1. A dangerous trade
2. Nuclear view
3. Time bars
4. Energy responsibility
5. E bikes
6. EU ETS pressure points
7. IMO bravery awards
8. International Maritime prize
9. Better clear than sorry
10. Tanker crew challenges
11. Port cost miscalculation
12. US import requirements
Notices & Miscellany
Readersâ responses to our articles are very welcome and, where suitable, will be reproduced. Write to: contactus@themaritimeadvocate.com
1. A dangerous trade
By Michael Grey
With everyone slowing down to save both the planet and fuel we should not be surprised that the expeditors among us are more anxious than ever to cut corners to make up for all those lost hours on passage. Some are undoubtedly sensible, such as becoming more expert at timing an arrival at an optimum hour, obviating the nonsense of wasting fuel, only to anchor until a berth becomes available. And if the port and its services, terminal, agents and all the other interested parties, are singing from the same song sheet, everyone gains.
It is a great theory, but does not always work out like that. Other practices, like penalising pilots for dawdling in the approaches, or demanding bulkers are emptied of ballast before bringing them in, are very much more questionable. And we are reminded of another doubtful practice, with two accounts of fatalities where seafarers were unlashing containers rather than leaving this task to the port professionals, who are better accustomed to such a hazardous task. The cases are featured in the most recent Nautical Institute Marine Accident Reporting Scheme and are both summaries from the excellent Singapore investigators reports, in which they point out the lessons that ought to be learned from these sad cases of crew members losing their lives undertaking tasks best left to others.
Both seafarers – one aboard a ship which had just docked and the other with the ship under way – became unbalanced wrestling with the long lashing rods and fell over the side. Too many seafarers have died over the years in this task, which of course saves time in port, earns them some extra money, but involves them in hazardous activities, which are, in many places, prohibited by the portâs regulations. In one of these casualty investigations, it is pointed out that crew members who are unfamiliar with the work, such as cooks and stewards, are pressed into service to make up the numbers. And the truth is that on most container ships, there are just not enough members of the deck department to do this work, without pressing âall hands and the cookâ into service.
In his book âDown to the sea in shipsâ â a fine account of contemporary voyaging on containerships, the writer Horatio Clare has a graphic portrayal of the grim business of unlashing containers in ice and sub-zero temperatures, aboard an inbound ship in the St. Lawrence river, after a trans-Atlantic voyage. They make good money, time is saved, but would it not be more civilised and safer all round, to save it for the shore-side lashing gangs? It also illustrates how minimally manned merchant ships are, when the crew have to be tasked to do extra work that is beyond their principal role, for no other reason than to save time and convenience and to make up the numbers.
Was anyone really surprised when the World Maritime University researchers, a couple of years ago, cast some serious doubts on the constructive way that the reporting of mandatory work and rest hours was being undertaken? There was a lot of pretend outrage at the time, but with the cutbacks in manning and the curious interpretation of safe manning regulations, it was difficult to see how âflogging the logâ was not normal, in so many ships. The phrase âcreative adjustmentâ was coined.
That was preliminary work by WMU, but last week Splash editor Sam Chambers reported on the conclusion of a three years study by Bikram Bhatia, funded by the ITF Seafarersâ Trust which amplified and confirmed the initial revelations. It is a substantial piece of research, with evidence from more than 6000 seafarers, 55 port state control authorities and scrutiny of 16,551 inspections. And it appears that 64% of seafarers âadjustâ their work and rest hoursâ reports to keep the visiting inspectors convinced of their compliance with the MLC2006 requirements. Nearly half of those interviewed were instructed to make the necessary adjustments to demonstrate compliance, which suggested that the records of the PSCs themselves on this particular point were, to say the least, doubtful. And there is a connection here, between people plunging to their deaths doing jobs they really ought to leave to others, and the way that data is being smudged to show the industry in a better light than it really is. And if you are concerned with the reputation of the shipping industry, maybe all of this should give you pause for thought.
Michael Grey is former editor of Lloydâs List
2. Nuclear view
ABS believes that nuclear energyâs potential can be viewed as two stories: nuclear for ships and nuclear for future fuels, writes Jin Wang, ABS Director of Technology.
Nuclear power has the potential to make a transformational impact on carbon emissions reduction across the electricity, industrial and transportation sectors. Its ability to optimize power generation in shipping has already attracted attention and the journey to cleaner maritime energy is gaining momentum.
From the perspective of achieving IMOâs 2050 net zero ambitions, it would be a mistake to ignore nuclear as a part of the fuel mix. However, progress will not happen without regulations that provide a foundational basis to how nuclear powered systems in maritime could look.
Nuclear energy has the potential to be a disruptor for the maritime sector. Enabling it to be successfully and safely integrated into the shipping industry requires a new kind of collaboration.
