GT Discussion Paper On GT Measurement

Policy Research Corporation
Consequences of the
Gross Tonnage Measurement
A discussion document
September
Commissioned by
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Freight Transport

Copyright 2005
Office Belgium:
Jan Moorkensstraat 68
2600 Antwerp
tel :
+32 3 286 94 94
fax : +32 3 286 94 96
e-mail : info@policyresearch.be
website : www.policyresearch.be
Office The Netherlands:

Parklaan 40
3016 BC Rotterdam
tel:
+31 10 436 03 64
fax:
+31 10 436 14 16
e-mail :
info@policyresearch.nl
website : www.policyresearch.nl
This report, on which copyright is applicable, is intended for internal use by the addressee. No part of
the report may be published in any form without the prior permission of the Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Freight Transport. .
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
II. THE TONNAGE MEASUREMENT CONVENTION: MAIN FEATURES AND

CONSEQUENCES........................................................................................................................ 5
III. IMPACT OF GROSS TONNAGE ON SHIP DESIGN........................................................... 11
IV. COST CONSEQUENCES OF THE GROSS TONNAGE MEASUREMENT ..................... 15
IV.1. SHIPBUILDING COSTS ......................................................................................................................... 15
IV.2. CREW COSTS ...................................................................................................................................... 16
IV.3. VOYAGE COSTS.................................................................................................................................. 16
IV.3.1. Port, canal and light dues................................................................................................... 16
IV.3.2. Insurance costs ................................................................................................................... 18
IV.4. OPERATIONAL COSTS ......................................................................................................................... 18
V. ALTERNATIVES SOLUTIONS TO THE USE OF GROSS TONNAGE

MEASUREMENT....................................................................................................................... 19
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 23
ANNEX 1: PRESENTATION HELD AT THE 48TH IMO SLF MEETING
-i-
Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure I.1 :
Figure V.1 :
Line of reasoning........................................................................................................... 2
Alternatives for remedying the present situation ........................................................ 20
Table II.1 :
Selected rules and regulations with GT thresholds ....................................................... 6
- ii -
I.
BACKGROUND
The 1969 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement

of Ships, aimed to establish a
truly international and uniform
measurement system of ships,
that would do away with the bad
influence of tonnage measurement from ship design and
would lead to safer ship.
With the adoption of the International Convention on Tonnage

Measurement of Ships, 1969 (TM Convention), the Contracting
Governments aimed to establish a truly international and uniform
measurement system of ships, that would do away with the bad
influence of tonnage measurement from ship design and would lead
to safer ship.
However, serious questions have

been raised on the issue of the
suitability of Gross Tonnage
(GT), as defined in the Tonnage
Measurement Convention with
respect to its negative influence
on the safety of certain types of
ships.
Since the coming into force in 1982 of the TM Convention, however,

serious questions have been raised with respect to its negative
influence on the safety of certain types of ships. In particular the issue
of the suitability of Gross Tonnage (GT), as defined in the TM
Convention, for measuring open top container vessels, small and
feeder vessels, bulk carriers and fishing vessels, has in recent years
resulted in various initiatives and proposals submitted by member
states of IMO to the Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and
of Fishing Vessels Safety concerning the long-term effect of tonnage
measurement with regard to safety.
Open top containerships, because they provide adequate
freeboard, pitch angle and bow height, offer greater
buoyancy and better protection of the deck cargoes. They
are safer than more traditional designs because of the
stringent guidelines that apply to this type of
containership. The additional safety features that are
incorporated in the open top containership design,
increases nevertheless the steel weight of the vessel (and
thus its construction costs) and push up the GT of the
vessel. Consequently, they increase the ship owners
operating costs. The small freeboards and inherent small
stability ranges on small vessels (including container
feeder ships), combined with their deployment virtually
-1-
worldwide rather than on restricted coastal services, has

also lead to calls for the re-assessment of the safety of
small ships.
The reduced freeboard for bulk carriers, resulting in a
significantly lower GT compared to vessels with the
same dwt and the simultaneous elimination of the
requirement of a forecastle, without any additional
requirement for hatch cover strengths, although
economically satisfactory for the ship owners, has been
identified as one of the main causes for the loss of an
inordinate number of bulk carriers in the last 30 years1.
Figure I.1. graphically presents the main line of reasoning of the
foregoing discussion.
Figure I.1 :
Line of reasoning
GT as
standard
measurement
International Convention
on Tonnage Measurement
of ships, 1969
Rules and regulations

(SOLAS, STCW, ILO, MARPOL)
Liability
conventions
Dues and tariffs

(Port, canal, insurance, )
Impact on capital, running

and voyage costs
Minimum
stability
recommendations
Impact on ship design

Drive to maximize cargo space and minimize GT
Pressure on reserve buoyancy, freeboard, bow
height, manning spaces,
Impact on
seaworthiness,
seakindliness,
safety and
innovation
Source : Policy Research Corporation
-2-
See more on this in the Section on bulk carriers in Chapter III.
A further examination of the reported and or investigated deficiencies

of the GT measurement reveals two different but superimposed
problems. The critics of the 1969 TM Convention point first and
foremost at the fact that the vessel measurement system exerts
pressure on the safety margins of the ship. Rather than to reward the
prudent naval architect, shipbuilder and ship owner, GT penalizes
them. As the GT measurement is the basis of several rates and tariffs
and represents thresholds or limitations for determining minimum
requirements for various mandatory or customary prerequisites or
provisions, an increased GT without a comparable increase in earning
capacity only leads to higher costs for the vessels operator. Moreover
the application of GT for setting port dues or other tariffs inevitably
leads to arbitrary tariff setting and discrimination between ships
depending on types and sizes. The second problem, which has
attracted less attention up to now, concerns the lack of a rational link
between the various GT thresholds and the expected results from the
limitations that are being imposed.
This discussion document has
been prepared on request of the
Directorate General for Civil
Aviation and Freight Transport
of the Dutch Ministry of
Transport, Public Works and
Water Management and aims to
provide a substantiated answer
with respect the adequacy of the
GT measurement in todays
shipping environment.
This discussion document, which has been prepared on request of the

Directorate General for Civil Aviation and Freight Transport of the
Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
aims to provide a substantiated answer with respect the adequacy of
the GT measurement in todays shipping environment and review the
main problem areas that have been defined in connection with the GT
rules. Ultimately, it will present a number of possible alternative
solutions that have been proposed by various industry experts in order
to amend the noted defects and failings.
The first part of the discussion document will consider the main
features of the TM Convention and then present a comprehensive
review of the various international conventions and regulations that
use GT as a basis either for setting limitations or imposing additional
requirements. Next, the impact of the GT on the design of ships will
be handled. Cases of specific and or special ship types will illustrate
the adverse effects of the current GT measurement regime. Further,
the cost consequences of the GT measurement on ship construction
and on the capital and running costs of ship operators will be further
investigated. The final part of the document will then set forth a
number of alternative solutions to tackle the noted shortcomings and
or remove cost disadvantages resulting from the application of GT.
-3-
-4-
II.
THE TONNAGE MEASUREMENT CONVENTION:

MAIN FEATURES AND CONSEQUENCES
The Tonnage Measurement

Convention of 1969 establishes
regulations for determining the
Gross and Net Tonnages of
ships and provides for the
issuance of an International
Tonnage Certificate to every
ship by the Government of the
State whose flag the ship is
flying.
Included in the Gross and Net
Tonnages are all the enclosed
spaces which are bounded by
the ships hull.
International conventions such

as for example SOLAS, STCW,
ILO and Liability Conventions
define thresholds based on GT.
The Tonnage Measurement Convention of 1969 establishes

regulations for determining the Gross and Net Tonnages of ships and
provides for the issuance of an International Tonnage Certificate to
every ship by the Government of the State whose flag the ship is
flying. Included in the Gross and Net Tonnages are all the enclosed
spaces which are bounded by the ships hull, by fixed or portable
partitions or bulkheads, by decks or coverings other than permanent
or movable awnings2. The Convention stipulates that all enclosed
spaces are included in the GT, and in order to further explain and
clarify what is considered as being an enclosed space, lists in detail, a
number of excluded spaces. But, the Convention doesnt distinguish
between the enclosed spaces that are provided to carry paying cargoes
and those that serve to improve the seaworthiness of the ship. As a
result, vessels incorporating good design features to enhance its safety
will have a higher GT because the additional enclosed spaces, that are
provided to ensure such safety, are fully included in the final tonnage
measurement result.
In several international conventions the application of their
regulations is frequently determined in terms of the size of the vessel.
Larger vessels have to comply with stricter, more demanding and
costlier conditions or provisions. International conventions which
define thresholds based on GT are the SOLAS, STCW, ILO and
Liability Conventions. Table II.1 gives an overview of the rules and
regulations based on GT and the main applicable thresholds laid
down in these Conventions.
The Gross Tonnage of a ship is determined by the following formula:

GT=K1V, where V is the total volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship in cubic
meters and K1 = 0.2 + 0.02log10V.
-5-
Table II.1 :
Selected rules and regulations with GT thresholds
Regulation
SOLAS chapter IV
SOLAS chapter V
Area of impact
Subject
GT Thresholds
Equipment
Equipment and administrative
Radiocommunications
Automatic ship identification system
SOLAS chapter IX
SOLAS chapter XI-1
SOLAS chapter XI-2
SOLAS chapter XII
Administrative
Administrative
Equipment
Daily reporting
(Simplified) voyage data recorders
ISM Code
Identification number
ISPS Code
(Simplified) voyage data recorders
300 GT
300 GT, 500 GT, 3 000 GT
10 000 GT, 50 000 GT
500 GT
3 000 GT, 20 000 GT
500 GT
300 GT
500 GT
3 000 GT, 20 000 GT
MARPOL
Threshold for certification
400 GT
STCW Convention
Manning
Madatory level of requirements for

certification of masters and ship mates
500 GT
3 000 GT
ILO C178: art. 1

ILO C164: art. 11 and 9
Administrative
Manning
Labour Inspection Seafarers Convention

Health protection and Medical Care Seafarers
Convention
500 GT
500 GT (and 15 seafarers)
1 600 GT
ILO C133: art. 5
Accommodation
Minimum floor area
1 000 - 3 000 GT
3 000 - 10 000 GT
3 000 GT
10 000 GT
ILO C133: art. 7

ILO C133: art. 8
Accommodation
Accommodation
Recreation area
Bathroom facilities
8 000 GT
5 000 GT
5 000 - 15 000 GT
15 000 - 25 000 GT
25 000 GT
ILO C133: art. 9
Accommodation
Water closet and facilities for changing clothes
1 600 GT
Convention on Limitation of Liability

for Maritime Claims 1976
Liability
Limitation in respect of loss of life or personal

injury property claims
< 500 GT
501 - 3 000 GT
3 001 - 30 000 GT
30 001 - 70 000 GT
70 001 GT
* International Convention on
Liability and Compensation for
Damage in Connection with the
Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious
Substances by Sea 1996
Liability
Compensation for accidents involving

hazardous and noxious substances; make it
possible for up to 250 million SDR to be paid
out to victims of disasters involving HNS
< 2 000 GT
2 000 - 50 000 GT
50 000 GT
* Not yet into force
The SOLAS Convention concerns numerous maritime domains as it

specifies minimum requirements for radio communication, automatic
ship identification system, voyage data recorders, safety management
and ship security. The thresholds for application of the regulations
contained in these conventions differ substantially.
The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watch keeping (STCW) imposes a mandatory level of
requirements for the certification of masters and ship mates with
thresholds at 500 and 3 000 Gross Tonnes. A host of ILO
-6-
Conventions deals with accommodation of crews, health protection

and medical care. The thresholds for additional requirements
regarding the accommodation of crews are respectively 1 600, 5 000,
8 000, 10 000, 15 000 and 25 000 Gross Tonnes. But for health
protection and medical care the imposed thresholds are 500 Gross
Tonnes for ships carrying more than 15 seafarers and engaged in a
voyage of more than three days and 1 600 Gross Tonnes. Manning
requirements in terms of size of the crew and individual qualifications
are subject to national regulations of the Flag State of the vessel. In
most cases the minimum crew levels and qualifications of officers
and ratings are decided on the GT of the ship.
Other, recommended but non-mandatory thresholds, that may have a
decisive impact on the ship owners decisions, are often based on GT.
They concern, for example, the calculation of premiums for
Protection and Indemnity insurance and the various levels of liability.
Although the P&I premium is expressed per Gross Ton, the decisive
factors determining the premium level are the claims record, the
profile and history of the fleet or ships to be insured (type of vessel,
age, number of ships, type of engines, classification society), the risks
covered and the perceived exposure and deductibles. Although P&I
Clubs offer unlimited cover, they impose limitations of liability which
are based on the GT of the ship.
Where all of the Conventions referred to above base their regulations
on GT, the MARPOL 73/78 Convention (International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto) generally imposes requirements
(e.g. for segregated ballast tanks, double hulls, construction
requirements) on the vessels deadweight. The MARPOL certification
system has, as a general threshold, 400 GT. In several Annexes and
Amendments the same 400 GT limit has been retained. For example,
in the 1997 Amendment of Regulation 25A to Annex 1 that specifies
a prohibition of discharge into the sea in special areas, the revised
Annex IV applies to new ships engaged in international voyages, of
400 GT and above or which are certified to carry more than 15
persons and in Annex V the same 400 GT threshold (or ships certified
to carry 15 persons or more, and every fixed or floating platform
engaged in exploration of the seabed) for keeping a Garbage Record
Book.
-7-
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 enacted by the Congress of the United
States sets thresholds for the total liability of a responsible party on
the basis of GT (including for the removal costs, damages and
liability of third parties). The thresholds are 3 000 GT for tankers and
a limitation either per Gross Ton or a defined amount whichever is
greater for other vessels.
The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for
Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious
Substances by Sea (HNS 1996) provides for limits of liability based
on GT (ships not exceeding 2 000 Gross Tons can limit their liability
to SDR3 10 million, whereas ships above that limit but not exceeding
50 000 Gross Tons can limit their liability to SDR 10 million plus
1 500 SDR for each additional Gross Ton. Ships in excess of 50 000
Gross Tons can limit their liability to the liability limit of the ships
between 2 000 and 50 000 Gross Tons, but with an extra of 360 SDR
for every additional Gross Ton. The total possible amount the ship
owner is liable for is anyway limited to 100 million SDR.
In August 2003 the European Union introduced new regulations for
fishing vessels regarding entry and exit and the limitation of the
fishing fleets total catching capacity (Directive 1438/2003). These
regulations use the GT in combination with engine power as a
threshold measure to determine reference levels of the fishing fleet.
In
several
instances
the
reference to the GT measure is
rather irrational because of the
lack of causal link between the
specific aim that is pursued in
setting the threshold and the GT
measure itself.
Lack of causal link

