IMO maritime security policy Background paper, Chris Trelawny

security.gr-logo-out-default.jpg

C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
IMO maritime security policy
Background paper
Chris Trelawny, Senior Technical Officer
International Maritime Organization
IMO MARITIME SECURITY MEASURES – BACKGROUND
The International Maritime Organization, as the United Nations’ regulatory body responsible for the safety of life
at sea and environmental protection, has adopted a great number of conventions and regulations since its creation
in 1959. Due to the new security challenges imposed by the devastating terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 in the
United States, the Organization had to respond swiftly and firmly to any threat against the security of transport by
sea. This resulted in the development of the new SOLAS chapter XI-2 on Special measures to enhance maritime
security and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code).
The terrorist attacks in the United States put in doubt the vulnerability of ships and ports around the world, but
they also proved that the maritime industry is determined to stand firm and to respond to one of the biggest
challenges of all the times. The new regulatory regime entered into force on 1 July 2004. These requirements
represent the culmination of co-operation between Contracting Governments, Government agencies, local
administrations and shipping and port industries to assess security threats and take preventive measures against
security incidents affecting ships or port facilities used by international seaborne trade.
Author’s – Biography
Chris Trelawny is the Senior Technical Officer in the Maritime Security Section of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) based in London. He joined IMO in March 2003. As well as providing secretariat support to the IMO Committees,
technical Sub-Committees and Working Groups, Chris is responsible for advising and liaising with IMO Member Governments,
international organizations and non-governmental organizations on maritime security, piracy and related issues; promulgating the
Organization’s maritime security policy; and conducting the IMO maritime security “Train-the-Trainer” programme.
HISTORY
The hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, in October 1985, marked one of the first actual terrorist acts
recorded in modern maritime history. Following that incident, the International Maritime Organization adopted
resolution A.584(14) on Measures to prevent unlawful acts which threaten the safety of ships and the security of
their passengers and crews. Subsequently in 1986, taking also account the request of the United Nations General
Assembly to study the problem of terrorism on board ships and to make recommendations on appropriate measures,
the Organization issued MSC/Circ.443 on Measures to prevent unlawful acts against passengers and crews on
board ships .
Pursuant to the Achille Lauro incident the Organization continued working towards the development and adoption of
conventions and security regulations and adopted, in March 1988, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA). The Convention, which is a legal instrument, extends the
provisions to unlawful acts against fixed platforms located on the Continental Shelf (Protocol for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, 1988).
The SUA Convention ensures that appropriate action is taken against persons committing unlawful acts against
ships, including the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the placing of
devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage it. The Convention provides for application of
punishment or extradition of persons who commit or have allegedly committed offences specified in the treaty. The
Convention has recently been updated with the addition of further provisions (see below)
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
OTHER SECURITY-RELATED INSTRUMENTS
The Organization had adopted other maritime security instruments including:
1. MSC/Circs. 622 and 623, as revised, on Guidelines for administrations and industry on combating acts of piracy
and armed robbery against ships;
2. MSC/Circ.754 on Passenger ferry security, providing recommendations on security measures for passenger ferries
on international voyages shorter than 24 hours, and ports;
3. Assembly resolution A.871(20) on Guidelines on the allocation of responsibilities to seek the successful resolution
of stowaway cases; and
4. Assembly resolution A.872(20) on Guidelines for the prevention and suppression of the smuggling of drugs,
psychotropic substances and precursor chemicals on ships engaged in international maritime traffic (this resolution
is currently under review by the Organization’s Facilitation Committee (FAL)).
ACTIVITIES AT THE IMO SINCE “September 11”
In the wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in the United States of America, Assembly resolution
A.924(22) (November 2001) called for a review of the existing international legal and technical measures to prevent
and suppress terrorist acts against ships at sea and in port, and to improve security aboard and ashore. The aim was
to reduce risks to passengers, crews and port personnel on board ships and in port areas and to the vessels and their
cargoes and to enhance ship and port security and avert shipping from becoming a target of international terrorism.
The Assembly also agreed to a significant boost to the Organization’s technical co-operation programme of GB £1.5
million, to help developing countries address maritime security issues. Subsequently a large number of regional and
national seminars and workshops on the enhancement of maritime and port security were held around the world in
2002, 2003 and 2004, with more initiatives launched in 2005. In addition fact-finding and assessment missions and
advisory services have been and will continue to be conducted upon request of the countries concerned.
As a result of the adoption of resolution A.924(22), a Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security, held at the
London headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from 9 to 13 December 2002, was attended
by 109 Contracting Governments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention, observers from two IMO Member States and
observers from the two IMO Associate Members. United Nations specialized agencies, intergovernmental
organizations and non-governmental international organizations also sent observers to the Conference.
