INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · PDF fileMALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS ... the WCO...

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 81st session Agenda item 5

MSC 81/WP.5 17 May 2006 Original: ENGLISH

MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY

Report of the Working Group on Maritime Security

(Part I)

1 General 1.1 The Working Group on Maritime Security (the Group) met from 10 to [18] May 2006 under the Chairmanship of Mr. John Grubb (United Kingdom). 1.2 The Group was attended by delegations from the following Member Governments:

ALGERIA ANGOLA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BAHRAIN BARBADOS BELGIUM BRAZIL BULGARIA CAMBODIA CANADA CHILE CHINA COLOMBIA COTE D’IVOIRE CYPRUS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO DOMINICA ECUADOR EGYPT FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GHANA GREECE HONDURAS INDIA

INDONESIA IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) IRELAND ITALY JAMAICA JAPAN LATVIA LIBERIA LUXEMBOURG MALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NIGERIA NORWAY PAKISTAN PANAMA PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL QATAR REPUBLIC OF KOREA ROMANIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN SWEDEN THAILAND

MSC 81/WP.5 - 2 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

UNITED STATES URUGUAY VENEZUELA

and the following Associate Member: HONG KONG, CHINA 1.3 The session was also attended by representatives from the following United Nations specialized agencies:

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (WMO) INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO)

1.4 The session was also attended by observers from the following intergovernmental organizations:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE ORGANIZATION (IMSO) and by observers from the following non-governmental organizations in consultative status:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO) INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION (ISF) INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARINE AIDS TO NAVIGATION AND LIGHTHOUSE AUTHORITIES (IALA)

INTERNATIONAL RADIO MARITIME COMMITTEE (CIRM) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH) BIMCO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS (IADC) INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATIONS (IFSMA)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS (INTERTANKO) INTERNATIONAL LIFEBOAT FEDERATION (ILF) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CRUISE LINES (ICCL) INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA) WORLD NUCLEAR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE (WNTI)

Terms of reference 2 The working group was instructed, taking into account the relevant decisions taken and comments made in plenary, to:

.1 consider and recommend – taking into account the related decisions of the 2002 SOLAS Conference, the WCO Framework of Standards, document MSC 81/5/4 (Secretariat), the salient aspects of document MSC 81/5/9 (Japan) - the approach to be taken in developing measures which further enhance the security of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships whilst simultaneously achieving positive gains in the facilitation of maritime transport;

- 3 - MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.2 consider and recommend - taking into account the discussions during the

consideration of the issue by STW 37 (STW 37/18, paragraphs 7.40 to 7.49, 7.50, 7.51) - the approach to be taken when developing provisions relating to the security-related training for shipboard personnel (other than the Ship security officer) for eventual inclusion in the STCW Convention and the STCW Code as amendments;

.3 consider and recommend - taking into account the discussions during the

consideration of the issue by STW 37 (STW 37/18, paragraphs 7.52 to 7.53) - the approach to be taken in relation to the granting of dispensations to Ship security officers (SSOs). In this context, the MSWG should consider the text of the draft amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code (MSC 81/3/1 (Secretariat)) and should develop, if need be, appropriate modifications thereto in line with its decisions. In such a case, the Group should liaise with the Drafting Group to be established under agenda item 3 so as to include, in a clearly identifiable manner, the suggested modifications in the text of the draft of the amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code which the latter group will be presenting to the Committee for consideration with a view to adoption;

.4 review the draft MSC circular on Guidelines on training and certification for port

facility security officers prepared by STW 37 (STW 37/18, annex 3) and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.5 consider and recommend - taking into account the proposals contained in

document MSC 81/5/7 (Austria et al) – whether special purpose ships, as defined in the SPS Code, should be required to comply with to the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code and if so, to prepare a draft MSC circular on Interim scheme for the compliance of special purpose ships with the special measures to enhance maritime security and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.6 prepare - taking into account the concerns expressed in document MSC 81/5/11

(Austria et al) - a draft MSC circular providing guidance in relation to the information which needs to be transmitted by ships, which are required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/6, for identification purposes in connection with ship security alerts and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.7 examine - taking into account the concerns expressed in document MSC 81/5/12

(Belgium et al) - the adequacy of MSC/Circ.1133 and, if necessary, prepare a new draft MSC circular on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.8 consider and, if necessary, revise - taking into account the summary of lessons

learnt from the use of the MSC/Circ.1131 on Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities endorsed by MSC 80 (see MSC 80/WP.7, annex 7); and the views expressed in documents MSC 81/5/2 (Vanuatu) and MSC 81/5/3 (Islamic Republic of Iran) - the MSC circular on Interim Guidance on voluntary

MSC 81/WP.5 - 4 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities (so as to bring the interim status of the guidance to an end, to consolidate the various suggestions and agreed amendments, and to supersede MSC/Circ.1131) and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.9 prepare - taking into account the proposals contained in the annex to document

MSC 81/5/6 (Austria et al) - a draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and for ship security and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.10 prepare a draft MSC circular stressing the need for rigorous implementation of,

compliance with, and enforcement of, the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code and submit it to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval;

.11 consider and recommend the approach to be taken in addressing the issues raised

in document MSC 81/5/13 (Brazil);

.12 prepare, based on the text submitted by the United Kingdom (MSC 81/3/5) and taking into account the proposals from Norway (MSC 81/3/7) and Brazil (MSC 81/3/8 and Corr.1); the pending elements of the proposal from the United States (MSC 80/3/3); and the related outcomes of COMSAR 10 (COMSAR 10/16, annex 18), draft SOLAS amendments on long-range identification and tracking of ships (including any needed consequential amendments) and submit them to the Committee for consideration with a view to adoption;

.13 prepare, based on the proposals of COMSAR 10 (COMSAR 10/16, annex 17) and

taking into account the pending elements of the proposal from the United States (MSC 80/3/3), draft Performance standards and functional requirements for long-range identification and tracking of ships and submit them to the Committee for consideration with a view to adoption;

.14 review, based on the proposals of COMSAR 10 (COMSAR 10/16, annex 19), the

draft terms of reference of the proposed ad hoc LRIT Engineering Task Force and submit them to the Committee for consideration with a view to approval; and

.15 submit a report to plenary by Thursday, 18 May 2006.

WCO FRAMEWORK OF STANDARDS 3 The Group discussed the issue of the security of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships in the wider context of supply chain security and the WCO Framework of Standards. Whereas it was generally agreed that a system for securing the supply chain was necessary, some delegations expressed concern that many aspects of supply chain security were outside the purview of the Organization. 4 In the ensuing deliberations the Group considered operative paragraph 3 of 2002 SOLAS Conference resolution 9; the current requirements of part A of the ISPS Code on the responsibilities of port facilities with respect to cargo shipments; the need for an interface between the supply chain security system and the port facility security plan; current inland security and cargo practices required by IMO in respect of the IMDG Code; the multimodal aspect of container security; and the role, if any, of SOLAS and the ISPS Code in supply chain security.

- 5 - MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

5 The Group subsequently agreed as the way forward to recommend that the Committee should instigate a joint MSC/FAL Working Group of the carriage of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships with terms of reference as set out at annex 1. SECURITY-RELATED TRAINING FOR SHIPBOARD PERSONNEL 6 The Group recommended that the Committee should instruct the STW Sub-Committee to observe, when developing provisions relating to the security-related training for shipboard personnel (other than the ship security officer) for eventual inclusion in the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, as amended, in addition to the provisions of section A/13 and paragraph B/13 of the ISPS Code and the fact that all persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship should receive appropriate security-related training before been assigned to any security-related duties:

.1 all persons employed or engaged on a ship shall receive approved familiarization training related to security awareness and prevention of security-related incidents before been assigned to shipboard duties. Such familiarization should be provided by the ship security officer or an equally qualified person;

.2 all persons with designated security-related duties should receive appropriate

specific security-related training before assuming such duties;

.3 all persons employed or engaged on a ship with security related duties should, in addition, receive familiarization training with their security-related duties in accordance with the ship security plan before assuming such duties. Such familiarization training should be provided by the ship security officer or another equally qualified person;

.4 shipboard personnel are not security experts and seafarers should not be converted

into security specialists; .5 shipboard personnel should receive adequate security-related training so as to

acquire the required knowledge and understanding to perform their assigned duties and to collectively contribute to the enhancement of maritime security; and

.6 the proposed amendments to STCW Convention and the STCW Code should

address all types and sizes of ships to which SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code apply. For ships which are subject to the provisions of the STCW Convention but which are not subject to the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, the STW Sub-Committee should consider the matter with a view to advising the Committee of the recommended approach, taking into account the need to ensure career development for seafarers.

7 The Group recommended that the Committee should also instruct the STW Sub-Committee to prepare and submit for consideration any needed consequential amendments to the ISPS Code which might need to come into force when the eventual amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, as amended would become effective, so as to avoid any potential conflicts between the salient provisions of the various instruments regulating the training and certification of shipboard personnel in connection with security-related matters.

MSC 81/WP.5 - 6 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

GRANTING OF PERMIT TO PERFORM THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHIP SECURITY OFFICER 8 The Group agreed that it would be reasonable to expect that there may be instances when the designated ship security officer (SSO) may not be, for a variety of reasons beyond the control of the person involved, in a position to perform the assigned duties and responsibilities for example as a result of an incident or accident. In such cases, it would be also reasonable to anticipate that no other member of the shipboard personnel at the time may be holder of a valid certificate of proficiency for a SSO, as provided for in the draft amendments to the STCW Convention (see MSC 81/3/1 (Secretariat)) which the Committee is currently considering with a view to adoption, and it could well be that it may not be practically possible for a qualified person to join the ship before the scheduled departure. 9 As a result the Group agreed that in exceptional circumstances the Administration may permit a seafarer having specific security-related duties and responsibilities and an understanding of the ship security plan to undertake, for the shortest possible period of time, the performance of the duties and responsibilities of the SSO. In this respect, the Group recognized that in determining the duration of such an arrangement the trading patterns of the ship would need to be taken into account as well as the practical arrangements for a qualified person being able to join the ship. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Group agreed that, as a matter of principle, such a period should be kept as short as possible. The Group also agreed that Administrations should issue documentary evidence attesting that they have granted such a permit. However, such documentary evidence may be issued, under the authority of the Administration, by another party provided the Administrations has granted such permit. In addition, the Group agreed that the Company should inform accordingly the competent authorities at the next port(s) of call. 10 The Group agreed that the best method for providing guidance on the issue was through the inclusion of appropriate provisions in part B of the STCW Code. Thus, the Group agreed to recommend the inclusion, in the draft amendments to part B of the STCW Code (see MSC 81/3/4 (Secretariat)) which the Committee is currently considering with a view to adoption, of an additional paragraph in proposed section B/VI-5 of the STCW Code. Consequently, the Group revised the STCW.6 Circular annex to document MSC 81/3/4 (Secretariat) and the annexed draft amendments to part B of the STCW Code. 11 The Group also agreed that no changes were needed to the draft amendments to the STCW Convention and to part A of the STCW Code relating (see MSC 81/3/1 (Secretariat)) to certificate of proficiency for a SSO, currently under consideration by the Committee. 12 The Group recommended that the Committee should consider adopting the amendments to part B of the STCW Code together with the associated STCW.6 Circular as set out in annex 2 as revised by the Group, in lieu of those set out in the annex to document MSC 81/3/4 (Secretariat). GUIDELINES ON TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FOR PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICERS 13 The Group reviewed the draft Guidelines on training and certification for port facility security officers and the associated draft MSC circular which had been prepared by STW 37 (STW 37/18, annex 3) for consideration and approval by the Committee and found that there was no need to recommend any changes to the proposed draft. 14 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Guidelines on the training and certification of port facility security officers as amended and set out in annex 3.

- 7 - MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

SPECIAL PURPOSE SHIPS 15 The Group recommended that the Committee should decide that special purpose ships, as defined in the SPS Code, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages other than those owned or operated by a SOLAS Contracting Government on non-commercial service, irrespective of the date on which their keel was laid, should be required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code. 16 In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, the Group also recommended that the Committee should decide that special purpose ships should be subject to Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 and the term “ship” in the aforesaid regulation should be construed as including also special purpose ships. 17 The Group recognized that immediate compliance of special purpose ships, which have not as yet been required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code, presented practical difficulties and affected their owners, the Companies operating them and the port facilities serving them. As a result the Group agreed to recommend to the Committee the adoption of an Interim Scheme for the compliance of special purpose ships with the Special measures to enhance maritime security (the Interim Scheme) as set out at annex 4. The measures outlined in the proposed Interim Scheme take into account the transitional nature of the scheme, and its purpose to facilitate maritime security measures prior to 1 July 2008 when the scheme ceases to apply. As the proposed Interim Scheme constituted an understanding between all the SOLAS Contracting Governments, it was necessary to ensure its uniform and consistent implementation and thus the term “shall” was used instead of “should” throughout the text. The proposed Interim Scheme was based on the same philosophy and principles and had the same termination date as the Interim Scheme for the compliance of certain cargo ships with the Special measures to enhance maritime security which was adopted by MSC 80 and disseminated under cover of MSC/Circ.1157. In an effort to reduce any adverse economic impact on owners and Companies operating such special purpose ships which might be affected, the Interim Scheme, inter alia, foresaw a phased in period of two years from 1 July 2006. The proposed Interim Scheme would require such ships, when interfacing with port facilities which were required to comply with SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, to conclude a Declaration of Security and acknowledge the measures to enhance maritime security established by the SOLAS Contracting Government concerned. In this way at least some basic security measures would be in place during the phase-in period. 18 The Group also agreed to recommend to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on the Interim Scheme, as set out in annex 5, and to communicate to all parties concerned the decision of the Committee on the matter as soon as possible. 19 The Group considered the potential consequences of the recommended actions in relation to the provisions of SOLAS chapter IX and the application of the ISM Code and agreed that a similar situation might exist. However, the Group noted that none of the SOLAS Contracting Governments had raised the matter with the Organization so far. The Group further agreed that SOLAS chapter IX and the ISM Code were outside its sphere of expertise and that it was not in a position to elaborate on the matter further.

MSC 81/WP.5 - 8 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

20 The Group recommended that the Committee should consider, at the appropriate time after the current revision of the SPS Code had been completed, adopting appropriate amendments to SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code so as to include therein explicit provisions in relation to the application of the latter to special purpose ships and the port facilities serving them.

SHIP SECURITY ALERTS 21 The Group recognized that, in view of the variety of equipment and systems used to perform the function of the ship security alert systems (SSAS), some of which include communication and application service providers, it might not be feasible to prescribe that the alert transmission initiated by the ship should also contain the IMO Ship identification number as some of the equipment and systems in use, by virtue of their design, would not be capable of doing so. 22 The Group agreed that the concerns expressed in document MSC 81/5/11 (Austria et al) would be best addressed if the required information were included, where applicable, by the service provider before the alert is delivered to the competent authority designated by the Administration. 23 The Group also agreed that adopting amendments to the existing performance standards1 would not provide a solution to the issue and there was a need to specify first the information required for identifying a ship and to provide a scheme through which the existing SSAS were tested to confirm that they could be functioning in the desired manner. However, if the arrangements established by the Administration are such that the designated recipients receive the information specified such tests are not required. 24 The Group recalled that the Guidelines for the onboard operational use of shipborne automatic identification systems (AIS) adopted by Assembly resolution A.917(22), as amended by Assembly resolution A.956(23), and the proposed draft Performance standards and functional requirements for Long-range identification and tracking of ships (COMSAR 10/16, annex 17), specify, in relation to the identification of ships, that the information should include the name of the ship, the IMO Ship identification number, the Call Sign and the Maritime Mobile Service Identity of the ship. 25 The Group prepared a draft MSC circular on Guidance on the provision of information for identifying ships when transmitting ship security alerts specifying the information to be included by the service provider before the alert was delivered to the competent authority designated by the Administration if such information was not transmitted by the shipborne equipment. It also was setting out procedures to ensure that SSAS functioned in the desired manner. 26 The Group agreed that the proposed guidance did not in any way alter the fact that the alert had been designed as a covert alert to be delivered only to those designated by the Administration. 27 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on the provision of information for identifying ships when transmitting ship security alerts, as set out in annex 6.

1 Resolution MSC.136(76) on Performance standards for a ship security alert system and resolution MSC.147(77)

on Adoption of the Revised performance standards for a ship security alert system.

- 9 - MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY FLAG STATES WHEN EXERCISING CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE MEASURES 28 The Group shared the concerns expressed in document MSC 81/5/12 (Belgium et al) and a number of delegations confirmed that SOLAS Contracting Governments were failing to notify Administrations when exercising control and compliance measures. The Group agreed that the development was regrettable, especially in view of the fact that MSC 79 had taken prompt action by issuing MSC/Circ.1133 on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures which was developed more than a year ago. The Group also agreed that it was imperative that SOLAS Contracting Governments put in place forthwith the necessary arrangements to bring to an end this practice which contravened their treaty obligations. 29 The Group prepared a draft MSC circular on Further reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures. The draft MSC circular expanded further on the issue of the potential consequences as means for education of those concerned. The proposed circular will revoke MSC/Circ.1133. 30 In an effort to raise awareness, the Group included a provision in the aforesaid draft MSC circular through which Companies are invited to make available on board the ships they operate copies of the present circular and to make them available to those officers conducting control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 on board their ships for their information. 31 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Further reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures which is set out in annex 7. GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY SOLAS CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS AND PORT FACILITIES 32 The Group prepared, taking into account the summary of lessons learnt from the use of the MSC/Circ.1131 on Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities endorsed by MSC 80 (see MSC 80/WP.7, annex 7), the views expressed in documents MSC 81/5/2 (Vanuatu) and MSC 81/5/3 (Islamic Republic of Iran), as well as the comments and suggestions made during the consideration of the issue in plenary, a draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities. The draft MSC circular was, in essence, a revised version of MSC/Circ.1131 consolidating the matters agreed during MSC 80 and various suggestions to date and incorporating a number of editorial improvements. In addition, certain aspects of the draft MSC circular had been aligned with the corresponding provisions of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and for ship security (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above). The proposed circular will revoke MSC/Circ.1131. 33 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities which are set out in annex 8. GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY ADMINISTRATIONS AND FOR SHIP SECURITY 34 The Group prepared, taking into account the proposals contained in the annex to document MSC 81/5/6 (Austria et al), the salient aspects of the summary of lessons learnt from

MSC 81/WP.5 - 10 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

the use of the MSC/Circ.1131 on Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities, as well as the comments and suggestions made during the consideration of the issue in plenary, a draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and ships relating to ship security. Certain aspects of the draft MSC circular had been aligned with the corresponding provisions of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities (see paragraph 32 and 33 above). 35 The Group recommended that the Committee should decide that the Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security was not a document which can be requested or required to be produced during the exercise of Control pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation I/19 or of Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9. 36 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and ships relating to ship security, as set out in annex 9. EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF, COMPLIANCE WITH, AND ENFORCEMENT OF, THE PROVISIONS OF SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE 37 The Group, taking into account the salient aspects of the comments contained in documents MSC 81/5/8 (ICFTU), MSC 81/5/12 (Belgium et al), MSC 81/5/13 (Brazil) and MSC 81/5/15 (ICS), the comments made during the consideration of the various issues under agenda item 5 in plenary, as well as the comments made during the conduct of its business, developed a draft MSC circular, stressing the need for a rigorous and effective implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of, the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code by all SOLAS Contracting Governments and all parties concerned and providing guidance on basic elements of national oversight programmes for SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. 38 In an effort to raise awareness, the Group included a provision in the aforesaid draft MSC circular through which Companies are invited to make available on board the ships they operate copies of the present circular and to make them available to Government officials and to port facility security officers for their information. 39 The Group recommended to the Committee the approval of the draft MSC circular on Guidance on basic elements of national oversight programmes for SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, as set out in annex 10. MATTERS RAISED IN DOCUMENT MSC 81/5/13 (BRAZIL) 40 The Group agreed that, to a large extent, the issues raised in document MSC 81/5/13 (Brazil) were addressed by the proposed draft MSC circular on Guidance on basic elements of national oversight programmes for SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. 41 The Group also agreed that, in the absence of specific proposals and in the light of the prevailing time constraints, other matters addressed in the aforesaid document as expanded during the consideration of the issue in plenary could not be addressed at this stage and those concerned should consider submitting relevant proposals for the consideration of the Committee. In addition, some of the comments made during the consideration of the issue in plenary appeared to stray into matters related to stowaways, thereby falling outside the sphere of expertise of the Group.

- 11 - MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

LONG-RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF SHIPS

[please refer to MSC 81/WP.5/Add.1] Action requested of the Committee (for this part of the report only) 42 The Committee is invited to:

.1 approve the establishment, subject to the concurrence of FAL 33, of a joint MSC/FAL Working Group on the carriage of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships with terms of reference as set out at annex 1 and authorize an intersessional meeting for such a group (paragraphs 3 and 5 and annex 1);

.2 instruct the STW Sub-Committee to observe the principles outlined in paragraph 6

when developing provisions relating to the security-related training for shipboard personnel (other than the ship security officer) for eventual inclusion in the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, as amended (paragraph 6);

.3 instruct the STW Sub-Committee to prepare and submit for consideration any

consequential amendments to the ISPS Code which might need to come into force when the eventual amendments to the STCW Convention and the STCW Code, as amended would become effective, so as to avoid any potential conflicts between the salient provisions of the various instruments regulating the training and certification of shipboard personnel in connection with security-related matters (paragraph 7);

.4 adopt the amendments to part B of the STCW Code relating to the certificate of

proficiency for ship security officer together with the associated STCW.6 circular as set out in annex 2 as revised by the Group, in lieu of those set out in the annex to document MSC 81/3/4 (Secretariat) (paragraphs 8 and 12 and annex 2)2;

.5 approve the draft MSC circular on Guidelines on the training and certification of

port facility security officers as amended (paragraphs 13 and 14 and annex 3);

.6 decide that special purpose ships, as defined in the SPS Code, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages other than those owned or operated by a SOLAS Contracting Government on non-commercial service, irrespective of the date on which their keel was laid, should be required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code (paragraph 14);

.7 decide, in order to avoid any potential ambiguity, that special purpose ships

should be subject to Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 and the term “ship” in the aforesaid regulation should be construed as including also special purpose ships (paragraph 15);

2 The attached annex was reviewed by the Chairman of the Drafting Group on amendments to mandatory

instruments and was cleared by the members of that group.

MSC 81/WP.5 - 12 -

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.8 adopt an Interim Scheme for the compliance of special purpose ships with the Special measures to enhance maritime security (paragraph 16 and annex 4) and to approve the corresponding draft MSC circular for the purpose of communicating to all parties concerned the decisions of the Committee on the matter as soon as possible (paragraph 17 and annex 5);

.9 consider, at the appropriate time after the current revision of the SPS Code has

been completed, adopting appropriate amendments to SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code so as to include therein explicit provisions in relation to the application of the latter to special purpose ships and the port facilities serving them (paragraph 19);

.10 approve the draft MSC circular on Guidance on the provision of

information for identifying ships when transmitting ship security alerts (paragraphs 20 to 27 and annex 6);

.11 approve the draft MSC circular on Further reminder of the obligation to

notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures (paragraphs 28 to 31 and annex 7);

.12 approve the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment

by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities (paragraphs 32 to 33 and annex 8);

.13 decide that the Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security is not a document

which can be requested or required to be produced during the exercise of Control pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation I/19 or of Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 (paragraph 35);

.14 approve the draft MSC circular on Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by

Administrations and ship security (paragraphs 34 to 36 and annex 9);

.15 approve the draft MSC circular on Guidance on basic elements of national oversight programmes for SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code (paragraphs 37 to 39 and annex 10);

.16 note the conclusions of the Group in relation to the issues raised in document

MSC 81/5/13 (Brazil) as expanded by those who spoke during the consideration of the submission in plenary (paragraphs 40 and 41); and

.17 approve, in general, this part of the report.

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 1

JOINT MSC/FAL WORKING GROUP ON THE SECURITY AND FACILITATION OF THE MOVEMENT OF

CLOSED CARGO TRANSPORT UNITS AND OF FREIGHT CONTAINERS

[Draft] Terms of reference The Joint MSC/FAL Working Group on the security and facilitation of the movement of closed cargo transport units3 and of freight containers4 transported by ships should, Recalling that operative paragraph 3 of 2002 SOLAS Conference resolution 9 on Enhancement of security in co-operation with the World Customs Organization (WCO) which states that the SOLAS Contracting Governments have agreed “that the [SOLAS] Convention should be amended, if and when appropriate, to give effect to relevant decisions taken by the WCO and endorsed by the Contracting Governments to the [SOLAS] Convention insofar as they relate to the carriage of closed CTUs by sea”; Using as a basis, the detailed proposals contained in the WCO Framework of Standards to secure and facilitate global trade (the Framework of Standards) adopted by WCO in response, inter alia, to the aforesaid resolution; Taking into account, as a basis for discussion, the proposals contained in document MSC 81/5/4 (Secretariat) (also submitted as document FAL 33/8/1 (Secretariat)) and the deliberations and decisions during MSC 81 [and FAL 33]; and Taking into account also other programmes and initiatives to enhance the security and facilitation of the movement of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships, including but not limited to those of the International Standards Organization (ISO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), regional bodies and Member Governments, 1 Consider the need for and;

.1 make recommendations on the extent to which the Organization should develop regulations and/or guidance on the security and facilitation aspects of the carriage of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships;

.2 make recommendations on the extent to which the Organization should develop

regulations and/or guidance based on the Framework of Standards;

.3 if appropriate, develop draft amendments to the SOLAS Convention in order to enable port facilities and ships to accept closed cargo transport units and freight containers for carriage by ship, without the need for further security checks other

3 Closed cargo transport unit means a unit which is totally encloses the contents by permanent structures

(see 1.2.1 Definitions of the International Maritime Dangerous Good (IMDG) Code. 4 Freight container means an article of transport equipment that is of a permanent character and accordingly

strong enough to be suitable for repeated use; specially designed to facilitate the transport of goods, by one or more modes of transport, without intermediate reloading; designed to be secure and/or readily handled, having fittings for these purposes, and approved in accordance with the International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972, as amended.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 1 Page 2

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

than the maintenance of access controls, where the security of such consignments has been established through the application of security measures consistent with the Framework of Standards;

.4 make recommendations on the extent to which parts A and B of the ISPS Code

should be amended to include provisions on supply chain security;

[.5 consider and, if appropriate, develop draft measures consistent with the Framework of Standards for consideration by the FAL Committee with a view to inclusion in the FAL Convention;]

.6 if appropriate, develop interim guidance on the security and facilitation of the

movement of closed cargo transport units and of freight containers transported by ships to be used until the appropriate amendments to the related instruments take effect; and,

2 Submit a report on progress for consideration by MSC 83 and FAL 34.

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 2 Ref. T2-HES/4.2 STCW.6/Circ.[.…] T2-MSS/2.11.1 [..] May 2006

DRAFT STCW.6 CIRCULAR

AMENDMENTS TO PART B OF THE SEAFARERS’ TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING (STCW) CODE

1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), adopted amendments to part B of the STCW Code regarding training for Ship Security Officers, as set out in annex.

2 Having adopted, by resolutions MSC.[….].(81) and MSC.[….] (81) amendments to the STCW Convention and part A of the STCW Code relating to the training and certification of ship security officers, the Committee decided that the amendments to part B of the STCW Code will become effective on the same date, namely, 1 January 2008. 3 STCW Parties and all others concerned are invited to note the annexed amendments and take action as appropriate.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO PART B OF THE SEAFARERS’ TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING (STCW) CODE

PART B

RECOMMENDED GUIDANCE REGARDING PROVISIONS OF THE STCW CONVENTION AND ITS ANNEX

CHAPTER VI

Guidance regarding emergency, occupational safety, medical care and survival functions

1 The existing title to chapter VI is replaced by the following:

“Guidance regarding emergency, occupational safety, security, medical care and survival functions”

2 The following new section is inserted at the end of chapter VI after the existing section VI/4:

“Section B-VI/5 Guidance regarding training and certification for ship security officers 1 The training should be relevant to the provisions of the ISPS Code and SOLAS Convention, as amended.* 2 On completion of training, a ship security officer should have adequate knowledge of the English language to correctly interpret and communicate messages relevant to ship or port facility security. 3 In circumstances of exceptional necessity, when a person holding a certificate of proficiency as a ship security officer is temporarily unavailable, the Administration may permit a seafarer having specific security duties and responsibilities and an understanding of the ship security plan to serve as ship security officer and to execute all duties and responsibilities of the ship security officer until the next port of call or for a period not exceeding 30 days, whichever is greater. The Company should, as soon as possible, inform the competent authorities of the next port(s) of call of the arrangements in place.”

***

* IMO Model Course 3.19 – Ship Security Officer may be of assistance in the preparation of courses.

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 3

Ref. T2-MSS/2.11.1 MSC/Circ.[.…] T2-HES/4.2 [..] May 2006

GUIDELINES ON TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FOR PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICERS

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eightieth session (11 to 20 May 2005), when approving MSC/Circ.1154 on Guidelines on training and certification for company security officers, instructed the Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW Sub-Committee) to develop similar guidelines on training and certification requirements for port facility security officers. 2 The STW Sub-Committee, at its thirty-seventh session (23 to 27 January 2006), developed and the Committee, at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), approved the Guidelines on training and certification requirements for port facility security officers (the Guidelines), as set out in the annex. 3 SOLAS Contracting Governments are invited to bring the Guidelines to the attention of all parties concerned with matters addressed therein. 4 SOLAS Contracting Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status which encounter difficulties with the implementation of the Guidelines should bring, at the earliest opportunity, the matter to the attention of the Committee for consideration of actions to be taken.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

GUIDELINES ON TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FOR PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICERS

1 Every person designated as a Port facility security officer (PFSO) should be able to demonstrate competence to undertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities listed in column 1 of the annex to this Circular. 2 The level of knowledge of the subjects listed in column 2 of the annex should be sufficient to enable the person to act as the designated PFSO. 3 In addition, a PFSO should, within the provisions of the national legislation, actively facilitate shore leave for ship’s personnel or personnel changes, as well as access of visitors to the ship including representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labour organizations*. 4 Persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved course based on IMO Model Course 3.21 on Port facility security officer, or who have attended a course based on the attached knowledge, understanding and proficiency (KUP), should be considered to have met the training requirements for service as a PFSO. 5 Practical experience relating to knowledge, understanding and proficiency gained after 1 January 2004 may be taken into account in demonstrating competence. 6 As many of the training objectives in IMO Model Courses 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 are common to SSO, CSO and PFSO and many of the KUPs in the competence tables are similarly common, SOLAS Contracting Governments should therefore take them into account when setting criteria for the re-training and assessment of those SSOs and CSOs moving toward PFSO qualifications. 7 Those completing PFSO training which meets the criteria set by the SOLAS Contracting Government within whose territory they will work, should be provided with documentary evidence to this effect.

* For further details see 2002 SOLAS Conference resolution 11 on Human element related aspects and

shore leave for seafarers, MSC/Circ.1112 on Shore leave and access to ships under the ISPS Code and the FAL Convention.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 3

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Annex

KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND PROFICIENCIES (KUPs)

RELEVANT TO THE PORT FACILITY SECURITY OFFICER

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Competence Knowledge, understanding and proficiency

Methods for demonstrating

competence

Criteria for evaluating competence

Develop, maintain and supervise the implementation of a port facility security plan

Knowledge of international maritime security policy and responsibilities of Governments, Companies and designated persons.

Knowledge of the purpose for and the elements that make up a port facility security plan, related procedures and maintenance of records.

Knowledge of procedures to be employed in developing, maintaining and supervising the implementation, and the submission for approval, of a port facility security plan.

Knowledge of the procedures for the initial and subsequent verification of the port facility’s compliance.

Knowledge of security levels and the consequential security measures and procedures aboard ship and in the port facility environment.

Knowledge of the requirements and procedures for conducting internal audits, on-scene inspections, control and monitoring of security activities specified in a port facility security plan.

Knowledge of the requirements and procedures for acting upon any deficiencies and non-conformities identified during internal audits, periodic reviews, and security inspections.

Knowledge of the methods and procedures used to modify the port facility security plan.

Assessment of evidence obtained from approved training or examination.

Procedures and actions are in accordance with the principles established by SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.

Legislative requirements relating to security are correctly identified.

Procedures achieve a state of readiness to respond to changes in security levels.

Communications within the port facility security officer’s (PFSO’s) area of responsibility are clear and understood.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc




competence


Knowledge of security related contingency plans and the procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security, including provisions for maintaining critical operations of the ship/port interface.

Knowledge of procedures for facilitating shore leave for ship’s personnel or personnel changes, as well as access of visitors to the ship including representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labour organizations.

Knowledge of the procedures, instructions, and guidance for responding to ship security alerts.

Working knowledge of maritime security terms and definitions (SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code).

Assess security risk, threat, and vulnerability

Knowledge of risk assessment and assessment tools.

Knowledge of security assessment documentation, including the Declaration of Security.

Knowledge of techniques used to circumvent security measures.

Knowledge enabling recognition, on a non-discriminatory basis, of persons posing potential security risks.

Knowledge enabling recognition of weapons, dangerous substances, and devices and awareness of the damage they can cause.

Knowledge of crowd management and control techniques, where appropriate.




Communications within the PFSO’s area of responsibility are clear and understood.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 3

Page 5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc




competence


Knowledge in handling sensitive security related information and security related communications.

Knowledge of methods for implementing and co-ordinating searches.

Knowledge of the methods for physical searches and non-intrusive inspections.

Undertake regular inspections of the port facility to ensure that appropriate security measures are implemented and maintained

Knowledge of the requirements for designating and monitoring restricted areas.

Knowledge of controlling access to the port facility and to restricted areas in the port facility.

Knowledge of methods for effective monitoring of the port facility and areas surrounding the port facility.

Knowledge of methods for controlling the embarkation and disembarkation of persons and their effects aboard ships, including the confirmation of identity when requested by the Ship Security Officer.

Knowledge of security aspects relating to the handling of cargo and ship’s stores and co-ordinating these aspects with relevant Ship Security Officers and Company Security Officers.





Ensure that security equipment and systems, if any, are properly operated, tested and calibrated

Knowledge of the various types of security equipment and systems and their limitations.

Knowledge of the methods for testing, calibrating, and maintaining security systems and equipment.



Encourage security awareness and vigilance

Knowledge of training, drill and exercise requirements under relevant conventions and codes.




I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc




competence


Knowledge of the methods for enhancing security awareness and vigilance.

Knowledge of the methods for assessing the effectiveness of drills and exercises.

Knowledge of instruction techniques for security training and education.


***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 4

INTERIM SCHEME FOR THE COMPLIANCE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE SHIPS WITH THE

SPECIAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY (adopted on […] May 2006)

The Maritime Safety Committee decided that: 1 For the purpose of this Scheme:

.1 “Gross tonnage” means the gross tonnage of the ship as determined under the provisions of the International Convention on the Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 and shown on the International Tonnage Certificate (1969) of the ship;

.2 “Requirements” means the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the

ISPS Code, taking into account the guidance given in part B of the ISPS Code;

.3 “Special purpose ship” means a special purpose ship as defined in the SPS Code, irrespective of the date on which the keel of the ship was laid, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyage which has not been required by the Administration to comply with the Requirements; and

.4 “SPS Code” means the Code of Safety for Special Purpose Ships which is

annexed to resolution A.534(13) as amended1. 2 Terms not otherwise defined in this Scheme shall have the same meaning as the meaning attributed to them in SOLAS chapters I and XI-2 or the ISPS Code. 3 Special purpose ships, other than those owned or operated by a SOLAS Contracting Government (Contracting Government) and used only on Government non-commercial service and Companies operating such ships which have not been required to comply with the Requirements shall comply with the Requirements by not later than 1 July 2008. 4 Until 30 June 2008, special purpose ships not complying with the Requirements whilst within a port facility which is required to comply with the Requirements shall acknowledge the measures to enhance maritime security established by the Contracting Government within whose territory the port facility is located and, irrespective of the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/10.32 (relating to the submission of the Declaration of Security)

1 As amended by MSC circulars 446, 478 and 739 and resolution MSC.183(79). MSC/Circ. 739 included new

amendments to the SPS Code and consolidates the ones adopted under cover of MSC circulars 446 and 478. 2 This provision implies that neither the Contracting Government nor the port facility concerned have the right to

decline the conclusion of a Declaration of Security when a special purpose ship makes a request to this end and that the ship is obliged to conclude one when it is requested to do so.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

and sections A/5.1 and A/5.2 of the ISPS Code, shall request a Declaration of Security3 as from 1 October 2006. Contracting Governments are urged to facilitate such requests and to issue appropriate guidance on this Scheme to port facilities located within their territories. If the port facility security officer refuses the request of the ship for a Declaration of Security then the special purpose ship shall use the Declaration of Security4 to record the security measures that it has taken and shall complete and sign, on behalf of the ship alone, the Declaration of Security. If the special purpose ship does not have a designated ship security officer, the Declaration of Security shall be concluded by the master. 5 If an Administration has issued to a special purpose ship entitled to fly its flag a statement attesting that the ship is not required to comply with the Requirements, that statement shall be withdrawn and cancelled. An Administration may issue to a special purpose ship entitled to fly its flag, which it did not require to comply with the Requirements, a statement attesting that the ship is subject to the provisions of this Scheme. 6 Without prejudice to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/2.2 to XI-2/2.2.1, port facilities which have not been required by the Contracting Government within whose territory they are located to comply with the Requirements because they serve special purpose ships shall comply with the Requirements not later than 1 July 2008. 7 Special purpose ships which, on the date of adoption of this Scheme, were holding either a valid International or a valid Interim International Ship Security Certificate shall not be entitled to any benefits under this Scheme and shall maintain compliance with the Requirements. In addition, port facilities serving special purpose ships which on the date of adoption of this Scheme were implementing security measures in accordance with an approved port facility security plan shall not be entitled to any benefits under this Scheme and shall maintain compliance with the Requirements.

3 Paragraph B/16.56.2 of the ISPS Code recommends that the port facility security plan (PFSP) should establish

details of the procedures and security measures the port facility should apply when it is interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply.

Paragraph B/16.57 of the ISPS Code recommends that the PFSP should establish the procedures to be followed when on the instructions of the Contracting Government the port facility security officer (PFSO) requests a Declaration of Security or when a Declaration of Security is requested by a ship.

If the approved PFSP already includes appropriate provisions to this end then those security measures and procedures should be applied unless the Contracting Government concerned decides otherwise. If the PFSP does not contain such provisions, then the PFSO should contact the authorities who approved the PFSP and the authorities responsible for the exercise of control and compliance measure pursuant to SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 and seek their advice and guidance.

4 For the purposes of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9, it is recommended that special purpose ships to which this Scheme applies retain the Declarations of Security for the last ten ports of call. The ship should start retaining the Declarations of Security as from 1 October 2006.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 4

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

8 Contracting Governments when exercising control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 in relation to special purpose ships shall adhere to the provisions of this Scheme5. 9 Contracting Governments may, when implementing this Scheme, conclude written bilateral or multilateral agreements with other Contracting Governments on alternative security agreements covering special purpose ships operating on short international voyages between port facilities located within their territories. Any such agreement shall not compromise the level of security of other ships or of port facilities not covered by the agreement. 10 This Scheme shall cease to apply on 1 July 2008.

***

5 In the event of the ship being refused a Declaration of Security, Declarations of Security which have been

completed and signed on behalf of the ship alone should be accepted as being equally valid to Declarations of Security concluded between a ship and a port facility.

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 5

Ref. T2-MSS/2.11.1 MSC/Circ.[.…] [..] May 2006

INTERIM SCHEME FOR THE COMPLIANCE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE SHIPS WITH THE SPECIAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), noted that in a number of cases special purpose ships, as defined in the Code of safety for special purpose ships1, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages were not required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code. 2 The Committee agreed that special purpose ships, other than those owned or operated by a SOLAS Contracting Government and used only on Government non-commercial service, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages and the port facilities which they serve them shall be required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code. 3 The Committee recognized that immediate compliance of the special purpose ships which had not been required to comply with the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code would present practical difficulties and would affect the owners and the Companies operating such ships and the port facilities serving them. As a result the Committee adopted the Interim Scheme for the compliance of special purpose ships with the Special measures to enhance maritime security (the Interim Scheme) as set out at annex. 4 The Committee also agreed that the special purpose ships shall be subject to Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 and the term “ship” in the aforesaid regulation shall be construed as including also special purpose ships. 5 SOLAS Contracting Governments are invited to bring the Interim Scheme to the attention of owners and of Companies operating special purpose ships entitled to fly their flag as well as to the attention of Designated Authorities, port facility owners and operators and port facility security officers and to request the latter to respond positively when special purpose ships request the conclusion of a Declaration of Security. 6 SOLAS Contracting Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status which encounter difficulties with the implementation of the Interim Scheme should bring, at the earliest opportunity, the matter to the attention of the Committee for consideration of actions to be taken.

***

1 Adopted by resolution A.534(13) as amended by MSC circulars 446, 478 and 739 and resolution MSC.183(79).

MSC/Circ.739 included new amendments to the SPS Code and consolidates the ones adopted under cover of MSC circulars 446 and 478.

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 6

Ref. T2-MSS/2.11.1 MSC/Circ.[….] [..] May 2006

GUIDANCE ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION FOR IDENTIFYING SHIPS WHEN TRANSMITTING

SHIP SECURITY ALERTS

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), noted reports that in a number of cases, when the competent authorities designated by Administrations received ship security alerts (SSAs), the information provided to them for identifying the ships1 transmitting the alert were not adequate and they could not easily identify the ships concerned. 2 The Committee recognized that, if ship security alert systems were to function in an effective and efficient manner so as to provide the security-related benefits for which they were envisioned, there was a need to ensure a harmonized and consistent implementation of the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/6 on Ship security alert systems and of the associated performance standards2. As a result the Committee approved the Guidance on the provision of information for identifying ships when transmitting ship security alerts (the Guidance) set out at annex. 3 SOLAS Contracting Governments are invited to bring the Guidance to the attention of owners and of Companies operating ships entitled to fly their flag, of those they have recognized, authorized or approved to provider services in relation to SSAs and of the recognized organizations and the recognized security organizations they have authorized to act on their behalf. 4 SOLAS Contracting Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status which encounter difficulties with the implementation of the Guidance should bring, at the earliest opportunity, the matter to the attention of the Committee for consideration of actions to be taken.

1 The term “ship” in this circular refers to the ships which are subject to the provisions of

SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code. 2 Resolution MSC.136(76) on Performance standards for a ship security alert system and Resolution

MSC.147(77) on Adoption of the Revised performance standards for a ship security alert system.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION FOR IDENTIFYING SHIPS WHEN TRANSMITTING

SHIP SECURITY ALERTS INTRODUCTION 1 SOLAS regulation XI-2/6 and the associated performance standards1 specify that the ship security alert system, when activated, shall, inter alia, initiate and transmit a ship-to-shore security alert (SSA) to a competent authority designated by the Administration (the designated recipient) identifying the ship, its location, the date and time of the position and indicating that the security of the ship is under threat or it has been compromised. 2 Administrations have accepted, recognized or approved a variety of equipment and systems to perform the function of the ship security alert system (SSAS) some of which include communication (CSP) and application (ASP) service providers. However, in some cases when the SSA is received by the designated recipient, it does not clearly identify the ship which transmitted the alert. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES 3 When the SSA is delivered to the designated recipient the SSA should include the following information:

.1 Name of ship;

.2 IMO Ship identification number;

.3 Call Sign;

.4 Maritime Mobile Service Identity;

.5 GNSS position (latitude and longitude) of the ship; and

.6 Date and time of the GNSS position. 4 Depending on the equipment, system and arrangements used, the name, the IMO Ship identification number, the Call Sign and the Maritime Mobile Service Identity of the ship may be added to the signal or message transmitted by the shipborne equipment, by the CSP or the ASP, before the SSA is delivered to the designated recipient.

1 Resolution MSC.136(76) on Performance standards for a ship security alert system and Resolution

MSC.147(77) on Adoption of the Revised performance standards for a ship security alert system.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 6

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS 5 To bring into line the performance of SSASs, these should be tested as follows:

.1 ships constructed before 1 July 2006, not later than the first survey of the radio installation on or after 1 July 2006; and

.2 ships constructed on or after 1 July 2006, before the ship enters service;

to verify that, when the SSAS is activated, the information specified in paragraph 3 above and the indication that the security of the ship is under threat or it has been compromised are received by the designated recipient. However, if the arrangements established by the Administration are in compliance with paragraph 3 above such additional tests are not required. TRANSFER OF FLAG 6 As from 1 July 2006, upon the transfer of the flag of a ship from another State or another SOLAS Contracting Government, the receiving Administration should test the SSAS to ensure that when the SSAS is activated, the information specified in paragraph 3 above and the indication that the security of the ship is under threat or it has been compromised are received by the designated recipient. TESTING 7 When testing SSASs, the provisions of paragraphs II.3 and II.4 of the annex to MSC/Circ.1155 on Guidance on the message priority and the testing of ship security alert systems should be observed. Related provisions: SOLAS regulation XI-2/6, resolutions MSC.136(76) and MSC.147(77), MSC/Circ.1072 and 1155.

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 7 Ref. T2-MSS/2.11.1 MSC/Circ.[….] [..] May 2006

FURTHER REMINDER OF THE OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY FLAG STATES WHEN EXERCISING CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE MEASURES

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), noted that despite having issued MSC/Circ. 1133 on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures, in a number of cases SOLAS Contracting Governments, when taking control measures or steps against ships pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 on Control and compliance measures, continued to fail to notify, as required by the aforesaid regulation, either the Administration or the Organization or both. 2 As a result, the Committee recognized, once more, the need for all parties concerned and the Organization to be informed when a SOLAS Contracting Government had taken control measures or steps against a ship, and approved the Further Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures (the Further reminder), as set out at annex. 3 SOLAS Contracting Governments are invited to bring the attached Further reminder to the attention of those officers whom they have authorized or whom they may authorize to carry out control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9. 4 Companies are invited to make available on board the ships they operate copies of the present circular and to make them available to those officers conducting control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 on board their ships for their information. 5 Member Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status are also invited to bring to the attention of the Committee any instance where SOLAS Contracting Governments or duly authorized officers have failed to notify the relevant Administration that they have taken control measures or steps against a ship pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9. 6 MSC/Circ.1133 on Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures is revoked as from the date of issue of the present circular.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

FURTHER REMINDER OF THE OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY FLAG STATES WHEN EXERCISING CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE MEASURES

BACKGROUND 1 The special measures to enhance maritime security contained in SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code specify and delineate, inter alia, the obligations of SOLAS Contracting Governments (Contracting Governments) as a flag, port and coastal States. 2 The enforcement of the provisions of either SOLAS chapter XI-2 or the ISPS Code confers specific responsibilities with respect to notification and involvement of the Administration (i.e. the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly or the flag State) when control measures or steps are taken against one of its ships (SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1). 3 In such cases the Contracting Government taking control measures or steps against a ship is also required to notify the Organization (SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1). 4 Since the entry into force of the special measures to enhance maritime security on 1 July 2004, there have been a number of reported instances where those obligations have not been met. DISCUSSION 5 The full and effective implementation of the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code requires the full and complete participation, co-operation and collaboration of all stakeholders. Each Contracting Government in its capacity as the Administration has, inter alia, the obligation to ensure that the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code are implemented by the ships entitled to fly its flag; and that such ships maintain continuous compliance with their obligations under the aforesaid provisions. Administrations are also responsible for oversight of the recognized security organizations they have authorized to act on their behalf. 6 The Control and compliance measures stipulated in SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 have been designed to ensure, inter alia, a consistent approach to the application of the “enforcement” provisions of the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code. SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1 creates a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of any officer who is duly authorized by a Contracting Government to exercise control (the duly authorized officer), when imposing control measures or steps against a ship to forthwith inform in writing the Administration, specifying the control measures imposed or steps taken and the reasons thereof. Also the Contracting Government imposing the control measures or steps is required to notify the recognized security organization, which issued the certificate relating to the ship concerned, and the Organization when any such control measures have been imposed or steps taken. In this respect “forthwith” means without delay by the most expeditious means.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 7

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

7 The purpose of the aforesaid provision is to include the Administration as a full partner in the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code and to enable the Administration to take any other corrective actions it might deem fit under the prevailing circumstances (see also paragraph 10 below). Additional amplification concerning the actions of duly authorized officer and interactions with the Administration may be found in paragraph 1.13 of the Interim Guidance on Control and compliance measures to enhance maritime security adopted by resolution MSC.159(78)1 which states:

“When a Contracting Government imposes control measures on a ship, the Administration should, without delay, be contacted with sufficient information to enable the Administration to fully liaise with the Contracting Government (ISPS Code paragraph B/4.35).”

8 The purpose of requiring the Contracting Governments exercising control and compliance measures to notify the Administration concerned is not simply a formality. Notification permits the Administration:

− to provide, if necessary, to the Contracting Governments exercising control and compliance measures, security-related information about the ship and/or the shipboard personnel or in relation to any flag State security-related requirements;

− to initiate any additional corrective measures that it considers necessary with

respect to the ship, the shipboard personnel, the Company and/or its fleet;

− to evaluate and assess the performance of the recognized security organizations acting on its behalf;

− to consider based on authoritative information, the actions of the Contracting

Government exercising control and compliance measures; and

− to communicate and liaise with the State to which the ship might be proceeding after its departure from the territory of the Contracting Government exercising control and compliance measures.

9 The Organization is expected, inter alia, to collate the notification on the control measures or steps taken by Contracting Governments in the course of Control and compliance measures and to make them available to the Maritime Safety Committee for its consideration and appropriate actions. REMINDER 10 Contracting Governments and all duly authorized officers are reminded of the obligation of each and every Contracting Government when it takes control measures or steps against a ship to notify, as required by SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1:

− the Administration; and

1 See annex 2 to MSC/Circ.1111.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

− the recognized security organization which has issued the International or the Interim International Ship Security Certificate of the ship, if appropriate; and

− the Organization. 11 This reminder should be read in association with SOLAS regulation XI-2/9, paragraphs B/4.29 to B/4.40 of the ISPS Code and resolution MSC.159(78) on Interim guidance on control and compliance measures to enhance maritime security. WHERE TO FIND THE CONTACT DETAILS OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS 12 SOLAS regulation XI-2/13.1.4 requires Contracting Governments to communicate to the Organization and to make available for the information of Companies and ships the names and contact details of those who have been designated to be available at all times to receive and act upon any communications from Contracting Governments exercising control and compliance measures, referred to in SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1. 13 The information communicated to the Organization pursuant to the provision of SOLAS regulation XI-2/13.1.4 are made available on the Maritime Security module of the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) which may be accessed through either the IMO web site (URL http://www.imo.org) or directly through the URL http://gisis.imo.org. TO WHOM THE NOTIFICATIONS SHOULD BE SENT 14 With respect to Administrations, the required notifications should be sent to those whose names and contact details each Contracting Government has posted on the Maritime Security module of GISIS. 15 With respect to the Organization, the required notifications should be sent to:

International Maritime Organization Maritime Security Section 4 Albert Embankment London SE1 7SR United Kingdom Facsimile number : +44 20 7587 3210 E-mail address : [email protected]

Related provisions: SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 and XI-/13, ISPS Code paragraphs B/4.29 to B/4.40, resolution MSC.159(78), MSC/Circ.1097, 1111, 1113, 1130, 1132, 1157 and [….].

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 8


GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY SOLAS CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS AND BY PORT FACILITIES

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its seventy-ninth session (1 to 10 December 2004), developed Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities (the Interim Guidance) in an effort to assist SOLAS Contracting Governments in the implementation of, and the maintenance of compliance with, the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. The Interim Guidance was set out at annex to MSC/Circ.1131. 2 The Committee, at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), taking into account the lessons learnt from the use of the Interim Guidance which it had endorsed at its eightieth session (11 to 20 May 2005) and information submitted by SOLAS Contracting Governments who have made use of the Interim Guidance which, inter alia, attested the usefulness of the guidance provided, revised the material and approved the Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities (the Guidance) which is set out at annex. 3 The methodologies set out in the annex are designed solely for use by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities in conducting internal voluntary self-assessments. 4 SOLAS Contracting Governments are invited to bring the attached Guidance to the attention of Designated Authorities, of port facility owners and operators and of port facility security officers. 5 SOLAS Contracting Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status are also invited to bring to the attention of the Committee, at the earliest opportunity, the results of the experience gained from the use of the Guidance for consideration of action to be taken. 6 MSC/Circ.1131 on Interim Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities is revoked as from the date of issue of the present circular.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY SOLAS CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS AND BY PORT FACILITIES

1 SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code have, inter alia, placed responsibilities on SOLAS Contracting Governments (Contracting Governments) and port facilities for port facility security. The provisions entered into force on 1 July 2004 and the appendices to this document provide guidance on:

.1 a method of self-assessing the effectiveness with which a SOLAS Contracting Government fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, its obligations in respect of port facility security, and

.2 a tool to allow port facilities to self-assess the continuing effectiveness of their

port facility security plans and the implementation of the relevant security measures in such plans.

2 Self-assessment by a Contracting Government can be undertaken within Government, who could also appoint experts to assist them in the process. Similarly, port facility personnel can use the self-assessment tool with the support of experts, if appropriate. 3 Anyone undertaking the self-assessment should, at least, have knowledge of:

.1 the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, including the related guidance developed by the Organization;

.2 general security principles; and .3 the operation of port facilities.

4 The processes and the completed self-assessments should be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure. 5 The effective implementation of port facility security measures is a continuing responsibility. It is suggested that Contracting Governments self-assess their processes post-implementation and thereafter at least on a five yearly basis and that port facilities self-assess annually. Appendix 1: Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire for Contracting Governments. Appendix 2: Voluntary self-assessment tool for port facility security.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

APPENDIX 1

VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS

This Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire for Contracting Governments (the Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire) may be used by Contracting Governments in the self-assessment process for port facility security.

Those conducting the voluntary self-assessment of compliance, on behalf of the

Contracting Government, should be familiar with the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code implementation process before conducting the self-assessment.

This effort can be assisted by documenting the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code

implementation process and by collecting the information below before reviewing the implementation process at the port facilities.

This Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire will aid those conducting the voluntary

self-assessment in documenting the Contracting Government strategy used in the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.

When using this Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire, a Contracting Government should consider SOLAS chapter XI-2, ISPS Code part A and part B, the related guidance developed1 by the Organization and the ILO/IMO Code of practice on security in ports, as applicable. When completing the Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire, the answers should be sufficiently detailed for the reader to gain a full understanding of the approach taken by the Contracting Government in implementing the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. Sufficiently detailed answers will prevent the drawing of erroneous conclusions when undertaking subsequent voluntary self-assessments. It will also assist in the resolution of any doubts when subsequent self-assessments are conducted by different persons. Implementation Process

1. Who is the Designated Authority? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/1.11) 2. What is the national legislative basis for the implementation of the ISPS Code?

(SOLAS regulations XI-2/2 and XI-2/10) 3. What guidance to industry was released to implement the ISPS Code?

(SOLAS regulations XI-2/2 and XI-2/10)

1 The related material, as on the date of issue of this circular, is listed in the appendix to the annex to

MSC/Circ.[….] on Effective implantation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

4. What are the means of communication with port facilities regarding ISPS Code implementation? (SOLAS regulations XI-2/3 and XI-2/10)

5. What processes are in place to document initial and subsequent compliance with

the ISPS Code? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/10.2)

6. What is the Contracting Government’s definition of a Port Facility? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/1.1)

7. What are the procedures used to determine the extent to which port facilities are

required to comply with the ISPS Code, with particular reference to those port facilities that occasionally serve ships on international voyages? (SOLAS regulations XI-2/1, XI-2/2.2)

8. Has the Contracting Government concluded in writing bi-lateral or multi-lateral

agreements with other Contracting Governments on alternative security agreements? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/11.1)

9. Has the Contracting Government allowed a port facility or group of port facilities

to implement equivalent security arrangements? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/12.1) 10. Who has the responsibility for notifying and updating the IMO with information

in accordance with SOLAS regulation XI-2/13? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/13) Port Facility Security Assessment (PFSA)

1. Who conducts PFSAs? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/10.2.1, ISPS Code sections A/15.2

and 15.2.1) 2. How are PFSAs conducted and approved? (ISPS Code sections A/15.2 and 15.2.1) 3. What minimum skills are required for persons conducting PSFAs? (ISPS Code

section A/15.3) 4. Are PFSAs used for each Port Facility Security Plan? (ISPS Code section A/15.1) 5. Do single PFSAs cover more than one port facility? (ISPS Code section A/15.6) 6. Who is responsible for informing the IMO if the single PFSA covers more than

one port facility? (ISPS Code section A/15.6) 7. What national guidance has been developed to assist with the completion of

PFSAs? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/10.2.1) 8. What procedures are in place for determining when re-assessment takes place?

(ISPS Code section A/15.4) 9. What procedures are in place for protecting the PFSAs from unauthorized access

or disclosure? (ISPS Code section A/15.7)

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Port Facility Security Plans (PFSPs)

1. How are Port Facility Security Officers designated? (ISPS Code section A/17.1) 2. What are the minimum training requirements that have been set by the contracting

government for PFSOs? (ISPS Code section A/18.1) 3. Are procedures used to determine the individuals/organizations responsible for the

preparation of the PFSP? If yes, please describe. 4. Are procedures in place to protect PFSPs from unauthorized access? (ISPS Code

sections A/16.7 and A/16.8) 5. What procedures are in place for approval and subsequent amendments of the

PFSPs? (ISPS Code section A/16.6)

Security Levels

1. Who is the authority responsible for setting the security level for port facilities? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/3.2)

2. What are the procedures for communicating security levels to port facilities by the

responsible authority? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/3.2)

3. What are the procedures for communicating port facilities’ security levels to ships? (SOLAS regulations XI-2/4.3 and XI-2/7.1)

4. What are the contact points and procedures for receiving ships’ security level

information in the Contracting Government and for notifying ships of contact details? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/7.2)

Declaration of Security

1. What procedures are used to determine when a Declaration of Security is

required? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/10.3, ISPS Code section A/5.1) 2. What is the minimum timeframe that a Declaration of Security is required to be

retained? (ISPS Code section A/5.6)

Delegation of Tasks and Duties

1. What tasks and duties have the contracting government delegated to Recognized Security Organizations (RSOs) or others? (ISPS Code section A/4.3)

2. To whom have these tasks and duties been delegated? What oversight procedures

are in place? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/13.2)


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

APPENDIX 2

VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR PORT FACILITY SECURITY

This Voluntary self-assessment tool for port facility security (Voluntary self-assessment tool) can be used to examine the status of implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code.

This Voluntary self-assessment tool will help to identify any aspects of SOLAS

chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code that the port facility/port facility security officer (PFSO) or Contracting Government can address to enhance the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code implementation process.

SOLAS regulation XI-2/10 and ISPS Code section A/14.2 establish mandatory

requirements for the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code implementation at a port facility. Therefore, the heading of each subsection is taken directly from ISPS Code section A/14.2.

When using this Voluntary self-assessment tool, the person conducting the voluntary self-assessment should consider SOLAS chapter XI-2, ISPS Code part A and part B, as applicable in accordance with national legislation, the related guidance2 developed by the Organization and the ILO/IMO Code of practice on security in ports, as applicable.

The following section should be completed prior to completing the tool. It can be used by the port facility security officer, recognized security organization or others and will help to establish an overview of the port facility’s operations. 1 Port Facility Overview: Name of port facility Name of operator/authority Name of port, if applicable Name of PFSO Average number of SOLAS ships handled per annum

2 Particular characteristics of the port facility, if any, including the vessel traffic, which

may increase the likelihood of being the target of a security incident. Passenger ships Other dangerous goods Ro-ro/container terminal Near military installation Explosives Military vessels Oil/gas refinery/terminal Embarkation of military personnel or

cargo

LPG, LNG or petrol storage Other (describe)



MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 7

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

3 Security agreements and arrangements.

Is the port facility covered by an alternative security agreement? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/11 and ISPS Code paragraph B/4.26) If “Yes”, provide relevant details.

Has the port facility implemented any equivalent security arrangements allowed by the Contracting Government? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/12.1). If “Yes”, provide relevant details.

Is the port facility operating under any temporary security measures? If “Yes”, have these been approved or authorized by the Contracting Government? If “Yes”, provide relevant details.

Guidance for using the Voluntary self-assessment tool:

− Not all of the questions on the Voluntary self-assessment tool apply, or are relevant, to all types or sizes of port facilities. Some of these apply only in relation to specific types of port facilities. In such cases, the non-applicability of the particular question should be recorded in the ‘Comments’ box.

− When completing the Voluntary self-assessment tool, the ‘Comments’ box

provides space for amplification where the ‘Other’ option is selected. However, experience has shown that it is also helpful to use ‘Comments’ box in cases where a ‘No’ answer has been recorded, thus giving an explanation of why not and details of any measures or procedures in place. Suggested actions should be recorded in the ‘Recommendations’ section of the Voluntary self-assessment tool.

− For the questions which have multiple options (i.e. questions 3.3, 3.6, 4.2, 4.11,

4.12, 5.4, 6.4 and 9.2), the ‘Yes/No/Other’ tick boxes should be replaced by a single column of boxes, which should be ticked as appropriate. This will be of benefit in cases where a ‘No’ answer may erroneously be taken as indicative of a non-compliance. Further explanation of any measures and procedures in place should be given in the ‘Comments’ box and any suggested actions should be recorded in the ‘Recommendations’ section of the Voluntary self-assessment tool.

− Ensure that one of the boxes is ticked for each question. − If you ticked ‘Yes’, but the measures/procedures are not documented in the PFSP,

please enter a short description of them in the ‘Comments’ box. − If you tick the ‘No’ response against Part A questions, please describe the reason

in the ‘Comments’ box.

− If you ticked ‘Other’ against Part B questions, please enter a short description in the ‘Comments’ box. ‘Other’ could include instances where alternative agreements or equivalent arrangements have been implemented.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

− Please tick ‘Other’ if the question is not applicable and add ‘N/A’ in the ‘Comments’ box.

− If alternative measures/procedures from those listed in the ISPS Code are used,

please enter a short description in the ‘Comments’ box. − If work to implement the measures outlined in Part B or any alternative solutions

is still in progress, a work schedule should be entered into the ‘Comments’ box. − If there is not enough space in the comment box, assessors should continue the

answer on a separate page. The relevant question number should be added in these circumstances as a reference aid.

− ‘Recommendation’ boxes should be used to record any identified deficiencies and

how these could be mitigated. − The ‘Outcome of Voluntary Self-Assessment’ box should be used to provide a brief

record of the assessment process, and along with the comments in the ‘Recommendation’ boxes, form the basis for future security planning. A schedule for the implementation of recommendations should be included.

1. Ensuring the performance of port facility security duties (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.1

and A/14.3) Part A Yes No Other .1 Does the port facility’s means of ensuring the performance of all

security duties meet the requirements set out in the PFSP for security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/14.2.1)3

Comments:

� � �

.2 Has the port facility established measures to prevent weapons or any

other dangerous substances and devices intended for use against persons, ships, or the port, from entering the facility? (ISPS Code section A/16.3.1)

Comments:

� � �

3 Indicates a reference to a section (of part A) or a paragraph (of part B) of the ISPS Code.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 9

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .3 Has the port facility established evacuation procedures in case of

security threats or breaches of security? (ISPS Code section A/16.3.5)

Comments:

� � �

.4 Has the port facility established procedures for response to an

activation of a ship security alert system? (ISPS Code section A/16.3.14)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Organization of Port Facility Security Duties (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8) .5 Has the port facility established the role and structure of the security

organization? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.1) Comments:

� � �

.6 Has the port facility established the duties and responsibilities for

personnel with security roles? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.2) Comments:

� � �

.7 Has the port facility established the training requirements for

personnel with security roles? (ISPS Code sections A18.1, A/18.2, A/18.3 and paragraph B/16.8.2)

Comments:

� � �

.8 Has the port facility established the performance measures needed to

assess the individual effectiveness of personnel with security roles? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.2)

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .9 Has the port facility established their security organization’s link

with other national or local authorities with security responsibilities? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.3)

Comments:

� � �

.10 Has the port facility established procedures and practices to protect

security-sensitive information held in paper or electronic format? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.6)

Comments:

� � �

.11 Has the port facility established procedures to assess the continuing

effectiveness of security measures and procedures? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.7)

Comments:

� � �

.12 Has the port facility established procedures to assess security

equipment, to include identification of, and response to, equipment failure or malfunction? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.7)

Comments:

� � �

.13 Has the port facility established procedures governing submission

and assessment of reports relating to possible breaches of security or security concerns? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.8)

Comments:

� � �

.14 Has the port facility established procedures to maintain and update

records of dangerous goods and hazardous substances, including their location within the port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.11)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 11

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .15 Has the port facility established a means of alerting and obtaining the

services of waterside patrols and search teams, to include bomb and underwater specialists? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.12)

Comments:

� � �

.16 Has the port facility established procedures for assisting, when

requested, Ship Security Officers in confirming the identity of those seeking to board the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.13)

Comments:

� � �

.17 Has the port facility established the procedures for facilitating shore

leave for ship’s crew members or personnel changes? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.14)

Comments:

� � �

.18 Has the port facility established the procedures for facilitating visitor

access to the ship, to include representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labour organizations? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.14)

Comments:

� � �

2. Controlling access to the port facility (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.2, A/14.2.1

and A/14.3) Part A Yes No Other .1 Does the port facility’s means of controlling access to the port

facility meet the requirements set out in the PFSP for security level 1 and 2?

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Part B - Establish Facility Security Measures (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.10 and B/16.19.1) Yes No Other .2 Has the port facility identified the appropriate location(s) where

security measures can be applied to restrict or prohibit access. These should include all access points identified in the PFSP at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.11, B/16.19.1)

Comments:

� � �

.3 Does the port facility specify the type of restrictions or prohibitions,

and the means of enforcement to be applied at all access points identified in the PFSP at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.11 B/16.19.2, B/16.19.3)

Comments:

� � �

.4 Has the port facility established measures to increase the frequency

of searches of people, personal effects, and vehicles at security level 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.19.4)

Comments:

� � �

.5 Has the port facility established measures to deny access to visitors

who are unable to provide verifiable justification for seeking access to the port facility at security level 2 (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.19.5)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Establish Security Measures for Individuals (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12) .6 Has the port facility established the means of identification required

to access and remain unchallenged within the port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 13

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .7 Does the port facility have the means to differentiate the

identification of permanent, temporary, and visiting individuals? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

.8 Does the port facility have the means to verify the identity and

legitimacy of passenger boarding passes, tickets, etc? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

.9 Has the port facility established provisions to ensure that the

identification systems are regularly updated? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

.10 Has the port facility established provisions to facilitate disciplinary

action against those whom abuse the identification system procedures? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

.11 Has the port facility created procedures to deny access and report all

individuals who are unwilling or unable to establish their identity or purpose for visit to the PFSO and to the national or local authorities? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.13)

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other Part B - Search Locations (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.14) .12 Has the port facility identified a location(s) for searches of persons,

personal effects, and vehicles that facilitates continuous operation, regardless of prevailing weather conditions? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.14)

Comments:

� � �

.13 Does the port facility have procedures established to directly transfer

persons, personal effects, or vehicles subjected to search to the restricted holding, embarkation, or vehicle loading area? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.14)

Comments:

� � �

.14 Has the port facility established separate locations for embarking and

disembarking passengers, ship’s personnel, and their effects to ensure that unchecked persons do not come in contact with checked persons? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.15)

Comments:

� � �

.15 Does the PFSP establish the frequency of application of all access

controls? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.16) Comments:

� � �

Part B – Establish Control Points (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.17) .16 Does the PFSP establish control points for restricted areas bounded

by fencing or other barriers to a standard which is approved by the national government? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.17.1)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 15

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .17 Does the PFSP establish the identification of and procedures to

control access points not in regular use which should be permanently closed and locked? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.17.7)

Comments:

� � �

3. Monitoring of the port facility, including anchoring and berthing area(s) (ISPS Code

sections A/14.2.3 and A/14.3) Part A .1 Does the facility’s means of monitoring the port facility, including

berthing and anchorage area(s) meet the requirements set out in the PFSP for security level 1 and 2?

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Scope of Security Monitoring (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.49) .2 Does the port facility have the capability to continuously monitor on

land and water the port facility and its nearby approaches? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.49)

Comments:

� � �

.3 Which of the following means are employed to monitor the port

facility and nearby approaches? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.49) A. Patrols by security guards B. Patrols by security vehicles C. Patrols by watercraft D. Automatic intrusion-detection devices E. Surveillance equipment

Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .4 If automatic intrusion-detection devices are employed, do they

activate an audible and/or visual alarm(s) at a location(s) that is continuously monitored? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.50)

Comments:

� � �

.5 Does the PFSP establish procedures and equipment needed at each

security level? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.51) Comments:

� � �

.6 Has the port facility established measures to increase the security

measures at security level 1 and 2 (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.51, B/16.53.1, B/16.53.2 and B/16.53.3)

A. Increase intensity and coverage of lighting and surveillance

equipment B. Increase frequency of foot, vehicle & waterborne patrols C. Assign additional personnel D. Surveillance Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � �

.7 Does the PFSP establish procedures and equipment necessary to

ensure that monitoring equipment will be able to perform continually, including consideration of the possible effects of weather or power disruptions? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.51)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Illumination at Port Facility (ISPS Code section A/14.3 and paragraph B/16.49.1) .8 Does the port facility have adequate illumination, to allow for

detection of unauthorized persons at or approaching access points, the perimeter, restricted areas and ships, at all times including the night hours and periods of limited visibility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.49.1)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 17

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

4. Monitoring of restricted areas (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.4 and A/14.3) Part A Yes No Other .1 Does the port facility’s means of limiting and monitoring access to

restricted areas meet the requirements of the PFSP for security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.4 and A/14.3)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Establishment of Restricted Areas (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.21) .2 Are restricted areas identified within the port facility? (ISPS Code

paragraph B/16.21) Comments:

� � �

.3 Which of the following elements are identified for restricted areas in

the PFSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.21) A. Extent of area B. Times of application C. Security measures to control access to areas D. Security measures to control activities within areas E. Measures to ensure restricted areas are swept before and after

establishment Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � �

Part B - Security Measures (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.22) .4 Are restricted areas clearly marked, indicating that access to the area

is restricted and that unauthorized presence constitutes a breach of security? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.23)

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .5 Are measures established to control access by individuals to

restricted areas? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.22.1) Comments:

� � �

.6 Does the port facility have the means to ensure that passengers do

not have unsupervised access to restricted areas? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.12)

Comments:

� � �

.7 Are measures established to control the entry, parking, loading, and

unloading of vehicles? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.22.2) Comments:

� � �

.8 Are measures established to control movement and storage of cargo

and ship’s stores? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.22.3) Comments:

� � �

.9 Are measures established to control unaccompanied baggage or

personal effects? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.22.4) Comments:

� � �

.10 If automatic intrusion-detection devices are installed, do they alert a

control centre capable of responding to the alarm? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.24)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 19

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .11 Which of the following security measures are utilized to control

access to restricted areas? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.27) A. Permanent or temporary barriers to surround restricted area B. Access points controlled by security guards when in use C. Access points that can be locked or barred when not in use D. Use of passes to indicate a person’s authorization for access E. Marking of vehicles that are allowed access F. Use of guards and patrols G. Use of automatic intrusion-detection devices or surveillance

equipment and systems H. Control of vessel movement in vicinity of ships using port facility Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � � F � � � G � � � H � � �

.12 Has the port facility established measures to enhance the security of

restricted areas for security level 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.28) A. Enhance the effectiveness of barriers B. Reduce access points C. Enhance control of access points D. Restrict parking E. Control movement within F. Continuously monitor G. Enhance frequency of patrols H. Limiting access to spaces adjacent to ship Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � � F � � � G � � � H � � �

.13 Has the port facility established measures to enhance the

effectiveness of barriers, reduce access points, and enhance access control for restricted areas at security level 2 (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.28)

� � �

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

5. Supervising the Handling of Cargo (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.5 and A/14.3) Part A Yes No Other .1 Does the port facility’s means of supervising the handling of cargo

meet the requirements identified in the PFSP for security level 1 and 2?

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Prevent Tampering (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.30.1) .2 Are measures employed to routinely monitor the integrity of cargo,

including the checking of seals, upon entry to the port facility and whilst stored in the port facility at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.32.1)

Comments:

� � �

.3 Are measures employed to routinely monitor cargo transport units

prior to and during cargo handling operations? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.32.1)

Comments:

� � �

.4 Which of the following means are employed to conduct cargo

checking? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.33) A. Visual exam B. Physical exam C. Scanning or detection equipment D. Other mechanical means E. Dogs Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � �

.5 Are restricted areas designated to perform inspections of cargo

transport units if a container seal appears to have been compromised? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.32.4)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 21

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .6 Has the port facility established measures to intensity checks to

ensure that only documented cargo enters the facility, and if necessary, is only stored on a temporary basis at security level 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.35.2)

Comments:

� � �

.7 Has the port facility established measures to intensify vehicle

searches, the frequency and detail of examining cargo seals, and other tampering prevention methods at security level 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.35.3)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Preventing the Acceptance of Unauthorized Cargo (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.30.2) .8 Are cargo delivery orders or equivalent cargo documentation verified

before acceptance? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.32.2) Comments:

� � �

.9 Are procedures utilized to randomly or selectively search vehicles at

facility access points? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.32.3) Comments:

� � �

Part B - Inventory Control (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.31) .10 Are inventory control procedures employed at facility access points?

(ISPS Code paragraph B/16.31) Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .11 Are means of identification used to determine whether cargo inside

the port facility awaiting loading has been either checked and accepted or temporarily stored in a restricted area? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.31)

Comments:

� � �

6. Supervising the handling of ship’s stores (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.6 and A/14.3) Part A .1 Does the port facility’s means of supervising the handling of ship’s

stores meet the requirements identified in the PFSP at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/14.2.6)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Ship’s Stores Security Measures (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.38) .2 Are ship’s stores examined to ensure package integrity at security

level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.38.1 and B/16.42.1) Comments:

� � �

.3 Are procedures established to ensure that no ship’s stores are

accepted into the port facility without checking at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.38.2 and B/16.42.2)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 23

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .4 Which of the following means are employed to inspect ship’s stores?

(ISPS Code paragraph B/16.41) A. Visual exam B. Physical exam C. Scanning or detection equipment D. Other mechanical means E. Dogs Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � � D � � � E � � �

.5 Are procedures established to prevent the tampering of ship’s stores?

(ISPS Code paragraph B/16.38.3) Comments:

� � �

.6 Are ship’s stores deliveries preceded with an advanced notification

of load composition, driver information, and vehicle registration? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.40.2)

Comments:

� � �

.7 Are unscheduled deliveries of ship’s stores declined access to the

port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.38.4) Comments:

� � �

.8 Are there procedures in place to prevent ships’ stores being accepted

unless ordered? Are manifests and order documentation validated prior to allowing then into the port facility at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.38.4)

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .9 Are searches of vehicles delivering ship’s stores performed prior to

entry into the port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.38.5) Comments:

� � �

.10 Are escorts provided for ship’s stores delivery vehicles within the

port facility at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/16.38.6 and B/16.42.4)

Comments:

� � �

.11 Does the port facility increase the use of scanning/detection

equipment mechanical devices, or dogs at security level 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.43.2)

Comments:

� � �

7. Ensuring security communication is readily available (ISPS Code sections A/14.2.7 and A/14.3)

Part A .1 Do the port facility’s communication equipment and procedures meet

the requirements identified in the PFSP at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/14.2.7)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Effectiveness of Communication Equipment and Procedures (ISPS Code

paragraph B/16.8.4) .2 Is the port facility equipped with auxiliary communication systems

for both internal and external communications that are readily available regardless of security level, weather conditions or power disruptions at security level 1 and 2? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.4)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 25

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .3 Are security personnel trained on communication equipment to

ensure efficiency? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.4) Comments:

� � �

.4 Are telephone numbers for key personnel accurate and routinely

validated? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.4) Comments:

� � �

.5 Are procedures in place to ensure that port facility communication

systems and equipment are serviced and maintained? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.4)

Comments:

� � �

.6 Has the port facility established procedures and means for the PFSO

to effectively disseminate changes in the security level at the port facility or with a vessel interfacing with the port? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.4)

Comments:

� � �

Part B - Protection of Communication Equipment and Facilities (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.5) .7 Are security procedures established to protect radio,

telecommunication equipment and infrastructure, and computer systems? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.5)

Comments:

� � �

.8 Are entry control procedures established to restrict access of

communication facilities and infrastructure? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.8.5)

Comments:

� � �


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

8. Training, Drills and Exercises (ISPS Code section A/18) Part A Yes No Other .1 Has the PFSO and appropriate port facility security personnel

received sufficient training to perform their assigned duties as identified in the PFSP? (ISPS Code sections A/18.1 and A/18.2)

Comments:

� � �

.2 Has the port facility implemented drills and exercises? (ISPS Code

sections A/18.3 and A/18.4) Comments:

� � �

Part B – Training, drills, and exercises on port facility security (paragraphs B/18.1, B/18.2, B/18.3, and B/18.6)

.3 Are the PFSO, personnel with security duties and all other port

facility personnel familiar with the relevant provisions of the PFSP and have they received the appropriate levels of training? (paragraphs B/18.1, B/18.2 and B/18.3)

Comments:

� � �

.4 Are security drills conducted at least every three months and security

exercises conducted at least once each calendar year with no more than 18 months between the exercises? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/18.5 and B/18.6)

Comments:

� � �

9. Miscellaneous .1 Has the port facility established procedures and adopted measures

with respect to ships operating at a higher security level than the port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/16.55)

Comments:

� � �

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 27

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Yes No Other .2 Has the port facility established procedures and adopted measures

which can be applied when (ISPS Code paragraph 16.56): A. it is interfacing with a ship which has been at a port of a State

which is not a Contracting Government B. it is interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply C. service vessels covered by the PFSP are interfacing with fixed or

floating platforms or mobile offshore drilling units on location Comments:

A � � � B � � � C � � �

Recommendations This section should be used to record any deficiencies identified by the voluntary self-assessment and how these could be mitigated. In essence this will provide an action plan for the PFSO. Recommendations/For Action: Section 1: Ensuring the performance of port security duties. Recommendations/For Action: Section 2: Controlling access to the port facility. Recommendations/For Action: Section 3: Monitoring of the port facility, including anchoring and berthing areas. Recommendations/For Action: Section 4: Monitoring of restricted areas.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Recommendations/For Action: Section 5: Supervising the handling of cargo. Recommendations/For Action: Section 6: Supervising the handling of ships’ stores. Recommendations/For Action: Section 7: Ensuring security communication is readily available. Recommendations/For Action: Section 8: Training, drills and exercises.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 8

Page 29

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

OUTCOME OF VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT This section should be used to record the findings of the voluntary self-assessment and any other issues arising. These findings could be raised with port facility staff or be used as the basis to seek guidance from the Designated Authority, as appropriate. Signature of assessor Date of completion ……………………………………….. .……………………

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 9


GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY ADMINISTRATIONS AND FOR SHIP SECURITY

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), developed Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and for ship security in an effort to assist Administrations in the implementation of, and the maintenance of compliance with, the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. 2 The methodologies set out in the annex are designed solely for use by Administrations and by ships in conducting internal voluntary self-assessments. 3 The Committee agreed that the Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security is not a document which can be requested or required to be produced during the exercise of Control pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation I/19 or of Control and compliance measures pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9. In addition, the Committee agreed that those duly authorized by SOLAS Contracting Governments to exercise Control or Control and compliance measures are not vested with any authority to request or require the production from any ship of the Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security. 4 Administrations are invited to bring the attached Guidance to the attention of owners and Companies operating ships entitled to fly their flag and of ship security officers. 5 Administrations, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status are also invited to bring to the attention of the Committee, at the earliest opportunity, the results of the experience gained from the use of the Guidance for consideration of action to be taken.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT BY ADMINISTRATIONS AND FOR SHIP SECURITY

1 SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code have, inter alia, placed responsibilities on Administrations and Companies for ship security. The provisions entered into force on 1 July 2004 and the appendices to this document provide guidance on:

.1 a method of self-assessing the effectiveness with which an Administration fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, its obligations in respect of ship security, and

.2 a tool to allow Companies to self-assess the continuing effectiveness of their ship

security plans and the implementation of the relevant security measures in such plans.

2 Self-assessment by an Administration can be undertaken within Government, who could also appoint experts to assist them in the process. Similarly, Company and shipboard personnel can use the self-assessment tool with the support of experts, if appropriate. 3 Anyone undertaking the self-assessment should, at least, have knowledge of:

.1 the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, including the related guidance developed by the Organization;

.2 general security principles; and .3 the operation of ships.

4 The processes and the completed self-assessments should be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure. 5 The effective implementation of ship security measures is a continuing responsibility. It is suggested that Administrations self-assess their processes post-implementation and thereafter at least on a five yearly basis and that ships self-assess annually. Appendix 1: Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire for Administrations. Appendix 2: Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

APPENDIX 1

VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ADMINISTRATIONS

This Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire for Administrations ((the Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire) may be used by Administrations in the self-assessment process for ship security.

Those conducting the voluntary self-assessment of compliance with SOLAS chapter XI-2

and the ISPS Code, on behalf of the Administration, should be familiar with the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code implementation process before conducting the self-assessment.

This effort can be assisted by documenting the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code

implementation process and by collecting the information below before reviewing the implementation process on board ships. This Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire will assist those conducting the voluntary self-assessment in documenting the Administration’s strategy used in the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. When using this Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire, an Administration should consider SOLAS chapter XI-2, ISPS Code part A and part B the related guidance1 developed by the Organization, as applicable. When completing the Voluntary self-assessment questionnaire, the answers should be sufficiently detailed for the reader to gain a full understanding of the approach taken by the Administration in implementing the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. Sufficiently detailed answers will prevent the drawing of erroneous conclusions when undertaking subsequent voluntary self-assessments. It will also assist in the resolution of any doubts when subsequent self-assessments are conducted by different persons. Implementation Process 1. What is the national legislative basis for the implementation of the ISPS Code?

(SOLAS regulations XI-2/2 and XI-2/4) 2. What guidance to industry was released to implement the ISPS Code?

(SOLAS regulations XI-2/2, XI-2/4, XI-2/5 and XI-2/6) 3. What are the means of communication developed by the Administration with (a) ships,

and (b) companies, regarding ISPS Code implementation? (SOLAS regulations XI-2/3 and XI-2/4)

4. What processes are in place to document verification and certification of initial and

subsequent compliance with the ISPS Code? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/4.2) 5. Has the Contracting Government nominated a point of contact for ships to request

assistance or report security concerns? If yes, provide the name and contact details. (SOLAS regulation XI-2/7.2)




I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

6. Have officers been duly authorized to exercise control and compliance measures on

security grounds and has guidance been issued to them? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/9) 7. Has guidance been issued to companies and ships on the provision of information to other

Contracting Governments when applying control and compliance measures, including the records to be retained by the ship in respect of the last ten calls at port facilities? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/9)

8. Has the Contracting Government concluded in writing bilateral or multilateral agreements

with other Contracting Governments on alternative security agreements? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/11.1)

9. Has the Administration allowed a ship or group of ships to implement equivalent security

arrangements? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/12.1) 10. Who has the responsibility for notifying and updating the IMO with information in

accordance with SOLAS regulation XI-2/13? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/13) Ship Security Assessment (SSA) 1. Who conducts SSAs? (ISPS Code sections A/8.2 and 8.3) 2. Has national guidance been developed to assist with the completion of the on-scene

security survey? (ISPS Code section A/8.4) Ship Security Plans (SSPs) 1. Who approves SSPs? (ISPS Code sections A/9.1 and 9.2) 2. How are Company and Ship Security Officers designated? (ISPS Code sections A/11.1

and A/12.1) 3. What are the minimum training requirements that have been set by the Administration for

CSOs and SSOs? (ISPS Code sections A/13.1 and A/13.2) 4. Has guidance been issued on the development and approval of SSPs (ISPS Code

sections A/9.2 and 9.4) 5. Are procedures in place to protect SSPs from unauthorized access? (ISPS Code

section A/9.7) 6. What procedures are in place for approval and subsequent amendments of the SSPs?

(ISPS Code sections A/9.5 and 9.5.1) 7. Do SSPs contain a clear statement emphasizing the master’s authority? (ISPS Code

section A/6.1) 8. Is the original or a translation of the SSP available in English, French or Spanish?

(ISPS Code section A/9.4)

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

9. Who verifies SSPs? (ISPS Code section A/19.1.2) 10. Has the Administration specified the periods when renewal, intermediate and additional

verifications shall be carried out? (ISPS Code section A/19.1.1) 11. Who issues the International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC)? (ISPS Code

section A/19.2.2) 12. Has the Administration specified the period of validity of ISSCs? (ISPS Code

section A/19.3.1) 13. Does the Administration have procedures in place for the issue of Interim ISSCs?

(ISPS Code section A/19.4) 14. Has the Administration specified the minimum period for which records of activities

addressed in the SSP shall be kept on board? (ISPS Code section A/10.1) Security Levels 1. Who is the authority responsible for setting the security level for ships?

(SOLAS regulation XI-2/3.1) 2. What are the procedures for communicating security levels to ships by the responsible

authority? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/3.1) 3. Have procedures been notified for a ship to comply with the security level set by the

Contracting Government for a port facility whose security level is higher than set for the ship by the Administration? (SOLAS regulations XI-2/4.3 and XI-2/4.4)

4. Are procedures in place to provide advice to ships in cases where a risk of attack has been

identified? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/7.3) Declaration of Security 1. What procedures are used to determine when a Declaration of Security is required?

(ISPS Code section A/5.1) 2. What is the minimum time frame that a Declaration of Security is required to be retained?

(ISPS Code section A/5.7) Delegation of Tasks and Duties 1. What tasks and duties, if any, have the Administration delegated to Recognized Security

Organizations (RSOs)? (ISPS Code section A/4.3) 2. To whom have these tasks and duties been delegated? Based on what criteria and under

what conditions has the status of RSO been granted by the Administration to those organizations? What oversight procedures are in place? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/13.2)

3. What procedures are in place to ensure that the RSO undertaking the review and approval

process for an SSP was not involved in the preparation of the SSA or SSP? (ISPS Code section A/9.2.1)


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

APPENDIX 2

VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR SHIP SECURITY

This Voluntary self-assessment tool for ship security (Voluntary self-assessment tool) can be used to examine the status of implementation SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code on ships. This Voluntary self-assessment tool will help to identify any aspects of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code that the ship security officer (SSO), company security officer (CSO) or Administration can address to enhance the SOLAS chapter XI-2 and ISPS Code implementation process. SOLAS regulations XI-2/4, XI-2/5 and XI-2/6 and ISPS Code section A/7.2 establish mandatory requirements for the ISPS Code implementation for ships. Therefore, the heading of each subsection is taken directly from ISPS Code section A/7.2. When using this Voluntary self-assessment tool, the person conducting the voluntary self-assessment should consider SOLAS chapter XI-2, ISPS Code part A and part B, as applicable in accordance with national legislation, and the related guidance2 developed by the Organization. The following section should be completed prior to completing the tool. It can be used by the CSO, SSO, recognized security organization (RSO) or others and will help to establish an overview of the security of the ship(s) the person completing the tool has responsibility for. 1 Company and Ship Overview:

Name of Administration

Name of company

Name of ship

IMO Ship identification number

Name of CSO

Name of SSO

Number of ships operated by the company

Number of ships for which the CSO is responsible



MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 7

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

1.1 Manning of the ship:

1.1.1 Total manning of the ship and security tasks fulfilled on board at the time of this assessment

Total number of crew members

Number of crew with security duties

1.1.2 In the last 12 months:

Number of crew members assigned on first time to the ship

Number of different SSOs

Number of changes in the security level

Number of security incidents

Number of breaches of security 1.2 Security agreements and arrangements

Is the ship operating between port facilities covered by an alternative security agreement? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/11 and ISPS Code paragraph B/4.26) If “Yes”, provide relevant details.

Has the ship implemented any equivalent security arrangements allowed by the Administration? (SOLAS regulation XI-2/12.2). If “Yes”, provide relevant details.

Is the ship operating under any temporary security measures? If “Yes”, have these been approved or authorized by the Administration? If “Yes”, provide relevant details. (SOLAS regulation XI-2/8.2 and MSC/Circ.1097, paragraphs 12 to 16)

Guidance for using the Voluntary self-assessment tool:

- Not all of the questions on the Voluntary self-assessment tool apply, or are relevant, to all types or sizes of ships. Some of these apply only in relation to specific types of ships. In such cases, the non-applicability of the particular question should be recorded in the ‘Comments’ box.

- When completing the Voluntary self-assessment tool, the ‘Comments’ box

provides space for amplification where the ‘Other’ option is selected. However, experience has shown that it is also helpful to use ‘Comments’ box in cases where a ‘No’ answer has been recorded, thus giving an explanation of why not and details of any measures or procedures in place. Suggested actions should be recorded in the ‘Recommendations’ section of the Voluntary self-assessment tool.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

- For the questions which have multiple options (i.e. questions 2.3, 2.5, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 5.4, 5.9, 6.1, 6.5, 6.6, 8.1, 8.7, 9.4, 9.6 and 9.7), the ‘Yes/No/Other’ tick boxes should be replaced by a single column of boxes, which should be ticked as appropriate. This will be of benefit in cases where a ‘No’ answer may erroneously be taken as indicative of a non-compliance. Further explanation of any measures and procedures in place should be given in the ‘Comments’ box and any suggested actions should be recorded in the ‘Recommendations’ section of the Voluntary self-assessment tool.

- Ensure that one of the boxes is ticked for each question.

- If you ticked ‘Yes’, but the measures/procedures are not documented in the SSP,

please enter a short description of them in the ‘Comments’ box.

- If you tick the ‘No’ response against Part A questions, please describe the reason in the ‘Comments’ box.

- If you ticked ‘Other’ against Part B questions, please enter a short description in

the comment box. ‘Other’ could include instances where alternative agreements or equivalent arrangements have been implemented.

- Please tick ‘Other’ if the question is not applicable and add ‘n/a’ in the

‘Comments’ box.

- If alternative measures/procedures from those listed in the ISPS Code are used, please enter a short description in the ‘Comments’ box.

- If work to implement the measures outlined in Part B or any alternative solutions

is still in progress, a work schedule should be entered into the ‘Comments’ box.

- If there is not enough space in the comment box, assessors should continue the answer on a separate page. The relevant question number should be added in these circumstances as a reference aid.

- ‘Recommendation’ boxes should be used to record any identified deficiencies and

how these could be mitigated.

- The ‘Outcome of Voluntary Self-Assessment’ box should be used to provide a brief record of the assessment process, and along with the comments in the ‘Recommendation’ boxes, form the basis for future security planning. A schedule for the implementation of recommendations should be included.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 9

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

1. Ensuring the performance of all ship security duties (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.1,

A/7.3 and A/9.4)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s means of ensuring the performance of all security duties

meet the requirements set out in the SSP for security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.2 Has the ship established measures to prevent weapons, dangerous

substances and devices intended for use against persons, ships or ports and the carriage of which is not authorized from being taken on board the ship? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the ship established procedures for responding to security threats or

breaches of security, including provisions for maintaining critical operations of the ship or ship/port interface? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.4 Has the ship established procedures for responding to any security

instructions Contracting governments may give at security level 3? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.5)

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Has the ship established procedures for evacuation in case of security

threats or breaches of security? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.6) □ □ □

Comments:

.6 Have the duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities

and other shipboard personnel on security aspects been specified? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.7)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.7 Have procedures been established for auditing the security activities of the ship? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.8)

□ □ □

Comments:

.8 Has the ship established procedures for interfacing with port facility

security activities? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.10) □ □ □

Comments:

.9 Have procedures been established for the periodic review of the ship

security plan and for its updating? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.11) □ □ □

Comments:

.10 Has the ship established procedures for reporting security incidents?

(ISPS Code section A/9.4.12) □ □ □

Comments:

Part B - Organization and performance of ship security duties (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.2

and B/9.7)

.11 Has the ship implemented the organizational structure of security for the ships detailed in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.12 Has the ship established the relationships with the Company, port

facilities, other ships and relevant authorities with security responsibilities detailed in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.13 Has the ship established the communication systems to allow effective

continuous communication within the ship and between the ship and others, including port facilities, detailed in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 11

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.14 Has the ship implemented the basic security measures for security level 1, both operational and physical, that will always been in place, detailed in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.15 Has the ship implemented the additional security measures that will allow

the ship to progress without delay to security level 2 and, when necessary, to security level 3 detailed in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.5)

□ □ □

Comments:

.16 Has the ship established procedures for regular review, or audit, of the

SSP and for its amendment in response to experience or changing circumstances? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.6)

□ □ □

Comments:

.17 Has the ship established reporting procedures to the appropriate

Contracting Government’s contact points? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.2.7) □ □ □

Comments:

.18 Has the ship established the duties and responsibilities of all shipboard

personnel with a security role? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.1) □ □ □

Comments:

.19 Has the ship established the procedures or safeguards necessary to allow

continuous communications to be maintained at all times? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.20 Has the ship established the procedures needed to assess the continuing

effectiveness of security procedures and any security and surveillance equipment and systems, including procedures for identifying and responding to equipment or systems failure or malfunction? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.3)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.21 Has the ship established procedures and practices to protect security-sensitive information held in paper or electronic format? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.22 Has the ship established the type and maintenance requirements of

security and surveillance equipment and systems, if any? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.5)

□ □ □

Comments:

.23 Has the ship established the procedures to ensure timely submission and

assessment of reports relating to possible breaches of security or security concerns? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.6)

□ □ □

Comments:

.24 Has the ship put in place procedures to establish, maintain and update an

inventory of any dangerous goods or hazardous substances carried on board, including their location? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.7.7)

□ □ □

Comments:

2. Controlling access to the ship (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.2, A/7.3 and A/9.4)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s means of controlling access to the ship meet the

requirements set out in the SSP for security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.2 Has the ship established measures to prevent unauthorized access? (ISPS

Code section A/9.4.3) □ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 13

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Part B – Access to the ship (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.9 to B/9.16)

.3 Has the ship established security measures covering all means of access to the ship identified in the SSA? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.9)

A. Access ladders □ □ □

B. Access gangways □ □ □

C. Access ramps □ □ □

D. Access doors, side scuttles, windows and ports □ □ □

E. Mooring lines and anchor chains □ □ □

F. Cranes and hoisting gear □ □ □

Comments:

.4 Has the ship identified appropriate locations where access restrictions or

prohibitions should be applied for each of the security levels? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.10)

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Has the ship established for each security level the means of identification

required to allow access to the ship and for individuals to remain on the ship without challenge? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.11)

A. Security level 1 □ □ □

B. Security level 2 □ □ □

C. Security level 3 □ □ □

Comments:

.6 Has the ship established the frequency of application of any access

controls? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.13) □ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Security level 1

.7 Has the ship established security measures to check the identity of all persons seeking to board the ship and confirming their reasons for doing so? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.8 Has the ship established procedures to liaise with the port facility to ensure

that designated secure areas are established in which inspections and searching of persons, baggage (including carry-on items), personal effects, vehicles and their contents can take place? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.9 Has the ship identified access points that should be secured or attended to

prevent unauthorized access? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.6) □ □ □

Comments:

.10 Has the ship established security measures to secure, by locking or other

means, access to unattended spaces, adjoining areas to which passengers and visitors have access? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.7)

□ □ □

Comments:

.11 Has the ship provided security briefings to all ship personnel on possible

threats, the procedures for reporting suspicious persons, objects or activities and the need for vigilance? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.8)

□ □ □

Comments:

.12 Has the ship established the frequency of searches, including random

searches, of all those seeking to board the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.15)

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 15

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Security level 2

.13 Has the ship limited the number of access points to the ship, identifying those to be closed and the means for adequately securing them? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.14 Has the ship established a restricted area on the shore side of the ship, in

close co-operation with the port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.4) □ □ □

Comments:

.15 Has the ship arrangements to escort visitors on the ship? (ISPS Code

paragraph B/9.16.6) □ □ □

Comments:

.16 Has the ship provided additional specific security briefings to all ship

personnel on any identified threats, re-emphasizing the procedures for reporting suspicious persons, objects, or activities and stressing the need for increased vigilance? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.7)

□ □ □

Comments:

.17 Has the ship established procedures for carrying out a full or partial search

of the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.8) □ □ □

Comments:

3. Controlling the embarkation of persons and their effects (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.3

and A/7.3)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s measures for controlling the embarkation of persons and their effects meet the requirements set out in the SSP for security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.3)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Part B – Access to the ship (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.9 to B/9.16) Security level 1

.2 Has the ship established procedures to liaise with the port facility to ensure that vehicles destined to be loaded onboard car carriers, ro-ro and other passenger ships are subjected to search prior to loading? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the ship established security measures to segregate checked persons

and their personal effects from unchecked persons and their personal effects? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.4 Has the ship established security measures to segregate embarking from

disembarking passengers? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.14.5) □ □ □

Comments:

Security level 2

.5 Has the ship increased the frequency and detail of searches of persons, personal effects, and vehicles being embarked or loaded onto the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.5)

□ □ □

Comments:

Part B – Handling unaccompanied baggage (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.38 to B/9.40)

.6 Has the ship established security measures to be applied to ensure that unaccompanied baggage is identified and subject to appropriate screening, including searching, before it is accepted on board? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.38)

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 17

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Security level 1

.7 Has the ship established security measures to be applied when handling unaccompanied baggage to ensure that unaccompanied baggage is screened or searched up to and including 100%, which may include use of x-ray screening? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.39)

□ □ □

Comments:

Security level 2

.8 Has the ship established additional security measures to be applied when handling unaccompanied baggage, which should include 100% x-ray screening of all unaccompanied baggage? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.40)

□ □ □

Comments:

4. Monitoring of restricted areas (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.4, A/7.3 and A/9.4.2)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s measures for monitoring access to restricted areas, to

ensure that only authorized persons have access, meet the requirements set out in the SSP for security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.4 and A/7.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

.2 Have restricted areas been identified and measures put in place to prevent

unauthorized access to them? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.2) □ □ □

Comments:

Part B - Restricted areas on the ship (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.18 to B/9.23)

.3 Has the ship clearly established policies and practices to control access to all restricted areas? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.19)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.4 Has the ship clearly marked all restricted areas, indicating that access to the area is restricted and that unauthorized presence in the area constitutes a breach of security? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.20)

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Which of the following have been identified as restricted areas?

(ISPS Code paragraph B/9.21)

A. Navigation bridge, machinery spaces of category A and other control stations

□ □ □

B. Spaces containing security and surveillance equipment and systems and their controls and lighting system controls

□ □ □

C. Ventilation and air-conditioning systems and other similar spaces □ □ □

D. Spaces with access to potable water tanks, pumps and manifolds □ □ □

E. Spaces containing dangerous goods or hazardous substances □ □ □

F. Spaces containing cargo pumps and their controls □ □ □

G. Cargo spaces and spaces containing ship’s stores □ □ □

H. Crew accommodation □ □ □

I. Any other areas □ □ □

Comments:

Security level 1

.6 Which of the following security measures have be applied to restricted areas on the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.22)

A. Locking or securing access points □ □ □

B. Using surveillance equipment to monitor the areas □ □ □

C. Using guards or patrols □ □ □

D. Using automatic intrusion-detection devices to alert the ship’s personnel of unauthorized access

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 19

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Security level 2

.7 Which of the following additional security measures have be applied to restricted areas on the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.23)

A. Establishing restricted areas adjacent to access points □ □ □

B. Continuously monitoring surveillance equipment □ □ □

C. Dedicating additional personnel to guard and patrol restricted areas □ □ □

Comments:

5. Monitoring of deck areas and areas surrounding the ship (ISPS Code

sections A/7.2.5 and A/7.3)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s means of monitoring deck areas and areas surrounding the ship meet the requirements identified in the SSP for security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.5)

□ □ □

Comments:

Part B – Access to the ship (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16) Security level 2

.2 Has the ship assigned additional personnel to patrol deck areas during silent hours to deter unauthorized access? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the ship established security measures to deter waterside access to the

ship including, for example, in liaison with the port facility, provision of boat patrols? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.16.3)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Part B – Monitoring the security of the ship (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.42 to B/9.48)

.4 Which of the following monitoring capabilities have been established by the ship to monitor the ship, the restricted areas on board and areas surrounding the ship? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.42)

A. Lighting □ □ □

B. Watchkeepers, security guards and deck watches, including patrols □ □ □

C. Automatic intrusion-detection devices and surveillance equipment □ □ □

Comments:

.5 Do any automatic intrusion-detection devices on the ship activate an

audible and/or visual alarm at a location that is continuously attended or monitored? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.43)

□ □ □

Comments:

.6 Has the ship established the procedures and equipment needed at each

security level and the means of ensuring that monitoring equipment will be able to perform continually, including consideration of the possible effects of weather conditions or power disruptions? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.44)

□ □ □

Comments:

Security level 1

.7 Has the ship established the security measures to be applied, which may be a combination of lighting, watchkeepers, security guards or the use of security and surveillance equipment to allow ship’s security personnel to observe the ship in general, and barriers and restricted areas in particular? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.45)

□ □ □

Comments:

.8 Are the ship’s deck and access points illuminated during hours of

darkness and periods of low visibility while conducting ship/port interface activities or at a port facility or anchorage? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.46)

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 21

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Security level 2

.9 Which of the following additional security measures have been established to enhance monitoring and surveillance activities? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.47)

A. Increasing the frequency and detail of security patrols □ □ □

B. Increasing the coverage and intensity of lighting or the use of security and surveillance equipment

□ □ □

C. Assigning additional personnel as security look-outs □ □ □

D. Ensuring co-ordination with water-side boat patrols, and foot or vehicle patrols on the shore side, when provided

□ □ □

Comments:

6. Supervising the handling of cargo and ship’s stores (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.6

and A/7.3)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Does the ship’s means of supervising the handling of:

(a) cargo □ □ □

(b) ship’s stores meet the requirements identified in the SSP at security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.6)

□ □ □

Comments:

Part B – Handling of cargo (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.25 to B/9.31) Security level 1

.2 Are measures employed to routinely check the integrity of cargo, including the checking of seals, during cargo handling? (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.27.1 and B/9.27.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Are measures employed to routinely check cargo being loaded matches

the cargo documentation? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.27.2) □ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.4 Does the ship ensure, in liaison with the port facility, that vehicles to be loaded on car carriers, ro-ro and passenger ships are searched prior to loading, in accordance with the frequency required in the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.27.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Which of the following security measures are employed during cargo

checking? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.28)