Nuclear power for ships holds out the prospect of using advanced small modular nuclear reactors as propulsion, while nuclear for future fuels includes scenarios where small modular nuclear reactors are positioned near shore to produce power for ports and support the production of alternative fuels.
Developing the systems that could power merchant vessels, provide shore power and generate clean fuels, means bringing together players in marine and offshore design with builders of nuclear systems to fill knowledge gaps and exchange ideas.
ABS is playing a leading role in helping government and industry work towards the adoption of advanced nuclear technology, including key research with the U.S. Department of Energy and multiple New Technology Qualification and Approval-in-Principal projects with industry.
ABS believes that nuclear energyâs potential in the maritime domain is much more than a reactor on a ship, however interesting this prospect.
The ability to connect consumers to external power generated by small modular nuclear reactors is a solution that would work in numerous applications. Floating offshore plant has considerable short term potential to supply energy to offshore and onshore facilities.
In addition to net zero emission electricity created by a small modular plant, the power barge concept could be extended towards production of alternative fuels such as pink hydrogen and pink ammonia for consumption by onshore and offshore facilities.
Reflecting growing interest across the shipping and ports sector, ABS unveiled the industryâs first comprehensive rules for floating nuclear power plants at a forum for nuclear industry leaders held jointly with Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
The event saw presentations on the latest reactor technologies from leading companies and the presentation of a detailed study from ABS and Herbert Engineering Corporation (HEC) modelling the design, operation and emissions profile of a floating nuclear power plant.
ABS and HEC subsequently unveiled a study examining the impact of a high-temperature, gas-cooled nuclear reactor (HTGR) on the design, operation and emissions of a 145,000m3 LNG carrier design.
The study is designed to help designers, owners and shipbuilders better understand the feasibility and safety implications of nuclear propulsion and to support future development projects.
While advanced reactor technology has been demonstrated on land, adapting it for marine application is in its infancy. However, this study and the other research carried out by ABS clearly highlight its significant potential to address not only shippingâs emissions challenge but to deliver a range of other operational advantages to the industry.
The study proved vital in illuminating unintended design consequences and unforeseen risks that the class society would have to consider when developing its rules. Among the main challenges is how a nuclear-powered vessel would trade in practice, requiring the agreement of all countries in whose waters the ship would sail.
With the feasibility demonstrated for a small nuclear reactor onboard a large containership, LNG carrier and an offshore platform, ABS expects continued interest in creating zero emission vessels feasible for the marine sector through Joint Industry Projects.
As this process continues, it is likely that regulation will prove the primary driving force in realising full scale projects. Law makers will play an important role in supporting the industryâs ambitions of reducing carbon emissions by enough to meet 2050 targets.
With advances in nuclear engineering and the development of many types of nuclear reactors, come opportunities to implement the technology for commercial shipping and plant applications. ABS is encouraging both modular system providers and vessel designers to establish further joint industry projects that can investigate challenges and opportunities.
3. Time barsÂ
The winter edition of Hill Dickinsonâs Trade Advantage newsletter has highlighted a number of legal issues covered in the courts recently. In one of the cases covered, the Supreme Court confirmed that a Hague Visby Rules time bar applied to misdelivery claims.
In this case, which concerned a misdelivery of cargo claim, the Supreme Court affirmed a line of developing authority on an important issue for such claims â that the one-year time bar in the Hague Visby Rules (and the Hague Rules) applies to claims for misdelivery.
This decision is of broad relevance in the shipping trade, as the Hague Visby Rules (and Hague Rules) are commonly contractually incorporated into bills of lading, charterparties and other contracts of affreightment, whether through standard form contracts or clauses or otherwise. The Rules may also be compulsorily applicable.
Misdelivery is also a common claim in circumstances where financing is secured by cargo, and such security is sought to be enforced, as in this case. For further details of the case and others affecting market players, see the Hill Dickinson website.
4. Energy responsibility
Confusion about where responsibilities lie needs to be clarified before regulation starts to redraw the maritime energy landscape, writes Christian Rae Holm, CEO, Coach Solutions.
We know that FuelEU Maritime will ask big questions of the shipping industry because we read about them on an almost daily basis. The trouble for many vessel operators is that they may not be getting the answers they require.
FuelEU Maritime is big on assigning responsibility and punishing non-compliance but at the point where reality strikes, the reporting and verification requirements bearing on each party are not clearly enough understood.
For once, it is not the foundational shift of paying more to use fossil fuels and incentivising take up of green ones; it is how the industry actually manages the process.
The complexity of FuelEU Maritime has seen shipping companies in doubt about how to handle this new risk. As a result, we see ourselves being asked more and more often if we can develop forecasting tools, which can assist in developing a FuelEU strategy (and ETS before that).
