You are on page 1of 43

Safe and Eco-friendly Shipping

Debabrata Bandyopadhyay Extra First Class Marine Engineer


Faculty, Marine Engineering and research Institute Kolkata

ABSTRACT

Maritime safety is one of the prime concerns in maritime states all over the world.
Various ship casualties have been studied at length to ascertain causes thereof, which
finally brought about either amendment to existing safety Regulations or adopt some
other modified Instrument in shipping. Harmonization of surveys and certificates
covering major international shipping Regulations entered into force which ships are
required to comply. Environmental pollution issue is one major key factor in todays
global technology scenario. Shipping is also of no exception. Recent Marpol annex
developments are also outlined in this paper.
HARMONIZATION OF SURVEYS AND CERTIFICATES
Shipping Industry is facing challenges to meet demands of legislation imposed globally.
Regulations obviously are required to be implemented, amended time to time for
maintenance and safety in shipping and its surrounded environment. Administrators,
managers, operators, charterers, shippers- all concerned in this industry are required to
abide by such regulations as and when applicable.
Harmonized system of ship survey and certification enters into force on 3 February
2000. A harmonized system of survey and certification covering international shipping
regulations adopted by the International Maritime Organization enters into force on 3
February 2000.
The system covers survey and certification requirements of the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, the International Convention on Load Lines
(LL) 1966 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), as well as
the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code) and Code for the Construction and
Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code).
All these instruments require the issuing of certificates to show that requirements have
been met and this has to be done by means of a survey, which can involve the ship
being out of service for several days. The harmonized system will alleviate the problems
caused by survey dates and intervals between surveys which do not coincide, so that a
ship should no longer have to go into port or repair yard for a survey required by one
convention shortly after doing the same thing in connection with another instrument.

Harmonized system adopted in 1988


The international requirements introducing the harmonized system of survey and
certification for the SOLAS and Load Lines Conventions were adopted by IMO at an
International Conference held in 1988 - which itself had its origins in the 1978
Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention which recognized the difficulties
caused by the survey and certification requirements of SOLAS, the Load Lines
Convention and MARPOL 73/78. The 1978 Conference called upon IMO to develop a
harmonized system, which would enable the surveys to be carried out at the same time.
The 1988 HSSC Conference adopted Protocols to the SOLAS and Load Lines
Conventions to introduce the harmonized system. Both Protocols required explicit
acceptance by a specified number of States - 15 States with a combined merchant
shipping fleet of not less than 50 percent of world merchant shipping tonnage - for the
system to enter into force.
The conditions for entry into force of the 1988 SOLAS and Load Lines Protocols were
met on 2 February 1999, when Bahamas deposited instruments of accession to both
instruments with IMO. Malta also recently acceded to the 1988 Protocols. The 1988
Load Lines Protocol has 36 States Parties with 58.58 percent of world merchant
shipping tonnage. The 1988 SOLAS Protocol has 36 States Parties with 58.10 percent
of world merchant shipping tonnage.
In terms of MARPOL 73/78, the Convention allowed for amendments to the certification
and survey requirements to be accepted by a procedure known as "tacit acceptance",
meaning amendments enter into force on a specified date unless sufficient objections
are received. As a result, MARPOL 73/78 was amended on 16 March 1990 to introduce
the harmonized system of survey and certification, with the provision that the
amendments enter into force at the same time as the entry into force date of the 1988
SOLAS Protocol and the 1988 Load Lines Protocol.
The harmonized system
In practice, many Administrations and Classification societies already operate a form of
harmonized survey and certification. Moreover, a resolution adopted by the IMO
Assembly in 1991, and amended in 1993 allowed for Governments which had ratified
the 1988 SOLAS and Load Lines Protocols to implement the harmonized system ahead
of the entry into force date of the protocols.
The harmonized system provides for:

a one-year standard interval between surveys, based on initial, annual,


intermediate, periodical and renewal surveys as appropriate

a scheme for providing the necessary flexibility for the execution of each
survey with the provision that the renewal survey may be completed within
three months before the expiry date of the existing certificate with no loss
of its period of validity

a maximum period of validity of five years for all certificates for cargo ships

a maximum period of validity of 12 months for the Passenger Ship Safety


Certificate

a system for the extension of certificates limited to three months to enable


a ship to complete its voyage (or one month for ships engaged on short
voyages)

when an extension has been granted, the period of validity of the new
certificate is to start from the expiry date of the existing certificate before
its extension.

The main changes to the SOLAS and Load Lines Conventions are that annual
inspections have been made mandatory for cargo ships and unscheduled inspections
have been discontinued. Other changes refer to survey intervals and requirements.
In November 1999, IMO's 21st Assembly adopted resolution A.883 (21) Global and
uniform implementation of the harmonized system of survey and certification
(HSSC), which is aimed at encouraging all States to implement the harmonized system
of survey and certification (HSSC), even if they are not parties to the relevant Protocols,
which enter into force on 3 February 2000.
1 Types of ship survey
Initial survey - A complete inspection of all the items relating to the particular certificate
before the ship is put into service to ensure that they are in a satisfactory condition and
fit for the service for which the ship is intended.
Periodical survey - Inspection of the items relating to the particular certificate to ensure
that they are in a satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which the ship is
intended.
Renewal survey - As per periodical survey but leads to the issue of a new certificate.
Intermediate survey - Inspection of specified items, almost similar to a special survey.
Annual survey - General inspection of the items relating to the particular certificate to
ensure that they have been maintained and remain satisfactory for the service for which
the ship is intended. This survey normally requires an endorsement to original
certificate, and turns out to be stringent in ESP.
Additional survey - Inspection, either general or partial according to the
circumstances, to be made after a repair resulting from casualty investigations or
whenever any important repairs or renewals are made.
2 List of certificates required on board ship relating to harmonized system of
survey and certification (some depend on type of ship)
Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, including Record of Equipment
Passenger ship Exemption certificate
Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate
Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate, including Record of Equipment
Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate, including Record of Equipment/GMDSS
International Load Lines Certificate
International Load Lines Exemption Certificate
International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate
International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid
Substances in Bulk

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in


Bulk
International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk

SINGLE HULL TANKER PHASING OUT


In the draft revision of Marpol regulation 13G, the MEPC working group identified three
categories of tankers, like Category 1 oil tanker means oil tankers 20000 tons
deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as
cargo and 30000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do not comply
with SBT/PL (commonly known as pre-marpol tankers). Category 2 oil tanker means
20000 tons deadweight and above carrying crude, fuel, heavy, diesel or lubricating oil
and 30000 tons deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do comply with
SBT/PL (commonly known as Marpol tankers). Category 3 oil tanker means an oil
tanker of 5000 tons deadweight and above but less than the tonnage specified in
category 1 and 2. With the schemes worked out the phasing out and replacing with
double hull seems to be continuing till another fifteen years, of course depending on
year of delivery and dates of keel laid. However Category 1 will definitely be scraped by
2007. Category 2 should only be permitted to sail beyond 2010, provided the carrier
passes CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCHEME (CAS). These elements can be
categorized in three sections- checks on documentation recording past performance
and possible improvements in survey and inspection practice. It was specifically
stressed that introduction of CAS should not undermine ESP as per resolution A.744
(18) and that the scheme would assume that the vessels should pass their ESP.
HIGH DENSITY PERSISTENT GROUP OF OIL
In a related development, the MEPC agreed to hold research and development Forum
in March 2002, which will focus primarily on response to spills of high-density oil. France
will host the Forum which will be the third R & D Forum sponsored by IMO. High density
fuel oil, such as that carried by M.T Erika, are among the most difficult and most costly
to deal with when spilled because of their highly persistent nature and the damage they
cause to the marine environment. The requirement at the onset is targeted for the
carrier to be of double hull construction.
OTHER MARPOL ISSUES STARTING FROM LATEST
VIII Anti-fouling Systems- The MEPC approved in principle the draft Convention on
the control of harmful anti-fouling systems. A number of issues remain open for
discussion, such as entry into force criteria, before the planned Conference to adopt the
convention in late 2001.
VII Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water-The MEPC working group further
developed new regulation for ballast water management to prevent transfer of harmful
aquatic organisms in ballast water.

