To discover the reason for the general decline in newbuilding standards, just examine the bottom line. Peter Cremers, president of the International Ship Managers’ Association (ISMA) is purposefully blunt in his assessment of the situation: ‘Owners build where they can get the cheapest ships possible.’ New regional loyalties and sentiments have little clout in the discussion of where to build. ‘Most yards deliver good quality, but some are cutting corners,’ laments Cremers, concluding that ‘Class must be prepared to act forcefully when it has identified a clear shortcoming in safety standards.’
Among the items he suggests concerned owners pursue is greater accountability by both yards and classification societies. The quality of ships turned out at some yards is a matter of grave concern to the industry. The problem is exacerbated through yards (and Class for that matter) bearing virtually no responsibility for the quality of their products. The 12-month guarantee they give is less than that for a kitchen toaster. Even when design problems in, say, one of a series of vessels is discovered, the yard is not obliged to inform the other series owners about the problem something which is normal practice in other industries.
Confidentiality can hide the truth
Cremers believes transparency is vital to achieving enhanced levels of safety, and an important tool to control the under-performers. He also questions the practice of confidentiality between a shipyard and class to the exclusion of the shipowner. Even though specifications for standard vessels remain the domain of the yards, Cremers feels a closer dialogue is required so that owners can communicate their needs to the yards. He believes three-way contracts could be the solution.
Commenting on the Hong Kong Shipowners Associations initiative to place pressure on the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) to introduce a minimum unified standard, Cremers says: We support this initiative and have, in fact, been pushing for this for some time. The HKSOAs initiative serves as the latest evidence of support for our position on this issue.
One of the items that particularly concerns Cremers is that ship-classification notations should be negative, not positive. This means that the notation Bulk Carrier should describe a ship that is fit for purpose, meaning able to carry any normal cargo in any area worldwide and with sufficient tolerance and strength reserve so that the crew on board can load and discharge the ship safely. Cremers argues that any restrictions on this should be shown in the class notation rather than as is the case at present, where only additions to the basic description are shown.
IACS: too great a self-interest
Explains Cremers: It is my firm belief that IACS continues to be the most appropriate forum for addressing the technical aspects of further safety requirements. However, some IACS members have been accused of being too commercialised and more interested in preserving their client base than performing the role for which they are established.
Cremers is insistent that class must respond to reduce the risks faced by these newbuildings. The alternative, he warns, is further government regulation of the industry. Governments are well-intentioned, but they are not technical experts.