Apart from the argument whether GT has implications on the safety
and the stability of a vessel, it is obvious that in several instances the
reference to the GT measure is rather irrational because of the lack of
causal link between the specific aim that is pursued in setting the
threshold and the GT measure itself:
The requirements for navigational equipment shouldnt be a
function of the vessels GT but of the needs for safe navigation
and communication in the shipping lanes in which she operates as
well as in her ports of call;
Whether lifeboats or rafts should be provided is not a matter that
should be decided on GT (SOLAS Chapter III states a threshold of
500 GT or less than 200 passengers) but exclusively on the
maximum number of people that are allowed on board (size of the
crew plus complement of passengers);
-8-
Special Drawing Right. 1 SDR = 1.4 USD
Crew certification requirements should be dictated by the tasks

that have to be carried out in order to ensure a vessels safe and
sustainable running;
Minimum accommodation standards ought to be decided so as to
optimally motivate the crew and ensure its fullest commitment to
the effective and efficient execution of the tasks at hand;
Setting port dues on the basis of the GT of a vessel doesnt allow
taking into account the demand that a vessel makes on a ports
infra and superstructures. There is no direct and realistic
relationship between GT and the depth and width of the entrance
channel needed by a vessel, the type and scale of the general civil
works that have to be provided to accommodate the vessel or the
amount of dredging that needs to be carried out alongside the
berths;
GT is not the proper yardstick for determining fish catching
capacity. More significant in this respect are the ability of the
shipper, availability of electronic instruments, net size, fishing
method, fish pump capacity, distance to the shore, freezing
capacity and days effectively spent on the fishing grounds.
The widespread use in International Conventions or subsequently in
national laws of GT as a reference unit to define requirements,
mandatory or otherwise, generates directly or indirectly additional
costs for operators of vessels with relative higher GTs. But other costs
also increase when an owner, with the increased safety and
seaworthiness of his vessel in mind, chooses a design with additional
GT. The consequences for the ship owner in terms of additional cost
will be considered in the next section.
-9-
- 10 -
III.
The GT measurement system,

through its application in
international rules and regulations or because it is used as a
yardstick for levying duties, has
an effect on ship design.
IMPACT OF GROSS TONNAGE ON SHIP DESIGN
It is stated that the GT measurement system, through its application in

international rules and regulations or because it is used as a yardstick
for levying duties, has an effect on ship design. In this Chapter, the
adverse effects of the current GT measurement regime will be
illustrated for specific ship types.
a/ Container vessels
Several groups of container carrying ships can be distinguished, for
which the GT measurement presents specific challenges:
Small containerships (of around 3 000 GT or below): for these
ships the load line convention rules and the ship stability
prescriptions allow for designs with minimal freeboard and reserve
buoyancy resulting in limited tolerance levels in case of human
error (mistakes in navigation or cargo handling) or exceptional
weather conditions. The application of the GT measurement
induces naval architects and shipbuilders to build ships with odd
shapes (relatively short and narrow ships with no forecastle but
with cut-off stern, small engine room and tight crew accommodation spaces);
Medium and large cellular container ships (over 6 000/ 8 000
TEU): freeboard on larger container ships is less of a problem, but
in line with a ships increased carrying capacity, the number of
containers carried above deck becomes ever larger. On the largest
container ships presently in service, the number of deck containers
is either equal or in excess of the number of TEU-slots under deck.
Thus lashing of deck containers becomes a costly, ineffective4 and
for the lashing gang, perilous task. It leads to substantial extra
cargo-handling costs and delays vessels longer than necessary at
berth. This lengthens the vessels time at berth and reduces the
number of roundtrips and the carrying capacity in a year.
Ineffective under extreme circumstances because the lashings are partly fixed to
the vessels structure and partly to the hatch cover itself, both of which move in
different directions and at different speeds.
- 11 -
A solution for the safety and lashing problems could be the

deployment of open top (hatch coverless) ships, with very high
freeboard. But their higher GT has worked as a disincentive and
shipping lines seem now reluctant to order them. The GT
measurement not only increases the basis on which these vessels
often are billed, but a deficiency in the formula itself, foresees that
open top container ships cant be larger than 30 000 GT. A
question that is raised by ship designers is whether the IMO
guidelines for open-top ships are not excessive.
An additional benefit for the ship owner of operating an open ship
is the lesser risk that parametric rolling or heavy weather
conditions would result in a number of containers being thrown
overboard or severely damaged on deck. Jettison of containers on
such ships is, however, not an option. With the size of container
ships exceeding the 10 000 TEU barrier, the design limits of the
traditional container vessel have been stretched to the maximum.
Open-top container ships may offer a solution to overcome these
design limitations and ensure safer vessel operation and container
handling.
b/ Bulk carriers
These are typically wide vessels with reduced freeboard, no forecastle
and non-re-enforced hatch covers on the forward holds. They are
prone to general and localised stresses of the structure and hatches
and to collapsing bulkheads.
The loss record of bulk carriers in the 70s and 80s confirmed that
these vessels were accident-prone. Hence, the recommendation made
in 1991 by the IMO for adopting hull stress monitoring systems and
by the Classification Societies for a revision of the rules for structural
and survey requirements. Since 01/01/2005 as per regulation 39 of the
Load Lines Convention (ICLL), a forecastle has become compulsory
on bulk carriers.
c/ Small dry cargo vessels (under 3000 GT)

Some 54% of the dry cargo vessels (5 500 ships) have a GT of less
than 3 000 GT. They are generally vulnerable ships with respect to
stability, as they show comparable characteristics that those of small
container vessels. Low freeboards and bow heights and small
accommodation spaces for the crew all result from a drive to
minimize the GT of the vessel whilst maximizing its cargo earning
capacity.
- 12 -
d/ RoRo and Car carriers