The Conference adopted a number of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), 1974, as amended, the most far-reaching of which enshrined the new International Ship and Port Facility
Security Code (ISPS Code). The Code contains detailed security-related requirements for Governments, port
authorities and shipping companies in a mandatory section (Part A), together with a series of guidelines about how to
meet these requirements in a second, non-mandatory section (Part B). The Conference also adopted a series of
resolutions designed to add weight to the amendments, encourage the application of the measures to ships and port
facilities not covered by the Code and pave the way for future work on the subject.
CO-OPERATION WITH ILO AND WCO
The Organization has also undertaken activities for co-operation with other organizations. A Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) was signed with the World Customs Organization (WCO) in July 2001 to strengthen cooperation
in the fields of container examination, integrity of the multi modal transport chain and matters relating to
the ship/port interface. The ensuing work by a WCO Task Force led to the unanimous adoption, by the Directors
General of 166 Customs Administrations in June 2005, of the Framework of Standards to secure and facilitate global
trade (WCO Framework of Standards).
The WCO Framework of Standards has four principles in mind, namely that Customs services would undertake to
harmonize advance electronic information; to use a consistent risk management approach; to use non-intrusive
detection equipment; and to lead to the accrual of benefits to customs, business and ultimately nations. At the heart
of the Framework of Standards are two ‘pillars’, the Customs -to-Customs pillar and the Customs -to-Business pillar.
The IMO Facilitation Committee, at its thirty-second session (FAL 32) in July 2005, agreed to examine the
Framework of Standards in detail when it became available in its final format, so as to identify relevant issues and
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
thus advance the work on the enhancement of security in conjunction with its efforts to facilitate maritime traffic. In
addition, it is expected that the Maritime Safety Committee, at its next session in May 2006, will start considering
the Framework of Standards with a view to transposing these into mandatory requirements under the SOLAS
Convention and the ISPS Code.
In addition to the work which has been carried out in co-operation with the International Labour Organization (ILO)
in developing and adopting a new seafarer’s Identity Document, the ILO/IMO Code of practice on security in ports
was developed by a Joint ILO/IMO Working Group. This was finalized in December 2003, adopted by the ILO
Governing Body in March 2004, and adopted by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in May 2004.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR MARITIME SECURITY
General
SOLAS chapter XI has been amended to include special measures for maritime security. Specifically,
SOLAS Chapter XI has been divided into two parts: Chapter XI-1: Special Measures to Enhance Maritime Safety;
and Chapter XI-2: Special Measures to Enhance Maritime Security. In principle chapter XI-2 incorporates new
regulations regarding definitions and the requirements for ships and port facilities. These regulations are supported
by the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) which has a mandatory section (Part A)
and a recommendatory section (Part B). The guidance given in Part B of the ISPS Code is to be taken into account
when implementing the SOLAS chapter XI-2 regulations and the provisions of Part A. However, it is recognized
that the extent to which the guidance on ships applies depends on the type of ship, its cargoes and/or passengers, its
trading pattern and the characteristics of the Port Facilities visited by the ship. Similarly, in relation to the guidance
on Port Facilities, the extent to which this guidance applies depends on the types of cargoes and/or passengers and
the trading patterns of visiting vessels.
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE NEW REQUIREMENTS
In essence, the new SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code were developed under the basic understanding that
ensuring the security of ships and port facilities was a risk management activity and that to determine what security
measures are appropriate, an assessment of the risks must be made in each particular case. The purpose of the ISPS
Code is to provide a standardized, consistent framework for evaluating risk, enabling governments to offset changes
in threat levels with changes in vulnerability for ships and port facilities.
This risk management concept is embodied in the ISPS Code through a number of minimum functional security
requirements for ships and port facilities. For ships, such requirements include:
.1 ship security plans;
.2 ship security officers;
.3 company security officers; and
.4 certain onboard equipment.
For port facilities, the requirements include:
.1 port facility security plans; and
.2 port facility security officers.
In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities include:
.1 monitoring and controlling access;
.2 monitoring the activities of people and cargo; and
.3 ensuring that security communications are readily available.
To ensure implementation of all these requirements, training and drills will obviously play an important role.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS
Under SOLAS chapter XI-2 and Part A of the Code Contracting Governments can establish Designated Authorities
within Government to undertake their security responsibilities under the Code. Governments or Designated
Authorities may also delegate the undertaking of certain responsibilities to Recognized Security Organizations
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
(RSOs) outside Government. Additional guidance is provided in MSC/Circ.1074 on Interim Guidelines for the
authorization of RSOs.
