1111 Guidance relating to the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code

Annex 1

01 General

1 The ensuing paragraphs are lifted from the report of the Maritime Security Working Group (MSC 78/WP.13 and Add.1) at MSC 78 and are considered to be of valuable guidance for the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code on relevant topics.

SECURITY MEASURES AND PROCEDURES TO BE APPLIED DURING SHIP/PORT INTERFACE WHEN EITHER THE SHIP OR THE PORT FACILITY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND OF THE ISPS CODE.

02 Ships

2 The Committee considered the security measures and procedures to be applied during ship/port interface when either the ship or the port facility do not comply with the requirements of chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code.

3 The Committee recalled paragraph B/9.51 of the ISPS Code which recommends that the ship security plan (SSP) should establish details of the procedures and security measures the ship should apply when:

1. it is at a port of a State which is not a Contracting Government;
   
2. it is interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply*;
   
3. it is interfacing with a fixed or floating platform or a mobile drilling unit on location; or
   
4. it is interfacing with a port or port facility which is not required to comply with chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code;

and thus considers that guidance, in this respect, is only required for those ships which have not already included appropriate provisions to this end in the approved SSP.

4 The Committee decided to recommend that in such cases, if the ship.s approved SSP does not already include provisions as recommended in paragraph B/9.51 of the ISPS Code, the ship should attempt to conclude, if possible, a Declaration of Security or to take the following action:

1. record the actions taken by the Company Security Officer (CSO) and/or Ship Security Officer (SSO) to establish contact with the Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO), and/or any other persons responsible for the security of the port, ship or platform being interfaced;
   
   
2. record the security measures and procedures put in place by the ship, bearing in mind the security level set by the Administration and any other available security-related information; and complete and sign, on behalf of the ship alone, a Declaration of Security;
   
   
3. implement and maintain the security measures and procedures set out in the Declaration of Security throughout the duration of the interface;
   
   
4. report the actions taken to the CSO and through the CSO to the Administration; and
   
   
5. request the CSO to inform the authorities responsible for the exercise of control and compliance measures (regulation XI-2/9) and the PFSO(s) at the next port(s) of call of the difficulties the ship experienced and of the actions the ship itself took.

5 The Committee recognized that a ship should be able to address most of the ship security activities required by section A/7 of the ISPS Code.

6 In addition the Committee recognized that on certain occasions and, in particular, when a ship is required to call at a port of a State which is not a Contracting Government, the ship may be unable to identify the person responsible for the security of that port or to conclude with such a person a Declaration of Security.

---

* Refer to further work by the International Maritime Organization pertaining to Enhancement of maritime security and to Establishment of appropriate measures to enhance the security of ships, port facilities, mobile offshore drilling units on location and fixed and floating platforms not covered by chapter XI-2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, adopted by the 2002 SOLAS Conference on Maritime Security by resolutions 3 and 7 respectively.

03 Security concerns

7 The Committee also considered the case where a ship has concerns about the security of a port facility, which is supposed to operate in accordance with an approved Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP).

8 In this respect the Committee decided to draw the attention to the fact that certain of the security measures may be of a covert nature and may not be easily identified. Thus, the Committee recommended that the ship, as a first step, should contact the PFSO and discuss the matter.

9 The Committee recalled the provisions of paragraph B/4.16 of the ISPS Code and recommends that the procedure referred therein should be followed. If no remedial action is agreed between the Contracting Governments concerned, the Committee recommends that the ship, in the absence of any specific provisions to this end in the ship.s approved SSP, may either request a Declaration of Security or should follow the steps outlined in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 above.

04 Port Facilities

10 The Committee recalled paragraph B/16.56 of the ISPS Code which recommends that the PFSP should establish details of the procedures and security measures the port facility should apply when:

1. it is interfacing with a ship which has been at a port of a State which is not a Contracting Government;
   
   
2. it is interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply; and
   
   
3. it is interfacing with fixed or floating platforms or mobile offshore drilling units on location; and thus considers that guidance, is only be required with respect to those port facilities which have not already included appropriate provisions to this end in the approved PFSP.

11 The Committee decided to recommend that as soon as the PFSO becomes aware of the intended arrival of a ship which is required to comply with the requirements of chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code, which has been in a port of a non-Contracting Government, or of a ship which is flying the flag of a State which is not a Contracting Government, he/she should contact the authorities responsible for the exercise of control and compliance measure (regulation XI-2/9) and the authorities which approved the PFSP and seek their advice and guidance.

05 Ship construction, conversion and repair yards

12 Ship construction, conversion and repair yards (shipyards) are not specifically referred to in chapter XI-2 or the ISPS Code. However, they may be located adjacent to port facilities and their activities may have an impact on the security of such port facilities or on the security of ships using such port facilities. Shipyards may also interface with ships, which may be required to comply with the ISPS Code.