They typify vessels with a high freeboard needed for the safety of the
ship and the cargo but resulting in high GTs. A number of Port
Authorities have acknowledged this fact and have adapted their port
dues accordingly.
e/ Livestock carriers
Freeboard of these vessels may not be higher but they are penalised
by the GT measure because the extensive above deck livestock
houses, providing better protection of the cargo, are included in the
total enclosed volume. As on traditional container ships the deck
capacity is exempt from tonnage measurement this is a good example
of discrimination resulting from GT measurement.
f/ Passenger vessels
For these, space critical vessels, the GT is the appropriate measure
because it is without detriment to the safety of the ship and it
approximates well their earning potential.
g/ Fishing vessels
GT thresholds set the minimum values for safety levels on basis of
worldwide mean conditions. For the fishing sector (specifically ocean
going trawlers), operating in harsh environments, such minimum
safety standards are insufficient. Specifically for new buildings and
conversions, GT thresholds become a factor that lead to a reduction in
crew accommodation spaces and covered working areas. Providing an
increased forecastle height to improve safety adds to the GT but not
to the catching capacity. New designs for trawlers may incorporate a
new type of RSW tank with cylindrical shape, an improved fish
handling system and ergonomic conditions for the crew. All these
features for a safer ship and better labour conditions on board again
push up the GT but not the vessels catching capacity. As a
consequence few owners will go for such innovative design.
- 13 -
- 14 -
IV.
COST CONSEQUENCES OF THE GROSS TONNAGE

MEASUREMENT
IV.1.
In essence, Ship are designed to
maximize earnings and minimize
costs. This might, however,
result in vessels with minimal
freeboard offering a GT that just
marginally remains below the
various threshold values that
International
Conventions
impose.
SHIPBUILDING COSTS
Ship owners demand from their naval architects and shipbuilders that
they provide ships that will allow them to maximize earnings and
minimize costs. This only proves they have good commercial sense.
To achieve this challenge, the designer of the ship must at the same
time strive to optimize the cargo space on board (i.e. the ships
earning capacity) and reduce steel usage to a minimum. This might
result in vessels with minimal freeboard offering a GT that just
marginally remains below the various threshold values that
International Conventions impose. Hence, ships may be built against
set limits (explaining, for example, the number of ships around 499
and 2 999 GT in the fleet).
Especially designs for smaller vessels offer very reduced or no safety
margins. The safety norms that are being used satisfy the average
ship but leave little or no reserve to compensate for human error,
incorrect stowage or exceptional weather conditions. Under pressure
of the owners, threshold levels incite the ship designer to search ways
and means to stretch the design limits to the extreme in order to
obtain further marginal gains in earning capacity.
Building safer vessels with more freeboard and depth, larger abovedeck superstructures and houses, and roomier accommodation for the
crew carries an additional cost, mainly because of the larger amounts
of steel required. If the resulting increase in GT results in the vessel
exceeding a threshold and thereby falls into a category for which
more stringent requirements are imposed, this will then trigger
- 15 -
heavier expenditures in required navigational and other equipment.

As an indication, shipbuilders estimate that the extra construction
cost, depending on the size of vessel works out at between 5 and 25
percent.
IV.2.
The GT, establishes thresholds
for the minimum required
qualification levels for each
individual position on board and
some Flag State administrations
still determine the required
minimum manning levels on this
basis.
The GT, shown on the Tonnage Measurement Certificate, establishes

thresholds for the minimum required qualification levels for each
individual position on board and some Flag State administrations still
determine the required minimum manning levels on this basis.
The potential cost savings that can be achieved through designing
vessels with GTs below the established thresholds for certification
vary considerably. Manning budgets are complex. Factors that
influence manning scales and required qualifications include flag
state requirements, STCW considerations (including working hours),
the age of the vessel, the degree of onboard technology, the
nationality of the seafarer, the owner or managers policy, the trading
pattern, etc. Wage levels strongly vary with the nationality(ies) of the
crew. Overall, crew costs still represent a not insignificant cost item
for ship owners. As an indicative value the annual manning cost on a
deep-sea vessel typically falls in a bracket between 500 000 and
1 000 000 per vessel, although clearly the variation can be
significantly more. If a vessel, because of its relative higher GT, falls
into a class of vessel for which more stringent manning requirements
exist, then the additional crew cost could for example go up by
anywhere from 10 to 20 percent or between 50 000 and 200 000.
IV.3.
VOYAGE COSTS
IV.3.1.
PORT, CANAL AND LIGHT DUES
In most ports the general port

dues have been set on the basis
of the GT of the vessel.
- 16 -
CREW COSTS
Significant cost factors are the port, canal and light dues, in particular
for ships which are deployed on services with many port calls (for
example regular short sea and feeder services). In most ports the
general port dues have been set on the basis of the GT of the vessel.
Notable exceptions are the French ports, the ports in former French
territories and the Polish ports which use as their tariff base the
volume of the vessel as defined by length, breadth and summer draft5.
Canal dues are traditionally set on the GT but in 2005 the Panama
Canal Authority changed its charging unit for containerships from GT
to the vessels TEU capacity. Where light dues are separately
charged, the basis is normally GT.
Thus, if the GT of a vessel because of an improved safety design
increases, say by 10%, the result for the ship owner will be an
additional 10% increase in his port, canal and light dues. The
significance of port dues in the total port disbursement note of a ship
owner varies greatly from port to port call. Also, their coverage is far
from uniform and overall Port Authorities related dues may oscillate
wildly (between for example 1 000 and 30 000 per call of a
10 000 DWT/ 7 000 GT general cargo ship). As a general rule it can
be taken that port dues are significant costs for a ship operator,
especially because of the number of repeated port calls in a year. For
a 10 000 GT container vessel the annual port costs amount to approx.
650 000 and between 1 and 1.5 million for a 40 000 GT
container vessel.
When considering the impact of a GT on the amounts ship operators
have to disburse to ports, one should not overlook two important
facts:
Firstly, most ports offer considerable rebates on the base level of
their port dues (depending on type and size of vessel, type of trade,
number of calls per year, etc.);
Secondly, published tariffs are rarely applied as indicated in the
tariff book and many shipping lines carry enough clout to
negotiate with the Port Authority a more advantageous
arrangement.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Port Authorities can fairly
autonomously decide to change their charging bases (e.g. from GT to
length or volume) on condition that the port regulations relating to
tariffs are respected.
V = L x b x te
in which L = length overall, b = maximum breadth and te = maximum summer
draught.
If te is smaller than 0.14 x L x b the formula to be used is V = L x b x 0.14 x
Lxb
- 17 -
IV.3.2.
Hull and machinery insurance
premiums are almost always set
on the basis of the declared
value of the vessel and rarely or
never on GT.
The annual P&I premium,
however, is based on the GT of
the vessels.
INSURANCE COSTS
Two major components make up the insurance costs for a vessel: the
hull and machinery insurance costs and the P&I and related ship
costs. Hull and machinery insurance premiums are almost always set
on the basis of the declared value of the vessel and rarely or never on
GT. But as already pointed out, many other factors play in
determining the premium levels, such as the reputation and
experience of the owner or manager, the claims record (a lot of
emphasis is placed by underwriters when calculating their rates), the
size of the fleet to be insured, the trade and the vessel (type, value,
flag, classification society, IMO compliances, crew and the split of
the RDC (collision cover) between Hull and Machinery and P&I
insurance. Annual totals for Hull and Machinery typically vary
depending on the mix of parameters mentioned, between US$ 50 000
and US$ 200 000 (passenger vessels not included).
The P&I underwriters are adamant that they do not rate fleets or
vessels on a tariff basis. A huge variation in premium is to be
expected as they are essentially set as a result of the perception of the
underwriter, the claims record and the bargaining power of the
insured. The underwriting factors for P&I are basically the same as
for the Hull and Machinery insurance except such items as hull value,
increased values and disbursements6 which are not relevant to P&I.
As an indicative example, the annual P&I contribution for say a
25 000 GT ship is between 45 000 and 70 000, although for
certain ships much higher or much lower contributions will apply.
IV.4.
The operational time of a vessel
at berth is a main cost element
that can be influenced by GT.
OPERATIONAL COSTS
The operational time of a vessel at berth is a main cost element that
can be influenced by GT if this measure leads to less performing
vessels (total required lashing times of standard container vessels).
The effects, although indirect in nature, can be significant (e.g. a
result of 10 to 15 percent extra berth time). They are, however,
strongly linked to certain vessel types.
- 18 -
A ship owners costs in fitting out and provisioning the vessel and other items of
a nebulous or indescribable character, though nevertheless very real in case of
loss, are insured as disbursements /increased values, etc..
V.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE

GROSS TONNAGE MEASUREMENT
USE OF
Chapter V gives a number of

alternatives for remedying the
present situation with respect to
the negative impact of the use of
the GT measurement.
The preceding overview reveals or confirms the irrelevance of GT for

determining the size of a vessel or for establishing thresholds for the
application of rules and regulations. The GT measurement doesnt
succeed in realizing the objectives that were the basis for setting
thresholds. It obviously leads to less safe ships whilst hampering the
application of constructive new ideas and design innovation. It is
therefore urgent to consider alternatives for remedying the present
situation. An overview is presented in Figure V.1.
STEP 1: investigate the genuine

link between the thresholds
stated in the various Convention
rules and tariffs in GT and the
aims and objectives of these
conventions and tariffs.
A first step, which wouldnt need amendments of the 1969 Tonnage

Measurement Convention, would be for the maritime transport
stakeholders (Governments, international maritime authorities, ship
owners, ship designers, shipbuilders, classification societies, port
authorities, maritime lawyers) to investigate the genuine link between
the thresholds stated in the various Convention rules and tariffs in GT
and the aims and objectives of these conventions and tariffs.
For example the minimum requirements regarding life boats should
be decided on the basis of the maximum number of persons on board,
the navigational equipment on the risk level of the routes the vessel is
serving, the crew accommodation should be considered as an element
in the overall employment and remuneration package of the crew.
Port dues could easily be set on other units of measurement than GT.
If set on GT they could be differentiated, as is already the case in
many world ports, in terms of type of vessel, type of cargo carried and
type of service on which the vessel is deployed. As pointed out, the
Panama Canal Authorities have recently given the example by
introducing a completely new charging system for container ships,
based on its TEU carrying capacity.
- 19 -
Figure V.1 :
Alternatives for remedying the present situation

1
Investigate the
genuine link
between the
thresholds stated
in the various
Convention rules
and tariffs in GT
and the aims and
objectives of
these conventions and tariffs
Support, as
a transitory
measure,
proposals to
introduce a
reduced GT
formula for
open top
container ships
Take the reduced

GT forward as a
correction and
enter this in lieu
of the previously
calculated GT on
the first page of
the tonnage
certificate
Introduce for all

ships a new GT
measurement, in
which the
covered spaces
specifically
provided for
safety, would be
deducted from
the GT as
defined under
present rules
Modernise the 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention, so that future adaptations of the
convention only need implicit and not explicit ratification by the member states
The re-consideration of the logical link between GT and what the

thresholds aim to achieve would, to a not insignificant extent, reduce
the use of GT. It would therefore make the whole issue less charged
and this would substantially improve the chances that vessels,
offering a higher GT to be safer, become more attractive to owners
and operators from a costs and earnings point of view. Apart from the
inevitability of getting the full co-operation of all stakeholders, this
step implies the acceptance of the shipping community to revise a
host of existing conventions and to reconsider traditional pricing
strategies, tariff structures and rate levels.
In the same order of ideas, vessel safety would be much boosted if
load line regulations and stability rules would form an integrated
instrument.
STEP 2: introduce a new
measure for selected ship types
(in priority the open top
container ships).
- 20 -
A second step would be to support, as a transitory measure, proposals

submitted by the Australian and German Governments with a view to
address the long-term effect of Tonnage Measurement to introduce a
new measure for selected ship types (in priority the open top
container ships) by adopting either:
a register tonnage based on the length, the breadth and the

summer draught of the vessel;
or to accept for these ships a reduced GT for the calculation of
GT-based fees based on the provisional formula:
Reduced GT = GT {1 [(30 000 GT) / (1 000)] x 0.07]}
or to offer a flat reduction rate of 10% of the GT;
In the transitional phase, before final adoption and inclusion in the
1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention, the reduced GT formula
shown above, should be subject to continuous review and adjustment,
as the coefficients used may have to be improved and refined.
STEP 3: take the reduction in
GT forward and enter this in
lieu of the previously calculated
GT on the first page of the
tonnage certificate.
As a next step, an amendment to the 1969 Tonnage Measurement

Convention has been proposed by Germany. It is to take the reduction
in GT forward as a correction for the number representing the
enclosed volumes of the ship hull and to enter this in lieu of the
previously calculated GT on the first page of the tonnage certificate.
The proposals specifically targeted to adjust or reduce the GT of
open-top container ships, find their origin in the fact that although
being safer ships, the GT measurement penalizes these ships and
discriminate against their owners or operators.
In this respect, the application of Regulation 1(3) of the TM
Convention could also be considered. This regulation concerns crafts
of novel designs and states that the gross and the net tonnage of
novel types of craft whose constructional features are such to render
the application of the provision of these Regulations unreasonable or
impracticable shall be as determined by the Administration. What
this regulation doesnt define is the term novel. Nor does it provide
a proper interpretation of novel. Hence, IMO could consider the
elaboration, in priority, of such definition and correct interpretation.
This would considerably strengthen the GT Conventions reliability
and improve on its unequivocal application.
STEP 4: introduce for all ships a

new GT measurement, in which
the covered spaces in a ship,
specifically provided for safety,
would be deducted from the GT.
A fourth but radical step would be to introduce for all ships a new
GT measurement, in which the covered spaces in a ship, specifically
provided for safety, would be deducted from the GT as defined under
present rules, in order to arrive at a new measure that would no longer
be a disincentive to provide the necessary safety margins. The new
- 21 -
GT would thus be calculated as follows: GT as determined under

present tonnage rules minus the covered spaces that are provided for
safety purposes within the present freeboard and those extra spaces
that result from providing a higher freeboard in a revised design. The
tonnage value thereby obtained would be used to calculate the various
fees and charges due to the vessel. For the crew accommodation a
similar calculation could be carried out to determine the extra covered
space that would not be included in the GT for charging purposes. A
major disadvantage of following this step is that it may again lead to
creative thinking solely aimed at artificially reducing the GT. It would
mean a return to the pre-1969 Convention days.
An even more radical step than
the proposal to introduce a new
GT measurement system, would
be to establish the size of the
vessel on the indisputable
physical dimensions of the vessel, i.e. length overall, breadth
overall and summer draught and
calculate the fees on the
obtained volume basis.
An even more radical step than the proposal to introduce a new GT

measurement system, would be to establish the size of the vessel on
the indisputable physical dimensions of the vessel, i.e. length
overall, breadth overall and summer draught and calculate the fees on
the obtained volume basis. Some ports have introduced a charging
system based on length overall (e.g. the Port of New Orleans for
dockage). Changing the charging base doesnt imply a loss of revenue
for Port Authorities, as they will be able to adjust the basis of the
tariffs. Hence, port dues in French ports are generating much higher
revenues than in competing European ports although they have been
set on volume, calculated as the product of length, breath and draft.
A constructive idea to allow faster adaptation of amendments could
be to modernise the ratification process of the 1969 TM Convention
towards implicit rather than explicit ratification, in line with more
recent Conventions such as MARPOL and SOLAS.
Irrespective of a revision of the tonnage measurement system, it is
necessary to critically re-examine and impartially scrutinize the
current safety requirements. In particular it will be necessary to revise
the vessel stability requirements and increase the in-built safety
margins. These should be made specific for various ship types. It is
also possible to improve the safety of the vessel by other instruments.
These could include improved stowage planning, better supervision of
cargo stowage in ports, the generalized use of ship stability
calculators, the fitting of stabilizers on vessels, etc.
- 22 -
VI.
Based on experience and factual

data, maritime industry experts
including naval architects, shipbuilders and classification societies have come to the conclusion that the 1969 Tonnage
Measurement rules as presently
applied, has as major detrimental effect that although ships
are being built, within all the
stated rules, they are less safe
than they could and should be.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The GT is a universal and uniform measure that was introduced to

determine unequivocally the size of a vessel and use it for charging
purposes. Since the adoption in 1969 of the Tonnage Measurement
Convention, there has been an escalation of rules in maritime
transport that set thresholds for enforcing minimum standards or
limiting liabilities. For most of these thresholds the GT offers no
rational basis and could and should therefore be discarded in favour
of thresholds that ensure a strong link between the threshold values
and the stated target or objective.
Based on experience and factual data, maritime industry experts
including naval architects, shipbuilders and classification societies
have come to the conclusion that the 1969 Tonnage Measurement
rules as presently applied, tied to the many, often unrealistic
thresholds imposed by a host of conventions, have as major
detrimental effect that although ships are being built, within all the
stated rules, they are less safe than they could and should be. Because
virtually all safety margins have been used up and vessels have to
operate in circumstances that are considerably more taxing than the
average operating conditions on which most rules are based, the
probability of catastrophic accidents and calamitous events occurring
is high.
Such increased risk is the direct consequence of the incentive GT
gives to reduce freeboard or reserve buoyancy at the expense of
safety. Moreover, because of the tonnage measurement rules, ships
are designed to minimise the total GT for a maximum earning
capacity. Scant attention is paid to innovative techniques that could
improve crew comfort, cargo care or vessel sea kindliness. In some
cases the rules even result in the suppression of design innovations
(through tariff and cost discrimination as is the case between open top
- 23 -
container ships and container ships with a traditional design) and the
deterioration of working conditions on board ships.
The problem now lies in finding
workable alternatives. These
will inevitably have to take into
account the type of vessel and
the purpose that is being
pursued by the use of a vessel
measurement standard.
The case to address the negative consequences of the GT

measurement system has been clearly made, as testified by the many
submissions made by the member states to the IMOs SubCommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels
Safety and by the numerous studies by maritime research institutes
and ship designers. The problem now lies in finding workable
alternatives. These will inevitably have to take into account the type
of vessel and the purpose that is being pursued by the use of a vessel
measurement standard. Given the anticipated difficulty to change the
1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention and the time that will be
needed, it may be appropriate to first introduce interim measures to
correct problems and then to consider a more fundamental change to
the tonnage measurement rules.
If it is accepted that an adaptation of the GT measurement

rules or a new measurement
regime is necessary, the result
should be an unambiguous,
incontestable and consistent set
of proposals.
If it is accepted that an adaptation of the GT measurement rules or a

new measurement regime is necessary, the result should be an
unambiguous, incontestable and consistent set of proposals. First, the
use of GT for establishing threshold values for many diverse causes
should be carefully examined on rationality and where appropriate,
alternative bases for the thresholds should be proposed. Secondly, the
main line of force of any proposal should be to undo the presently
inherent link between ship safety (as incorporated in the design and
construction specifications) and the GT. Finally there is a need to
reconsider the appropriateness of the present subdivision and damage
stability requirements (intact and damage) for dry ships and the link
to load line rules and ship measurement.
- 24 -
ANNEX 1: PRESENTATION
IMO SLF MEETING
HELD AT THE
48TH
-1-
-2-

SOUND SOLUTIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Consequences of the
Gross Tonnage (GT) measurement
Gustaaf De Monie, Senior Director
Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines

and of Fishing Vessels Safety
London, 13 September 2005
CONTENTS
1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention: main features and
consequences
Impact of the Gross Tonnage measurement system on ship design
Cost consequences of the Gross Tonnage measurement system
Alternative solutions to the use of Gross Tonnage
Conclusions and recommendations
THE 1969 INTERNATIONAL

TONNAGE MEASUREMENT CONVENTION
The International Tonnage Measurement Convention of 1969
establishes regulations for determining the Gross and Net Tonnages of ships
provides for the issuance of an International Tonnage Certificate to every ship by
the Government of the State whose flag the ship is flying
Included in the Gross and Net Tonnages are

all the enclosed spaces which are bounded by the ships hull, by fixed or portable
partitions or bulkheads, by decks or coverings other than permanent or movable
awnings
The Gross Tonnage of a ship is determined by

GT=K1V
where V is the total volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship in cubic meters and
K1 = 0.2 + 0.02log10(V)
THE 1969 INTERNATIONAL

The Convention stipulates that all
enclosed spaces are included and, in
order to further explain and clarify
what is considered as being an
enclosed space, lists in detail a
number of excluded spaces
The Convention doesnt distinguish

between the enclosed spaces that are
provided to carry paying cargoes and
those that serve to improve the
seaworthiness of the ship
RESULT
Vessels incorporating good design features to enhance safety
will have a higher GT because the additional enclosed spaces,
that are provided to ensure such safety, are included
The 1969 International Tonnage Measurement Convention aimed to establish a truly

international and uniform measurement system of ships, that would do away with the
bad influence of tonnage measurement from ship design and would lead to safer ships
CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1969 INTERNATIONAL

GT as
standard
measurement
International Convention
on Tonnage Measurement
of ships, 1969
Rules and regulations

(SOLAS, STCW, ILO, MARPOL)
Liability
conventions
Dues and tariffs

(Port, canal, insurance, )
Impact on capital, running

and voyage costs
Minimum
stability
recommendations
Impact on ship design

Drive to maximize cargo space and minimize GT
Pressure on reserve buoyancy, freeboard, bow
height, manning spaces,
Impact on
seaworthiness,
seakindliness,
safety and
innovation
5
EXAMPLES OF RULES AND REGULATIONS BASED ON GT