The setting of the security level applying at any particular time is the responsibility of Contracting Governments and
will apply to their ships and Port Facilities. The Code defines three security levels for international use:
Security Level 1, normal;
Security Level 2, lasting for the period of time when there is a heightened risk of a
security incident; and
Security Level 3, lasting for the period of time when there is the probable or imminent risk of a security incident.
SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code require certain information to be provided to the IMO and information to
be made available to allow effective communication between Company/Ship Security Officers and the Port Facility
Security Officers responsible for the Port Facility their ships serve.
THE COMPANY AND THE SHIP
Any shipping company operating ships to which the Code applies shall appoint a Company Security Officer (CSO)
for the company and a Ship Security Officer (SSO) for each of its ships. The responsibilities of these officers are
defined, as are the requirements for their training and drills. The training needs and requirements of the SSO are
being developed in the context of the STCW Convention. The CSO’s responsibilities include ensuring that a Ship
Security Assessment (SSA) is undertaken and that a Ship Security Plan (SSP) is prepared for each ship to which the
Code applies.
The Ship Security Plan indicates the minimum operational and physical security measures the ship shall take at all
times, i.e. while operating at security level 1. The plan will also indicate the additional, or intensified, security
measures the ship itself can take to move to security level 2. Furthermore, the Plan will indicate the possible
preparatory actions the ship could take to allow prompt response to the instructions that may be issued to the ship by
the authorities responding at security level 3 to a security incident or threat. The need for these plans to be ultimately
incorporated in the ISM Code has been acknowledged. The Ship Security Plan must be approved by, or on behalf of,
the ship’s Administration. The Company and Ship Security Officer are required to monitor the continuing relevance
and effectiveness of the Plan, including the undertaking of independent internal audits. Any amendments to
specified elements of an approved Plan will have to be resubmitted for approval.
SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code include provisions relating to the verification and certification of the ship’s
compliance with the requirements of the Code on an initial, renewal and intermediate basis. The ship must carry an
International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) indicating that it complies with the Code. The ISSC is subject to
Port State Control (PSC) / maritime security control and compliance inspections but such inspections will not
extend to examination of the Ship Security Plan itself. The ship may be subject to additional control measures if
there is reason to believe that the security of the ship has, or the port facilities it has served have, been compromised.
The ship may be required to provide information regarding the ship, its cargo, passengers and crew prior to port
entry and it is the responsibility of the company that up to date information relating to the ownership and control of
the vessel is available on board. There may be circumstances in which entry into port could be denied, if the ship
itself, or the port facility it served before, or another ship it interfaced with previously, are considered to be in
violation with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 or part A of the ISPS Code.
Further guidance on control and compliance measures and reporting requirements are given in:
Annex 2 to MSC/Circ.1111 on Guidance relating to the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS
Code (also adopted as Resolution MSC.159(78) on Interim Guidance on Control and Compliance Measures to
Enhance Maritime Security);
MSC/Circ.1113 on Guidance to Port State Control Officers on the non-security related elements of the 2002
SOLAS Amendments;
MSC/Circ.1130 on Guidance to masters, Companies and duly authorized officers on the requirements relating
to the submission of security-related information prior to the entry of a ship into port;
MSC/Circ.1133 on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance
measures; and
MSC/Circ.1156 on Guidance on the access of public authorities, emergency response services and pilots on
board ships to which SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code apply.
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
The implementation of the mandatory fitting of ship-borne Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) for all ships of
500 gross tonnage and above, on international voyages was accelerated, through amendments to Regulation 19 of
SOLAS Chapter V, to 31 December 2004, at the latest.
There is also a requirement for fitting ships with a ship security alert system (SSAS) for seafarers to use to notify
authorities and other ships of a terrorist hijacking, and appropriate performance standards and procedures for fitting
such systems on board ships have been developed. Further guidance on SSAS is given in MSC/Circ.1072 on
“Guidance on provision of ship security alert systems ”, MSC/Circ.1073 on “Directives for maritime rescue coordination
centres (MRCCs) on acts of violence against ships ”, MSC/Circ.1109 on “False security alerts and
distress/security double alerts” and MSC/Circ.1155 on Guidance on the message priority and the testing of ship
security alert systems .
IMO considered the issue of maritime security equipment and measures to prevent unauthorised boarding in ports
and at sea. It is recognized that the type of equipment to be used on board would depend largely on risk assessment
(e.g. ship types, trading areas). The section of the ISPS Code addressing the Ship Security Plan includes the
consideration of such equipment and measures.
It was recognized that urgent action on an up-to-date seafarer identification document was needed. In this regard,
new specifications for seafarer identification have been agreed as the Seafarers Identity Documents (Revised)
Convention (No. 185), which was adopted by ILO in June 2003, and which revises ILO Convention No. 108.
THE PORT FACILITY
Contracting Governments are required to undertake Port Facility Security Assessments (PFSA) of their Port
Facilities. These assessments shall be undertaken by the Contracting Government, a Designated Authority, or the
Recognized Security Organization. Port Facility Security Assessments will need to be reviewed periodically. The
results of the Port Facility Security Assessment have to be approved by the Government or Designated Authority and
are to be used to help determine which Port Facilities are required to appoint a Port Facility Security Officer
(PFSO).
The responsibilities of the Port Facility Security Officers are defined in the ISPS Code, as are the requirements for
the training they require and the drills they are responsible for undertaking. The Port Facility Security Officer is
responsible for the preparation of the Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP).
Like the Ship Security Plan, the Port Facility Security Plan shall indicate the minimum operational and physical
security measures the Port Facility shall take at all times, i.e. while operating at security level 1. The plan should
also indicate the additional, or intensified, security measures the Port Facility can take to move to security level 2.
Furthermore the plan should indicate the possible preparatory actions the Port Facility could take to allow prompt
response to the instructions that may be issued by the authorities responding at security level 3 to a security incident
or threat.
The Port Facility Security Plan has to be approved by the port facility’s Contracting Government or by the
Designated Authority. The Port Facility Security Officer must ensure that its provisions are implemented and
monitor the continuing effectiveness and relevance of the approved plan, including commissioning independent
internal audits of the application of the plan. The effectiveness of the plan may also be tested by the relevant
Authorities. The Port Facility Security Assessment covering the Port Facility may also be reviewed. All these
activities may lead to amendments to the approved plan. Major amendments to an approved plan will have to be
submitted to the approving authority for re-approval.
CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
A number of other longer-term maritime security-related issues were also raised during the discussions at IMO in
2002. As a result, apart from the resolutions adopting the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code, nine Conference
resolutions were adopted, which addressed:
.1 Further work by the International Maritime Organization pertaining to the enhancement of maritime security;
.2 Future amendments to Chapters XI-1 and XI-2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention on special measures to enhance
maritime safety and security;
.3 Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance;
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
.4 Early implementation of the special measures to enhance maritime security;
.5 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;
.6 Enhancement of security in co-operation with the International Labour Organization;
.7 Enhancement of security in co-operation with the World Customs Organization;
.8 Early implementation of long-range ships’ identification and tracking; and
.9 Human element-related aspects and shore leave for seafarers.
MARITIME SECURITY ACTIVITIES SINCE THE 2002 CONFERENCE
The Diplomatic Conference outlined a number of areas for further development, many of which have been included
in the work programme of IMO, especially the Maritime Safety Committee and its subordinate bodies.
The seventy-seventh session of the Maritime Safety Committee MSC 77 (May 2003) adopted resolution
MSC.147(77) on Revised performance standards for SSAS and approved a number of circulars including:
MSC/Circ.1072 on Guidance on Provision of Ship Security Alert Systems
MSC/Circ.1073 on Directives for Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centers (MRCCs) on Acts of Violence Against
Ships
MSC/Circ.1074 on Interim Guidelines for the Authorization of RSOs Acting on behalf of the Administration and/or
Designated Authority of a Contracting Government
MSC/Circ.1097 on Guidelines for the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code
In September 2003, the IMO model courses for Ship, Company, and Port Facility Security Officers were published.
The 23rd Assembly of the IMO (December 2003) issued Assembly resolution A.959(23) Format and guidelines for
the maintenance of the Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) and amendments to Assembly resolution A.890(21) –
Principles of Safe Manning as Assembly resolution A.955(23)
COMSAR 8 (March 2004) recognized that Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) was a work in progress
and that further consideration was needed on:
– Phased in implementation for SOLAS XI- 2 ships
– LRIT in Sea Area A1 – ships equipped with AIS do not need LRIT
– Flag States should be able to receive LRIT information worldwide
– Coastal states should be able to receive LRIT information but the reporting distance or period should be up to the
Contracting Government
COMSAR 8 recognized that for LRIT there was a need to develop
– functional requirements
– assessment criteria
– security of information requirements to be complied with
– process for recognition
– oversight for service providers
– compliance criteria for service providers
On the issue of Ship Security Alert Systems (SSAS), COMSAR reiterated the requirement for SOLAS Contracting
Governments to provide information in accordance with SOLAS regulation XI-2/13. It was recommended that a
database be established for Contracting Governments to assist other Contracting Governments to establish their own
specifications for SSAS systems, by sharing information. This is being developed by the Organization for inclusion
in the ISPS Code database.
The seventy-eighth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 78) (May 2004) endorsed the recommendations
of COMSAR 8, referred to previously and reaffirmed that, with respect to LRIT, ships need only provide their ID,
location and date and time of the signal; that there should be no interface between LRIT & AIS and that LRIT
equipment should be capable of being switched off. The position on tracking of ships on the high seas or claiming
the right of innocent passage, was deferred for further consideration. It was agreed that there was no role for IMO in
collection, storage, dissemination of LRIT information. It was recognized that there is still considerable work to be
done on LRIT.
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
MSC 78 reaffirmed that the provisions of the ISPS Code did not prevent the master from being appointed as the ship
security officer, if so decided by the Administration.
The Committee approved a number of maritime security related guidance circulars, including:
MSC/Circ.1109 on False security alerts and distress/security double alerts;
MSC/Circ.1110 on Matters related to SOLAS regulations XI-2/6 and XI-2/7;
MSC/Circ.1111 on Guidance relating to the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code;
MSC/Circ.1112 on Shore Leave and Access to Ships under the ISPS Code; and
MSC/Circ.1113 on Guidance to Port State Control Officers on the non-security related elements of the 2002 SOLAS
Amendments.
The Committee also adopted Resolution MSC.159(78) on Interim Guidance on Control and Compliance Measures
to Enhance Maritime Security, the annex to which gives clear guidance to duly authorized officers of port States in
the conduct of control and compliance measures under SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 (this is the same guidance as that
given in annex 2 to MSC/Circ.1111).
The seventy-ninth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 79) (December 2004) approved further maritime
security related circulars, including:
An updated MSC/Circ.1109, now MSC/Circ.1109/Rev.1;
MSC/Circ.1130 on Guidance to masters, Companies and duly authorized officers on the requirements relating to the
submission of security-related information prior to the entry of a ship into port;
MSC/Circ.1131 on Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port
facilities;
MSC/Circ.1132 on Guidance relating to the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code; and
SC/Circ.1133 on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures.
The eightieth session of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 80) (May 2005) passed Resolution MSC.198(80) on
Adoption of amendments to the format and guidelines for the maintenance of the continuous synopsis record (CSR)
(Resolution A.959(23)); and approved further maritime security related circulars, including:
Resolution MSC.198(80) on Adoption of amendments to the format and guidelines for the maintenance of the
continuous synopsis record (CSR) (Resolution A.959(23));
MSC/Circ.1154 on Guidelines on training and certification for company security officers;
MSC/Circ.1155 on Guidance on the message priority and the testing of ship security alert systems;
MSC/Circ.1156 on Guidance on the access of public authorities, emergency response services and pilots onboard
ships to which SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code apply; and
MSC/Circ.1157 on Interim scheme for the compliance of certain cargo ships with the special measures to enhance
maritime security.
REVISION OF THE SUA CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL
Two new protocols to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime
Navigation, 1988 and its Protocol relating to Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988 (the SUA
Treaties) were adopted on 14 October 2005.
The original 1988 SUA treaties provided the legal basis for action to be taken against persons committing unlawful
acts against ships, including the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the
placing of devices on board which are likely to destroy or damage the ship. Contracting Governments are obliged
either to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders. The two new Protocols expand the scope of the original
Convention and protocol to address terrorism by including a substantial broadening of the range of offences and
introducing boarding provisions for suspect vessels.
The revision took into account developments in the UN system relating to anti-terrorism. The relevant UN Security
Council resolutions and other instruments, including the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings (1997), and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) are
directly linked to the new SUA protocol.
Drafted to criminalize the use of a ship “when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”, these
new instruments represent another significant contribution to the international framework to combat terrorism.
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The future work programme of the Organization continues to be updated, taking into account what has already been
done.
Early implementation of long range identification and tracking was required by Conference resolution 10. The
scope, carriage requirements and specifications for LRIT, developed by COMSAR 8 and MSC 78 and further
reviewed by COMSAR 9 and MSC 80, will be revisited by COMSAR 10 (February 2006), MSC 81 (May 2006) and
by sub-groups of these bodies meeting between sessions. COMSAR will be invited to develop specifications for an
LRIT system suitable for use by three types of user: Flag States; Coastal States and Port States.
Work on the development of an IMO Model Course on Duly Authorised Officer, to supplement the Interim
Guidance already issued, continues .
Other IMO documents are being reviewed to see if they need to be amended to include security provisions. These
include Assembly resolution A.872(20) on Guidelines for the Prevention and Suppression of the Smuggling of
Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursor Chemicals on Ships Engaged in International Maritime Traffic,
currently under review by the FAL Committee.
Work on the facilitation aspects of maritime trade, in the context of the new security requirements, is ongoing. This
includes continuing close co-operation with World Customs Organization (WCO) to enhance security in the multi
modal movement of CTUs; through development of the standards and implementation strategies envisaged by the
WCO Framework of Standards, including consideration of possible amendments to SOLAS and considering, in the
context of security, relevant aspects of facilitation of maritime traffic, for examp le, port arrivals and departures,
standardized forms of reporting and electronic data interchange.
The Organization will continue to consider the need and, if necessary, develop any further guidance to ensure the
global, uniform and consistent implementation of the provisions of chapter XI-2 or part A of the ISPS Code.
DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ISO
The International Organization on Standardization (ISO) has during recent years, undertaken various activities in the
area of security.
Last year, the ISO Technical Committee on Ships and marine technology (ISO/TC8), developed a publicly available
specification (PAS), ISO/PAS 20858:2004, on Maritime port facility security assessments and security plan
development. ISO/PAS 20858:2004 establishes a framework to assist port facilities in specifying the necessary
competences of personnel tasked with conducting port facility security assessments and developing port facility
security plans as required by the ISPS Code; conducting the port facility security assessment; and drafting the port
facility security plan. In addition, it establishes certain documentary requirements designed to ensure that the
process used in performing the duties described above was recorded in a manner that would permit independent
verification by a qualified and authorized agency, if the port facility had agreed to the review.
Earlier on this year, ISO/TC8 started the development of:
(1) ISO/PAS 28000 on Specification for security management systems for the supply chain which consists of two
parts. Part A provides the Specification for security management systems for the supply chain and Part B gives the
Guidelines for the application of the Specification.
(2) ISO/PAS 28001 on Best practices for custody in supply chain security.
The current target of ISO is to complete the development and to adopt the two ISO/PAS before the end of the year.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE
The current status of implementation
Since the entry into force of chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code just over a year ago, a number of ports have reported
a marked reduction in both the incidence of thefts and the number of accidents in security restricted areas. In
addition, it has been reported that, during the first six months since the introduction of the ISPS Code, there has been
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
a 50 percent drop in stowaway cases in US ports. A review of the statistics published by the Paris and Tokyo MOUs
on port State control also suggests a positive picture.
However, at the same time, other information suggests that the level of stringency of implementation, adherence to
and enforcement of the provisions of chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code seems to have been relaxed in some instances,
which, if correct, is a worrying development. It is vitally important that all concerned maintain as high standards of
implementation as possible and exercise vigilance at all times. Reports that not all Contracting Governments have
given full effect to all of the applicable provisions of chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code cause considerable concern
and the States concerned should seriously examine their level of implementation and take any necessary corrective
action without delay.
As with all other aspects of shipping regulated through multilateral treaty instruments the effectiveness of the
requirements is dependant on how the relevant provisions are implemented and enforced. Thus, the matter is in the
hands of Contracting Governments and the shipping and port industries.
If the Special measures to enhance maritime security are implemented and enforced wisely and effectively they may
be successful in protecting ships and port facilities from unlawful acts. However, although the measures came into
effect on 1 July 2004, it may still be some time before the entire security net is in place and the actual security of
ships and of port facilities has been enhanced quantifiably.
THE TASK FOR THOSE INVOLVED
Although individual ships or port facilities may operate in accordance with an approved security plan, unless all
Contracting Governments put in place and maintain the necessary arrangements to address all the objectives and the
functional requirements of the ISPS Code, the actual level of security will not be enhanced.
The ISPS Code requires, amongst others, Contracting Governments to gather and assess information with respect to
security threats and exchange such information with other Contracting Governments.
Shipboard and port facility personnel need to be aware of security threats and need to report security concerns to the
appropriate authorities for their assessment. Governments need to communicate security-related information to ships
and port facilities. Therefore, in effect we are talking about establishing an entirely new culture amongst those
involved in the day-to-day running of the shipping and port industry.
