention to the money that could be raised from international shipping, as opposed to the emissions reductions that might be achieved. It is most important that we resist any notion that shipping is some kind of ‘cash cow’ which might pay more than its fair share for the sake of political expediency in order to bring along the developing nations into a global agreement on climate change.”

Mr Polemis warned that shipping could be forced to pay some kind of levy, outside of whatever might be agreed at IMO. “This,” he said, “could amount to many billions of dollars every year.”

back to top

back to top

The latest issue of the Standard's Clubs loss prevention guidance notes Standard Cargo gives in-depth advice on the carriage of general cargo by container ships.

The club's director of loss prevention, Chris Spencer, writes that questions about the carriage of general cargo (steel pipes, plates, coils, project cargo, paper pulp, etc.) on ships classed as container ships have been raised by several of the club’s members. Their questions include whether P&I cargo cover continues as normal. He says that, at first sight, the issue would not appear to be too complex; however, there are sometimes some important issues to consider.

Standard Cargo sets out the steps that the club as a third-party liability insurer believes the shipowner should consider before carrying general cargo on a container ship. There are various reasons why owners of container ships may want to load cargo on a ship for which it is not classed or designed. The reasons could be economic, as an owner may receive a better rate for the carriage of break bulk cargo on a container ship, or to reposition the ship.

He notes that the principal difference between a general cargo ship and a container ship lies in ship design. Container ships are designed on the assumption that cargo is carried in containers and loaded in such a way as to subject the ship’s tank top or hatch covers to point loading. The design of a general cargo ship or bulk carrier assumes continuous tank top loading.

Consequently, the structural design of a container ship’s tank top and hatch covers are fundamentally different to that of a general cargo ship or bulk carrier.

Classification societies accept that the hatch cover arrangements can be different for container ships as opposed to general cargo ships. Different structural concerns have been considered for each different type of ship at the design and build stage. The club gives detailed advice on the procedures to follow and the possible hazards associated with using a container ship to carry other cargoes.

back to top

iPads to replace paper at Lloyd's?

Perhaps in the not too distant future, the sight of London’s marine underwriters struggling around the City with bundles of papers under their arms, could be a thing of the past.

A few weeks ago Lloyd’s, the world’s leading specialist insurance market, joined with brokers Marsh, Cooper Gay and RK Harrison Group to trial the use of iPads in its underwriting room. The trial has seen the iPads used as an alternative to the traditional underwriting slips. At present these huge bundles of paper make up most of the intricate insurance contracts handled at Lloyd’s.

Sue Langley, Lloyd’s director of market operations, said it was a next step in applying technology in the market: “This is a small, simple pilot - literally an iPad ‘out of the box’. By simply replacing the paper with something easier to carry, but which allows amendments and links to other services, we continue to support the underwriting and face-to-face negotiation that makes Lloyd’s unique.”

The iPads will effectively be used as an ‘electronic slip case’, enabling brokers to take documents in to the market electronically, review documents with underwriters and annotate them where required. Each broker will decide which business area they will trial the units in. The trial is expected to last for three months, with more brokers joining the iPad pilot shortly.

back to top