1 / 17

Asian Panel Hong Kong 25 February 2005 Peter M Swift

Asian Panel Hong Kong 25 February 2005 Peter M Swift.

krikor
Télécharger la présentation

Asian Panel Hong Kong 25 February 2005 Peter M Swift

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Asian Panel • Hong Kong • 25 February 2005 • Peter M Swift

  2. Antitrust Compliance StatementINTERTANKO is firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in this market. These laws include the antitrust laws, which the US, the European Economic Community and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices. This meeting will be conducted in compliance with INTERTANKO’s antitrust guidelines .

  3. 2005 : DATES FOR THE DIARY March 2 INTERTANKO/Braemar Seascope Tanker seminar, Shanghai March 3-4 TradeWinds-Mare Forum / SHIPPING China 2005, Shanghai April 10-13 Council meeting, Annual tanker event and AGM, Athens Sept (tba) Vetting seminar, Singapore Nov 3 or 4 Asian Panel (TBC) Dec 8 ITOPF seminar, Shanghai Dec 9 INTERTANKO Tanker seminar (TBC)

  4. Athens Tanker Event 10-13 April 2005 Sponsored by:

  5. INTERTANKO’s Vision for the tanker shipping industry:“ A responsible, sustainable and respected industry able to influence its own destiny.”

  6. Key issues for Tanker Owners • Maintaining International versus Regional and Local legislation • Overhauling the governance structure of the industry: - Class, Flag, Port State Control • Reversing the trend to increased criminalisation • Ensuring the commitment of all stakeholders to continuous improvement

  7. International vs. local, national and regional legislation • Liability – EU Penal Sanctions vs. International Conventions • Safety & Environment – EU (Post Erika & Prestige) vs. IMO/Marpol & SOLAS • Sulphur Levels / Air Emissions – EU, USA vs. IMO • Security – MTSA vs. ISPS • Ballast Water Management – US et al vs. IMO

  8. EU Maritime Safety Package III • Amendment to Directive on Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information • Liability and Compensation • Recasting of Legislation on Port State Control • Role of Classification Societies • Marine Casualty Investigations in the EU • Maritime Labour Standards • Flag State Initiative But how about earlier programmes – Places of Refuge, Ratification of Conventions, Reception facilities

  9. Challenges for Classification Societies • EU Challenge on Role of Class – perceived conflict of interest between statutory and classification activities • Joint Tanker Rules – good rules, common rules, as quickly as possible • Role relative to Goal Based Standards – IMO/Flag states versus IACS control of Goal Based Standards • Who sets class agenda – owners, builders, flag states or class managers ? Example coatings standards (IMO – DE discussion)

  10. Flag State Guidelines- industry advice

  11. The good, the bad and … all legitimate

  12. PSC: Room for improvement……… Need: • More to be done to ensure harmonised standards and training of inspectors • Global approach to inspection and Targeting criteria • Mutual sharing and recognition of inspection information across different MoUs (and thus reduction in the number of inspections) • To extend the number of MoUs covered by EQUASIS (subject their meeting appropriate standard) • Consistency regarding Clear Grounds for Detention • Standardised procedures for independent Detention Appeals • To guarantee accuracy and topicality of information in PSC databases • To make more/better use of information obtained from PSC inspections • Development of more rewards/incentives for good owners • To ensure that the integrity of PSC is maintained

  13. PSC: Room for improvement……… • and some possible solutions …….. • Consistency of standards built around ”beacon” MoUs – encouragement to other MoUs to be recorded in EQUASIS • Targeting criteria built around ”fact” – harmonised between MoUs, and not too complicated • Abolition of targeting based on quota systems • Greater involvement of Industry representatives on MoU committees • Expanded IMO workshops on PSC practices and issues • Adoption of universal appeal procedures against unwarranted detentions • Implementatin of procedures to record deficiencies closed out • Government-industry partnership on analysis of PSC performance data • Extension of ”Qualship21” / ”reduced frequency of inspections” to compliant/good owners • Open discussion of ”integrity” in the system

  14. Continuous Improvement from all in the expanded Chain of Responsibility Designers Shipbuilders Class Equipment Suppliers Financiers / Guarantors Charterers Operator/Manager Owner P&I Hull insurers Cargo Owners Brokers Flag states Ports & Terminals Waterways authorities Coastal States Labour providers Tug operators Bunker suppliers Pilots Repairers Agents Salvers Paint Suppliers Spill Response IMO Ship breakers National Regulators

  15. Chain of responsibility And not forgettingIndustry associations Press/Media

  16. www.shippingfacts.com

  17. Thank you 谢谢大家 www.intertanko.com www.shippingfacts.com

More Related