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
ANNEX 1
SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2
Special measures to enhance maritime security
REGULATION 1 – DEFINITIONS
REGULATION 2 – APPLICATION
REGULATION 3 – OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO SECURITY
REGULATION 4 – REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPANIES AND SHIPS
REGULATION 5 – SPECIFIC RESPONSIB ILITY OF COMPANIES
REGULATION 6 – SHIP SECURITY ALERT SYSTEM
REGULATION 7 – THREATS TO SHIPS
REGULATION 8 – MASTER’S DISCRETION FOR SHIP SAFETY AND SECURITY
REGULATION 9 – CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE MEASURES
REGULATION 10 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PORT FACILITIES
REGULATION 11 – ALTERNATIVE SECURITY AGREEMENTS
REGULATION 12 – EQUIVALENT SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
REGULATION 13 – COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION
***
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
ANNEX 2
INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND PORT FACILITY SECURITY CODE
Table of Contents
Preamble Paragraphs 1 to 11
Part A
Mandatory requirements regarding the provisions of Chapter XI-2 of the Annex to the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended
1 GENERAL
Sections
Introduction 1.1
Objectives 1.2
Functional requirements 1.3
2 DEFINITIONS
Sections
2.1 – 2.4
3 APPLICATION
Sections
3.1 – 3.6
4 RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS
Sections
4.1 – 4.4
5 DECLARATION OF SECURITY
Sections
5.1 – 5.7
6 OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY
Sections
6.1 – 6.2
7 SHIP SECURITY
Sections
7.1 – 7.9.1
8 SHIP SECURITY ASSESSMENT
Sections
8.1 – 8.5
9 SHIP SECURITY PLAN
Sections
9.1 – 9.8.1
10 RECORDS
Sections
10.1 – 10.4
11 COMPANY SECURITY OFFICER
Sections
11.1 – 11.2.13
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
12 SHIP SECURITY OFFICER
Sections
12.1 – 12.2.10
13 TRAINING, DRILLS AND EXERCISES ON SHIP SECURITY
Sections
13.1 – 13.5
14 PORT FACILITY SEURITY
Sections
14.1 – 14.6
15 PORT FACILITY SECURITY ASSESSMENT
Sections
15.1 – 15.7
16 PORT FACILITY SECURITY PLAN
Sections
16.1 – 16.8
17 PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICER
Sections
17.1 – 17.3
18 TRAINING, DRILLS AND EXERCISES ON PORT FACILITY SECURITY
Sections
18.1 – 18.4
19 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR SHIPS
Sections
Verifications 19.1.1 – 19.1.4
Issue or endorsement of certificate 19.2.1 – 19.2.4
Duration and validity of certificate 19.3.1 – 19.3.9
Interim certification 19.4.1 – 19.4.6
APPENDICES TO PART A
Appendix 1 – Form of the International Ship Security Certificate
Appendix 2 – Form of the Interim International Ship Security Certificate
Part B
Guidance regarding the provisions of Chapter XI-2 of the Annex to the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended and part A of this Code
1 INTRODUCTION
Sections
General 1.1 – 1.5
Responsibilities of Contracting Governments 1.6 – 1.7
Setting the security level 1.8
The company and the ship 1.9 – 1.15
The port facility 1.16 – 1.21
Information and communication 1.22
2 DEFINITIONS
Sections
2.1 – 2.2
3 APPLICATION
Sections
General 3.1 – 3.4
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
4 RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS
Sections
Security of assessments and plans 4.1
Designated authorities 4.2
Recognized Security Organizations 4.3 – 4.7
Setting the security level 4.8 – 4.13
Contact points and information on port facility security plans 4.14 – 4.17
Identification documents 4.18
Fixed and floating platforms and mo bile drilling units on location 4.19
Ships which are not required to comply with part A of this Code 4.20
Threats to ships and other incidents at Sea 4.21 – 4.25
Alternative security arrangements 4.26
Equivalent arrangements for port facilities 4.27
Manning level 4.28
Control and compliance measures
– General 4.29 – 4.35
– Control of ships in port 4.36
– Ships intending to enter the port of another Contracting Government 4.37 – 4.40
– Additional provisions 4.41 – 4.44
– Non-party ships and ships below convention size 4.45
5 DECLARATION OF SECURITY
Sections
General 5.1 – 5.6
6 OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY
Sections
6.1 – 6.8
7 SHIP SECURITY
Relevant guidance is provided under sections 8, 9 and 13.
8 SHIP SECURITY ASSESSMENT
Sections
Security assessment 8.1 – 8.13
On-scene security survey 8.14
9 SHIP SECURITY PLAN
Sections
General 9.1 – 9.6
Organization and performance of ship security duties 9.7 – 9.8
Access to the ship 9.9 – 9.17
Restricted areas on the ship 9.18 – 9.24
Handling of cargo 9.25 – 9.32
Delivery of ship’s stores 9.33 – 9.37
Handling unaccompanied baggage 9.38 – 9.41
Monitoring the security of the ship 9.42 – 9.49
Differing security levels 9.50
Activities not covered by the Code 9.51
Declaration of Security 9.52
Audit and review 9.53
10 RECORDS
Sections
10.1 – 10.2
11 COMPANY SECURITY OFFICER
Relevant guidance is provided under sections 8, 9 and 13.
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
12 SHIP SECURITY OFFICER
Relevant guidance is provided under sections 8, 9 and 13.
13 TRAINING AND DRILLS
Sections
13.1 – 13.8
14 PORT FACILITY SECURITY
Relevant guidance is provided under sections 15, 16 and 18.
