Retour au menu
Retour au menu

 
The link between the ISM Code and the application of the MLC 2006
via an occupational safety and health at work program (SOHSP)

The page of the ISM Code N°33
 
 
  1. Foreword

  2. ILO/OMI are both UN agencies. These two agencies are very active and sometimes they happen to work together. For example, during the development of the Code of Practice on security in ports, in 2003 (COP).
    It should be noted that the ILO has competences in labour in general, including maritime work and that IMO abstains from interfering on ILO's prerogatives but has nevertheless problems to refer to ILO documents when they concern us (see further).
    It should be remembered that even if conditions and working time on board concern ILO, the management of tiredness, for example, remains in the field of the STCW convention of IMO. The workload is often related to the manning level of the ship and that is also the responsibility of the flag, which must however follow the recommendations of IMO (New assembly resolution on Safe manning 1047).
    When using ILO documents on maritime safety or security, there is always a reference to IMO suitable conventions or recommendations, the reverse is not true.

  3. Introduction

  4. The MLC entered our industry with some noise in 2013 although it was ready in 2006. France and Belgium have only ratified in 2014 that is nearly 7 years afterwards. One might have thought that nations would have dragged their feet on the working conditions of the seafarers as usual. Indeed, the first "ratifying" countries were Liberia and the Bahamas.
    However, the two french flag registers had no reason to be ashamed of what existed already in the French merchant navy and could easily have ratified it in 2007 for example, at the same time as the Marshall Islands.
 
    The strong points of the MLC are mainly:
    • Advantages of certification: initial and periodic audits by third parties (Flag state and Port state or ROs sometimes)
    • A protection against unfair competition: same working conditions for all
    • A better quality of transport certainly
    • A more socially responsible industry
    • A better protected work force is more effective in theory
    • Better operating conditions by theoretically avoiding delays or reserves in the ports caused by the observation of abnormal working conditions on board
    • Better information for the sailors on their rights and the means of respecting these same rights with, in particular, treatment of the complaints process on board as well as ashore
    This simple summary of the consequences of the MLC 2006 shows us that the best means of managing these constraints is still to apply a health and safety at work programme which would have the audacity to also include the management of tiredness and prevention of accidents on board, at sea as well as in port.

  1. Practical implementation of various instruments referring to health and safety at work
The ISM Code requires a company Safety Management System (SMS) which includes instructions and procedures to ensure safety of ship’s operations and the environmental protection in accordance with the international regulation and the Flag State legislation. However there is a bottleneck which I ‘ve already evoked previously, the code requires that the safety objectives of safety of the shipping company be " to offer an environment of work without danger ". It is indeed an objective only and the SMS will determine, after "a risk assessment for ships, personnel and maritime environment", the suitable safety measures.
The ISM Code remains an honorable objective of good working conditions but more precisely to guarantee the observation of mandatory rules while taking into account the various recommendations of our industry as well.
Obviously it is rather subtle and we need to be satisfied as this will hardly change, because for risks assessment we now have the MLC Reg 4.3 & standard A 4.3 1 a) which requires " the adoption and effective implementation and promotion of occupational safety ′and health policies and programmes on ships that fly the Member’s flag, including risk evaluation as well as training and instruction of seafarers;
Very good, less ambiguity! Even if the European directive 89/391 of june 12d/ 89 had already clarified things for the fleets under a community flag.
In addition, IMO not wishing to to compet with ILO, prepared in 2006 (coincidence or group shooting?) a circular (MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.3) "Guidelines on the basic elements of a shipboard occupational health and Safety programme" or SOHSP with the honourable intention "to provide guidance for ship-owners to apply the ISM Code".
 


  1. Comparison

  2. At the international level, for health and safety at work we thus have 3 instruments of which only one is mandatory for all (the MLC 2006 convention) and two are either an objective (code ISM) or a recommendation (SOHSP).
    We will see in a table the correspondence of these mandatory elements with those of code ISM or the SOHSP while focusing on the manner of implementing them.
MLC 2006 ISM Code version 2013 SOHSP 2006
Established in 2006
Entry in force 2013/14
Established in 92 but final implementation in 2002 Established in 2006 under the forma of a recommendation MSC/MEPC
Policy and health/safety at work programme including risk assessment and the corresponding training of the seafarers: Reg 4.3 The safety and environmental protection policy is the base of the code. The evaluation of the risks assessment and "safe working environment" are objectives only. As the ISM code remains vague on the corresponding training required, it was necessary to issue IMO circulars OMI to specify the necessary training of DPA and crews. Bases of the SOHSP include also a health and safety policy at work while insisting on the role of the top management (leadership). The part and attempts at controlling risks are very developed : for example we can find there the principle of "work permit" commonly used in offshore industry and surprisingly some encouraging measures like competition between the ships and safety awards. NB The risks pertaining to tiredness are included.
"Reasonable" precautions to prevent industrial accidents, wounds and occupational diseases on board and in a non mandatory part B 4.3: Taking into account of ILO guidelines (96) on the prevention of the accidents on board ships at sea or in port. The ISM code is very general on this and requires only the insurance of application of mandatory rules and regulations (international or national) and taking into account the other existing recommendations concerning, inter alia, the prevention of the accidents and the possible diseases due to the carriage and handling of dangerous goods for example. The § 3.3 and the corresponding appendix are very clear: the dangers must be anticipated and an attempt at control applied. However, risk and danger are sometimes confused what makes the translated texts difficult to understand (and to apply)
Onboard program for prevention with the participation of the crew These crewmembers can be elected or named at the ship’s health and safety committee of the ship. Other interested people of the crew can apply to be part of it! The code being voluntarily general, it can be so precise that a circular or resolution is not necessary. The entry in force of MLC 2006 prevented that this aspect of the seafarers participation entered in ISM code amendments 2014 Participation of employees is placed in a good 2nd place (on 8!) This participation in the committee can be on board and/or ashore.
Corrections of the dangerous situations and investigations of accidents. The ISM code is already clear enough on that and goes even beyond the MLC by requiring the study of near-misses and implementation of experience feedback. Investigations relating to deaths, body lesions, diseases and incidents including near-misses are required.
Master’s responsibility on the implementation of the policy and the program on health and safety at work is clearly specified in detail. A person is designated by the master to implement the program. The ISM code specifies the responsibilities for the Master in the application of the SMS of the company. If the SMS includes a health and safety programme at work, the loop is buckled. The Master’s responsibility for the implementation of the SOHSP is detailed and goes from the familiarization to the investigation in the event of accident until an improvement and draft amendment if necessary.
Participation of crew’s representatives to the periodic programme review for a continuous improvement. The ISM code does not talk about that perhaps only § 9 which proposes only to lay-down an objective of reinforcement of safety and a implementation of corrective measures in order to avoid recurrence. Nevertheless It is, to some extent, a continuous improvement. The participation of the crew members is one of the bases of the IMO/SOHSP which includes the company’s shore personnel in a very active way. Finally the continuous assessment and the improvement are the main measurements required in the SOHSP.
Problems of fatigue :
Measurements of maximum workload and minimum rest in the rule 2.3 (registers) which finally are those of STCW and ILO 180 and in addition simple optional measures to be included in national guidelines (B 4.3) at the same time as noise, temperature, vibrations or the alcohol level consumption.

In the ISM code only the term "necessary physical capacity" is used. It seems necessary to force ourselves to see an "adequate physical condition".

Fatigue is well taken into account in the control of risks, training contents and the elements to be taken into account in the investigation into the causes of accidents.
    Few flags finally took into account the SOHSP circular but I note more particularly that the Marshall Islands flag has made this circular mandatory in 2006.

  1. What can we do?

  2. Solutions suggested for introduction of workload and fatigue :

    As I already said in a French newspaper, I see only one realistic solution via the ISM code and the MLC 2006, it is to require the introduction of the management of workload and tiredness in addition to a “health and safety at work program" in conformity with ILO / STCW standard and IMO recommendations.
    A national legislation could be issued and would result from directives ILO-OSH 2001guidelines made for that or from very popular OHSASA standards already existing.


    1. Implementation of the SOHSP which would followc the requirements of MSC-MEPC. 2/Circ.3 and which would take into account the existing recommendations.
It is a very simple solution is already in the above circular :
  • Executive Management commitment and leadership
  • Employee participation
  • Hazard anticipation, identification, evaluation and control
  • Training of all the participants in the program (officers and crew members)
  • Record keeping
  • Contract or third party personnel
  • Fatality, injury, illness and incident investigation
  • Systematic program for evaluation and continuous improvement
As you can see, there are some risks of repetition and overlapping. This often happened when the management systems are piled up (for the best profit of the private certifying organizations). Indeed if you must present your SOHSP, it should preferably be shown completed, because if you make frequent references to a requirement already treated elsewhere you are likely to irritate the surveyor.
 
A bridge document is to be published and thanks to it you will be able to perhaps avoid some repetitions or overlapping.
But is there another solution?

  1. Yes, you can include the SOHSP and MLC 2006 into your SMS already in conformity with the ISM code by applying the national guidelines relating to health and safety management at work and the prevention of accidents aboard ships under the flag.
  2. Still it is necessary that these directives exist.
    While waiting, whatever the flag, we can use studies or analyses already published by ILO inter alia:
    • To publish a preamble on the participation and the leadership of the top management via a definition of new responsibilities in particular the follow-up of conditions for crew- members’ health for example
    • To complement the identification, of course, and analysis of risks already carried out (if necessary) and specifying of course that it is now an obligation
    • To complement the master’s job description for his new and important role in the SOHSP
    • To supplement in the jobs descriptions of the crew-members having been elected or named in the Health and Safety committee
    • To introduce the H&S training scheme of the personnel
    • To supplement inthe jobs descriptions by adding an evaluation of safety of each workstation, if it is not already done with a mention each time of the participation of the crew member in the improvement of the conditions of safety and health of his station.
    • To envisage identical conditions for possible contracted personnel
    • To re-examine your register of incidents (accidents, near-miss) and especially its transmission to national flag authorities for an exhaustive statistical analysis (an old ILO request)
    • To re-examine your library and to get more adequate documentation
    • To set up a systematic evaluation system of a periodic internal audit of SMS operation and the improvement of the company’s safety culture.
    • The evaluated elements and the method of quotation are re-examined. We can distinguish health from safety (up to you). The MSC-MEPC circular gives you the criteria to be evaluated for example, but you can be more imaginative.
    • To train your listeners internal auditors with this evaluation
    • To train your auditors to manage this new part in their periodic reviews (Masters and DPA)
    In this case, we will also need a "bridge document" which will help you to obtain your MLC 2006 certificates.
  1. In conclusion

  2. The start of the ISM code was difficult at the beginning particularly because of a real pragmatism of the seafarers who often cannot distinguish between objectives and results, between intention and realization.
    The Code was born in 1992 and has evolved slowly and has today a consistency but would have liked to be similar to the ISPS Code.
    The fact of integrating the SOHSP into the SMS should be relatively easy and especially the crews will understand this form better rather than to see another system coming out of the blue.
    Already the integration of the system is only credible in certain companies truly in advance. With the other companies piling up of systems which exist for the greatest joy of certification organizations.

    NB : ILO has just published some “Guidelines on the implementation of provisions relating to safety and health at work from the MLC 2006 convention”. They are an invaluable help for either the creation of the SOHSP or the adaptation of the SMS! -
Extract of the guidelines § 4.3.1
“Existing policies, programs and laws may need to be supplemented or adapted to satisfy the requirements of the MLC 2006. Some policies, programs and legal standard may also overlap with requirements of IMO conventions.”
Cdt Bertrand APPERRY
AFCAN-AFEXMAR-IIMS


Retour au menu
Retour au menu