VI Prevention of air pollution from ships- The MEPC considered an IMOCommissioned study into greenhouse gas emissions from ships and the study is in
progress.
ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM
In November 1999, IMO adopted the issue, and developing instrument legally binding
throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on
ships hull. The resolution calls for global prohibition on the application of organotin
compounds such as TBT, which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems used on ships
by 1st January 2003. A complete prohibition on the presence of organotin compounds
which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems by 1st January 2008. The coatings industry
has spent more than a decade trying to find effective coatings, which have dominated
the market since mid-1970s. Many attempts have been made to find effective new ways
to prevent the fouling of ships bottom- chemical; physical, electrolyte and ultrasonic
systems have all been tested. Tin-based antifouling coatings have proven an effective
and economical means of protecting underwater hulls, but tin has been discovered to
have harmful effects on marine life in coastal areas. It not only keeps algae and
barnacles from attaching to the bottom of ships, but also impacts on other marine
organisms. Tin-free products have been on the market for more than a decade, but
have not had the desired impact because they simply do not last long enough. So
shipping companies have largely continued to use tin-based products. Secondgeneration tin-free coatings have a life of more than three years, but even this has not
been sufficient to wean the international shipping world off tin. Third-generation
antifouling coatings have been introduced lately, a painting system that is certain to
last the required five-year interval between drydockings, and therefore compete with tinbased products.
Jotun Paints in conjunction with Japanese chemicals group Nippon Oil and Fats
developed SeaQuantum, a tin-free solution suitable for any application. The new tinfree antifouling coating is more expensive than TBT systems; prices depend on the type
of coatings, but can be three to four times higher per liter. However prices are not to
prove a serious barrier to a switch over to tin-free products. Not only can the cost of a
coating never be based on price per liter alone; coatings can account for a relatively
small share of overall cost of a five-year drydocking. Furthermore, the Paint Company
can offer tests demonstrating that the system brings savings in fuel costs relative to
other tin-free technology available today- fuel consumption was reduced by 15%
after two years in a full-scale test. SeaQuantum can cut fuel cost in this way because
the bottom of the ship becomes increasingly smooth as coating wears, thereby reducing
friction as the ship glides through the water. The active antifouling ingredient in the
coating is a copper compound. Added benefits include lower emissions of greenhouse
gases and a decrease in the strain put on to vessels propulsion machinery.
HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER
The introduction of invasive marine species into new environments of ships' ballast
water attached to hull and via other vectors has been identified as one of the four
greatest threats to world oceans. The other three are land-based sources of marine
pollution, over-exploitation of living marine resources and physical alteration/destruction

of marine habitat. Ballast water is absolutely essential to the safe and efficient operation
of modern shipping, providing balance and stability to un-laden ships. However,
discharge of ballast water may pose a serious ecological, economical and health threat.
There are thousands of marine species that may be carried in ships' ballast water,
basically anything that is small enough to pass through a ships' ballast water intake
ports and pumps. This includes bacteria and other microbes, small invertebrates and
the eggs, cysts and larvae of various species. The problem is compounded by the fact
that virtually all marine species have life cycles that include a plankton stage or stages.
Even species, in which the adults are unlikely to be taken on in ballast water, for
example because they are too large or live attached to seabed, may be transferred in
ballast during their plankton phase. Over the past millennia, marine species have
dispersed throughout the oceans by natural means, carried on currents and attached to
floating logs and debris. Natural barriers such as temperature and landmasses have
prevented many species from dispersing into certain areas. This has resulted in the
natural patterns of bio-geography observed in the oceans today. In particular the panglobal tropical zone has separated the northern and southern temperate and cold water
zones. This has allowed many species to evolve quite independently in these latter
zones, resulting in quite different bio-diversity between the north and the south. In
tropical area species have not faced the same barriers. This is exemplified by the
relatively homogenous marine bio-diversity spanning the huge area of the indo-pacific,
from the East Coast of Africa to the West Coast of South America.
Humans have of-course aided this process for as long as they have sailed, mainly by
dispersing marine species that have attached to the hulls of vessels. The
commencement of the use water as ballast, and the development of larger, faster ships
completing their voyages in ever shorter times, combined with rapidly increasing world
trade, means that the natural barriers to the dispersal of species across the oceans are
being reduced. In particular, ships provide a way for temperate marine species to pierce
the tropical zones, and some of the most spectacular introductions have involved
northern temperate species invading southern temperate waters, and vice versa.
It is estimated that at any one time, over 3000 different species are being carried in
ships ballast tanks around the world. The vast majority of marine species carried in
ballast water do not survive the journey, as the ballasting and deballasting cycle and the
environment inside ballast tanks can be quite hostile to organism survival. Even for
those that do survive a voyage and are discharged, the chances of surviving in the new
environmental conditions, including predation by and/or competition from native
species, are further reduced. However, when all factors are favourable, an introduced
species by surviving establish a reproductive population in the host environment. It may
even become invasive, out-competing native species and multiplying into pest
proportions.
As a result, whole ecosystems are being changed. In the USA, the European Zebra
Mussel Dreissena polymorpha has infested over 40% of internal waterways and may
have required over US$5 billion in expenditure on control measures since 1989. In
southern Australia, the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida is invading new areas rapidly,
displacing the native seabed communities. In the Black Sea, the filter-feeding North

American jellyfish Mnemiopsis leidyi has on occasion reached densities of 1kg of


biomass per m2. It has depleted native plankton stocks to such an extent that it has
contributed to the collapse of entire Black Sea commercial fisheries. In several
countries, filter-feeding shellfish, such as oysters has absorbed introduced microscopic,
red-tide algae (toxic dinoflagellates). When eaten by humans, these contaminated
shellfish can cause paralysis and even death. The list goes on, hundreds of examples of
major ecological, economic and human health impacts across the globe. It is even
feared that diseases such as cholera might be able to be transported in ballast water.
There are hundreds of other examples of catastrophic introductions around the world,
causing severe human health, economic and/or ecological impacts in their host
environments.
Invasive marine species are one of the four greatest threats to the worlds oceans!
Unlike other forms of marine pollution, such as oil spills, where ameliorative action can
be taken and from which the environment will eventually recover. The impacts of
invasive marine species are most often irreversible.
An MEPC Working Group further developed draft new regulations for ballast water
management to prevent the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, often termed as
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) in ballast water. It is planned to hold a diplomatic
conference during 2002 or 2003 to adopt the new measures. The objective is to put
under control, the growth of ANS in worldwide oceans. The ANS may displace native
species, degrade native habitats, spread disease and disrupt human social and
economic activities that depend on water resources. US coast guard has already
adopted comprehensive National ballast water management program as follows:
(1)
Ballast water management scheme for operators of all vessels in waters of USA
(2)
Providing voluntary ballast water management guidelines for all vessels entering
US waters from outside of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
(3)
Requires the reporting of ballast water management data by all vessels entering
US waters from outside of EEZ
USCG developed scheme for all vessels that carry ballast water into US territory after
operating beyond EEZ as stated below:
(1)
Exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ, from an area more than 200 nautical
miles from any shore, and in water more than 2000 meters depth
(2)
Retain the ballast water on board the vessel
(3)
Use an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water management
that has been approved in advance by USCG
(4)
Discharge ballast water to an approved reception facility, or exchange ballast
water in other waters approved and declared by USCG.
The proposed instrument is a new international convention "for the control and
management of ships' ballast water and sediments." It is estimated that about 10 billion
tons of ballast water are transferred globally each year, potentially transferring from one
location to another species of sea-life that may prove ecologically harmful when
released into a non-native environment.
The proposed new instrument is being developed on the basis of a two-tier approach.
Tier 1 includes requirements that would apply to all ships, including mandatory
requirements for a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan, a Ballast Water
Record Book and a requirement that new ships shall carry out ballast water and

sediment management procedures to a given standard or range of standards. Existing


ships would be required to carry out ballast water management procedures after a
phase-in period, but these procedures may differ from those to be applied to new ships.
Tier 2 includes special requirements which may apply in certain areas and would
include procedures and criteria for the designation of such areas in which additional
controls may be applied to the discharge and/or uptake of ballast water. The text for Tier
2 remains to be developed.
The working group confirmed that ballast exchange on the high seas is the only widely
used technique currently available to prevent the spread of unwanted aquatic organisms
in ballast water and its use should continue to be accepted. However, it was stressed
that this technique has a number of limitations. Because it is of variable efficiency in
removing organisms, the percentage removed depends on the type of organism. The
discharged water quality depends on the original quality of the water taken up. It also
has geographical limits. Existing ships may be subjected to operational constraints, but
it was recognized that new ships may be designed to accommodate ballast exchange in
a much wider range of circumstances.
Worldwide management has promulgated mandatory requirements and voluntary
guidelines are as follows:
(1)
Perform open ocean ballast exchange when safety permits,
(2)
Keep records of ballasting operations,
(3)
Reduce invasions via hull and anchor fouling,
(4)
Minimize ballasting in ports and coastal zones,
(5)
Avoid ballast uptake at night,
(6)
Avoid ballast uptake in Hot Spots. Hot spots are water bodies that are
particularly infested with non-native species, that have pathogens such as
toxic algae blooms or red tides, that are contaminated by sewage outfalls,
or that carry waterborne disease such as cholera. Scientists and Managers
are working to identify global hot spots. Ballast water uptake from hot
spots has a greater potential of spreading harmful organisms,
(7)
Avoid ballast water uptake where propellers may stir up the sediment at the
bottom.
The working group concluded that development of alternative treatment technologies
might produce techniques that were substantially more reliable and that ballast water
exchange is an interim solution.
SPECIAL AND PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREAS
The MEPC reviewed new draft guidelines for the designation of Special Areas under
MARPOL 73/78 and new draft guidelines for the identification of Particularly Sensitive
Sea Areas (PSSAs) and agreed additional material will be drafted soon. This additional
material would include a flow-chart to assist Member States in deciding the most
appropriate measures in providing protection to sensitive sea areas.
In Annexes I, II and V, MARPOL 73/78 defines certain sea areas as "special areas" in
which, for technical reasons relating to their oceanographical and ecological condition
and to their sea traffic, the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of
sea pollution is required. Under the Convention, these special areas are provided with a
higher level of protection than other areas of the sea. A PSSA is an area that needs

special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognized
ecological or socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to
damage by international maritime activities. The criteria for the identification of
particularly sensitive sea areas and the criteria for the designation of special areas are
not mutually exclusive. In many cases a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area may be
identified within a Special Area and vice versa.
PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS
A study was conducted by IMO regarding greenhouse gas emissions from ships and a
document was due to be developed outlining IMO policy on the issue. This study
resulted in formation of annex VI of MAROL on regulations for the prevention of air
pollution from ships. The impact of NOx emissions from ships continues to be main
policy driver. There are no accurate assessments of the contribution of shipping to
global NOx emissions. However studies show that shipping is a small contributor to
world CO2 emissions, and accounting to almost 1.8% of worldwide emissions. The
study notes that there is potential for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships
through technical and operational measures. At the same time, shipping has been
confirmed to be a significant contributor in the development of environmentally
sustainable transport. Sustainability and sustainable development is an intergenerational concept, seeking equity over time, and minimization of disparities between
generations. Sustainable development cautions that there are limits to such growths
due to pollution of environment, which is one of the major drawbacks to cross over in
developed countries. Since use of low sulphur fuel is essential if sulphur oxide reduction
is to surpass the annex VI standard, the entire question of prime mover fuel is open to
discussion. One suggested fuel is Methanol (CH 3OH). In 1994 Mitsubishi in Japan
reported its trial on a research diesel engine adapted to burn pure Methanol with no loss
in thermal efficiency. The company foresaw future demand for this fuel as a
replacement for more costly low sulphur oil, and has proposed an engine installation for
a VLCC, which would take aboard sufficient fuel for each round voyage at one of the
many LNG plants in Persian Gulf. The 1997 protocols MARPOL annex VI is virtually
applicable to all ships, fixed and floating platforms and drill rigs. It is scheduled to enter
in force shortly. Once ratified and in force all ships 400 GRT and above operating
internationally must have documentary evidence by possessing IAPP certificate. In
addition the 1997 IMO conference also adopted provisions allowing for special So x
emission control area in Baltic and North Sea. In these areas fuel used must have
sulphur content 1.5-% m/m, alternatively ships must have exhaust cleaning system or
desulphurisation equipment to reduce SOx emissions below 6 g/kWh. Fuel-efficient low
speed engines tend to have higher NOx emission than do smaller high-speed engines.
Under new Regulations emission levels permitted may vary from 17 g/kWh at a rated
speed of less than 130 RPM to 9.8 g/kWh at a rated speed of 2000 RPM and above.
CONCLUSION
Worldwide shipping over last few decades suffered too many casualties, which include
loss of lives and property, also contributed towards environmental pollution. Series of
legislative measures have been taken up. However, the most important aspect realized
in restoring safety and seaworthiness of ships is correct motivation of ship operators

and Managers. The role of human element therefore has been considered and taken
up by IMO in Formal Safety Assessment. In a draft Circular MSC and MEPC jointly
formulated a practical tool HEAP (Human Element Analyzing Process) designed to
address human element for motivation.
When motivated and willing people in shipping use recent Regulations in practice, it is
expected to have substantial gain in shipping industry, failing which the new codes and
safety Regulations will remain in the files as few more certificates and paperstock that
have somehow been managed.
About the Author
After due completion of apprenticeship and qualifying for pre-sea examination served in
foreign going ships with m/s Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. After passing
examination of Extra First Class Marine Engineers Certificate of competency served as
Engineer and Ship Surveyor with MMD Madras, thereafter served with IRS Bombay as
Engineer Surveyor. Served as Technical Manager with m/s India Steamship Company
Calcutta. By virtue of qualification and experience attached to The Engineering Council
U.K as Chartered Engineer. Presently engaged in teaching assignment as Engineer
officer with M.E.R.I Kolkata. Attended most of the Seminars organized by IE (India)
including Science Congress, contributed and presented technical papers.

Eco Management In Ships


Debabrata Bandyopadhyay
Extra First Class Marine Engineer
Corporate Member IE (India)

ABSTRACT
Environmental protection and Safety are the prime concerns in maritime nations globally.
Various ship casualties have been studied at length to ascertain causes and to assess
damages caused to environment thereof. This resulted in extensive researches, which
brought about either amendment to existing Regulations or adoption of other modified
Instrument in shipping. Apart from modern ship constructional codes, EHS, CAS etc
ballast water management, greenhouse gas emission from ships, ship recycling are
among a host of environmental issues that will stir maritime sector. It is expected that
ships will carry Green Passport in near future.
CASUALTIES
Very recently in last two years, catastrophe that occurred to large oil tankers in high seas
has caused a great concern in maritime regime. In the beginning of last year, fully laden
31,068 DWT oil tanker Castor developed a structural problem in the Mediterranean Sea
en route from Constanza to Lagos in Nigeria. The ship suffered damage to underwater
hull resulting in a 24m crack running from port to starboard halfway along her length.
Following this incident, the classification ABS withdrew the ships Class. The ship was
deemed to present a serious risk of explosion and rupture of the hull and the authorities
of Morocco and Gibraltar prohibited her entry into waters or ports under their jurisdiction.
Castor then sailed towards the vicinity of the southeastern coast of Spain, accompanied
by a sea tug Nicolay Chiker, with which the tankers owner had agreed to affect
transshipment of cargo under a commercial salvage contract. The Spanish Maritime
authority requested the ship to keep at a distance from Spanish coast. A report, issued
following the inspection of the ship by Spanish Authorities, described the situation as
one of the extreme seriousness due to high risk of explosion, and recommended that the
ship should not enter any port and should keep a distance from the coast to minimize the
consequences of possible catastrophe. Bringing the ship close to Spanish coast for
unloading, either by transshipment to another ship or by discharge to land installations
was rejected as presenting a higher risk for the local population, coastal properties and
the environment than that on the high seas. Spain stationed a helicopter, two salvage
vessels, a maritime rescue rapid intervention craft as well as a Spanish Navy patrol boat
in the area.
After units of the Spanish maritime rescue service had evacuated the 26 crew members
Ship owners, salvage operators and other interested parties were informed that
appropriate measures should be adopted to ensure that the ship withdrew from her
current position and remained at a distance of at least 30 nautical miles from Spanish
coast, in the light of the unacceptable risk posed to Spanish coastal interests.
Eventually, after being similarly unable to find shelter off Algeria, the damaged ship was
towed to a relatively sheltered spot off the coast of Tunisia where her cargo was safely
unloaded.

Draft Assembly resolution at the 48th session in July 2002 proposed guidelines- when a
ship has suffered accident, the best way of preventing damage or pollution from her
progressive deterioration is to transfer the cargo and bunkers, and to repair the casualty.
Such an operation is best carried out in a place of refuge. However, to bring such ship
into a place of refuge near a coast may endanger the coastal state, both economically
and from environmental point of view, and the local authorities and population may
strongly object to the operation. Therefore, granting access to a place of refuge could
involve a political decision which can only be taken on a case-by-case basis with
consideration of the balance between the advantage for the affected ship and
environment resulting from that ship being near the coast. The purpose of the guidelines
is to provide shipmasters, ship owners (particularly in the context of ISM code), salvors
and member Governments with a framework enabling them to respond effectively and in
such a way that, in any given situation, the efforts of the master and owner of the ship,
and the efforts of the government authorities are complementary. In particular, an
attempt has been made to arrive at a common framework for assessing the situation of
ships in need of assistance.
On 6th October 2002, French tanker Limburg suffered serious damage off the coast of
Yemen. Formal investigation into the casualty is underway to establish root cause
because the reason apparently highlighted as terrorist attack, which obviously is of
great concern of IMO and related maritime community.
On 16th November 2002 Tanker Prestige, fully laden, registered in Bahamas collapsed
and sank off the coast of Spain in Bay of Biscay. This was a single hull tanker 1976 built
(before MARPOL convention which practically entered into force with effect from 1982).
In April 2001 Parties to MARPOL convention agreed to phase out single hull in a revised
regulation 13G of annex I of the convention. According to this revised regulation, which
entered into force globally in September 2002, single hull tankers built in 1976 would be
required to scrap by 2005.
From all above it is clear to note that prevention from such casualty would be the prime
concern, so that structural damage and environmental pollution may come under
control. One very important Instrument have been devised in Tanker/Bulk carrier sector
called Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) and same, if conducted judiciously and
honestly may assess the structural integrity and reduce accidental mishap. Marpol 73/78
annexes I to V and related amendments are being progressively accepted and
endeavored to be maintained in shipping sector.
HIGH DENSITY OIL SPILL
High-density oils include around 600 million tonnes of residual fuel produced and
consumed in the world each year, used mostly on power generation. A large ship
powered by diesel engines may consume 150T of fuel oil per day and may carry up to
3000 to 4000T of this oil as bunkers. The characteristics of such heavy fuel oil when
spilled at sea, such as occurred during mishaps of Erika and Baltic Carrier, have
implications for response and clean-up operations.
(a) High viscosity implications for pumping in cold conditions
(b) May be solid or semi-solid at typical sea temperatures this can have
advantages if it is possible to scoop up quantities of oil in calm seas. Similarly,
removal of heavy fuel oil from beaches with hard-packed sand is normally
straightforward. Penetration into sandy beaches is likely to be minimal but care
must be taken if mechanical diggers are used so as not to mix oil with sand.
(c) Highly viscous oil tends to attach itself firmly to hard surfaces, making clean up
difficult on rocky shores. However, when the oil has emulsified with water it may
not adhere so readily.

