TO: ALL IMIF MEMBERS

SEPTEMBER 1999

 

I recently was chatting with one of our members who hearteningly said that IMIF was even more relevant today than ever before. The initial crisis which brought about the formation of IMIF was triggered by a lack of knowledge of what was going on and, worse, a refusal to face those facts.

Today we seek to fill this knowledge gap and keep our members up-to-date by a series of buffet lunches each of which addresses a different relevant issue. We also maintain our tradition of lobbying the decision makers (e.g. Shipbuilders - particularly Far Eastern -, Financial Institutions, OECD WP6 on Subsidies, Intergovernmental and Governmental bodies, promoting scrapping etc etc.) The dual roles are information dissemination and lobbying plus of course the indefinable benefit of "networking" among our disparate membership.

After 19 years as your Chairman I remain as enthusiastic as ever over our aims and successes. I can only hope one remains as effective!

All of you, I am sure, occasionally has a "turn-out" of old papers, or at least a disposal of files to more permanent storage. This we recently did and I came upon a paper entitled "A Cautionary Note" written in 1987 and contributed to by 5 of our members. It is so good and still so relevant that I am attaching it to this note.

This starts me on a path of reminiscence.

When IMIF was founded in 1975 it was a "Crisis Committee".... a description given at the time by Helmut Sohmen of World Wide Shipping. It was recognised by those wise founding members that none of the players in the Maritime scene seemed to realise the depth of the crisis in which they found themselves.
Even then so many were saying "We've been here before ... it's just another familiar shipping cycle. " How very wrong they were. This "cycle" had produced a situation of vast oversupply of ships and Shipbuilding Capacity. "A stable situation of chronic oversupply has been reached" in the words of dear lamented Derek Kimber.

-------------------

This year has seen IMIF continuing to pursue its objectives in this unfortunate market, and we are grateful for the support that our members still provide despite that unfortunate market. There have been three more well-attended buffet-lunches, reports on which follow and I led a delegation to the Hague for discussions with the Paris MOU on Port State Control Secretariat. In May I spoke on behalf of IMIF at the BIMCO conference in Portugal, and again at the Scrapping Conference in Amsterdam in June. I have since been approached by the Dutch Government on a related scrapping scheme which could have ramifications for IMIF on the maritime front. It involves a piece of lateral thinking which may be a way forward for the maritime industries. A report on the Scrapping conference is attached. The IMIF Shipping Bankers held another meeting in May. As is the custom no notes or minutes were taken which permitted the usual frank and informal exchange of views. Alan Brauner, Deputy Chairman of the IMIF Steering Committee and IMIF Secretary Ian Bouskill attended the EU Maritime Industries Forum Plenary Session in Southampton on 23/24 June. A resume of the Plenary Session findings is available on request.

You will also find details of our next two buffet-luncheons in October and November listed elsewhere along with our flagship event, the IMIF Annual Dinner on the 3rd November. Invitations have been issued and should already be with you. I hope to see many of you there.

We are still working on a possible conference in the Spring of next year on the economics of shipping arising from the DETR quality shipping conferences but this is still at an early stage of planning.

In the previous newsletter independent surveyor Chris Spencer voiced his thoughts on ISM and its effect so far in an article entitled "The quality debate". There have been various responses related both to Chris Spencer's article and the present market. Our good friend Karl Timmermann of Associated Bulk Carriers, Hong Kong wrote to me and I must quote one paragraph from his letter.

"Meanwhile I cannot but share your sentiments and assessment of the current market which is governed by overtonnaging created by the short-sightedness of shipowners, the abundance of shipyard capacity, the ready availability of money matched by the shortage of professional ship scrapping and a regime of inspections which is so full of holes that one can drive a whole fleet of overaged rustbuckets through it without anybody raising an eyebrow!"

We have also received a response from James Bell while still Permanent Secretary of IACS which is also reproduced here by way of an appendix.

Finally I am pleased to welcome as a new member:-

S&C Ship Management & Crewing Lda, Lisbon, Portugal - contact - Mr Joao Moita

With warm regards and unimpaired enthusiasm as I commence my twentieth year as your Chairman. If I had a concern it is that it is quite hard to run IMIF - lean as the organisation is - on a budget of approximately £80,000 per annum. We have not increased our subscription for nearly 15 years! We thus depend totally on your continued support.

J G DAVIS


LONG-TERM TRENDS IN OIL TANKER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
- A CAUTIONARY NOTE    1987

The purpose of this document is to emphasize the danger in basing decisions to build or scrap oil tankers on short-term fluctuations in market rates.