15 PORT FACILITY SECURITY ASSESSMENT
Sections
General 15.1 – 15.4.13
Identification and evaluation of important assets and infrastructure it is important
to protect
15.5 – 15.8
Identification of the possible threats to the assets and infrastructure and the
likelihood of their occurrence in order to establish and prioritise security
measures
15.9 – 15.12
Identification, selection, and prioritisation of countermeasures and procedural
changes and their level of effectiveness to reduce vulnerabilities
15.13 – 15.14.4
Identification of vulnerabilities 15.15 – 15.16.12
16 PORT FACILITY SECURITY PLAN
Sections
General 16.1 –16.7
Organization and performance of port facility security duties 16.8 – 16.9.6
Access to the port facility 16.10 – 16.20
Restricted areas within the port facility 16.21– 16.29
Handling of cargo 16.30 – 16.37
Delivery of Ship’s Stores 16.38 – 16.44
Handling Unaccompanied Baggage 16.45 – 16.487
Monitoring the Security of the Port Facility 16.49 – 16.54
Differing Security Levels 16.55
Activities not covered by the Code 16.56
Declarations of Security 16.57
Audit, Review and Amendment 16.58 – 16.60
Approval of Port Facility Security Plans 16.61
Statement of compliance of a port facility 16.62 – 16.63
17 PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICER
Sections
17.1 – 17.2
18 TRAINING AND DRILLS
Sections
18.1 – 18.6
19 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF SHIPS
No additional guidance.
APPENDIX TO PART B
Appendix 1 – Form of a Declaration of Security
Appendix 2 – Form of a statement of compliance of a port facility
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
ANNEX 3
Other guidance material on maritime security
Extant guidance material on the implementation of SOLAS XI-2 and the ISPS Code (in chronological order or
issuance):
Resolution MSC 136(76) Performance Standards for a Ship Security
Alert System
Resolution MSC 147(77) Adoption of the Revised Performance Standards for a
Ship Security Alert System
MSC/Circ.1067 Early Implementation of the Special
Measures to Enhance Maritime Security
MSC/Circ.1072 Guidance on Provision of Ship Security
Alert Systems
MSC/Circ.1073 Directives for Maritime Rescue Co-ordination
Centers (MRCCs) on Acts of Violence Against Ships
MSC/Circ.1074 Interim Guidelines for the Authorization of RSOs
Acting on behalf of the Administration and/or
Designated Authority of a Contracting Government
MSC/Circ.1097 Guidelines for the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter
XI-2 and the ISPS Code
MSC/Circ. 1104 Implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS
Code
MSC/Circ. 1106 Implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS
Code to Port Facilities
Resolution A.959(23) Format and guidelines for the maintenance of the
Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR)
Circular Letter No. 2514 Information required from SOLAS Contracting
Governments under the provisions of SOLAS
regulation XI-2/13
Circular Letter No. 2529 Information required from SOLAS Contracting
Governments under the provisions of SOLAS
regulation XI-2/13.1.1 on communication of a single
national contact point
Resolution MSC.159(78) Interim Guidance on Control and Compliance
Measures to Enhance Maritime Security
MSC/Circ.1109 False security alerts and distress/security double alerts
MSC/Circ.1110 Matters related to SOLAS regulations XI-2/6 and XI-
2/7
MSC/Circ.1111 Guidance relating to the Implementation of SOLAS
Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code
MSC/Circ.1112 Shore Leave and Access to Ships under the ISPS
Code
C:\IMO maritime securoity policy.doc
MSC/Circ.1113 Guidance to port State control officers on the nonsecurity
related elements of the 2002 SOLAS
amendments
MSC/Circ.1109/Rev.1 False security alerts and distress/security double alerts
MSC/Circ.1130 Guidance to masters, Companies and duly authorized
officers on the requirements relating to the
submission of security-related information prior to the
entry of a ship into port
MSC/Circ.1131 Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by
SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port
facilities
MSC/Circ.1132 Guidance relating to the Implementation of SOLAS
Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code
MSC/Circ.1133 Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when
exercising control and compliance measures
Resolution MSC.198(80) Adoption of amendments to the format and guidelines
for the maintenance of the continuous synopsis record
(CSR) (Resolution A.959(23)
MSC/Circ.1154 Guidelines on training and certification for company
security officers
MSC/Circ.1155 Guidance on the message priority and the testing of
ship security alert systems
MSC/Circ.1156 Guidance on the access of public authorities,
emergency response services and pilots onboard ships
to which SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code
apply
MSC/Circ.1157 Interim scheme for the compliance of certain cargo
ships with the special measures to enhance maritime
security.
__________________

Share!