 |
ISM Code :
The maritime industry and the management systems (page Nº16) |
 |
They are HSE (health, safety and environment) or QHSE (addition of quality) and these systems are intended to manage the safety and health of the persons engaged in this activity and the marine environmental protection. Vast program in an industry very much at risk which needed regulations after years of "do-it-yourself "! This management also applied, in theory, to the sub-contractors, and there it was more ambiguous because it seemed that the 3 famous letters HSE did not mean the same thing off Aberdeen on one side and off some other African ports on the other! The reference frames suggested were mainly of a British origin and were more specifications than the strictly applicable standards than we know today. Invited to explain the ISM code and what it involved with it, I found HSE specialists.... who were not able to adapt themselves to the ISM code! |
 |
Some ship-owners, who have already implemented a quality system as the former standard ISO 9002 -finally not well adapted to our industry- have been constrained and forced to set up the ISM. To say that everything is perfect is far from the truth! Well built systems, well understood by the sailors are … going well, thanks to the DPAs, well trained sailors and motivated Captains! They are not afraid of conformity… they are very often several lengths in advance on the certifier himself and much more on the Port State Controller! Unfortunately, everywhere, there are too many very poor systems, but superbly certified and re-certified in conformity, so much so that the sailors who try to apply them still do not understand for what these systems are made! I do not speak here about the phoney copied systems (always not very well copied)! If I were in the position of the certifiers of these phoney systems, I would be concerned, because, I must point out here their personal liability is committed there! |
 |
It is not a secret for anybody in our business if there are “dustbins ships” there are also “miserable ports”. But contrary to the ships, the ports do not “move away” and the governments theoretically remain responsible for the conformity or the quality of their ports. In general, depending directly on the governmental authorities for strategic or economic reasons, neither safety nor security were not a daily concern for the ports and still today the emergency plans of many large ports are summarized by ... a telephone number list! I explain, the safety and security of the port or the facility were entrusted to somebody else like firemen, police, customs, ambulances which acted as subcontractors for them. With some exceptions of course, the technical installations for safety and security, specific to the ports, did not exist, except in some main ports at risk and sometimes still at a dramatically low level. For the quality or the satisfaction of the customer, it is different. Indeed a ship-owner is an important customer… ships’ calls mean money and the ports like that! |
 |
If in the ports of developed countries, the security plans are sometimes set up slowly and in a empiric manner, in the emerging countries it is not the same thing at all! The "yes" introduced into the IMO/GISIS data base (does the port facility has an approved security plan?) does not necessarily mean that this plan exists and in any case with or without a plan, little or very little has been done in the port! If in the ports of developed countries, the security plans are sometimes set up slowly and in a empiric manner, in the emerging countries it is not the same thing at all! The "yes" introduced into the IMO/GISIS data base (does the port facility has an approved security plan?) does not necessarily mean that this plan exists and in any case with or without a plan, little or very little has been done in the port! We can only hope that the ports, even those reluctant to, will invest… the economic threats added to the USCG or insurers warnings should modify their current laicism! |