The high scrapping rates of 1985 and the decline in the world orderbook for new tankers raised hopes for a return to market balance before the end of the decade. However, oil prices fell during 1986 and the scramble to take advantage of the depressed oil price and restock inventories boosted demand for tanker tonnage, particularly in the larger size ranges. The sequence of events that followed can be seen as a misreading of market signals with a possible long-term adverse effect on tonnage supply.

It was perhaps inevitable that the brief but marked rise in market rates for oil tankers experienced in mid-1986 would lead to heavily curtailed scrapping and a significant rise in orders for new ships. However, sharp changes in tanker supply can take many years to correct themselves and this, indeed, is the fundamental reason for the slow return to market balance that has been taking place over recent years. The figures produced by Clarkson Research Studies Limited show the effect on the fleet age profile of two possible developments in tanker supply and demand.Today's figures show a demand for tanker tonnage that falls within a range equivalent to about 20 million deadweght tonnes. This results in a steady decline in supply as older vessels are removed from the fleet and only gradually replaced by new ones. A return to market balance seems in prospect by the early 1990s. (A forlorn hope! JGD 1999)

In contrast, other figures show a less stable demand picture. A brief rise in demand in 1987, such as that seen in 1986, causes a sharp and immediate reduction in scrapping over the following two years combined with a boost to newbuilding. However, the boost to demand is the result of a drive to restock oil inventories and is not based on any fundamental change in the demand by consumers for oil. Since the boost is only transient, the net effect of the change in demand is to flatten the supply line, with market balance appearing many more years away than in the first case.

The message is therefore one of caution. The spot market for oil tankers is a volatile one in which short-term boosts to rates caused by transient political and other events are likely. However, the oversupply situation which still exists in the world tanker fleet must not be ignored if a return to market balance is to be achieved. To base decisions on scrapping and new-building on brief, and in the longer-term, short-lived fluctuations in market rates is both unsound and likely to perpetuate the current malaise. The ability of the financier of newbuilding to limit this problem should not be ignored.


IMIF buffet luncheon at the Baltic Exchange, St Mary Axe, London EC3 29 March 1999 Hosted by Tsavliris (Shipping) Limited. Guest Speaker - Mr Per Nielsen, Chairman, Harland and Wolff Limited. "Shipbuilding today and the dilemma of and the challenges to the European Yards."

Present
Per Nielsen - Chairman, Harland and Wolff Ltd - guest speaker
George Tsavliris - host - Director, Tsavliris (Shipping) Ltd
Jim Davis - Chairman, IMIF

Alan Brauner - Vice Chairman, IMIF Steering Committee/ consultant, SR&T Nicholas Brown - Manager, Intercargo
Gerald Cooper - Ambassador/ Liberian Permanent Representative to the IMO
John Faraclas - Correspondent, Shipping International Monthly Review
Nicholas Granger - Director, Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association
Bridget Hogan - Senior Market Consultant, Vanuatu Registries
Shigeru Ito - Director of Shipbuilding, Japan Ship Centre JETRO
Bo Jagd - Managing Director, Danmarks Skibskreditfond
Ryusuke Matsuo - Director General, Japan Ship Centre JETRO
Otto Norland - London Representative, Deutsche Schiffsbank AG
Tony Nunn - Special Liaison Officer, International Union of Marine Insurance
Julian Parker - Secretary, The Nautical Institute
Simon Poland - Partner, Clyde & Co, Maritime Lawyers
Chris Spencer - Managing Director, C F Spencer & Co Ltd - Marine Surveyors
Martin Stopford - Managing Director, Clarkson Research Studies Ltd
Dale Wainwright - Technical Correspondent, Lloyd's List
Harvey Williams - Senior Partner, Sinclair Roche & Temperley, Maritime Lawyers
Ian Bouskill - Secretary, IMIF

In the opulent setting of the Baltic Exchange Boardroom Per Nielsen, Chairman of Harland and Wolff, Belfast expounded the commercial realities of present day European shipbuilding to some twenty members of IMIF from all parts of the industry. He described the changes that had occurred in H and W's 138 year history, through its privatisation in 1989 to its current offshore construction work. He added with determined satisfaction that H and W was one of a very few yards actually operating at a profit. He noted that Hyundai was currently building 60 ships a year and reminded his audience that this was no more than H and W had done from the war years to the late fifties, admittedly using in those days a larger workforce. He went on to discuss the various factors now besetting European shipbuilding (the Treaty of Rome with its anti-dumping laws, the OECD WP6 negotiations, the EU 9% subsidy, and the Korean overcapacity problem). "How can European builders compete with Korea" he asked his audience "when Europe cannot even buy the components at the price Korea is selling completed newbuildings for?" He quoted some Korean prices "a VLCC @ US$60M or a suezmax @ US$40M". H and W's answer was a completely new approach, with Per Nielsen no longer regarding himself as "a mere shipbuilder" but rather as an "integrator" of previously non-related "systems" aimed ultimately at producing "high value added projects" including R&D and offshore. He foresaw the disappearance of the small North European "Standard" builder, and the survival of Mediterranean builders only through government subsidies. A lively debate ensued. IMIF would like to thank Per Nielsen for sparing his valuable time to participate in this lunch and Tsavliris Shipping for hosting it.


IMIF Delegation to Paris MOU on Port State Control - Thursday 15th April 1999
Secretariat Offices, Nieuwe Uitleg 1, The Hague

IMIF delegation
- Mr Jim Davis, Chairman, IMIF
- Mr Graham Edmiston, Chairman, Bilbrough & Co, Managers, London P&1 Club
Mr Nicholas Charalambous, Consul, Cyprus Consulate, Rotterdam
- Mr Peter Vroon, President, Vroon BV
- Ms Philippa Wright, Director, Foresight Group
- Mr Ian Bouskill, Secretary, IMIF

Paris MOU representatives
-Mr Richard Schiferli, Secretary, Paris MOU on PSC
-Michael Voogel

A full report is available and will be sent on request.
Subjects discussed included
Background to the Paris MOU on PSC PSC targetting system
PSC relationship to Class societies
quarterly, monthly & weekly detention lists proliferation of different surveys PSC Committee
Equasis
livestock transportation
relationship with other PSC regional agreements crewing standards
effect of detention on owner, charterer, financier, crew, port
qualifying factors for detention
relationship with IMIF

IMIF would like to thank Richard Schifferli and Michael Voogel for their assistance and cooperation in this exchange of views, and for the excellent lunch.


IMIF Shipping Bankers' Forum - Wednesday 26 May 1999

held at the offices of Sinclair, Roche and Temperley, Royex House, 5 Aldermanbury Square, London EC2

Mr J G Davis CBE chaired a meeting of Senior Representatives from 18 shipping banks who met under the neutral auspices of IMIF to discuss matters of weight to the maritime industries. As always with these meetings only shipping bankers attended and no minutes were taken to permit a frank exchange of views.

IMIF would like to thank Mr Struan Robertson, Senior Partner, Sinclair Roche and Temperley, for generously permitting the meeting to be held in the SR&T offices and for providing an excellent lunch.


IMIF buffet-luncheon Thursday 29th April 1999, hosted by David Southwood, Director, Heath Aviation Marine and Energy, 133 Houndsditch, London EC3. Speaker, Jeremy Hodgson, Head of Shipping, Midland Bank. Subject "The cycle of greed and fear".

present
Jeremy Hodgson - Speaker

David Southwood - Host
Jim Davis - Chairman, IMIF
Alan Brauner - Sinclair Roche & Temperley
Graham Barnes - Bankassure Insurance Services
Donald Chard - Chamber of Shipping
Gerald Cooper - Liberian Permanent Representative to the IMO
Peter Cowling - Wallem Limited
John Faraclas - Shipping International Monthly Review Tony Gray - Lloyd's List
John Guy - Merlin Corporate Communications
Jonathan Harold - Heath Aviation Marine & Energy
Robin Healey - Ince & Co
Bridget Hogan - Vanuatu Registries
Lesley Jones - Citibank NA
Malcolm Jupe - Drewry Shipping Consultants
Ravi Mehrotra - Foresight Group
Peter Measures - Clyde & Co
Peter Morgan - Clyde & Co
Ian Bouskill - Secretary, IMIF

This was Jeremy Hodgson's penultimate appearance at an IMIF function (he also attended the IMIF Shipping Bankers' Forum in May). Jeremy opened his presentation by acknowledging that IMIF had tried to bring some sense into this situation. The banks had played a strong role in what went wrong and could play a strong role in curing it. He asked "Is there life after junk bonds?" He said it was astonishing just how fast they had come and now were gone. Midland Bank had not participated in them, they had seen the pitfalls. Initially they were seen as the first innovation in ship finance since the mortgage. The first new deal was very exciting but now it had all gone horribly wrong. "Maybe the doomsayers were right and we shall have to go back to where we were" he said "however I think highyield will come back. It will take a long time - and will need strong balances and liquidity". He went on to analyse the different types of shipowners and their differing access to funds, from the blue chip owners who had access to the public market, through to the other end of the scale with access to high-quality or low grade credits. He went on to analyse the ship finance market, identifying the major long term players, some of whom had lost money but would nevertheless remain in the market along with the two larger and newer American entrants now active and here to stay. The European finance houses, he felt, would stay in the market, even if they were like turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas - "there are no other jobs for them to go to". In between there was a whole swathe of investment banks and mortgage institutions. Jeremy thought a much more scientific and sophisticated return would be required by the lenders. "My feeling is that business will concentrate, although there might be an unwillingness to provide personal guarantees - all part of the cycle of greed and fear. Only solid companies will survive and that is healthy. We should look on the bright side. Scrapping is a way forward, with Jim and IMIF leading the charge". A lively debate followed! IMIF would like to thank both host and speaker for their generous co-operation.


IMIF buffet-luncheon,'Wednesday 16th June 1999 hosted by Mr Paul Powell, Moore Stephens, Training Centre, 1 Snow Hill, London EC1, speaker, Captain John Dalby, Marine Risk Management SA, subject "Adventurous loans without tears - Safety-nets in Shipping Investment"

present
Jim Davis - Chairman, IMIF
Paul Powell - Moore Stephens, host
John Dalby - Marine Risk Management SA, speaker

Andreas Chrysostomou - Maritime Section, Cyprus High Commission
Gerald Cooper - Liberian Permanent Rep. to the IMO
Peter Cowling - Wallem Ltd
Anthony Cunningham - Moore Stephens
Mike Dance - Hewett & Co
Katrina Davis - B.Sc. student, Maritime Studies, University of Wales, Cardiff
Adam Dupre - MRC Business Information Group Ltd
John Faraclas - Shipping Intl Monthly Review
Julie Gartside-Dalby - Marine Risk Management SA
Richard Greiner - Moore Stephens
Alistair Groom - The Standard Steamship Owners' P&I Assoc. Ltd
Jim Grubbs - Citibank NA
Rex Harrington - The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Bridget Hogan - Vanuatu Registries
Simon Leatham - Tufton Oceanic Ltd
Jim Myles - Bank of Scotland
Otto Norland - Deutsche Schiffsbank AG
Jean Richards - Fairwind Shipping Ltd
Benoni Urey - Commissioner of Maritime Affairs, Republic of Liberia
Ian Waterstone - Bankassure Insurance Services Ltd
Nick Yannakoudakis - Clyde & Co
Ian Bouskill - Secretary, IMIF

"Now is the time for shipping investors to look more closely at 'adventurous' shipping loans. At a time when interest rates are low, shipping can provide high rates of returns to brave and well-prepared investors" said IMIF member Captain John Dalby of Swiss based Marine Risk Management SA. "With new bond issues at a standstill following recent high-profile defaults, and a fall in the number of banks actively engaged in lending on ships, some borrowers with sound shipping business ideas are finding raising money difficult. We believe there are unfinanced good deals out there, that an adventurous, wide-awake lender could service and do very nicely from. However" he added "we realise that there are suspect types looking to borrow money for investment in shipping, and lending decisions have to be monitored when being taken, and afterwards while the loan is running. Investors need to be sure that the ships they finance are safe and properly run." Captain Dalby went on to provide an analysis of the various monitoring and recovery services that MRM SA offers through a combination of intelligence gathering and satellite tracking. His audience, all well-experienced and knowledgeable people in their individual disciplines, questioned him in considerable detail on all aspects of the presentation as it effected their areas of the market, which then led to a broader discussion on ship surveys and their findings. It was agreed that ISM had yet to take proper effect and that standards are not sufficiently improving. IMIF would like to thank our host, Moore Stephens, and Captain Dalby for a most successful, informative luncheon


S C R A P P I N G

by J G Davis


 

There has been more than usual debate recently on the topic of Scrapping ... a pet subject of IMIF. A climax was reached at a specific Scrapping Conference held in Amsterdam on 23 June, at which I spoke.

A new slant on this occasion was concern over the ecological, humanitarian dangers of Scrapping which was vigorously voiced by the representative from Greenpeace. So far as could be gleaned from his discourse he was recommending

a)      that the Third World Countries presently doing the majority of Scrapping were subjecting their workers to unacceptable health risks and that therefore the industry should be halted, or

b)      that before ships were presented for dismantling all toxic substances of whatever kind (e.g. asbestos) should have been removed.

