Port State Control: An Introduction to MLC Compliance for the Yachting Sector - Workshop

1. PORT STATE CONTROL An Introduction MLC Compliance for the Yachting Sector - Workshop Chamber of Commerce 23rd March 2016 Dr. Nicholas Valenzia

2. Overview • Introduction • Why PSC? • Legal Framework • Selection & Targeting • Effects • Concluding remarks

3. Introduction Port state control involves the powers and obligations vested in, exercised by, and imposed upon a national maritime authority by international conventions or domestic statutes (or both), to board, inspect and where appropriate detain, a merchant ship flying a flag foreign to that state in order to ensure compliance by that ship with all applicable international safety at sea instruments and with any domestic legislative maritime safety requirements. John Hare (1997) - ‘Port State Control: Strong Medicine to Cure a Sick Industry’.

4. Why PSC? The inspection of foreign ships in national ports to: i. Effectively prevent “sub-standard” ships from trading. ii. Ensure compliance with international safety, security and environmental conventions/standards. Provided that such inspections do not result in the unnecessarily detention or delay of a trading ship.

5. Legal Framework - Comprehensive provisions instituting the international legal regime on PSC, are found in the international maritime conventions such as SOLAS, LOADLINE, MARPOL, STCW, TONNAGE, AFS and MLC, and IMO guidelines which provide the internationally recommendatory framework on which, further, regional MoUs are based; - Customary International Law – Port State Rights; - Specific measures relating to Pollution - The sovereign right to exercise control over foreign flag ships - UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 Art 211 – Pollution from vessels Art 218 – Enforcement by Port States Art 219 – Measures relating to seaworthiness of vessels to avoid pollution Art 220 – Enforcement by coastal States Art 226 – Investigation of foreign vessels

6. Regional MOUs The regional MoUs provide uniformity and harmonization, among participating States, of the right of a port state to ascertain that calling ships are in compliance with internationally agreed rules and standards mainly on maritime safety and protection of marine environment within their port state jurisdiction. Following on the foundation built by the Paris MOU (Europe and North Atlantic), several other regional MOUs have been signed, including: • Acuerdo de Viña del Mar (Latin America) • The Tokyo MOU (Asia-Pacific) • The Caribbean MOU • The Mediterranean MOU • The Indian Ocean MOU • The Abuja MOU (West and Central Atlantic Africa) • The Black Sea MOU • The Riyadh MOU (Persian Gulf) Council Directive on Port State Control (2009/16/EC amended by Directive 2013/38/EU to ensure compliance with MLC).

8. PSC Directive 2009/16/EC • Stricter enforcement on substandard ships • Lesser burden on quality ships/companies • Inspection’s intervals based on risk profile • Ships risk profile updated on daily basis • Company performance • New banning provisions • New ship reporting obligations • New information system (Thetis) • Ships calls feed on Thetis via SafeSeaNet • New supporting tools available on line

9. Selection of ships for inspection Art. 12 – Directive 2009/16/EC • On the basis of vessel risk profile (high, standard or low risk) in terms of Annex I, Part I; and • Due to overriding or unexpected factors that may arise in accordance with Annex I, Part II 2A and 2B. Vessels due for mandatory inspection (Priority I) – when time window for inspection has passed. If an overriding factor is logged against vessel, it becomes Priority I irrespective of time window. Vessels eligible for inspection (Priority II) – when time window for inspection opens. If an unexpected factor is logged against a ship it becomes Priority II irrespective of the time window and the ship can be selected for inspection. This targeting tool is intended to standardise the selection of vessels for inspection, reducing the risk of practice differing from port to port, and allow the most risky vessels to be targeted for inspection.

10. Targeting To facilitate the selection for inspections, the central computer database ‘THETIS’ is consulted by PSCOs. This system is hosted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and informs national PSC authorities which vessels are due for an inspection. Data on vessels particulars and reports of previous inspections carried out within the Paris MoU region are provided by this system as well.

11. PSCOs assess the ability of ship and/or crew to: • navigate safely; • safely handle, carry and monitor the condition of the cargo; • cooperate the engine-room safely; • maintain proper propulsion and steering; • fight fires effectively in any part of the ship if necessary; • abandon ship speedily and safely and effect rescue if necessary; • prevent pollution of the environment; • maintain adequate stability and watertight integrity; and • provide safe and healthy conditions on board. IMO Resolution 787(19)

12. Effects - Rectification/Detention - Follow up inspections - Reporting - Suspension/prohibition of plying waters/entering ports.

13. Concluding Remarks - PSC is not “the enemy” - Important to maintain the integrity of PSC - A method of exchange of data and cooperation between port authorities - Develops a culture of transparency and openness - Proposal: More efforts to harmonise inspections and detention procedures

14. Thank you Mamo TCV Advocates Palazzo Pietro Stiges 103, Strait Street Valletta VLT 1436 Malta Telephone: (+356) 21231345 ; (+356) 21232271 Fax: (+356) 21244291 ; (+356) 21231298 Email: nicholas.valenzia@mamotcv.com www.mamotcv.com