A. Visual examination □ □ □

B. Physical examination □ □ □

C. Scanning or detection equipment □ □ □

D. Other mechanical devices □ □ □

E. Dogs □ □ □

Comments:

Security level 2

.6 Which of the following additional security measures are applied during cargo handling? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.30)

A. Detailed checking of cargo, cargo transport units and cargo spaces □ □ □

B. Intensified checks to ensure that only the intended cargo is loaded □ □ □

C. Intensified searching of vehicles □ □ □

D. Increased frequency and detail in checking of seals or other methods used to prevent tampering

□ □ □

Comments:

Part B – Delivery of ship’s stores (ISPS Code paragraphs B/9.33 to B/9.36)

.7 Has the ship established security measures to ensure stores being delivered match the order, prior to being loaded on board and to ensure their immediate secure stowage at security level 1? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.35)

□ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 23

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.8 Has the ship established additional security measures at security level 2 by exercising checks prior to receiving stores on board and intensifying inspections? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.36)

□ □ □

Comments

7. Ensuring security communication is readily available (ISPS Code sections A/7.2.7,

A/7.3 and A/9.4)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Do the ship’s communication equipment and procedures meet the requirements identified in the SSP at security levels 1 and 2? (ISPS Code section A/7.2.7)

□ □ □

Comments:

.2 Has the ship security officer been identified? (ISPS Code

section A/9.4.13) □ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the company security officer been identified and 24 hour contact

details been provided? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.14) □ □ □

Comments:

.4 Has the ship established procedures to ensure the inspection, testing,

calibration and maintenance of any security equipment provided on board? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.15)

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Has the frequency for testing or calibration of any security equipment

provided on board been specified? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.16) □ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.6 Have the locations on the ship where the ship security alert system activation points are provided been identified? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.17)

□ □ □

Comments:

.7 Have procedures, instructions and guidance been established and

communicated on the use of the ship security alert system, including the testing, activation, deactivation and resetting and to limit false alerts? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.18)

□ □ □

Comments:

8. Training, Drills and Exercises (ISPS Code section A/13)

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Have the:

(a) CSO and appropriate shore-based personnel security personnel □ □ □

(b) SSO received sufficient training to perform their assigned duties? (ISPS Code sections A/13.1 and A/13.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.2 Do shipboard personnel having specific security duties and

responsibilities understand their responsibilities for ship security and have sufficient knowledge and ability to perform their assigned duties? (ISPS Code section A/13.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the company and ship implemented drills and participated in

exercises? (ISPS Code sections A/13.4 and A/13.5) □ □ □

Comments:

.4 Has the ship established procedures for training, drills and exercises

associated with the ship security plan? (ISPS Code section A/9.4.9) □ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 25

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Part B - Training, drills, and exercises on ship security (ISPS Code paragraphs B/13.1

to B/13.8)

.5 Have the CSO, appropriate shore-based Company personnel and the SSO received the appropriate levels of training? (ISPS Code paragraph B/13.1, B/13.2)

□ □ □

Comments:

.6 Do shipboard personnel with security responsibilities have sufficient

knowledge and ability to perform their duties? (ISPS Code paragraph B/13.3)

□ □ □

Comments:

.7 Are security drills conducted:

(a) at least every three months? □ □ □

(b) in cases where more than 25% of the ship’s personnel has been changed, at any one time, with personnel that have not previously participated in any drill on that ship within the last three months? (ISPS Code paragraph B/13.6)

□ □ □

(c) to test individual elements of the ship security plan such as those security threats listed in ISPS Code paragraph B/8.9? (ISPS Code paragraph B/13.6)

□ □ □

Comments:

9. Miscellaneous

Part A Yes No Other

.1 Have different RSOs undertaken (a) the preparation of the SSA and SSP

and (b) the review and approval of the SSP? (ISPS Code section A/9.2.1) □ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.2 Has the Master a contact point in the Administration to seek consent for the inspection of those provisions in the SSP that are considered confidential information, when access to them is requested by a duly authorized officer of another Contracting Government? (ISPS Code section A/9.8.1)

□ □ □

Comments:

.3 Has the ship established procedures to protect from unauthorized access or

disclosure the records of activities addressed in the SSP which are required to be kept on board? (ISPS Code section A/10.4)

□ □ □

Comments:

.4 In which of the following circumstances does the ship request completion

of a Declaration of Security (DoS)? (ISPS Code section A/5.2)

A. When the ship is operating at a higher security level than the port facility or another ship it is interfacing with

□ □ □

B. The ship is covered by an agreement on a DoS between Contracting Governments

□ □ □

C. When there has been a security threat or a security incident involving the ship or port facility it is calling at

□ □ □

D. When the ship is at a port which is not required to have and implement an approved port facility security plan

□ □ □

E. When the ship is conducting ship-to-ship activities with another ship not required to have and implement an approved SSP

□ □ □

Comments:

.5 Does the CSO or SSO periodically review the SSA for accuracy as part of

the SSP review process? (ISPS Code section A/10.1.7) □ □ □

Comments:

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 27

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

.6 Does the ship adequately maintain the required security records and are they sufficiently detailed to allow the CSO and SSO to identify areas for improvement or change in the current security procedures and measures? (ISPS Code section A/10.1)

A. Training, drills and exercises (ISPS Code section A/10.1.1) □ □ □

B. Security threats and security incidents (ISPS Code section A/10.1.2) □ □ □

C. Breaches of security (ISPS Code section A/10.1.3) □ □ □

D. Periodic review of the SSP (ISPS Code section A/10.1.8) □ □ □

Comments:

.7 Is the ship adequately manned and its complement includes the

grades/capacities and number of persons required for the safe operation and the security of the ship and for the protection of the marine environment (IMO Assembly resolution A.890(21) as amended by Assembly resolution A.955(23), SOLAS regulation V/14.1 and ISPS Code paragraph B/4.28)

A. When the ship is operating at security level 1 □ □ □

B. When the ship is operating at security level 2 □ □ □

Comments:

Part B – Miscellaneous

.8 Has the ship established procedures on handling requests for a Declaration of Security from a port facility? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.52)

□ □ □

Comments:

.9 Have procedures been established in the SSP as to how the CSO and SSO

intend to audit the continued effectiveness of the SSP and to review, update or amend the SSP? (ISPS Code paragraph B/9.53)

□ □ □

Comments:

.10 Has the ship established additional security procedures to be implemented

when calling into a port facility which is not required to comply with the requirements of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code? (ISPS Code paragraph B/4.20)

□ □ □

Comments:


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Recommendations This section should be used to record any deficiencies identified by the voluntary self-assessment and how these could be mitigated. In essence this will provide an action plan for the CSO and/or SSO.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 1: Ensuring the performance of all ship security duties.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 2: Controlling access to the ship.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 3: Controlling the embarkation of persons and their effects.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 4: Monitoring of restricted areas.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 5: Monitoring of deck areas and areas surrounding the ship.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 6: Supervising the handling of cargo and ship’s stores.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 9

Page 29

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Recommendations/For Action: Section 7: Ensuring security communication is readily available.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 8: Training, drills and exercises.

Recommendations/For Action: Section 9: Miscellaneous

OUTCOME OF VOLUNTARY SELF-ASSESSMENT This section should be used to record the findings of the voluntary self-assessment and any other issues arising. These findings could be raised with ship or company personnel or be used as the basis to seek guidance from the Administration, as appropriate.

Signature of assessor Date of completion

***

MSC 81/WP.5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX 10


EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF

SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE

1 The Maritime Safety Committee (the Committee), at its eighty-first session (10 to 19 May 2006), noted that in a number of cases the available information suggested that not all SOLAS Contracting Governments had implemented, complied with, or enforced all the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code. 2 The Committee was also informed that in a number of cases the available information suggested that:

.1 some port facilities appeared to fail to comply with their obligations under SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code and in some instances ships had no alternative but to implement their own additional protective security measures;

.2 despite the provisions of the ISPS Code and the promulgation of MSC/Circ. 1112

on Shore leave and access to ships under the ISPS Code, seafarers continued to encounter difficulties with certain SOLAS Contracting Governments in relation to shore leave and access to ships;

.3 despite the provisions of the ISPS Code and the promulgation of MSC/Circ. 1156

on Guidance on the access of public authorities, emergency response services and pilots onboard ships, Government officials continued to ignore the security measures on board ships and conduct themselves in a manner which was not conducive to the aim and objectives of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code;

.4 despite the promulgation of MSC/Circ.1133 on Reminder of the obligation to

notify flag States when exercising control and compliance measures1 a number of SOLAS Contracting Governments continue to fail to notify the Administrations concerned and the Organization, when taking control measures or steps against ships pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/9 on Control and compliance measures; and

.5 the information posted by SOLAS Contracting Governments on the Maritime

Security module of the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System, which contains the information communicated to the Organization pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-2/13 on Communication of information, are incomplete, outdated or in some cases inaccurate.

3 The Committee agreed that the enhancement of security throughout the international maritime transport sector was a collective effort and required the active and diligent participation of all SOLAS Contracting Governments and of all parties concerned.

1 The Committee approved MSC/Circ.[….] on Further reminder of the obligation to notify flag States

when exercising control and compliance measures which revoked MSC/Circ.1133.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

4 Companies are invited to make available on board the ships they operate copies of the present circular and to make them Government officials and to port facility security officers for their information. 5 The Committee reiterated and stressed the need for a rigorous and effective implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of, the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code by all SOLAS Contracting Governments and all parties concerned. 6 In an effort to assist SOLAS Contracting Governments to improve the current level of implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code and to enhance the effectiveness of the security measures in place, the Committee approved the Guidance on basic elements of national oversight programmes for SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code (the Guidance) set out at annex. 7 SOLAS Contracting Governments seeking assistance for making tangible improvements to the way in which they implement, comply with, and enforce the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code should consider approaching the Organization. 8 SOLAS Contracting Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations with consultative status which encounter difficulties or identify apparent inadequacies in the implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code should bring, at the earliest opportunity, relevant details to the attention of the Committee for consideration of action to be taken.

MSC 81/WP.5 ANNEX 10

Page 3

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON BASIC ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL OVERSIGHT PROGRAMMES FOR SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE

1 SOLAS Contracting Governments are urged to review, in the light of the experience gained, the adequacy and effectiveness of their national legislation and the administrative and other provisions and programmes which they have put in place to give full and complete effect to the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code as required by SOLAS article I(2). 2 SOLAS Contracting Governments are urged to establish, if they have not yet done so, as a matter of priority, appropriate national oversight programmes which aim at:

.1 ensuring that they meet their obligations under SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code;

.2 verifying that port facilities located within their territories meet their obligations

under SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code and their approved port facility security plans;

.3 verifying that the port facility security plans they have approved contain

provisions which facilitate shore leave for seafarers and access of legitimate visitors and of seafarers to and from ships;

.4 verifying that ships entitled to fly their flag meet their obligations under SOLAS

chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code and their approved ship security plans; .5 ensuring that their officials conduct themselves in a manner which is conducive to

the aims and objectives of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code; and .6 promptly identifying any non-conformities and initiating and implementing

appropriate corrective actions. 3 The Organization has adopted various performance standards, interim schemes, guidance, guidelines, directives and interpretations relating to SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code which are listed in the Appendix which should be taken into account in the implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of the provisions of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. 4 SOLAS Contracting Governments should consider conducting, at regular intervals, self-assessments using the Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and by port facilities and the Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and for ship security approved by the Committee and made available under cover of MSC/Circ.[….] and [….] respectively.


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Appendix

SPECIAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY RELATED MATERIAL

Assembly resolutions Resolution A.955(23) Amendments to the Principles on Safe Manning

(Resolution A.890(21)) Resolution A.956(23) Amendments to the Guidelines for the onboard operational use of

ship borne automatic identification systems (AIS) (Resolution A.917(22))

Resolution A.959(23) Format and guidelines for the maintenance of the Continuous

Synopsis Record (CSR) MSC Resolutions 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 Resolution MSC.159(78) Interim guidance on control and compliance measures to enhance

maritime security Resolution MSC.196(80) Adoption of amendments to the International Code for the Security

of Ships and of Port Facilities (International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code)1

Resolution MSC.198(80) Adoption of amendments to the Formant and Guidelines for the

Maintenance of the Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) (Resolution A.959(23))1

Resolution MSC.[….](81) Adoption of amendments to the International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended2

Resolution MSC.[….](81) Adoption of amendments to the Seafarers’ Training, Certification

and Watchkeeping (STCW) Code2

1 Resolution MSC.194(80) on Adoption of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at

Sea, 1974 as amended relates to the amendments. 2 Requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency for ship security officers.


Page 5

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

MSC Circulars 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 Centres (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 MSC/Circ.1109/Rev.1 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 MSC/Circ.1113 Guidance to port State control officers on the non-security related

elements of the 2002 SOLAS amendments 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 of the ISPS Code [MSC/Circ.1133 Reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when exercising

control and compliance measures] MSC/Circ.1154 Guidelines on training and certification for company security

officers


I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

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 MSC/Circ.[….] Guidelines on training and certification for port facility security

officers MSC/Circ.[….] Guidance on the provision of information for identifying ships

when transmitting ship security alerts MSC/Circ. [….] Interim scheme for the compliance of special purpose ships with

the special measures to enhance maritime security MSC/Circ.[….] Further reminder of the obligation to notify flag States when

exercising control and compliance measures MSC/Circ.[….] Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting

Governments and by port facilities MSC/Circ.[….] Guidance on voluntary self-assessment by Administrations and for

ship security MSC/Circ.[….] Effective implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the

ISPS Code STCW.6 Circulars STCW.6/Circ.[….] Amendments to Part B of the Seafarers' Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping (STCW) Code2, 3 Model Courses IMO Model Course 3.19 Ship Security Officer IMO Model Course 3.20 Company Security Officer IMO Model Course 3.21 Port Facility Security Officer

3 Related to resolutions MSC.[….](81) and MSC.[….](81).


Page 7

I:\MSC\81\WP\5.doc

Circular Letters 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

Circular Letter No.2554 Implementation of IMO Unique Company and Registered Owner

Identification Number Scheme (resolution MSC.160(78)) Other material ILO/IMO Code of practice on security in ports. Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO Convention No. 185)4. Publicly Available Specification ISO/PAS 20858:2004 on Ships and marine technology – Maritime port facility security assessments and security plan development. Publicly Available Specification ISO/PAS 28000:2005 on Specification for security management systems for the supply chain. Framework of standards to secure and facilitate global trade.

__________

4 The ILO Governing Body, at its 289th Session, in order to facilitate the early acceptance of the convention has

selected for use the minutiae-based method for fingerprint template creation, truncation, and barcode storage (PDF417 2-D bar code) and has approved document ILO SID-0002 (ILO document GB.289/7 Appendix II), as embodying the standard for the fingerprint template required under item (k) of Annex I of the convention.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · PDF fileMALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS ... the WCO...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · PDF fileMALAYSIA MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS ... the WCO...