Just where this removal would take place was not clear (at least to me) nor how the ship would make its way to the scrapping area with much of its power plant no longer operable.

One proposal which broke new ground was put forward by Rolf Westfal-Larsen, the new Chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping and President of the International Shipping Federation, that Ship Scrapping should henceforward be entitled 'Ship Recycling' which has a more ecologically-friendly ring to it. Also proposed among a welter of not very practical suggestions was the idea that shipbuilders should at the time of construction/delivery undertake to buy back the ship or arrange for its ecologically pure demolition. (A new slant to Scrap and Build and one that has some precedents in the motor car industry). The idea was that the money required could be funded from an addition to the building price. Yet another idea was that Shipowners should pay, rather than receive money, for the destruction of their old tonnage. Once again I was somewhat at a loss to understand the practicality of this last suggestion which was greeted with a mixture of incomprehension and dismay by the shipowners present.

The debate was nevertheless useful in once again highlighting the necessity for increased "ship recycling" with a move towards ideas long advocated by IMIF.

My particular extra contribution in addition to once again pushing for some form of "Scrap and Build" incentive was that more research should be done into the practicality of a more high-tech method for the industry employing more Robotics. It is conceded that ship demolition can never be a high reward industry but it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise both a more financially beneficial and ecologically friendly system than exists today.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0~0-0-0-

Subsequent to writing the above there has been the encouraging report of Norske Veritas' proposed delegation to India and Bangladesh in an on-site assessment of the date of the Region's ship scrapping yards. This, at the instigation reportedly of IMO, is very good news and precisely supports my own thoughts as written above. We, as IMIF, have confirmed our support to DNV.

Another interesting paper has been sent to me by a Dutch Government Official I met at the Scrapping Conference relating to a most ingenious car scrapping scheme in Holland. The feature of this excellent scheme is that the State has taken an interest in "cleaning" the old cars and ensuring their demolition in an environmentally friendly fashion. The scheme also assists in the marketing or destruction (as the case may be) of the various components of the demolished vehicle. A most important feature was the establishment in 1994 of a voluntary agreement (covenant) whereby importers and dealers of every new vehicle pay a contribution to ARN (Automobile Recycling Netherland) of DFL 250 (something like 1 % of the average new car price). The Fund, administered by ARN is spent on subsidising the non-economic dismantling of useless parts. [If this were applied to ships it really would be a subsidy a) towards the whole operation, and b) towards encouraging more sophisticated e.g. robotic methods to the whole operation]. I am assessing the practicability of this and its possible application to our own maritime problem, but the attitude of the Dutch Government and of the industry generally appears to be something we must admire and could learn from.

 

London in September 1999

James G Davis


SOME IMIF AUTUMN DATES FOR YOUR DIARY

Thursday 14th October 1999

IMIF buffet-luncheon
to be hosted by David Southwood, Director, Heath Aviation Marine & Energy, 133 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7AH - 12.30/14.30 hrs

speaker - Lloyd's underwriter Simon Beale, talking on "The current marine insurance market".

A topic of more than passing interest today. As you will know there are significant changes being proposed in this area.

Friday 12th November 1999

IMIF buffet-luncheon
to be hosted by
Gordon Hall, Partner, Norton Rose, Kempson House, Camomile Street, London EC3A 7AN - 12.30/14.30 hrs

speaker - Maurice Storey, Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency will talk on the integration of the former "Marine Safety Agency" and the "Coastguards" into the present MCA.

In a recent article on the revival of UK shipping Maurice Storey was referred to as the "unsung hero" who was beavering away to shake up the UK register through the MCA which controls it "It is because Storey has been banging bureaucratic heads together that Lord Sterling is able to commit himself to bring back to the Red Ensign the current world's biggest cruise ship, Grand Princess. "

Please contact Ian Bouskill, Secretary, IMIF on tel 020 7929 6429 or fax 020 7929 6430 to reserve a place at the buffet luncheons.

Wednesday 3rd November 1999

IMIF ANNUAL DINNER
The Chairman and Members of the Steering Committee invite you to attend the Annual Dinner, to be held at the Four Seasons Hotel, Hamilton Place, Park Lane, London - in the Ballroom - 7.00 for 7.30 pm.

You should by now have received your invitation. Please reply to Mrs Lisbeth Ehlers on tel 020 7929 6429 or fax 020 7929 6430.