As a solutions provider it is our role to come up with answers but this time these requests donât take into account the established distribution of workflows when talking about voyage management.
The baseline solution as we see it divides into three components: voyage management systems (VMS), voyage optimization systems and verification agencies, normally a class society. VMS provides the economics, pre-fixture intelligence and planning functionality. Voyage optimization systems operate post-fixture, with verification agencies providing third party assurance.
The interaction between these three systems is well established and has become more important than ever since the EU ETS landed the cost of emissions on the bottom line of the voyage.
Sitting back with crossed fingers and waiting for a single all-encompassing solution you can jump on, will probably lead to disappointment.
What should happen instead is that the vessel operator, VMS and VP providers need to come together and have a more open-minded discussion, with the verifier in the loop. Could they create a better solution to those of existing providers by collaborating?
Single solution providers will likewise always fall short in this situation because their business models are different. The value providers can be left separate but they can connect to a common data source to create accurate, verifiable results.
Make no mistake, FuelEU Maritime asks big questions. Some are hard to answer as they require an operator to predict how to optimise a single or multiple ships in a pool across a whole year. It might be possible to model your way out of this challenge but it is more efficient for VMS and VP providers to share responsibility and help the operator narrow down the variables.
It is not hard to envisage a scenario that provides the incentive for both providers to share data beyond the usual claims process. The parties to a voyage must agree on a data set to settle against with third party verification.
EU Fuel Maritime is unlike an IMO regulation that takes, say, a fuel sample from one ship and finds it in or out of compliance. The need to balance performance across a whole fleet requires a strategy. We donât provide that strategy, our systems support customer decisions. Operators are at liberty to take the expensive but simple or the complicated but competitive approach.
We donât envisage the dawning of an age of widespread transparent data exchange but some sharing is essential. Enabling systems providers to do what they are hired for means utilising the same data. It need not be public but it requires a protocol for sharing with trading partners.
Maybe this is not so complex after all, simply that the solutions lie in two or three locations that can be joined together by data.
Fuel EU Maritime changes the industryâs traditional resistance to sharing data. Managing compliance from a practical point of view will require this collaboration. If it is to adapt to the new shape of maritime regulation, shipping canât sail around it.
5. E-bikes
The drive to decarbonise ports and terminals is intensifying with growing interest in using battery powered e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motorbikes. Operators are tempted by the cheaper and cleaner alternative to diesel-powered vehicles. However, the TT Club warns about the significant risks associated with their use in facilities not designed to accommodate such vehicles.
Ports, terminals, and logistics facilities are typically designed to accommodate large vehicles and cargo handling equipment. The introduction of smaller, more vulnerable road users like e-bikes and e-scooters presents unique challenges. These vehicles are less visible, making traffic management and the prevention of human-machine collisions much more difficult. Typically, terminal traffic layouts and pavement conditions, are designed for large vehicles and plant, not for smaller, more vulnerable, battery-powered personal vehicles.
TT Club has long-standing experience of such terminal risks, Risk assessment manager Neil Dalus comments on the question of paved surfaces in particular. âDesigned to withstand high volumes and heavy loads, the terminal surfaces often suffer significant wear and tear, resulting in uneven road conditions. For smaller wheeled battery electric vehicles, these conditions can be hazardous. Traversing rail crossing points, especially when wet, and encountering spills of cargo or oils further increase the risk of accidents. Two-wheeled vehicles, being inherently less stable than four-wheeled vehicles, are particularly susceptible to these hazards,â he highlights, emphasizing the need for operators to take care in introducing their use.
As the use of electric personal vehicles blurs the lines between different user groups within a facility, such as pedestrians, plant and handling equipment operations, TT recommends additional terminal traffic safety planning. This should include consideration of licensing, training, and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements.
Additionally, charging and maintenance of these vehicles can also present significant challenges. Emerging data indicates a higher risk of fire during the charging process, necessitating thorough due diligence in procurement of vehicles and their charging points. Proper fire risk assessments covering the location of charging points is essential to mitigate these risks, the club says.
Dalus concludes, âWhile battery-powered personal transport vehicles offer significant benefits in terms of decarbonisation and cost-effectiveness, their integration into ports, terminals, and other logistics facilities however requires careful planning and consideration of risk. Addressing these issues will be crucial to achieving a balance between innovation and safety in the ongoing and rapidly developing drive to achieve a cleaner working environment in the cargo handling industry.â
TT Clubâs December TT Talk newsletter also looks at asset management in the context of crane wire ropes, the operational challenges that give rise to the risk of wrongly alligned containers at marine and rail terminals and explores a recent ruling involving fraud that led to the theft of a cargo.
For more details see their website.
