Not Logged In, Login,

Friday, October 19, 2018


Further to our Weekly NEWS last week, a detailed report from the meeting on 9 May is now available:

INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO and OCIMF attended the meeting from the industry.  There were about 50 Government representatives from various countries, mainly European, and included the US Coast Guard and Tokyo MOU, and the Caribbean and ILO representatives as observers.

The discussions and points raised by INTERTANKO were well received and the general outcome of the meeting was positive.

The meeting started with a brief address from each industry representative. The INTERTANKO address centred around our membership criteria, our use and support of EQUASIS, our role as a data provider and the use of the detention information we can access from the database. We commented upon how we process the detention information within INTERTANKO as a part of INTERTANKO quality monitoring system.

INTERTANKO  particularly pointed to the need for a formal appeals procedure for owners that could be utilised in the case of unreasonable detentions. This raised some interesting responses from some of the representatives, particularly from Belgium, Denmark and Germany, who advised that they do have an appeals procedure, and more interestingly they claim that the contact details for their respective appeals are contained on the reverse of the inspector’s inspection report. We need to verify whether this is indeed the practice out in the field. The fact of the matter, however, remains that a formal appeals procedure is NOT contained within the Paris Memorandum.

There was also some concern expressed regarding the legal aspects of an appeal against a detention, although our request was for an operational appeal, not a legal appeal. However, we did get support from the Chairman and he suggested that this should be an issue for further discussion by PSC. 

The matter of appeals was too sensitive an issue for "national feelings" within some of the participating authorities, and it appears that INTERTANKO has to prove that its concerns are real by attempting an appeal. It was pointed out that it would be beneficial to prove the point by actually taking one of the more unreasonable cases through an appeal. If you have an example of one of those highly unreasonable detentions that happen from time we would appreciate if you contact us with further details.

In reply to the question "Would Industry sit in on an appeals committee?". INTERTANKO  replied that  we would be more than happy to do so, once they where ready to invite us..

The matter of transparency was dealt with completely on the basis of the recommendation from the INTERTANKO Council meeting in Sydney and we gave a copy of our press release to the Chairman for circulation to the delegates. Click here for a copy of the press release.

Whilst INTERTANKO’s policy was generally recognised as a positive step, Belgium commented that basically they could not or did not (we were not quite sure which) read all the information that was already available to them in order to target vessels correctly.

The Paris MOU is considering a quality award system and we put forward the following proposed rewards: 

  • No detention if not delayed
    We were informed that this has been tabled on their agenda and would be reviewed.
  • Grading of detentions
    We were informed that the MOU already had a working group that is looking at a 2 tier system for grading detentions
  • Two stage inspections
    We suggested 2 types of inspections: the good operator would only be subject to a cursory inspection which would not take very much time, the sub-standard vessel would be subject to a more in-depth inspection.
  • What information could be released to us from PSC?
    We asked whether from time to time on an "as required basis" we could be given access to the Port State Inspector’s report in relation to the detention of a particular vessel whenever we could not obtain the report from the owner, in the case of a new member or in the event of an owner not releasing the information to us.
  • There was no real objection or major comment on this.
  • Naming the charterer in detention notices and in the EQUASIS database:
    This point was very well received, and had been discussed in their agenda earlier that day.

The main question was the definition of the charterer: was this the head charterer, disponent owner, sub-charterer or cargo owner? It was generally concluded that the head charterer would be sufficient, although the PSC did have some difficulty in assessing who should be the actual charterer.

We drew the attention of the board to the requirement of the USCG requirement (soon to be introduced) that vessels advise the charterer’s name in pre-arrival messages, and our support for this.

  • The effect of STCW upon ships
    INTERTANKO needs to consider recommendations to owners to check the certificates of competency to ascertain whether they are genuine or fake.

We raised the matter of our PSC inspection feedback form and that INTERTANKO was continuing to monitor PSC inspections.

For further questions please contact Capt Howard Snaith on e-mail: