Saturday 4 June 2011

DPA, an ISM requirement or a Commitment?

Designated Person Ashore

Recently, I was speaking to a friend, who holds a senior position in a Shipping Company. He has definitely more exposure and more experience than me ashore, and while talking to him, we did touch the aspect or the question of “Who can be the Designated Person Ashore, in view of ISM Code, 4.0”?
As per him, there are numerous shipping companies, still operating, some who have even appointed a Front receptionist or a mere graduate, non-sailor as a DPA. And surprisingly, the company’s DOC (Document of Compliance) is intact. The certifying bodies have not probably even raised Non Conformity to this aspect.

Now let’s investigate this firstly on the basis of what the preamble to ISM Code says.
1 The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.
This implies, the intent of the code is to ensure an international standard, and of course it deals with Safe and environment friendly management and operations of the ship. This part in effect really gives a common principle to the code.

4 Recognizing that no two shipping companies or ship-owners are the same, and that ships operate under a wide range of different conditions, the Code is based on general principles and objectives.
This gives the companies a scope to operate under various structure and processes, however, the agenda remains the same, safe and environment friendly management and operations. The general principles and objectives are the same for all companies.

5 The Code is expressed in broad terms so that it can have a widespread application. Clearly, different levels of management, whether shore-based or at sea, will require varying levels of knowledge and awareness of the items outlined.
This highlights the importance of having appropriate knowledge and awareness.

6 The cornerstone of good safety management is commitment from the top. In matters of safety and pollution prevention it is the commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result.
Now this is the key principle of the entire ISM Code. This is the entire reasoning behind the development of ISM Code.
1. Commitment at all levels to ensure safety & environmental protection. Believe it should start from the top management. 
2.  Competence. All personnel deputed various roles within the organization, whether onboard or ashore should be competent for at least their jobs. If we evaluate it in light of STCW, even sailing staff is supposed to be competent, be it in support role, operational role or management role. 
3.  Attitudes. But obviously, believe it is not meant that anyone should have any wrong attitudes. It means attitude to ensure safety & environmental protection. 
4. Motivation. Rarely practiced in any industry, the only motivation anywhere is money, career growth, appreciation, security and self-esteem. The personnel working onboard or ashore should be sufficiently motivated to ensure safety & environment protection, to go that extra mile to ensure compliance to ISM objective.

Before, I proceed further into investigating this aspect, let’s see what ISM Code says about the DPA.
“ ISM Code 4:  DESIGNATED PERSON(S)
To ensure the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the Company and those on board, every Company, as appropriate, should designate a person or persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of management. The responsibility and authority of the designated person or persons should include monitoring the safety and pollution-prevention aspects of the operation of each ship and ensuring that adequate resources and shore-based support are applied, as required. “

Let’s break the above into parts and analyze them:

To ensure the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the Company and those on board every Company, as appropriate, should designate a person or persons ashore

The rest of the sentence, we’ll analyze at a subsequent stage. However, those who have studied English Grammer, would identify this sentence has a meaning in itself, outside the rest of the part. 
1)    The companies are supposed to appoint a DPA 
2)    The objective of appointing DPA is
a.     to ensure safe operation of each ship; and
b.     to provide a link between company and those on board.

It is strange, that this is not considered by most of the companies. The DPA should be able to understand safety in maritime industry, which would further imply, having knowledge of SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, amongst other codes, regulations and be able to really understand the operations, the ships undertake to be able to ensure. If I do not understand the implications, the requirements and the limitations of driving, how can you appoint me as a driver of a lorry?
Further, the 2nd item speaks of providing link between company and those on board! This implies, that the DPA must be able to connect directly with the Master and onboard personnel? But we have DPA’s who have rarely seen the ships, some who have rarely seen the Masters on board but they are the DPAs. Unfortunately, and on the contrary, the DPAs mostly are so lost and have no situational awareness for the vessels that they rarely know what is going on board the vessels.

The Designated Person ashore is something like the Safety Officer on board the ships. Would that mean, he/she should be able to make decisions? Would that mean that he/she should be qualified to make decisions? Would that also mean that he/she should be a person with some authority and training in this scope?

My understanding is that this first phrase actually is the Objectivity about the DPA, who can be and what role is he primarily supposed to serve.

every Company, as appropriate, should designate a person or persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of management.”
Now we talk of a functional requirement.

The DPA should have direct access to the highest level of management. This implies, if the highest level in a company is the Management Board, then DPA should be able to approach them, and if the share holders body is recognized as the highest body in the company’s management chart, the DPA should be able to have access to them.

The original draftsmen of the Code intended to have a conduit, a medium, a kind of focal point for the communication flow on matters of safety to freely pass in all directions, a unique person with multi-talented capabilities. Traditionally, the Superintendent would perform such a function. However, to facilitate such a communication flow I do believe that the DPA must be well known, trusted and respected by those on board the ship and in the office ashore. They must be seen to be effective, to have the ability to deal with all issues, to provide leadership, motivation, commitment and have the right attitude to ensure that feedback loops are always closed, that the questions and queries are answered, that problems posed are solved.


The responsibility and authority of the designated person or persons should include monitoring the safety and pollution-prevention aspects of the operation of each ship and ensuring that adequate resources and shore-based support are applied, as required.”

The UK regulations take a more detailed approach in ‘SI 1998 No. 1561 The Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 1998’ which states, at Section 8:

Designated  Person
8. (1) The company shall designate a person who shall be responsible for monitoring the safe and efficient operation of each ship with particular regard to the safety and pollution prevention aspects.
(2) In particular, the designated person shall-
(a) take such steps as are necessary to  ensure compliance with the company safety management system on the basis of which the Document of Compliance was issued; and
(b) ensure that proper provision is made for  each ship to be so manned, equipped and maintained that it is fit to operate in accordance with the safety management system and with
statutory requirements.
(3) The company shall ensure that the designated person-
(a) is provided with sufficient authority and resources; and
(b) has appropriate knowledge and sufficient experience of the operation of ships at sea and in port, to enable him to comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) above.

The DPA should be able to monitor the safety and pollution prevention aspects of the shipboard operations. I’m not sure, how many DPAs actually have access to each and every mail that originates to and from the ship. How many actually view each one of the them, raise objections, raise questions, understand the risks involved, take part in risk assessments and have an overview of each activity of the vessel. In 2005, while serving on a vessel as a Chief Mate, I once had to call the DPA of my company (Master had stepped ashore) for an operational problem, that was eventually, apart from having the potential of financial loss to the charterers / owners, could cause a statutory problem for the vessel. The DPA on hearing out the problem said he was on vacations (I as a Chief Mate of course had no idea that he was on vacations, but eventually, I found out, neither the Master had, there was no notification from him) and asked me to talk to the Alternate DPA. The alternate DP was an erstwhile Chief Engineer, who was not well aware of the Chemical trade (I was on a parcel chemical tanker) and directed me to another Superintendent who was supposed to be the company’s expert on Chemical trade. Fine no issues with this; one person is not supposed to know all. If I was in his place and someone would call me to speak about a generator problem, I too will direct him to the more technically sound person. But isn’t monitoring supposed to be within the scope of DPA? Isn’t he supposed to have the ability to monitor?

The DPA is further supposed to ensure that the ships are provided with adequate resources and shore-base support. If, I do not have the knowledge and the expertise, how am I supposed to ensure as DPA, what resources and supports I should provide.
Looking from the angle of English Merchant Shipping Regulations, the DPA should be able to judge what is required and what is not required, again a Decision Maker, and he should too be provided with sufficient authority and resources.

On a number of occasions, you will find the failure of a company stemming out of the basic reason that the DPA is practically ineffective and often not really aware or not understanding their actual role or what is expected of them as DPA.

In effect the authority and responsibility of DPA should cover the following:

a.  The designated person has to collect and analyze all the operational information regarding the implementation of the SMS of the Company, which would thus also include his ability to verify them and act upon them to firstly, prevent problems and thereafter, taking corrective actions, if needed.
b.      Discuss with all the personnel concerned any matters related to safety and environmental protection and the application of this aspect to all operations on board ships.
c.       Monitor the operation of each ship as far as pollution and safety are concerned.
d.     In the event of  deficiency, the designated person shall not only have direct access to the highest level of management to seek guidance but by virtue of section - 4, he shall also be vested of all the required resources.

The choice of the correct Designated Person and his competency are fundamental for the success of the implementation of the Code and the SMS of the company. The Companies will have to select a person who would have adequate competency and shipboard experience as a Chief Engineer or Master who can gain the respect of the personnel at sea and ashore. He should have a good knowledge of how the Company works and should be aware of his responsibility to satisfactorily deal with reporting of casualty, near misses, non-conformities, hazardous occurrences etc.

It is the Company’s responsibility to give all possible support and cooperation of all the shore staff / ship staff to the designated person in order to carry out the objectives of the ISM Code.

The main role of the designated person is preventing accidents for safe operation of ships and prevention of pollution and to carry out analysis of any accident to see whether the act of the owner or act of the person or any omission or any other intention to cause such accident, or having the knowledge that such accident would probably result so that preventive action is immediately taken to avoid the recurrence of such accident.

In view of the above responsibility any fault of the designated person in the implementation and maintenance of the SMS, could therefore have legal consequences as it could make the owner loose his right to limit his liability. The DPAs should also realize that because of the legal consequences, they are highly prone to becoming the scape-goats, after all someone needs to get the blame, if the company has to survive.