6. EU ETS pressure points
OceanScore has identified persisting EU ETS problems for shipping such as system readiness, data anomalies, transparency and contractual responsibility after assessing lessons learned from the first year of the regulation, with the clock ticking towards the initial settlement of emissions liabilities in 2025.
âFortunately, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is now well understood by most players in the industry after a year of implementation, despite adding yet another layer of regulatory complexity to an already highly regulated business. But we see that significant obstacles still need to be overcome as we navigate the road ahead to efficient compliance,â says OceanScore Managing Director Albrecht Grell.
Shipping companies are now anxiously awaiting a March 2025 deadline for verification of MRV reports submitted for the current year that will determine the volume of EU Allowances (EUAs), or carbon credits, to be surrendered next September.
âThis leaves the industry with nine more months of uncertainty. Many challenges remain and their true impact will only become clear when EUAs need to be surrendered,â Grell points out.
OceanScore has diagnosed a range of technical and commercial issues still to be resolved to make progress, as it also looks ahead to 2025 and beyond. On the technical side, it highlights system readiness and automation gaps with a lack of harmonized data formats and standardized APIs, as well as odd errors in reporting systems, leading to inefficiencies that underscore the need for a coordinated approach and standardized practices across the industry.
A contentious issue has been the attempt by some service providers to charge shipping companies twice for their data – once for the service itself and again for sharing it via APIs. âThe industry has largely resisted this practice, curtailing most cases of double charging, but continued vigilance will be essential,â OceanScore states.
Significant discrepancies between commercial voyage definitions and MRV reporting requirements have also created challenges, particularly for voyage charter agreements, that âhinder efficient complianceâ. âThese differences complicate commercial settlements, as event reporting systems often fail to align data accurately in verification statements,â according to the firm.
Another issue is that technical off-hires need to be deducted when invoicing charterers for EUAs, as allowances incurred for off-hires remain the responsibility of the owner. Off-hires though are typically not verified, delaying negotiations and settlements. âImproved reporting frameworks could help resolve these inefficiencies and support more seamless compliance,â it states.
On the commercial side, transparency has emerged as a significant concern in managing EUAs. Invoicing for EUAs has become a labour-intensive task, with diverse format requirements, varying request frequencies and interim statements complicating the process. OceanScore says many shipping companies struggle to track whether invoices have been accepted, EUAs delivered or payments made without a centralized system.
Looking ahead, Grell says âtemporary solutions may suffice for now in tackling some of these challenges, but they are not sustainable long-termâ, especially with implementation of FuelEU from next year that he believes will amplify pressure for automated data-driven systems to cope with the complexity.
âThe lessons from these challenges highlight the need for systematic, scalable solutions to manage emissions compliance effectively, ensuring long-term success under the EU ETS framework. The growing need for robust tools is clear. Transparency, efficiency and collaboration across stakeholders will be crucial to tackle the challenges ahead,â
7. IMO bravery awards
The 2024 IMO Award for Exceptional Bravery at Sea has been presented to two sets of nominees: the captain and crew of the oil tanker Marlin Luanda, for containing a fire after the ship was struck by an un-crewed aerial device; and the captain and crew of the tugboat Pemex Maya, for their rescue of six shipwrecked persons from four different vessels, during a hurricane.
They received the medals and certificates during the annual IMO Awards Ceremony, held in London on 2 December 2024. The ceremony followed the first day of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 109) session, which was taking place from 2 to 6 December 2024.
IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez commended the worthy recipients of the IMO Award for Exceptional Bravery at Sea. âIt is truly an honour to have this opportunity to recognize the valiant efforts and dedication of these heroic individuals, who took it upon themselves to act in the face of extreme danger at sea, to save lives. Their bravery is an inspiration for all of us,â he said.
Captain Avhilash RawatâŻand the crew of the oil tankerâŻMarlin Luanda,âŻnominated by the Marshall Islands, for their extraordinary courage, determination and endurance demonstrated while coordinating firefighting and damage control efforts to combat the fire that broke out after an un-crewed aerial device struck their vessel.
Captain Avhilash RawatâŻwas at the award ceremony to receive the medal and certificate, saying: âI want to take this opportunity to thank my entire crew for their exceptional courage, professionalism, and unwavering dedication. Your support and trust were invaluable during those critical hours, and together, we overcame challenges that seemed insurmountable.â
He thanked the naval crews who assisted and the shipâs owners. He added: âFinally, to all the brave seafarers navigating the high seas, your commitment, courage, and resilience inspire not only those of us aboard but also those who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. As we sail through both calm and stormy waters, let us remember that it is our unity, skill, and determination that strengthen us and keep us committed to the work we do.â
Captain Jorge Fernando Galaviz FuentesâŻand the crew of the tugboatâŻPemex Maya wereâŻnominated by Mexico, for their outstanding courage, seamanship skills and resolve displayed in the rescue of six shipwrecked people.