IMIF NEWSLETTER - SEPTEMBER 1999 - APPENDIX 1


 
The Quality Debate (2)
the IACS response

Chris Spencer makes some interesting points in his thoughts to IMIF but it is felt that he is being overly pessimistic in some respects and unfair in others. In any case "the thoughts" need a reply.

The ISM Code

The ISM Code only came into force on 1 July 1998 which is, after all, only eight months ago. The Code was a revolution in seeking to change a widespread culture of compliance back to one of cooperation and safety. Let us not forget that only bulk carriers, tankers (of various types), passenger ships and high speed craft are involved and our best estimate of the numbers is about 13,000 ships - nowhere near the 68,000 ships mentioned by Chris even if you take in another 13,000 general cargo and other ships in Phase 2. So, let us set the scale right.

Assessing Success

Has the Code been a success or a complete failure ? Well, an indication of the short term answer can be gained by looking at the websites of the three main Port State Control regimes viz Paris and Tokyo MOU's and the USCG. Also, both the MOU's carried out three month intensive campaigns in the second half of 1998 to ascertain compliance and the results were surprisingly good. Is there evidence to suggest a failure? We don't know.

Have the certifying bodies (the classification Societies) failed to withhold certificates from substandard ships? Actually, the process is audit followed by issuance by classification societies acting as authorised agents for the Flag Administrations. Don't forget that many Administrations have either issued their own ISM documents or employed non-IACS organisations to do so. Also, the ISM Code auditor only goes onboard each ship every two and a half years, as mandated by SOLAS, and an awful lot can happen in that period.

We are talking about a Safety Management System and IACS Members have verification procedures in place and will not issue such documents without being satisfied about compliance. Why? Because increasingly IACS Members are in the spotlight of transparency from PSC detention/deficiency lists. And the consequences of poor performance are now severe. For example, the European Commission "recognises" classification societies (or otherwise) and assesses their performance on an annual basis using PSC statistics. If an IACS Member, who are all so recognised, fails to perform through these statistics they can be de-recognised with severe commercial consequences.

Class and Surveys

Surveying ships has been classification business for 200 years. Few ships in service are ever perfect and surveyors must make a professional judgement as to when an imperfect condition becomes a substandard condition. Surveying is our business and we are good at it. Chris is suggesting that the system perpetuates inspections without enforcement. Take a look if you wish at our disclassing figures running at about 2500 ships per year. Admittedly not all these are punitive disclassing but about 90 ships a month are. Look at our suspensions of class - an automatic, no discretion matter since 1995 - and you will see there are at any one time about 500 ships which are in this state. Again, not all are punitive suspensions but nearly 150 ships a month fall into this category. This is enforcement. Who says standards are not improving? The PSC regimes are showing a different story and the casualty reports also show a downward trend.

Standards

Chris considers that any improvement has been caused by market forces. How can that be established? How can you tell whether a ship has improved due to owners' attitude, Captain's approach, classification insistence, P&I pressure or whatever ? This is a time wasting debate. But, watch out for a decline if it is only market pressure. What happens if the market is as dire as it is at the moment? That is why the IACS Council publicly stated last December that "top management (of IACS) ... will instruct their surveyors not to relax standards or be persuaded to acquiesce to special pleading". Will the P&I clubs, who Chris identifies as applying the commercial pressures, actually continue to do so rigorously when their owner members start really hurting? The vetting programmes of the oil and chemical companies are to be applauded as a supplement to the role of class which is to assess and ensure the structure and strength of the ship and its essential engineering systems for its intended purpose - and not necessarily its "cargoworthiness".

Time to rethink?

"It is surely time to sit down and rethink ship surveys for the next millennium on the basis of a regular, thorough, logical inspection regime that carries internationally accepted standards and an enforcement programme that generates the necggaary confidence at all levels."

Chris' words. The underlined is what class does and has been doing for decades. He may think that the system class operates is not good enough but the IACS members with 6,000 front line surveyors, 4,000 technical backup staff and 1,500 offices worldwide represent a huge resource which would be hard to replace given the 46,000 ships classed by these Societies.

No system is perfect. We are all seeking continuous improvement but do recognise that despite the crumbling of the old order of ownership, the huge growth in number (and size) of ships and tonnage carried, despite the continuing ageing of the fleet and the disregard by many Flag Administrations of their obligations and the move from cooperation to compliance attitudes, the system does actually work - and class plays a major part in the chain of maritime safety that causes it to do so.

 

 

James Bell

February 1999