Regulation
Administrative
SOLAS chapter IV
SOLAS chapter V
500 GT
Manning
500 GT
MARPOL 73 / 78
400 GT
Liability
300 GT, 3 000 GT

10 000 GT, 50 000 GT
100 GT, 300 GT

500 GT
500 GT
3 000 GT, 20 000 GT
400 GT
500 GT
3 000 GT
STCW Convention
500 GT
500 GT
1 600 GT
1 000 GT, 1 600 GT
3 000 GT, 5 000 GT
8 000 GT, 10 000 GT
15 000 GT, 25 000 GT
ILO C133: art. 5, 7, 8, 9
500 GT, 3 000 GT

30 000 GT, 70 000 GT
Convention on Limitation of Liability for

Maritime Claims 1976
International Convention on Liability and
Compensation for Damage in Connection
with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious
Substances by Sea 1996 (* Not yet into
force)
Accommodation
300 GT
SOLAS chapter IX
SOLAS chapter XI-1
SOLAS chapter XI-2
SOLAS chapter XII
ILO C178: art. 1

ILO C164: art. 11 and 9
Equipment
2 000 GT, 50 000 GT
RECORDED PEAKS AT THRESHOLDS IN GT

(BY VESSEL TYPE)
Container vessels
Dry cargo vessels
Bulk carriers
Number of
vessels
(delivered)
number of
vessels
< 3000 GT
% of total GT
per vessels
type
Significant
peaks at
thresholds
GT correlation
with DWT
3 367
2.7%
0.2%
no
98.6%
18.8%
499 GT
2 999 GT
97.9%
0.2%
499 GT
699 GT
99.4%
98.8%
10 300
6 190
53.7%
4.3%
Tanker
9 126
34.2%
1.9%
499 GT
699 GT
Roro vessels
1 801
16.7%
1.3%
no
79.4%
Fishing vessels
2 637
98.3%
89.9%
499 GT
79.3%
Miscellaneous
4 477
76.9%
22.9%
499 GT
80.0%
Based on Lloyds Register Fairplay database

LACK OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
Apart from the argument

whether GT has implications
on the safety and the stability
of a vessel, it is obvious that in
several instances the GT
measure can be rather
irrational, because of the lack
of causal link between the
specific aim that is pursued in
setting the threshold and the
GT measure itself
SOME EXAMPLES OF MORE

APPROPRIATE BASES
requirements for navigational equipment:
needs for safe navigation and communication in
the shipping lanes in which the ship operates as
well as in her ports of call
certification requirements:
to reflect the duties and responsibilities of the crew
member in order to ensure a vessels safe and
sustainable running
minimum accommodation standards:

to be decided so as to optimally motivate the crew
and ensure its fullest commitment to the effective
and efficient execution of the tasks at hand
port dues:
the demand that a vessel makes on a ports infra
and superstructures, in relation to her inherent
earning capacity

Vessel type
Cause
Consequences
Small general cargo

and container vessels
of 3 000 GT or below
Load line convention rules and the ship

stability prescriptions allow for designs with
minimal freeboard and reserve buoyancy
resulting in limited tolerance levels in case of
human error (mistakes in navigation or cargo
handling) or extreme weather conditions
Induces naval architects and

shipbuilders to build ships
without forecastle, but with
cut-off stern, small engine
room, tight crew
accommodation spaces,
THE DONGEDIJK
CAPSIZED WHILE
MANOEUVRING

Vessel type
Cause
Medium and large

cellular container
ships
The number of containers carried above Lashing of deck containers becomes

deck becomes ever larger
a costly, ineffective and for the
lashing gang, a perilous task
Risk that heavy weather conditions and
parametric rolling would result in large The design limits of the traditional
numbers of containers being thrown
container vessel have been stretched
overboard or severely damaged,
to the maximum and innovative
including containers with dangerous or designs become imperative
noxious substances
Consequences
10

A possible solution for the safety and lashing problems could be the deployment
of open top (hatch coverless) ships. Because of the imposed higher freeboard,
they are more expensive to build and their higher GT is a serious disincentive
Scatterdiagram TEU versus GT
For a sample of container ships around 3 600 TEU
3 800
3 750
3 700
TEU capacity
3 650
3 600
P&O Nedlloyd Oceania
Maersk Toyama
3 550
MSC Kerry
3 500
Conti Shanghai
3 450
P&O Nedlloyd Damman
3 400
Frankfurt Express
3 350
3 300
30 000
35 000
40 000
45 000
50 000
55 000
GT
11% more GT
than average
60 000
11

Vessel type
Cause
Consequences
Bulk carriers
Wide vessels with reduced freeboard,

no forecastle and non-re-enforced hatch
covers on the forward holds
Prone to general and localised

stresses of the structure and the
hatches and collapsing bulkheads
Berge Artic, 175 000 dwt
Remedial action:
1/ adoption of hull stress
monitoring system
2/ revision of the rules for structural
and survey requirements
3/ since 1/1/2005 forecastle required
as per ICLL regulation 39
= higher GT
12
COST CONSEQUENCES OF THE

Cost item
Issue
Cost impact
Ship building
costs
1/ ships offering higher freeboard and, consequently,

higher GT, use more steel
Between 5 and 25 percent

extra, depending on the size
and type of the vessel
2/ vessels exceeding GT thresholds require

additional navigational and other equipment
3/ ships offering more spacious accommodation for
their crew have higher building costs because of
higher GT and additional fittings
Crew costs
If a vessel, because of its relative higher GT, falls

into a class of vessel for which more stringent
certification requirements exist, crew costs may
increase considerably (applies especially for vessels
exceeding the 3 000 GT threshold)
Crew cost could go up

anywhere from 10 to 20
percent or between
50 000 and 200 000 per
annum
Voyage costs
The operational time of a vessel at berth is a main

cost element that can be influenced by GT if this
measure leads to less performing vessels (total
required lashing times of standard container vessels)
The cost effect, although

indirect in nature, can be
significant: e.g. a result of 10
to 15 percent extra berth time
13

Cost item
Issue
Cost impact
Port, canal and

light dues
In most ports the general port dues

have been set on the basis of the GT
of the vessel. Exceptions are the
French ports, the ports in former
French territories and the Polish
ports which use the volume of the
vessel as defined by L x b x Te
A 10% larger GT will result for the ship

owner in a 10% increase in the port, canal and
light dues of the ship owner
Canal dues are traditionally set on

the GT but in 2005 the Panama
Canal Authority changed its charging
unit for containerships from GT to
the vessels TEU capacity
The significance of port dues in the total port

disbursement note of a ship owner varies
greatly from port to port call. Also, their
coverage is far from uniform.
The total impact on cost can be significant
because of the total number of port calls a
vessel makes in a year. (Note the difference
between shortsea and deepsea trades)
Where separately charged, the basis

For a 10 000 GT container vessel the annual
for levying light dues is normally GT port costs amount to approx. 650 000 and
between 1 and 1.5 million for a 40 000
GT container vessel
14