(d) Heavy fuel oils tend to be less toxic than crude oils and some other refined
products but strong adhesive properties and persistence may have greater
impact on mammals and seabirds.
(e) Spilled oil is heavy & tends to float low in the water this can make recovery
using skimmers difficult (whereas skimmers may be more effective for lighter
oils).
(f) It may be hard to assess where the oil is from the air because the oil is not
floating on the surface when oil is visible on surface, it may not be possible to
assess thickness of oil patches and therefore quantity of oil spilled. Movement of
heavy fuel oil may be difficult to predict as wave action may carry it below the
surface. Sunken heavy fuel oil may have significant impact on seabed resources
and fishing.
(g) Persistent heavy fuel oils do not disperse naturally in a significant manner and
oil spill dispersants may prove ineffective.
(h) Spilled heavy fuel oil may drift long distances and impact on coasts - with
associated high compensation and clean-up costs. The precise properties of the
particular heavy fuel oil spilled, as well as prevailing weather conditions, may
have a significant impact on choice of response/clean-up operations as well as
on the ultimate success or otherwise of the clean-up operation.
So, in case of high-density oil spill main three objectives are Detection, Containment,
Recovery, and IMO is on the move for further development and dissemination of
techniques to enable coastal states to respond rapidly and effectively to spills of highdensity oils.
DETECTION
(a) The development of laser and sonar technology for detecting high-density oil
spills.
(b) Use of sensors in practice (during actual oil spills).
(c) The testing of prototype systems (systems in development) on actual oil spills.
(d) Validation of modeling systems (such as computerized systems to predict the
drifting oil slicks) during actual oil spills.
(e) Coastal States should encourage oil spill responders to co-operate with
modelers.
CONTAINMENT & RECOVERY
(a) Developing and testing operational high density oil collection and pumping
systems.
(b) Evaluating recovery system performance to assist in proper selection and use in
oil spills.
(c) Evaluating the risks and benefits of response options and consequences.
(d) Developing deep water automotive systems and wreck detection at depths
greater than 2000 metre
(e) Developing survey by sonar sensors for locating presence of oil through
metal/tanks; to make use of advances in digital video imaging and to look at
ways of measuring quantities of oil remaining in wrecks.
(f) Developing alternative methods of steam heating to achieve a viable flow rate in
order to be able to pump oil from greater depths.
Prevention is better than cure. Taking that into consideration, the requirement at the
onset is targeted for the carrier to be of double hull construction and the programme is
underway.

All merchant ships are fitted with Sewage treatment plants and the concerned Annex IV
will now enter into force following breakthrough of ratification. Regulations for the
prevention of pollution by sewage from ships are set to enter into force from September
2003 following ratification by Norway. Norways ratification means the entry-into-force
criteria for the Annex set at 15 states whose combined merchant fleet constitute not less
than 50% of worlds merchant fleet by tonnage, having now been met. The Annex sets
out in detail how sewage should be treated and held on board ship and the
circumstances in which discharge into sea may be allowed. It requires Parties to the
Convention to provide adequate reception facilities for sewage and contains a model
International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate to be issued by national shipping
administrations to ships under their jurisdiction. The Annex will apply to ships engaged in
international voyages. On entry into force it will have immediate effect on all new ships of
400 gross tonnage and above and new ships of less than 400 gross tonnage, which are
certified to carry more than 15 persons. It will apply to existing ships 400 gross tonnage
and above and less than 400 gross tonnage, but certified to carry more than 15 persons,
five years after the date of entry into force.
OTHER MARPOL ISSUES STARTING FROM LATEST
VIII Anti-fouling Systems- The MEPC approved in principle the draft Convention on the
control of harmful anti-fouling systems. A number of issues remain open for discussion,
such as entry into force criteria, before the planned Conference to adopt the convention
in late 2001.
VII Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water-The MEPC working group further
developed new regulation for ballast water management to prevent transfer of harmful
aquatic organisms in ballast water.
VI Prevention of air pollution from ships- Commissioned study into greenhouse gas
emissions from ships and the study is in progress.
ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM
In November 1999, IMO adopted the issue, and developing instrument legally binding
throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on
ships hull. The resolution calls for global prohibition on the application of organotin
compounds such as TBT, which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems used on ships by
1st January 2003. A complete prohibition on the presence of organotin compounds which
act as biocides in anti-fouling systems by 1st January 2008. The coatings industry has
spent more than a decade trying to find effective coatings, which have dominated the
market since mid-1970s. Many attempts have been made to find effective new ways to
prevent the fouling of ships bottom- chemical; physical, electrolyte and ultrasonic
systems have all been tested. Tin-based antifouling coatings have proven an effective
and economical means of protecting underwater hulls, but tin has been discovered to
have harmful effects on marine life in coastal areas. It not only keeps algae and
barnacles from attaching to the bottom of ships, but also impacts on other marine
organisms. Tin-free products have been on the market for more than a decade, but have
not had the desired impact because they simply do not last long enough. So shipping
companies have largely continued to use tin-based products. Second-generation tin-free
coatings have a life of more than three years, but even this has not been sufficient to
wean the international shipping world off tin. Third-generation antifouling coatings
have been introduced lately, a painting system that is certain to last the required fiveyear interval between dry dockings, and therefore compete with tin-based products.
The Globic range of antifouling products developed by Hempel Paints complies with
IMO requirements. Globic is highly efficient, TBT free, self-polishing antifouling with high

volume solids. This features the use of mineral fibres. Once the paint dries up, these
fibres combine with the binders to form a three-dimensional structure that not only
provides extraordinary elasticity, but also allows the addition of greater amounts of
binder. The combination of advanced technology of binders and micro fibres creates
excellent mechanical properties for Globic products and offer self-polishing at controlled
rate when in service.
Jotun Paints in conjunction with Japanese chemicals group Nippon Oil and Fats
developed SeaQuantum, a tin-free solution suitable for any application. The new tin-free
antifouling coating is more expensive than TBT systems; prices depend on the type of
coatings, but can be three to four times higher per liter. However prices are not to prove
a serious barrier to a switch over to tin-free products. Not only can the cost of a coating
never be based on price per liter alone; coatings can account for a relatively small share
of overall cost of a five-year dry-docking. Furthermore, the Paint Company can offer
tests demonstrating that the system brings savings in fuel costs relative to other tin-free
technology available today- fuel consumption were reduced by 15% after two years
in a full-scale test. Sea Quantum can cut fuel cost in this way because the bottom of
the ship becomes increasingly smooth as coating wears, thereby reducing friction as the
ship glides through the water. The active antifouling ingredient in the coating is a copper
compound. Added benefits include lower emissions of greenhouse gases and a
decrease in the strain put on to vessels propulsion machinery.
Environmental safety measures proposed by MEPC are: (1) Elimination of use of TBT antifouling paints on ships less than 25 metres length
(2) Elimination of the use of TBT antifouling paints with average release rate 4 micro
gm/cm2/day
(3) Elimination of extra input of TBT into marine environment (from washing,
blasting or painting operation)
(4) Encouraging development of alternatives to TBT antifouling paints
(5) Monitoring and evolution of efficacy of control measures
(6) Consideration of appropriate total prohibition of TBT in antifouling paints.
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The introduction of invasive marine species into new environments of ships' ballast water
attached to hull and via other vectors has been identified as one of the four greatest
threats to world oceans. The other three are land-based sources of marine pollution,
over-exploitation of living marine resources and physical alteration/destruction of marine
habitat. Ballast water is absolutely essential to the safe and efficient operation of modern
shipping, providing balance and stability to un-laden ships. However, discharge of ballast
water may pose a serious ecological, economical and health threat. There are
thousands of marine species that may be carried in ships' ballast water, basically
anything that is small enough to pass through ships' ballast water intake ports and
pumps. This includes bacteria and other microbes, small invertebrates and the eggs,
cysts and larvae of various species. The problem is compounded by the fact that virtually
all marine species have life cycles that include a plankton stage or stages. Even species,
in which the adults are unlikely to be taken on in ballast water, for example because they
are too large or live attached to seabed, may be transferred in ballast during their
plankton phase. Over the past millennia, marine species have dispersed throughout the
oceans by natural means, carried on currents and attached to floating logs and debris.
Natural barriers such as temperature and landmasses have prevented many species
from dispersing into certain areas. This has resulted in the natural patterns of biogeography observed in the oceans today. In particular the pan-global tropical zone has
separated the northern and southern temperate and cold water zones. This has allowed