Captain Jorge Fernando Galaviz FuentesâŻwas at the award ceremony to receive the medal and certificate. He said: âOctober 24 and 25, 2023, will remain etched in our memory, not only for the challenges we faced during the devastating passage of Hurricane Otis but also for the decisions that led us to rescue six shipwrecked individuals under extreme conditions. In those moments of uncertainty, our strength did not come only from preparation but from a shared commitment: to safeguard lives, even at the risk of our own.â
âUnited as a maritime community, we are capable of overcoming any storm. âŠthis important recognition, which will serve as an inspiration to continue navigating with courage, humanity, and commitment,â he said.
Certificates of CommendationÂ
Certificates of Commendation were presented to the following, who were both involved in the displayed in the search and rescue operation of 150 passengers and crew members of the sunken passenger ferryâŻEsther Miracle, which capsized off the coast of Gabon in the early hours of 9 March 2023. They were both nominated by Gabon.
Captain JerĂŽme NoĂ«l Mougoula Saguiliba, Master of theâŻLCT Celeste, was nominated for his exceptional ship-handling expertise and determination displayed in the search and rescue operation.
Lieutenant CrĂ©pin Manfoumbi Mengara, on board the rapid patrol boatâŻMayumba, Gabonese Navy, was nominated for the exemplary leadership and persistence during the search and rescue operation.
Letters of Commendation
The following have been sent Letters of Commendation:
Captain Eduardo Mesquita Pedroso, master of the container shipâŻMonte Sarmiento, nominated by Brazil, for his leadership and decisive action during a critical firefighting operation.
Commander Yong Li of the rescue vesselâŻHai Xun 06838, Law Enforcement Unit, Changshu Maritime Safety Administration, nominated by China, for his professionalism and determination demonstrated in the rescue of the 22 crew members of the bulk chemical tankerâŻNew Bright.
Captain Hao Yang of the rescue helicopter B-7328, Dong Hai Rescue Bureau, nominated by China, for his courage, exceptional skill and great resolve demonstrated during the challenging rescue operation of the 14 crew members of the oil tankerâŻDaiyou 69.
Captain Lingqi Zhang of the rescue vesselâŻDonghaijiu 112, Dong Hai Rescue Bureau, nominated by China, for his professionalism and ship-handling expertise during two consecutive rescue operations of the cargo vesselsâŻZhenghe 9âŻandâŻHuahai 601.
Captain FrĂ©dĂ©rick Caurant, Sub-Lieutenant LoĂŻc Taillardat, Warrant Officer SĂ©bastien Richard and Warrant Officer MichaĂ«l Severino, helicopter detachment of Flotilla 32F, LanvĂ©oc Naval Air Base, French Navy, nominated by France, for their bravery and determination during the rescue of the bulk carrierâŻGuyana.
Captain Brijesh Nambiar and the crew of theâŻINS Visakhapatnam, Indian Navy, nominated by India, for their courage and great resolve demonstrated in joining firefighting efforts onboard the oil tankerâŻMarlin Luanda.
Captain Benito A. Lucio, Master of the bulk carrierâŻAfrican Turaco, nominated by Panama, for his professionalism and exceptional ship-handling expertise demonstrated in the rescue of seven fishermen who had to abandon their vessel.
The crew of the patrol vesselâŻLee Cheongho, Coast Guard Station Seogwipo, Republic of Korea Coast Guard nominated by the Republic of Korea, for their tenacity and great resolve during the rescue of 11 crew members of the sinking cargo vesselâŻGeumyang 6.
The crew of the patrol vesselâŻ522, Coast Guard Station Wando, Republic of Korea Coast Guard, nominated by the Republic of Korea, for their bravery and professionalism in rescuing 19 crew members of the oil tankerâŻSM Jeju LNG1, as well as 43 passengers and 15 crew members of the passenger ferryâŻKS Hermes, and for preventing a marine pollution incident.
Captain Lee Gil Un and the crew of the fishing vesselâŻ1 SungBok, nominated by the Republic of Korea, for their courage and great resolve demonstrated during the night rescue of nine survivors from the fishing vesselâŻBobae.
Lieutenant Commander Subhasinghe Saia and the diving team of theâŻSLNS Vijayabahu (P 627), Sri Lanka Navy, nominated by Sri Lanka, for their tenacity and expertise displayed in the underwater rescue operation of potentially trapped survivors among the 39 crew members of the capsized fishing vesselâŻLu Peng Yuan Yu-28.