13 The designation of shipyards as distinct port facilities is a matter to be considered by the Contracting Government (or the Designated Authority) within whose territory the shipyard is located. The designation may depend on local circumstances and the result of the Port Facility Security Assessment (PFSA) of the shipyard itself or of the PFSAs relating to adjacent port facilities. If a shipyard is designated as a port facility a PFSO shall be appointed and the Contracting Government (or the Designated Authority) shall approve the shipyard.s PFSP.

14 A ship under construction is not considered to be a ship, in the context of chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code, until the relevant statutory certificates have been issued. This includes the preparation of the ship.s Ship Security Assessment (SSA), the preparation and approval of the SSP, the verification of the implementation of the ship.s security measures and procedures and the issue of the ship.s International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC), or alternatively the verification of the requirements leading to the issue of an Interim ISSC.

15 When a ship is under construction, the security of the ship is the responsibility of the shipyard. Once the ship receives its ISSC (or Interim ISSC) the ship will have to comply with the provisions of its [approved] SSP. This may require the CSO and/or the SSO to discuss security measures and procedures with the shipyard, irrespective of whether the shipyard has a PFSO or not. This may lead to an agreement on the respective responsibilities for security measures to protect the ship which in turn may involve the conclusion of a Declaration of Security.

16 The position of ships under conversion or repair will depend on the approach the ship.s Administration takes regarding the suspension or revocation of the certificates of the ship, including the ISSC, and, in practice, the extent to which the ship.s personnel remains on board and retains the capability to exercise their duties under the SSP. If the certificates of the ship, including the ISSC, are suspended or revoked, responsibility for the security of the ship would in practice rest with the shipyard and may require the conclusion of an agreement between the owner and the shipyard. If the nature of the repairs means that all, or part, of the shipboard personnel remains on board and the certificates of the ship, including the ISSC, have not been suspended or revoked, the sharing of security responsibilities between the ship and the shipyard will have to be agreed and this may involve the conclusion of a Declaration of Security.

17 The approach taken to the security of ships undertaking sea trials is the responsibility of the State whose flag the ship is flying at the time of its trials. Some form of security assessment should be undertaken in respect of the ship and security measures and procedures put in place for the duration of the trials to the satisfaction of the relevant State.

06 FPSO''s and FSU''s

18 The Committee recalled that MSC 77 decided that neither of the two types of floating production, storage and offloading units (FPSOs) and floating storage units (FSUs), were ships subject to the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code, but, however, they should have some security procedures in place to prevent .contamination. of ships and port facilities which are required to comply with the provisions of chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code. This decision is reflected in paragraph 3 of MSC/Circ.1097 on Guidance relating to the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.

19 MSC/Circ.1097 offers no advice as to the specific security measures or procedures that should be taken by a ship which is required to comply the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code (SOLAS ship) when such a ship is engaged in ship-to-ship activities with either an FPSO or an FSU. If a SOLAS ship interfaces with an FPSO or an FSU it is deemed to be equivalent to interfacing with a non-SOLAS ship. The SOLAS ship.s Ship Security Plan should contain security measures and procedures covering such an interface as recommended in paragraph B/9.51 of the ISPS Code. This could include the conclusion of a Declaration of Security with the FPSO or FSU indicating the security measures each ship undertook during the interface.

20 As FPSOs and FSUs operate as part of offshore oil production facilities, it can be expected that the State on whose continental shelf or within whose Exclusive Economic Zone the activity is being undertaken will have developed appropriate security measures and procedures under its national law to protect its offshore activities.

21 Conference resolution 7, adopted by the 2002 SOLAS Conference, in operative paragraph 1, invites Contracting Governments to establish, as they may consider necessary, and to disseminate, as they deem fit, appropriate measures to enhance the security of ships and of port facilities other than those covered by SOLAS chapter XI-2. This invitation covers both FPSOs and FSUs and Contracting Governments will be aware of the need to avoid contamination of SOLAS ships interfacing with such non-SOLAS ships.

07 The last 10 calls at port facilities

22 The Committee agreed that the requirements under regulations XI-2/9.2.1.3, XI-2/9.2.1.4, XI-2/9.2.1.5 to keep records of past calls at port facilities and ship-to-ship activities commence on 1 July 2004 and only apply to calls made, or activities undertaken, on or after that date.

Annex 2 Resolution MSC.159(78)

Resolution MSC.159(78) (adopted on 21 May 2004)

Interim guidance on control and compliance measures to enhance maritime security.

• Informatietype: Internationaal
• Documentsoort: Circulaire niet in wetten.nl
• Toegangsrechten: Extern
• Identificatie: PUC_1871_14
• Versie: 1
• Datum beschikbaarheid: 06-01-2009
• Geldigheid van: 07-06-2004
• Wijzigingsdatum: 24-11-2016
• Titel: 1111 Guidance relating to the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code
• Organisatie: International Maritime Organization (IMO)
• Taal: Nederlands
• Onderwerp: Veiligheid / Safety
• Hoofdtaak: Koopvaardij / Merchant Shipping
• Thema: Zeevaart / Seagoing ships / Information / IMO Instruments (Informative) / Circulars (Informative) / MSC Circulars (Informative) / 1100 until 1199