many species to evolve quite independently in these latter zones, resulting in quite
different bio-diversity between the north and the south. In tropical area species have not
faced the same barriers. This is exemplified by the relatively homogenous marine biodiversity spanning the huge area of the Indo-pacific, from the East Coast of Africa to the
West Coast of South America.
Humans have of-course aided this process for as long as they have sailed, mainly by
dispersing marine species that have attached to the hulls of vessels. The
commencement of the use of water as ballast, and the development of larger, faster
ships completing their voyages in ever shorter times, combined with rapidly increasing
world trade, means that the natural barriers to the dispersal of species across the
oceans are being reduced. In particular, ships provide a way for temperate marine
species to pierce the tropical zones, and some of the most spectacular introductions
have involved northern temperate species invading southern temperate waters, and vice
versa.
It is estimated that at any one time, over 3000 different species are being carried in
ships ballast tanks around the world. The vast majority of marine species carried in
ballast water do not survive the journey, as the ballasting and deballasting cycle and the
environment inside ballast tanks can be quite hostile to organism survival. Even for
those that do survive a voyage and are discharged, the chances of surviving in the new
environmental conditions, including predation by and/or competition from native species,
are further reduced. However, when all factors are favourable, an introduced species by
surviving establish a reproductive population in the host environment. It may even
become invasive, out-competing native species and multiplying into pest proportions.
As a result, whole ecosystems are being changed. In the USA, the European Zebra
Mussel Dreissena polymorpha has infested over 40% of internal waterways and may
have required over US$5 billion in expenditure on control measures since 1989. In
southern Australia, the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida is invading new areas rapidly,
displacing the native seabed communities. In the Black Sea, the filter-feeding North
American jellyfish Mnemiopsis leidyi has on occasion reached densities of 1kg of
biomass per m2. It has depleted native plankton stocks to such an extent that it has
contributed to the collapse of entire Black Sea commercial fisheries. In several countries,
filter-feeding shellfish, such as oysters has absorbed introduced microscopic, red-tide
algae (toxic dinoflagellates). When eaten by humans, these contaminated shellfish can
cause paralysis and even death. The list goes on, hundreds of examples of major
ecological, economic and human health impacts across the globe. It is even feared that
diseases such as cholera might be able to be transported in ballast water.
There are hundreds of other examples of catastrophic introductions around the world,
causing severe human health, economic and/or ecological impacts in their Host
environments.
Invasive marine species are one of the four greatest threats to the worlds oceans!
Unlike other forms of marine pollution, such as oil spills, where ameliorative action can
be taken and from which the environment will eventually recover. The impacts of
invasive marine species are most often irreversible.
An MEPC Working Group further developed draft new regulations for ballast water
management to prevent the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, often termed as
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) in ballast water. A diplomatic conference has just
ended 2-13 December 2002, where MEPC working group discussed the ballast
management issues at length.
The objective is to put under control, the growth of ANS in worldwide oceans. The ANS
may displace native species, degrade native habitats, spread disease and disrupt
human social and economic activities that depend on water resources. US coast guard

has already adopted comprehensive National ballast water management program as


follows:
(1)
Ballast water management scheme for operators of all vessels in waters of USA
(2)
Providing voluntary ballast water management guidelines for all vessels entering
US waters from outside of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
(3)
Requires the reporting of ballast water management data by all vessels entering
US waters from outside of EEZ
USCG developed scheme for all vessels that carry ballast water into US territory after
operating beyond EEZ as stated below:
(1)
Exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ, from an area more than 200 nautical
miles from any shore, and in water more than 2000 meters depth
(2)
Retain the ballast water on board the vessel
(3)
Use an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water management
that has been approved in advance by USCG
(4)
Discharge ballast water to an approved reception facility, or exchange ballast
water in
other waters approved and declared by USCG.
The proposed instrument is a new international convention "for the control and
management of ships' ballast water and sediments." It is estimated that about 10 billion
tons of ballast water are transferred globally each year, potentially transferring from one
location to another species of sea-life that may prove ecologically harmful when released
into a non-native environment.
The proposed new instrument is being developed on the basis of a two-tier approach.
Tier 1 includes requirements that would apply to all ships, including mandatory
requirements for a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan, a Ballast Water
Record Book and a requirement that new ships shall carry out ballast water and
sediment management procedures to a given standard or range of standards. Existing
ships would be required to carry out ballast water management procedures after a
phase-in period, but these procedures may differ from those to be applied to new ships.
Tier 2 includes special requirements, which may apply in certain areas and would
include procedures and criteria for the designation of such areas in which additional
controls may be applied to the discharge and/or uptake of ballast water. The text for Tier
2 remains to be developed.
The working group confirmed that ballast exchange on the high seas is the only widely
used technique currently available to prevent the spread of unwanted aquatic organisms
in ballast water and its use should continue to be accepted. However, it was stressed
that this technique has a number of limitations. Because it is of variable efficiency in
removing organisms, the percentage removed depends on the type of organism. The
discharged water quality depends on the original quality of the water taken up. It also
has geographical limits. Existing ships may be subjected to operational constraints, but it
was recognized that new ships may be designed to accommodate ballast exchange in a
much wider range of circumstances.
Worldwide management has promulgated mandatory requirements and voluntary
guidelines are as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Perform open ocean ballast exchange when safety permits,


Keep records of ballasting operations,
Reduce invasions via hull and anchor fouling,
Minimize ballasting in ports and coastal zones,
Avoid ballast uptake at night,

(6)

Avoid ballast uptake in Hot Spots. Hot spots are water bodies that are
particularly infested with non-native species that have pathogens such as
toxic algae blooms or red tides, that are contaminated by sewage outfalls,
or that carry waterborne disease such as cholera. Scientists and Managers
are working to identify global hot spots. Ballast water uptake from hot
spots has a greater potential of spreading harmful organisms,
(7)
Avoid ballast water uptake where propellers may stir up the sediment at the
bottom.
The working group concluded that development of alternative treatment technologies
might produce techniques that were substantially more reliable and that ballast water
exchange is an interim solution
PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS
A study was conducted by IMO regarding greenhouse gas emissions from ships and a
document was due to be developed outlining IMO policy on the issue. This study
resulted in formation of annex VI of MAROL on regulations for the prevention of air
pollution from ships. The impact of NOx emissions from ships continues to be main policy
driver. There are no accurate assessments of the contribution of shipping to global NOx
emissions. However studies show that shipping is a small contributor to world CO 2
emissions, and accounting to almost 1.8% of worldwide emission. As per a draft
resolution MEPC had been studying to identify and develop mechanism needed to
achieve the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international
shipping, and in doing so give priority to the establishment of the emission baseline,
methodology to describe the GHG-efficiency of a ship expressed as GHG-index for that
ship. All these are done on the basis of CO2 being recognized as main greenhouse gas
emitted by ships. The study notes that there is potential for reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from ships through technical and operational measures. At the same time,
shipping has been confirmed to be a significant contributor in the development of
environmentally sustainable transport. Sustainability and sustainable development is an
inter-generational concept, seeking equity over time, and minimization of disparities
between generations. Sustainable development cautions that there are limits to such
growths due to pollution of environment, which is one of the major drawbacks to cross
over in developed countries. Since use of low sulphur fuel is essential if sulphur oxide
reduction is to surpass the annex VI standard, the entire question of prime mover fuel is
open to discussion. One suggested fuel is Methanol (CH 3OH). In 1994 Mitsubishi in
Japan reported its trial on a research diesel engine adapted to burn pure Methanol with
no loss in thermal efficiency. The company foresaw future demand for this fuel as a
replacement for more costly low sulphur oil, and has proposed an engine installation for
a VLCC, which would take aboard sufficient fuel for each round voyage at one of the
many LNG plants in Persian Gulf. The 1997 protocols MARPOL annex VI is virtually
applicable to all ships, fixed and floating platforms and drill rigs. It is scheduled to enter
in force shortly. Once ratified and in force all ships 400 GRT and above operating
internationally must have documentary evidence by possessing IAPP certificate. In
addition the 1997 IMO conference also adopted provisions allowing for special Sox
emission control area in Baltic and North Sea. In these areas fuel used must have
sulphur content 1.5-% m/m, alternatively ships must have exhaust cleaning system or
desulphurisation equipment to reduce SOx emissions below 6 g/kWh. Fuel-efficient low
speed engines tend to have higher NOx emission than do smaller high-speed engines.
Under new Regulations emission levels permitted may vary from 17 g/kWh at a rated
speed of less than 130 RPM to 9.8 g/kWh at a rated speed of 2000 RPM and above.