The crew of theâŻCGC Alex HaleyâŻ(WMEC 39), United States Coast Guard, nominated by the United States, for their exceptional seafaring skills and team effort displayed during the heavy weather tow operation of the fishing vesselâŻAleutian No.1, which had lost propulsion and was drifting towards dangerous shoal, near an approaching cyclone.
BM2 Theodore Noah S. Kirkbridge, BM3 Christian V. Lorenzo, MK2 Anthony C. Mason and BM3 Kaleiopio E. Guth, Coast Guard Station Maui, United States Coast Guard, nominated by the United States, for their courage and professionalism displayed during the rescue of 12 persons fleeing the wildfires in Lahaina, Maui, who were trapped by the fire.
Lashawna J. Garnier, Emma C. Nelson and Christina A. Lovitt, co-Captains of the small passenger vesselâŻExpeditionsâ dinghy, nominated by the United States, for the bravery and decisiveness they demonstrated during the rescue of persons fleeing the wildfires in Lahaina, Maui.
BM2 Joshua A. Marzilli, Coast Guard Station Maui, United States Coast Guard, and Travis DeWater, serving as rescue swimmer onboard the small passenger vesselâŻTrilogy II, nominated by the United States, for their bravery and determination displayed during the rescue of persons fleeing the wildfires in Lahaina, Maui.
Seafarers’ migrant rescues recognized
The bravery, professionalism and compassion demonstrated by crews of merchant vessels in the rescue of migrants at sea around the world has been recognized with 10 special certificates of commendation awarded to those nominated by China, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Philippines and the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA).
For more details on the awards and the incidents involved, see the IMO website.
8. International Maritime prize
Captain Ian Finley, Permanent Representative of the Cook Islands, has been presented with the International Maritime Prize for 2023. Captain Finley was nominated for the prize by the Government of the Cook Islands. As a delegate to IMO, representing Panama and latterly the Cook Islands, he has been an active participant in the development of virtually all safety, environmental and legal legislation adopted by the Organization since 1995.
Before handing Captain Finley the silver dolphin trophy, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez highlighted Captain Finleyâs long association with IMO and contribution to developing and negotiating IMO instruments.
âHis passion for the maritime community, and his unwavering dedication to advancing its goals have made him an invaluable presence. There have been few IMO meetings in the past three decades which have not benefitted from his insight and wisdom,â Secretary-General Dominguez said.
Accepting the prize, Captain Finley said, âI am truly grateful, yet I see this prize as a recognition of the work and commitment of so many who I have worked with over the past three decades.â
He reflected on his 63âŻyears in ships and shipping: âFrom the river of my birth to the lands where corals lie, all gone in what seems just a turn of the tide; Triumph and tragedy, despair and elation, endings but always new horizons; regrets, none to dwell on, what an Odyssey, what a life!â
In its statement supporting his nomination for the prize, the Government of the Cook Islands cited Captain Finleyâs longstanding work as a delegate to IMO for more than three decades. He is âa stalwart of Diplomatic Conferences, always striving for consensus and, when necessary, helping to facilitate the compromises requiredâ. He is an ex-mariner with âan understanding of and empathy for the challenges that continue to be faced by seafarers and the obligations of all to ensure their training, safety and wellbeingâ. He has âchampioned the cause of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), promoting enhanced technical cooperation and capacity buildingâ.
9. Better clear than sorry
In the latest edition of Holman Fenwick Willanâs London calling entitled Better Clear than Sorry, Brian Perrott looks at the case of Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Limited v Childrenâs Ark Partnerships Ltd [2023]
In 2004, Childrenâs Ark Partnerships Ltd (“Children’s Ark”) entered a contract with Kajima Construction Europe (UK) (“Kajima”) for the design and construction of a hospital for sick children in Brighton (the “Contract”).
The Contract included a dispute resolution clause, which read as follows:
“3.1 Subject to paragraph 2 and 6 of this Schedule, all Disputes shall first be referred to the Liaison Committee for resolution. Any decision of the Liaison Committee shall be final and binding unless the parties otherwise agree.
3.2 Where a Dispute is a Construction Dispute the Liaison Committee will convene and seek to resolve the Dispute within ten (10) Business Days of the referral of the Dispute”.
In 2018, fire defects were discovered, which Kajima agreed to remedy at its own cost. The defects were discussed by the Liaison Committee, but they were never the object of a formal referral.
In 2021, whilst works remained outstanding, Kajima refused to extend the limitation period. As a result, Children’s Ark issued court proceedings against Kajima instead of referring the dispute to the Liaison Committee.
Kajima sought to strike out Children’s Ark claim on the basis that: (i) Children’s Ark did not comply with the dispute resolution provision; and (ii) Children’s Ark claim was time barred.
Children’s Ark was successful in the first instance, but Kajima appealed.
The Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal confirmed the findings in the first instance decision that the dispute resolution provision was unenforceable in that:
1.   There was no meaningful description of the process to be followed (besides the mere referral to the Liaison Committee) and, as such, it was unclear when the condition precedent might be satisfied; and
2.   There was no unequivocal commitment to any particular form of alternative dispute resolution.
Comments
The Court of Appeal recognised that elements of the clause were valid. However, it explained that the correct approach was to consider the clause as a whole. It concluded that the whole clause was not enforceable.
10. Tanker crew challenges
Findings from initial SIRE 2.0 inspections following the introduction of the updated vetting procedure in September suggest tanker operators are struggling to meet the additional requirements.
According to data from 26 vessel inspections, WiseStella, the Singapore-headquartered maritime learning and training provider, found a significant number of ânegative observationsâ reported, mostly relating to deficiencies in human factors reporting and processes.
Across all the vessels inspected 204 areas scored low on SIRE 2.0 requirements relating to hardware (44), processes (78), and human factors related deficiencies (75).
Of the 75 human factors related issues, one area stood out as particularly challenging for tanker crews: SIRE 2.0 Question 2.4.1 on defect management.
WiseStella found that low scores were given because answers appeared to indicate crews did not know they had to create a requisition for spares when they became aware of defective equipment. Crews also scored low because they did not consider risk assessment after identifying defective equipment that could not be fixed immediately.
SIRE 2.0 reports also indicated that the responsible officer onboard some of the vessels inspected did not know how to produce a defect report according to the shipping companyâs SMS procedures.
For instance, on three inspected vessels, there was no record of a defect report or risk assessment relating to faulty smoke detectors.
Ferhat Abul, WiseStellaâs managing director and co-founder, said: âThere are certain questions in SIRE 2.0 Chapter Two that appear to relate to hardware but in fact concern defect reporting. We found this to be a common misunderstanding and shows a lack of awareness about the associated risks of defective equipment, no matter how small.â
Failure to comprehend fully the aspects relating to the shipâs Safety Management System were also evident from low scoring inspections relating to SIRE 2.0 Chapter Five. Reports following inspectorsâ questions about crew familiarity with enclosed space entry procedures â SIRE 2.0 Question 5.5.1 â identified a number of concerns.
âInspectors commented on procedural gaps in SMS procedures, especially regarding entry into an enclosed space,â said Abul. âWater ballast tanks, especially on those ships fitted with electrolysis-based ballast water treatment systems, were particular problem areas with inspectors finding crew knowledge inadequate. Some crews did not know the allowable time between atmospheric condition checks and entering the tank.â
Low scoring inspections also related to Permits to Work, suggesting crews could end up allowing the wrong person to enter an enclosed space at the wrong time. Some entries also pointed to crews believing the same single permit could be issued for multiple tank entries.
One inspection found ship records indicating a single permit for entry into multiple water ballast tanks had been issued, with only one person entering each ballast tank instead of the two persons required by the permit and company procedures.
âThe outcome of some SIRE 2.0 inspections does point to lack of familiarisation not only with regards to the new questions crews are required to answer, but also to a lack of knowledge of the processes and procedures relating to the shipping companyâs Safety Management Manual,â he said.
Abul added that while the majority of the new questions are still directed at officers, there are now more ratings being interviewed, many of whom may not understand the question, acronym or terminology due to language and cultural differences.
âProper SIRE 2.0 training and feedback is essential if crews are to better understand what is required of them and to safeguard against any safety lapses. SIRE 2.0 is such a major change. And this, combined with a high circulation of ratings means, many are unfamiliar with the safety management procedures, which differ from ship to ship, company to company.
11. Port cost miscalculation
In a recent case underscoring the essential nature of precise cost estimation in maritime logistics,  the International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) has settled a US$140,000 claim resulting from an error in calculating port charges. The incident involved a South American grain shipment where the pool managerâs use of outdated cost estimates for port fees led to a substantial financial discrepancy.
A pool manager organised a ship to load a cargo of grain at a South American port. Using a Final Disbursement Account (FDA) from a previous ship’s call at the same port, the manager estimated the port costs at US$80,000. This figure was communicated to the pool owner and incorporated into the freight calculations for the voyage.
Unbeknownst to the manager, the ship assigned for the current voyage was 40,000 metric tonnes larger than the previous one, placing it into a higher pricing bracket under the terminal’s rules. Additionally, its deeper draught necessitated a second pilot, further inflating costs.
Consequently, the actual port charges escalated to US$220,000, vastly exceeding the initial estimate. The unexpected extra cost of US$140,000 was not included in the freight, resulting in a significant financial shortfall for the pool owner.
Upon investigation, ITIC recognised that the pool manager had failed to update the port cost estimates to reflect the specifications and requirements of the larger ship. Accepting responsibility for the oversight, ITIC settled the claim in full, compensating the pool owner for the unforeseen expenses.