This was an argumentative reasoning, why the companies must ensure, a sufficiently qualified, competent and knowledgeable and senior person is appointed the DPA

Now lets see, if IMO is giving any more guidance. Yes it does. After a lot of deliberations and resulting inferences, IMO did come out with two circulars on the 19th October 2007.
MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.5 and MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6

MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.5 of 19th October 2007 providing guidelines for the operational implementation of the ISM code by companies states the following:

4 DESIGNATED PERSON
4.1 A key role, as identified by the ISM Code, in the effective implementation of a safety management system is that of the Designated Person. This is the person based ashore whose influence and responsibilities should significantly affect the development and implementation of a safety culture within the Company.
4.2 The designated person should verify and monitor all safety and pollution prevention activities in the operation of each ship. This monitoring should include, at least, the following internal processes:
.1 communication and implementation of the safety and environmental protection policy;
.2 evaluation and review of the effectiveness of the safety management system;
.3 reporting and analysis of non-conformities, accidents and hazardous occurrences;
.4 organizing and monitoring of internal audits;
.5 appropriate revisions to the SMS; and
.6 ensuring that adequate resources and shore-based support are provided.
4.3 To enable the designated person to carry out this role effectively, the Company should provide adequate resources and shore-based support. These include:
.1 personnel resources;
.2 material resources;
.3 any training required;
.4 clearly defined and documented responsibility and authority; and
.5 authority for reporting non-conformities and observations to the highest level of management.
4.4 Designated Person(s) should have the qualifications, training and experience as set out in MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6, to effectively verify and monitor the implementation of the safety management system in compliance with the ISM Code.

And what does MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6 state?

The IMO circular outlined a minimum set of criteria for formal education. It stated that the DP must possess one of the following
1. qualifications from a tertiary institution recognized by the Administration or by the recognized organization, within a relevant field of management, engineering, or physical science; or
2.     qualifications and seagoing experience as a certified ship officer pursuant to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended; or 
3.     other formal education combined with not less than three years practical senior-level experience in ship management operations.

For practical training, the IMO insists that the DP should have undergone training relating to safety management elements in compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code, particularly with regard to: 

1.     knowledge and understanding of the ISM Code; 
2.     mandatory rules and regulations; 
3.     applicable codes, guidelines and standards as appropriate; 
4.     assessment techniques of examining, questioning, evaluating and reporting; 
5.     technical or operational aspects of safety management; 
6.     appropriate knowledge of shipping and shipboard operations; 
7.     participation in at least one marine-related management system audit; and 
8.     effective communications with shipboard staff and senior management. 

And further, in the most important area of experience, the following is necessitated: 
9.     ability to present ISM matters to the highest level of management and gain sustained support for safety management system improvements; 
10.  determine whether the safety management system elements meet the requirements of the ISM Code; 
11.  determine the effectiveness of the safety management system within the company and the ship by using established principles of internal audit and management review to ensure compliance with rules and regulations; 
12.  assess the effectiveness of the safety management system in ensuring compliance with other rules and regulations that are not covered by statutory and classification surveys and enabling verification of compliance with these rules and regulations; 
13. assess whether the safe practices recommended by the organization, administrations, classification societies, other international bodies and maritime industry organizations to promote a safety culture had been taken into account; and 
14.  gather and analyze data from hazardous occurrences, situations, near misses, incidents and accidents and apply lessons learned to improve the safety management system.

Since verification of ISM Code compliance is achieved through a series of audits, the IMO further outlined that the company should provide training, including practical training and continuous updating. The company should also provide evidence that the DP has the relevant qualification, training and experience to undertake the duties under the ISM Code. 



I won’t be wrong, and believe the experienced professionals would agree, that certificates and mere education cannot replace real experience. Hopefully someday, the number of adequately qualified Designated Persons is more than the number of merely certified and/or nominated DPAs and possibly, then the companies would really be able to implement ISM in its true spirit.

Until then, we live with non-conformities, and inadequate enforcement of the code.

The above views are completely mine, with quoting parts of legislature in this regards from the sources, as indicated. It is difficult to imagine someone not agreeing to my views, but believe a debate on this would provide greater insight. Always, pleased to hear.

Oh, by the way, to clarify, someone commented in email on reading this, in my opinion, who should be the DPA.


Well, honestly, can be any sailor, but the most suited would be a Master, not by certification, but who has really served as Master. Who else is supposed to handle "over-riding authority"; has the "decision making experience"; has dealt with more number of scenarios then other seafarers and has been in "command". Further, in my opinion, there should be some kind of psychological analysis available for the DPA, which could conclude that he / she is suited or not. 
If the companies are really willing to implement this, one of the best courses that can really help is the "Command" course by Nautical Institute, adequately developed to serve this purpose.

Best regards,
Rajesh Baran
(+65 83033070)
rajeshbaran@gmail.com


No comments:

Post a Comment