NOISE ISSUES
When one speaks to anyone who has spent time on ship at sea, the subject noise is a
sore one. Vibration and Noise, though not appreciated at all by many, still form a part
and parcel of marine profession. Noise can attribute considerable disturbances to
environment/ ecological balance. Vibration and Noise both beyond specified limit are
disturbing not only to human and environment, but also threat to concerned system.
Excessive machinery vibrations can cause structural fatigue, pre-mature bearing failures
and increased maintenance requirements. Vibrations occur in many common
engineering systems, and if uncontrolled can lead to catastrophic results. For example,
vibrations induced in a structure due to heavy seas or loose connection lead to
abnormally high stresses and may result in breakdown. Vibrations of machine tools lead
to improper machining finish. Excessive vibrations of industrial compressors or pumps
increase the noise level in the machinery surrounding and can cause inefficient
operation. Besides all above, under-sea noise also plays a vital role in the fisheries
industry wherein overwhelming evidence has been presented that fish show an
avoidance reaction to ships when radiated noise level exceeds their threshold of hearing
by 30 dB or more.
A great demand for vibration and noise limitation in the marine environment has, of
course, aroused wide interest. Consequently, greater demands are made on the engine
designer to provide more detailed and precise information regarding various types of
noise emission from engine at various loads. MEPC is also greatly concerned with this
emission details in order to establish safeguard measures on environmental pollution so
may cause.
SHIP RECYCLING
In the process of recycling ships, virtually nothing goes to waste. The materials and
equipment are almost entirely reused. Steel is reprocessed to become, for instance,
reinforcing rods for use in the construction industry or as corner castings and hinges for
containers. Ships' generators are reused ashore. Batteries find their way into the local
economy. Hydrocarbons on board become reclaimed oil products to be used as fuel in
rolling mills or brick kilns; light fittings find further use on land etc. Furthermore, new
steel production from recycled steel requires only one third of the energy used for steel
production from raw materials. Recycling makes a positive contribution to the global
conservation of energy and resources and, in the process, employs a large, if
predominantly unskilled, workforce. Properly handled, ship recycling is, without question,
a "green" industry.
The concept of a "Green Passport" for ships is included in the MEPC guidelines. It is
envisaged that this document, containing an inventory of all materials potentially
hazardous to human health or the environment, used in the construction of a ship, would
accompany the ship throughout its working life. Produced by the shipyard at the
construction stage and passed to the purchaser of the vessel, the document would be in
a format that would enable any subsequent changes in materials or equipment to be
recorded. Successive owners of the ship would maintain the accuracy of the Green
Passport and incorporate into it all relevant design and equipment changes, with the final
owner delivering it, with the vessel, to the recycling yard.
CONCLUSION
Starting from ships like Torrey Canyon, Amoco Cadiz, Exxon Valdez, Brear, Sea
Empress and lately Nakhodka, Erika, Baltic Carrier, Castor, Limburg, Prestige and so on
so forth- the disasters show almost same type of impact in maritime society and
environment. Safety is the keyword and it implies to ships structure, machinery, human

lives, property and above all the Environment. Safety is an attitude of mind. Timely
investment in proper upkeep, maintenance of ship and training of personnel at all levels
and at all times are absolutely essential.
Being an optimist, one sincerely hopes that adoption of timely measure of recent
researches and regulations will bring about the essentially needed change in attitudes
for all concerned in maritime industry management and operation. If this happens there
will be substantial gains in achieving Green Passport, be it hazard of any kind in the
industry, failing which the new codes and standards will remain in the files as a few more
certificates and documents that have somehow been managed.
About the Author

After due completion of apprenticeship and qualifying for presea examination served in foreign going ships with m/s Shipping
Corporation of India Ltd. After passing examination of Extra
First Class Marine Engineers Certificate of competency served
as Engineer and Ship Surveyor with MMD Madras, thereafter
served with IRS Bombay as Engineer Surveyor. Served as
Technical Manager with m/s India Steamship Company Calcutta.
By virtue of qualification and experience attached to The
Engineering Council U.K as Chartered Engineer. Presently
engaged in teaching assignment as Engineer officer with M.E.R.I
Kolkata. Attended most of the Seminars organized by IE (India)
including Science Congress, contributed and presented
technical papers.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION


4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR
Telephone: 020 7735 7611
Fax:
020 7587 3210

Ref. T2/4.2.1

E
IMO
MSC/Circ.1134
10 December 2004

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON STANDARDS OF TRAINING,


CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING FOR
SEAFARERS (STCW), 1978, AS AMENDED
Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended, confirmed by the Maritime
Safety Committee to have communicated information which demonstrates
that full and complete effect is given to the relevant provisions
of the Convention
1
The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), at its seventy-ninth session
(1 to 10 December 2004), received reports by the Secretary-General pursuant to regulation I/7,
paragraph 2 of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), 1978, as amended. The reports were in respect
of those STCW Parties, whose information had not been fully evaluated previously and in time
for them to be considered by MSC 78. A list of the STCW Parties which had communicated
information that demonstrated that they were giving full and complete effect to the relevant
provisions of the Convention at that session of the Committee, together with those which had
previously been confirmed by MSC 78 (12 to 21 May 2004), MSC 77 (30 May to 8 June 2003),
MSC 76 (2 to 13 December 2002), MSC 75 (15 to 24 May 2002), the Committees first
extraordinary session (27 and 28 November 2001), MSC 74 (30 May to 8 June 2001) and
MSC 73 (27 November to 6 December 2000), was promulgated by means of MSC/Circ.1121
dated 20 May 2004.
2
MSC 79 noted that, in preparing the reports required by STCW regulation I/7,
paragraph 2, the Secretary-General had solicited and taken into account the views of competent
persons selected from the list established pursuant to paragraph 5 of section A-I/7 of the STCW
Code and circulated as MSC/Circ.797, as revised from time to time.
3
In accordance with STCW regulation I/7, paragraph 3, MSC 79 confirmed one further
STCW Party, additional to those listed in MSC/Circ.1121, which had communicated information
demonstrating that it was giving full and complete effect to the relevant provisions of the STCW
Convention, as amended. The list at annex contains those STCW Parties confirmed by the
Committee at its seventy-third, seventy-fourth, first extraordinary, seventy-fifth,
seventy-sixth, seventy-seventh, seventy-eighth and seventy-ninth sessions. The Committee
noted that, as the process of communicating and evaluating information is continuing, further
Parties may be added to the list at annex at subsequent meetings.

I:\CIRC\MSC\1134.doc

MSC/Circ.1134

-2-

4
The Committee draws the attention of maritime administrations, shipowners, ship
operators and managers, ship masters and other parties concerned to the following:
.1

not all of the STCW Parties listed at annex provide seafarer training, and some of
those Parties listed may only provide a limited range of training; and

.2

the fact that a Party is listed in the annex does not relieve those concerned of their
obligations under the STCW Convention.

5
As Parties are entitled to accept, in principle, certificates issued by or on behalf of Parties
identified in the list at annex, and a position on that list is one of the necessary measures used by
many Administrations for the issue of endorsements in compliance with STCW regulation I/10,
the attention of port State control officers is drawn to the fact that this circular was issued on
10 December 2004 and, therefore, some seafarers may, for practical reasons, not hold certificates
with such endorsements.
***

I:\CIRC\MSC\1134.doc

MSC/Circ.1134
ANNEX
Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended, confirmed by the Maritime
Safety Committee to have communicated information which demonstrates
that full and complete effect is given to the relevant provisions
of the Convention
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
China*
Colombia
Comoros
Cte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea
Denmark**
Dominica
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana

Greece
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Islamic Republic of Iran
Italy
Israel
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kiribati
Kuwait
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia (Federated States of)
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Netherlands***
New Zealand****
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Peru
______________

*
**
***
****
*****

Includes:
Includes:
Includes:
Includes:
Includes:

Hong Kong, China (Associate Member to the IMO)


Faroe Islands (Associate Member to the IMO)
Netherlands Antilles & Aruba
The Cook Islands
Isle of Man
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
Gibraltar

I:\CIRC\MSC\1134.doc

Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Romania
Russian Federation
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand
Tonga
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Tuvalu
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom*****
United Republic of Tanzania
United States
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yugoslavia

STCW.7/Circ.1*
24 September 1996

Ref. A1/V/3.02

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON STANDARDS OF TRAINING,


CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING FOR SEAFARERS (STCW), 1978
Clarification of regulations I/9, I/10 and I/15 of the STCW Convention

1
Pursuant to resolution 3 of the STCW Conference which, inter alia, encourages an orderly
transition to full and effective implementation of the 1995 amendments to the 1978 STCW
Convention, as instructed by the Maritime Safety Committee, the twenty-eighth session of the SubCommittee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW 28) considered a series of follow-up
actions emanating from the 1995 STCW Conference.
2
STW 28 considered that the following matters required clarification and urgent
interpretation:

.1

regulations I/2 and I/9.4, concerning certificates and endorsements and registration
of all certificates and endorsements for masters and officers and, as appropriate,
ratings;

.2

regulation I/10 concerning recognition of certificates the procedures for


endorsement attesting to recognition of another Party's certificates; and

.3

regulation I/15 concerning transitional provisions:


.3.1

implementation of the provisions of the 1995 amendments; and

.3.2

revalidation of the STCW 78 certificates issued in accordance with the


provisions of the 1978 STCW Convention in force prior to 1 February 1997.