Mark Brattman of ITIC commented: âThis incident serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of precise cost estimation and diligent planning in maritime logistics. The substantial shortfall due to inaccurate port charge estimates underscores the risks involved and the necessity of aligning cost calculations with ship specifications to avoid unforeseen financial impacts.â
12. US import requirements
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, in part, that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. Enforcement of the declaration requirement began on April 1, 2009, and products requiring a declaration are being phased-in. The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which regulates the import, export, sale, or acquisition of protected fish, wildlife, plants, and plant products has announced the next stage of Lacey Act implementation with the rollout of Phase VII, effective December 1, 2024.
Lacey Act declarations will be required if all of the following conditions are met:
âą the product contains plant material
âą is classified under an APHIS-listed Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code
âą is formally entered for consumption, withdrawn from a warehouse or into a Foreign Trade Zone.
Clarification is being sought from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection after conferral with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Vessels impacted can be found below and APHIS invites public comment on the products covered under this phase of the plan, as well as on whether any additional Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters should be included in the current phase-in schedule.
Ch. 89 Headings (Boats)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/31/2024-11901/implementation-of-revised-lacey-act-provisions
Notices & Miscellany
Training course on freight & customs fundamentalsÂ
The British International Freight Association (BIFA) is launching a new educational initiative designed specifically for journalists and other staff working with the media who are newcomers to the freight and logistics sector.
The course, titled âFreight & Customs Fundamentals for Media Executives,â aims to bridge the knowledge gap and provide incoming staff with an understanding of the complexities of international trade, freight management and customs procedures. It is being launched in association with the Seahorse Freight Association.
The freight and logistics industry plays a pivotal role in the global economy, yet its intricacies often remain underexplored in mainstream media, BIFA says.
With the rise of supply chain disruptions, sustainability concerns, and technological advancements, accurate and informed reporting has never been more critical.
BIFAâs new course will address this by equipping incoming journalists and staff working with the media with the knowledge necessary to provide nuanced and insightful coverage of the sector.
Anyone requiring more information about the Freight & Customs Fundamentals for Media Executives course or to register their interest should contact Carl Hobbis at c.hobbis@bifa.org.
Disaster protection
The Centre for Disaster Protection, has announced the appointment of Cristina Stefan as its new Head of Advisory. Cristina brings a wealth of experience in advising humanitarian organisations, countries and multilateral development banks in designing pre-arranged finance solutions, such as sovereign insurance products; agricultural insurance schemes; insurance-linked securities; and other alternative risk transfer products.
DNV energy transition summit
This virtual event will look at the latest developments related to alternative fuels and energy efficiency measures in the maritime industry. The online event takes place on February 6, 2025 at 13.00 â 15.45 CET. For details see the DNV website.
Maritime Labour Convention
The latest updates to the ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention will come into effect on 23 December 2024. Ratifying countries are mandated to comply with these new regulations.
Guidelines on the Application of the ILO Maritime Labour Convention can be purchased from the ICS Publications website. The new regulations are marked with a star so readers can easily find what’s new and includes practical guidance on how to comply on board and support crew welfare.
The fourth edition is priced at ÂŁ155.00. For the full contents list, foreword and more details, visit the ICS Publications website.
Please notify the Editor of your appointments, promotions, new office openings and other important happenings: contactus@themaritimeadvocate.com
And finally,
(With thanks to Paul Dixon)
Twelve step internet recovery programme
1. I will have a cup of coffee in the morning and read my newspaper like I used to, before the Internet.
2. I will eat breakfast with a knife and fork and not with one hand typing.
3. I will get dressed before noon.
4. I will make an attempt to clean the house, wash clothes, and plan dinner before even thinking of the Internet.
5. I will sit down and write a letter to those unfortunate few friends and family that are Internet-deprived.
6. I will call someone on the phone who I cannot contact via the Internet.
7. I will read a book…if I still remember how.
8. I will listen to those around me and their needs and stop telling them to turn the TV down so I can hear the music on the Internet.
9. I will not be tempted during TV commercials to check for email.
10. I will try and get out of the house at least once a week, if it is necessary or not.
11. I will remember that my bank is not forgiving if I forget to balance my cheque book because I was too busy on the Internet.
12. Last, but not least, I will remember that I must go to bed sometime… and the Internet will always be there tomorrow!
Thank you for Reading the Maritime Advocate online
Maritime Advocate Online is a fortnightly digest of news and views on the maritime industries, with particular reference to legal issues and dispute resolution. It is published to over 20,000 individual subscribers each week and republished within firms and organisations all over the maritime world. It is the largest publication of its kind. We estimate it goes to around 60,000 readers in over 120 countries.