Cost item
Issue
Cost impact
Insurance costs Two major components make up the

insurance costs for a vessel:
the hull and machinery insurance costs
the P&I and related ship costs
Hull and machinery insurance premiums
are almost always set on the basis of the
declared value of the vessel and rarely or
never on GT
Huge variations in P&I contributions

exist as these are the result of the
perception of the underwriter, claims
record and bargaining power of the
insured.
As an indicative example, the annual
contribution for a 25 000 GT container
ship is between 45 000 and 70 000
The annual P&I premium, however, is

based on the GT of the vessels
CONCLUSION ON COST CONSEQUENCES:

Through its application in international rules and regulations, or because it
is used as a yardstick for levying duties, the cost impact of the GT
measurement system for ship owners or operators can be significant
15
ALTERNATIVES FOR REMEDYING THE PRESENT SITUATION

1
Investigate the
genuine link
between the
thresholds stated
in the various
Convention rules
and tariffs in GT
and the aims and
objectives of
these conventions and tariffs
Support, as
a transitory
measure,
proposals to
introduce a
reduced GT
formula for
open top
container ships
Take the reduced

GT forward as a
correction and
enter this in lieu
of the previously
calculated GT on
the first page of
the tonnage
certificate
Introduce for all

ships a new GT
measurement, in
which the
covered spaces
specifically
provided for
safety, would be
deducted from
the GT as
defined under
present rules
Modernise the 1969 Tonnage Measurement Convention, so that future adaptations of the
convention only need implicit and not explicit ratification by the member states
16
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED

ALTERNATIVES SOLUTIONS
Requires full cooperation of all stakeholders and implies

the acceptance of the
shipping community
to revise a host of
existing conventions
The reduced GT
formula should be
subject to continuous
review, as the
coefficients used may
have to be improved
and refined
Under the present

convention this
will demand
explicit
ratification by the
member states
It may again lead to

creative thinking solely
aimed at artificially
reducing ship GT. It
would mean a return to
the pre-1969
Convention days
No direct impact
on the 1969 TM
Convention
Publication of
Circulars
Revision of the
1969 TM
Convention
New measurement
convention needed
Any other
ALTERNATIVES ?
17
DEFINITION OF NOVEL TYPES

Regulation 1 (3) of Annex 1 of the 1969 Convention on Tonnage measurement of ships:
The gross and the net tonnage of novel types of craft whose constructional features are
such as to render the application of the provision of these Regulations unreasonable or
impracticable shall be as determined by the Administration.
Where the tonnage is so determined, the Administration shall communicate to the
Organization details of the method used for that purpose, for circulation to the Contracting
Governments for their information.
Need to provide a common and

uniform definition of novel types
This would considerably boost the
reliability and the unequivocal
application of the GT Convention
18
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE USE OF

An even more radical alternative than a change in the calculation of the GT
would be to abandon GT and to establish the size of the vessel on the
indisputable physical dimensions of the vessel, i.e. length overall, breadth
overall and summer draught and, amongst other, calculate the fees on the
obtained volume basis.
Main physical
dimensions of a
breadth
vessel as a basis
for levying dues
19
WHAT CAN BE DONE ANYWAY TO IMPROVE SAFETY

Irrespectively of a revision of the tonnage measurement system, it is necessary to
critically re-examine and impartially scrutinize the current safety requirements.
In particular it will be necessary to revise the vessel stability requirements and
increase the in-built safety margins. These should be made specific for various
ship types.
In any event, even without the introduction of reduced or revised GTs, it is
possible to improve the safety of the vessel by other instruments. These could
include
improved stowage planning

better supervision of cargo stowage in ports
the generalized use of ship stability calculators
the fitting of stabilizers
etc.
20

The 1969 Tonnage Measurement rules as presently applied, tied to the many,
often unrelated thresholds imposed by a host of conventions, can make ships,
although built within all the stated rules, less safe than they could or should be
Ships are designed to minimise the total GT for a maximum earning capacity. As
a direct consequence, GT gives an incentive to reduce freeboard and or spare
buoyancy at the expense of safety. Scant attention is paid to innovative techniques
that could improve crew comfort, cargo care or vessel sea kindliness
Because virtually all safety margins have been used up and vessels have to
operate in circumstances that are considerably more taxing than the average
operating conditions on which most rules are based, the probability of catastrophic accidents and the occurrence of calamitous events cannot be ruled out
21

If it is accepted that an adaptation of the GT measurement rules or a new
measurement regime is necessary, the result should be an unambiguous,
incontestable and consistent set of proposals
Firstly, the use of GT for establishing threshold values for many diverse causes
should be carefully examined on rationality and where appropriate, alternative
bases for the thresholds should be proposed
Secondly, the main line of force of any proposal should be to undo the presently
inherent link between ship safety (as incorporated in the design and construction
specifications) and the GT
Finally, there is a need to reconsider the appropriateness of the present
subdivision and stability requirements (intact and damaged) and the link to load
line rules and ship measurement
22

SOUND SOLUTIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Consequences of the
Gross Tonnage (GT) measurement
Gustaaf De Monie, Senior Director
Office Belgium:
Jan Moorkensstraat 68
2600 Antwerp
tel :
+32 3 286 94 94
fax :
+32 3 286 94 96
e-mail :
info@policyresearch.be
website :
www.policyresearch.be
Office The Netherlands:

Parklaan 40
3016 BC Rotterdam
tel:
+31 10 436 03 64
fax:
+31 10 436 14 16
e-mail : info@policyresearch.nl
website : www.policyresearch.nl

GT Discussion Paper On GT Measurement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GT Discussion Paper On GT Measurement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policy Research Corporation

Policy Research Corporation

Office The Netherlands:

II. THE TONNAGE MEASUREMENT CONVENTION: MAIN FEATURES AND

V. ALTERNATIVES SOLUTIONS TO THE USE OF GROSS TONNAGE

ANNEX 1: PRESENTATION HELD AT THE 48TH IMO SLF MEETING

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Selected rules and regulations with GT thresholds ....................................................... 6

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

The 1969 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement

With the adoption of the International Convention on Tonnage

However, serious questions have

Since the coming into force in 1982 of the TM Convention, however,

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

worldwide rather than on restricted coastal services, has

Rules and regulations

Dues and tariffs

Impact on capital, running

Impact on ship design

Source : Policy Research Corporation

See more on this in the Section on bulk carriers in Chapter III.

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

A further examination of the reported and or investigated deficiencies

This discussion document, which has been prepared on request of the

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

THE TONNAGE MEASUREMENT CONVENTION:

The Tonnage Measurement

International conventions such

The Tonnage Measurement Convention of 1969 establishes

Policy Research Corporation

The Gross Tonnage of a ship is determined by the following formula:

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

Selected rules and regulations with GT thresholds

Equipment and administrative

Threshold for certification

Madatory level of requirements for

ILO C178: art. 1

Labour Inspection Seafarers Convention

ILO C133: art. 5

Minimum floor area

ILO C133: art. 7

ILO C133: art. 9

Water closet and facilities for changing clothes

Convention on Limitation of Liability

Limitation in respect of loss of life or personal

Compensation for accidents involving

* Not yet into force

Source : Policy Research Corporation

The SOLAS Convention concerns numerous maritime domains as it

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

Conventions deals with accommodation of crews, health protection

Policy Research Corporation

Discussion document on the impact of the GT criterion

Lack of causal link