STW 28 prepared, to assist Parties to the STCW Convention:


.1

information on clarification of regulation I/15 of the STCW Convention and on


implementation of the provision of chapters V and VI of the 1995 amendments and
on revalidation of certificates STCW 78, given in annex 1;

.2

the table of differences between the STCW 78 Certification requirements and


STCW 95 Certification requirements to highlight the dates of implementation,
certificates required and the necessary revalidation of training and certificates,
given in annex 2;

STCW.7 is a new series of STCW circular under which clarifications,


recommendations, guidance and other information on clarification of
the STCW Convention and Code which are not included in amendments to
these instruments will be circulated.

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW.7/Circ.1

- 2 -

.3

the list of certificates or documentary evidence required under the STCW


Convention, given in annex 3, which give details of whether an endorsement is
needed and records of certificates should be maintained in a register or registers;
and

.4

for the purpose of regulation I/9.4.1 the guidelines on development of a database for
certificate registration, given in annex 4.

4
Information from the register or registers is to be made available to other Parties and
companies, in accordance with regulation I/9.4.2 from 1 February 1997. Details regarding how to
obtain the information from the register or registers should also be communicated to the
Organization as part of the package submitted in accordance with regulation I/7.
5

The following terms are used in the text and tables of this circular:
1

the term "STCW 78 Certificate" means a certificate:

.1.1

recognized under the transitional provisions of article VII, paragraph (2), or


regarded as the equivalent of a certificate issued under the Convention by virtue of
paragraph (3) of that article; or

.1.2

issued in accordance with the provisions of the Convention in force prior to 1


February 1997 or issued on or after that date in accordance with the transitional
provisions of regulation I/15.

.2

the term "STCW 95 Certificate" means a certificate issued on or after 1 February


1997 in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Convention and the
STCW Code, or a STCW-78 certificate duly endorsed after 1 February 1997 in
accordance with regulation I/11.

6
Member Governments and Parties to the 1978 STCW Convention are invited to take full
account of the annexed documents when implementing the 1995 amendments.
7
As recommended in paragraph 1 of resolution 3 of the STCW Conference, any difficulties
encountered in implementing requirements of the 1995 amendments to the STCW Convention
should be brought to the attention of the Maritime Safety Committee. This should be done as soon
as possible to allow the Committee to respond to urgent needs for technical assistance or to develop
additional guidance.
***

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW.7/Circ.1

ANNEX 1
CLARIFICATION OF REGULATION I/15 OF THE STCW CONVENTION

Implementation of the provisions of chapters V and VI of the 1995 amendments to the


1978 STCW Convention

1
Regulation I/15 should be construed to mean that the transitional arrangements only relate
to those provisions of the Convention which applied immediately prior to 1 February 1997.
Therefore, any provisions of chapters V and VI in the revised STCW Convention that do not
directly involve certification of seafarers under regulation I/15, or do not have corresponding
provisions in the 1978 STCW Convention, should be implemented by 1 February 1997.
2
This clarification may have practical implications for Parties when implementing some of
the provisions in chapters V and VI of the 1995 amendments to the STCW Convention for seafarers
who commenced sea service before 1 February 1997 and particular practical difficulties arise in
relation to training under:
regulation V/2 (Mandatory minimum requirements for the training and qualification of
masters, officers, ratings and other personnel on ro-ro passenger ships);
regulation VI/1 (section A-VI/1, paragraph 2 - Basic safety training and instruction for all
seafarers with designated safety or pollution prevention responsibilities); and

Regulation V/2 (Ro-ro training)


.1

The standards for crisis management and human behaviour training can only be
approved by MSC 67 in December 1996 and adopted by MSC 68 in May 1997 at
the earliest, i.e. after the implementation date of 1 February 1997. Administrations
may delay full implementation of the standards in regulation V/2, paragraph 5 up to
1 August 1998.
In respect of regulation V/2, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4,
Administrations are strongly encouraged to make every effort to ensure that the
necessary training and documentation is completed by 1 February 1997.

Regulation VI/1 (Basic training)


.2

Taking account of the large number of seafarers involved, particularly with regard
to those who commenced sea service before 1 February 1997, Administrations are
recommended to treat each case on its merits and should, in doing so, take full
account of the standards of competence in section A-VI/1-2.

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW.7/Circ.1
ANNEX 1
Page 2

II

Revalidation of STCW 78 certificates

3
Regulation I/15 provides that a Party may, until 1 February 2002, continue to renew and
revalidate certificates and endorsements in accordance with the provisions of the Convention which
applied immediately prior to 1 February 1997. On the other hand, regulation I/11 requires
Member States to compare the standards of competence which it required of candidates for
certificates issued before 1 February 2002 with those specified for the appropriate certificate in part
A of the STCW Code. This may raise the question of whether a certificate revalidated in accordance
with regulation I/15 should be valid beyond 1 February 2002 or not.
4
Bearing in mind resolution 3 of the 1995 STCW Conference which, inter alia, recognizes the
need for full compliance to be achieved by 1 February 2002, and in order to promote uniform
implementation of the 1995 Convention amendments, regulation I/15 should be applied in such a
way that STCW 78 certificates could be revalidated for up to five years at any time until 1
February 2002, provided that the requirements of regulation I/11 are taken fully into account.
5

It should be noted that the implications of the above interpretation may include:
.1

seafarers holding STCW 78 certificates and those holding STCW 78 certificates


revalidated before 1 February 2002 for service after 1 February 2002, should meet
the standards of competence required by the 1995 amendments; otherwise an
STCW 78 certificate should not be revalidated for service after 1 February 2002;

.2

as the 1995 amendments permit administrations to issue STCW 95 certificates with


limitations (e.g. service exclusively on ships not fitted with ARPA), similar
provisions might be considered on the revalidation of STCW 78 certificates before 1
February 2002 when taking into account the relevant 1995 requirements for service
after 1 February 2002; and

.3

when exercising control under the provisions of Article X and Regulation I/4 on
1978 certificates revalidated before 1 February 2002 for service after 1 February
2002, Parties to the Convention may expect full account to be taken of the provisions
of the 1995 amendments. It will be helpful if the endorsement contains a statement
that revalidation of the STCW 78 certificate was carried out in compliance with
regulation I/11.

***

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

TABLE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STCW 78 CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS


AND STCW 95 CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Certificate
or
training

Master and
deck officer
certificate of
competency

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

Reg. II/2 to
II/5

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Amendments
apply to

Reg. II/1 to II/3

Masters and
officers with
STCW 78
certificates* and
1995 certificates

+
Chapter IV

Deck rating

Chief engineer
and engineer
officer
certificate of
competency

*
**
***

Reg. II/6

Reg. III/2 to
III/5

Reg. II/4

Reg. III/1 to
III/3

Rating designated
to watchkeeping
duties
Chief engineer and
engineer officers
with STCW 78
certificates* and
STCW 95
certificates

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

Certificate
required

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

Yes

Yes, or service.

Yes

Updating as
appropriate for
those with
STCW 78
certificates
(completed
before 2002)
Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes, or service.

Yes

Updating as
appropriate for
those with
STCW 78
certificates
(completed
before 2002)

See attached chart Appendix 2 and annex 1.


Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.

Certificate
or
training

Engine room
rating

Radio
personnel

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Reg. III/6

Amendments
apply to
Ratings designated
to watchkeeping
duties under
STCW 78
Convention

In force now
(until 1 Feb.2002)

Certificate
required

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Radio personnel
on GMDSS ships
(also required
under reg. II/1 and
VII/1)

Yes

Yes or service

Yes

Non-GMDSS
ships as per Radio
Regulation****

Yes as per Radio


Regulations

No

No

Reg. III/4

Rating designated
to watchkeeping
duties under
STCW 95
Convention

Chapter IV, as
amended
GMDSS ships

Chapter IV

Non-GMDSS
ships*****

Non-GMDSS
ships

GMDSS ships

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

_____________________
*
**

See attached chart in Appendix 2 and annex 1.


Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
***
Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.
**** Not applicable for ships to which chapter IV of the 1974 SOLAS Convention applies after 1 February 1999.
***** Until 1 February 1999 training and certification requirements apply as in force prior to 1 December 1992.

Certificate
or
training

Training for
personnel on
tankers

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

Chapter V
reg. V/1

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Amendments
apply to

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

Certificate
required

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

Reg. V/1

Master, officers
and ratings on
tankers

1 January 1996

Yes or for master


and officer
endorsements on
certificates under
chapter II and III
or VII

Yes or service
for master and
officers

Yes, for master


and officers

Documentary
evidence
required,
as appropriate

Training for
personnel on
ro-ro passenger
ships

None

Reg. V/2****

Master, officers
and other
personnel serving
in ro-ro passenger
ships on
international
voyages

1 February 1997

Documentary
evidence

Refresher
training* as
appropriate

Familiarization
or instruction
on safety

None

Reg.VI/1,
section
A-VI/1,
paragraph 1

All seafarers

1 February 1997

No****

No****

No

Masters, officers
and watchkeeping
ratings

In force now

No

No

No

*
**
***
****

See appendix 1 on requirements for personnel on ro-ro passenger ships.


Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.
See regulation I/14.

Certificate
or
training

Basic safety
training or
instruction

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Included under
chapters II, III
and IV
Reg.VI/1,
section A-VI/1,
paragraph 2

Survival craft
and rescue
boats

Reg. VI/1

Reg. VI/2,
paragraph 1

Amendments
apply to

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

Certificate
required

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

Masters, officers
and watchkeeping
ratings

In force now (until


1 February 2002)

No*

No

No

All other seafarers


with designated
safety and
pollution
prevention duties

1 February 1997

No *

No

No

Every seafarer
required to be
certificated

In force now

Yes

No

No

Every candidate
for certification
under reg.VI/2,
paragraph 1

1 August 1998 for


those who
commenced
approved training
after that date

1 Appropriate
certificate
under chapters
II and III or
chapter VII,
or
2 Certificate
under reg.
VI/1 of the
1978
Convention, or
3 Certificate
under reg.
VI/2

No

No

or
under 1978
regulations of
chapters II and III

*
**
***

Until
1 February 2002

Evidence is required in accordance with regulation VI/1 but is not considered a certificate.
Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.

Certificate
or
training

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

Fast rescue
boats

None

Advanced
fire-fighting

Chapter V

Medical first
aid

None
(Similar
requirement
under
chapter II for
masters and
chief mates)

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Amendments
apply to

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

Certificate
required

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

Reg. VI/2,
paragraph 2

Every candidate
for certification
under reg. VI/2,
paragraph 2

1 February 1997

Yes

No

No

Reg. VI/3

Those designated
to control firefighting when they
are not certificated
under chapters II
and III.

1 February 1997

No

No

Those, designated
to control firefighting, when fire
fighting is
included in their
1978 certificates

1 February 2002 or
after issue of new
STCW 95
certificate

1 Appropriate
certificate
under chapters
II, III or
chapter VII, or
2 Certificate
under reg.VI/3
or
3 Documentary
evidence
under
reg. VI/3

Those designated
to provide medical
first aid

1 February 1997
except masters and
chief mates

1 STCW 95
certificate
under chapter
II, III or
chapter VII or
2 Special
certificate or
3 Documentary
evidence
under reg.VI/4

No

No

Reg. VI/4,
section A-VI/4,
paragraph 1-3

_________
** Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
*** Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.

Certificate
or
training

Take charge of
medical care
aboardship

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Reg. II/2

Amendments
apply to

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)

Masters and chief


mates with STCW
78 certificates
Reg. VI/4
paragraph 2,3

Reg. VI/4
paragraph 2,3

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

Appropriate
STCW 78
certificate

No

No

Certificate
required

Masters and chief


mates with STCW
78 certificates
(if designated to
provide these
duties)

Until
1 February 2002

Appropriate
STCW 78
certificate

No

No

after issue of
STCW 95
certificate

New 1995
certificate*

No

No

These designated
to provide these
duties

1 February 1997

Special certificate
or documentary
evidence

* If meeting the requirements of the 1995 amendments.


** Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
*** Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.

Certificate
or
training

STCW 78
certificate
requirements

Recognition of
certificates

No

STCW 95 certificate
Requirements

Reg. I/10

Amendments
apply to
Certificate issued
by other Parties

Implementation
dates
(see also annex 1)
1 February 2002 for
STCW 78
certificates and for
STCW 95
certificates issued
to seafarers
commencing
approved training
programmes or
seagoing service
before 1 August
1998.
1 August 1998 for
STCW 95
certificates issued
to seafarers
commencing
approved training
or seagoing service
on or after 1 August
1998

Certificate
required
Endorsement of
the recognizing
Party to the
appropriate
certificate of
issuing Party

Revalidation
of training
required**

Revalidation
of certification
required***

No

Yes, both by the


issuing Party and
the recognizing
Party

** Revalidation of training required means either updating existing STCW 78 certificates to 1995 standards or undergoing such specific training or
service to continue to qualify for seagoing service.
*** Revalidation of certification required means establishing continued professional competence.

Appendix 1
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL ON RO-RO PASSENGER SHIPS
PRIOR to taking up duties seafarers are required to comply with the relevant
sections of the 1995 STCW Code as set out in the table
Applies to

1995 STCW
Code reference

Those designated on
muster lists to assist
passengers
(paragraph 4)
(all on muster list)

A-V/2, para. 1

Those assigned
specific duties and
responsibilities
(paragraph 5)
(Master, officers and
other personnel)

Training
requirements

Type of
training

Revalidation
requirements

Crowd
management

Appropriate

5 year refresher

A-V/2, para. 2

Familiarization
with ro-ro
features

Appropriate

Those providing direct


service to passengers
in passenger spaces
(paragraph 6)
(e.g., stewards, shop
assistants, etc.)

A-V/2, para. 3

Safety training:
communication
and life-jackets

Appropriate

Those with immediate


responsibility for
passengers, loading,
securing, closing
(paragraph 7)
(Masters, officers and
other personnel)

A-V/2, para. 4

Passengers
safety, cargo
safety, hull
integrity

Approved
training

5 year refresher

Those with
responsibility for
safety of passengers in
emergency
(paragraph 8)
(Master, officers and
other personnel)

A-V/2, para. 5

Crisis
management and
human behaviour

Approved
training

5 year refresher

(A-VI/1-1
Personal
survival)

(similar to
A-VI/1
Familiarization)

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

Appendix 2

1999

2000

2001

01-Feb-2002

1998

01-Aug-98

1997

01-Feb-97

01-Jan-96

CERTIFICATES ISSUED UNDER CHAPTERS II AND III, V/1, VI/2

1995 C onvention

STCW 78 Certificates

Training in accordance
with STCW 78 Convention
Commencement of training

STCW 78 Certificate

Training in accordance with 1995


amendments to STCW Convention

STCW 78 Certificate permissible


Comme ncement of training STCW 95
Certificate must be issued
STCW 78 Certificates can be used until 2007
so long as candidates are issued certificates in accordance
with reg. I/ll to meet the competency requirments
of the 1995 a mendments after 1 February 2002.

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW 95 Certificate

* An STCW 95 certificate can be issued provided a seafarer complies with the standards of competence of the 1995 STCW Convention.
** Refer to paragraph 4 of annex 1.

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STW 28/WP.1
ANNEX 1
Page 11

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW.7/Circ.1
ANNEX 3
LIST OF CERTIFICATES OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REQUIRED UNDER THE
STCW CONVENTION

The list below identifies all certificates or documentary evidence in the Convention which authorize the
holder to serve in certain functions on board ships. The certificates are subject to the requirements of
regulation I/2 regarding language and their availability in original form. The list also references the
relevant regulations and the requirements for endorsement and registration (regulation I/9).

Regulations

Certificate or documentary evidence


(Brief description)

Endorsement
required

Registration
required*

II/1, II/2, II/3, III/1, III/2,


III/3, IV/2,V/1,VII/2

appropriate certificate for Master,


officers and radio personnel

yes

yes

II/4, III/4

ratings duly certificated to be a part of


a navigational or engine room watch

no

yes,**
as appropriate

V/1

"ratings assigned to specific duties


....... on tankers"

no

yes,**
as appropriate

V/2

"training requirements for personnel


serving on ro-ro passenger ships"

no

no

VI/2

"a certificate of proficiency in survival


craft, rescue boats ...... and fast rescue
boats"

no

no

VI/3

"training in advanced fire fighting"

no

no

VI/4

"training relating to medical first aid


and medical care"

no

no

_________
* Records of all certificates should be maintained in accordance with regulation I/9, paragraph 4.
** The Party issuing or endorsing the certificate is responsible for maintaining a register or registers in
accordance with regulation I/9.4.1. However, records may be maintained by an agency or entity
acting under its authority.

***

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

STCW.7/Circ.1
ANNEX 4
DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE FOR CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION
1 In implementing the requirement in paragraph 4.1 of regulation I/9 of the revised STCW Convention for
the maintenance of a register of certificates and endorsements, a standard database is not necessary
provided that all the relevant information is recorded and available.
2 The following items of information should be recorded and available either on paper or electronically
in accordance with regulation I/9, as a minimum:
.1 Status of certificate:
Valid
Suspended
Cancelled
Reported lost
Destroyed
with a record of changes to status to be kept, including dates of changes.
.2 Certificate details:
Seafarer's name
Date of birth
Nationality
Sex
Preferably a photograph
Relevant document number
Date of issue
Date of expiry
Last revalidation date
Details of dispensation(s)
.3 Competency details:
STCW competency standard (e.g. regulation II/1)
Capacity
Function
Level of responsibility
Endorsements
Limitations
.4 Medical details:
Date of issue of latest medical certificate relating to the issue or revalidation of the
appropriate certificate
________

H:\CIRC\STCW\07\7CIRC1.DOC

You might also like