36 minute read
BEST PRACTICES
BEST PRACTICES Abandoned vessels The bane of ports everywhere
Navigational hazards, threats to the environment and just plain eye sores. There’s not a port in the world that isn’t familiar with the headaches posed by abandoned and derelict vessels (ADVs). While logistical issues of removal will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and vessel to vessel, there are two challenges that are constant for all — the cost, and who pays. Strained government budgets try to keep up but as the cost of removal usually far outweighs the amounts available, all too often, the burden falls to ports. However, that’s not always the case.
In keeping with the APP’s mandate of highlighting best practices and creating awareness of innovations that might just work in your jurisdiction, the following focus on Washington State demonstrates how collaboration, partnerships and policy are coming together to provide the gold standard in addressing the issue of abandoned vessels. Strained government budgets try to keep up but as the cost of removal usually far outweighs the amounts available, all too often, the burden falls to ports.
In context
Singling out Washington was not the original intent of this article. Other U.S. states as well as Canada, Australia and Pacific Rim countries have programs that are equally active and dedicated to the ADV problem however, Washington’s recent passing of legislation in June 2020, demonstrates how strengthening laws addressing ADVs can provide for continual improvements to prevention and enforcement as well as ongoing and sustainable funding.
“Hands down, the greatest prohibitive factor/challenge in dealing with abandoned and derelict vessels, is cost,” writes Kirk Nichols, Assistant Chief, Harbor Police at the Port of San Diego, California. A comment echoed by other APP members and non-members. “In our port, we currently have four abandoned vessels that the port will pay to dispose of,” writes Ken Range, Commissioner for the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon. It was Range’s enquiries that led to this article.
In summarizing expenses, Nichols cites “the commercial towing of the vessel, temporary storage of the vessel waterside, removal of the vessel to a long-term storage lot, and subsequent destruction and hazardous materials (oil, fuel, batteries) clean-up costs. If the vessel sinks before it can be towed, or
if it breaks loose of its anchor/mooring and runs aground, these events can significantly increase the costs for removal. In some cases, this can be three to four times the expense of towing the vessel while it is afloat.”
Government grants and programs, while providing useful guidance and assistance, only go so far. Take California for example, Nichols noted that grants from the State are available however, expenses “significantly exceed any grant funding each year.” The Oregon State Marine Board sets aside US$150,000 every two years that is collected from recreational boater titling and registration fees. In the first 14 months of the current funding period, US$108,000 had already been spent with additional removals still pending. The funds are made available to public enforcement agencies, but as indicated by Range, ports continue to shell out thousands in removal costs. And in Alaska and Guam, while there is currently ADV legislation, there is no formal program or dedicated funding source. Hawaii has legislation and a Derelict Vessel Program but with no funding.
Other countries find themselves in the same situation. In Canada, a total of about CDN$7 million was allocated through two programs for a five-year period to cover the entire country (the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund is an additional source in cases where there is an imminent danger of oil leakage). Australia’s Queensland government established a “War on Wrecks” program in 2018 that allocated AU$20 million over four years. Since that program was put in place, Maritime Safety Queensland has removed almost 700 derelict vessels from the coast and estimate there are another 300 still to tackle.
Prevention is still the best medicine
Government regulations across all jurisdictions are quick to note the liability of vessel owners for removal costs. Finding owners and recouping costs, however, is easier said than done. While government regulations will often lay out a framework for defining when a vessel is considered to be abandoned, who can take possession, owner notification, and options for removal (including the sale of the vessel if feasible), the process is often a lengthy one and can only be effective if proper documentation of ownership exists. Recognizing this obstacle, the Alaska State Government, for example, brought in legislation in 2019 that expanded vessel registration. As was quickly learned by Alaskan authorities, communication, and community buy-in were essential to success.
Vessel turn-in programs in Washington, Oregon, and California all garner high-praise from port and marina operators. Looking at California’s program, Kristine Zortman, Executive Director, and Steve Longoria, Interim Director of Operations, Port of Redwood City, both praised the SAVE (Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange) Program, previously referred to as the Vessel Turn-in Program. “Since 2014, the Port of Redwood City has effectively cleared Redwood Creek by removing over 30 abandoned or derelict vessels; from small 15-foot crafts, to large 2,000-square-foot boathouses. The Port just received another SAVE grant for the 2020-2022 fiscal years, providing a continuing resource to keep Redwood Creek clear of abandoned vessel hazards, while protecting our adjacent natural habitats.”
Profit and non-profit organizations also provide programs that assist with the efforts of preventing larger problems down the road. In British Columbia, non-profit societies, such as the Dead Boats Disposal Society or donated-boat programs such as the Disabled Sailing Association of BC or the Sail and Life Training Society provide solid alternatives (and tax receipts) to owners who may be tempted to simply walk away from their aging vessel.
What Washington gets right
At the national level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Marine Debris Program is undoubtedly the champion for implementing strategies and plans that address abandoned and derelict vessels under the larger topic of marine debris. Having 10 dedicated regional coordinators positioned across U.S. coastal states and territories including the Great Lakes, NOAA works closely with state governments and local groups to tailor Marine Debris Action Plans that include goals, strategies, and actions for specific regions.
In their 2020 Accomplishments Report, NOAA Marine Debris Program Director Nancy Wallace summed up the root of the Program’s success: “As I reflect on the past five years and our strategic plan comes to a close, I am reminded of the unique collaborations, creative approaches, and growing national and international attention focused on the pervasive global problem of marine debris. During this period, we grew, learned, adapted, and
accomplished a great deal. As you read through this report, I ask you to think about the power of collective action and how together, we can achieve a global ocean and its coasts free from the impacts of marine debris.”
Building on NOAA’s strategy of prevention, removal, research, regional coordination, and emergency response, state government departments and non-profit organizations have built programs unique to their own jurisdictions. None more so than Washington State.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) established their Derelict Vessel Removal Program (DVRP) in 2002 and since then, have removed more than 900 abandoned vessels from Washington waterways. While the program has always enjoyed a high success rate in dealing with abandoned vessels, recent improvements to legislation have recognized that there is always more that can be done.
First and foremost, Washington’s funding model is unique. As far back as 2003, state legislators established a dedicated derelict vessel removal account within the state treasury and stipulated that all funds collected from the Revised Code of Washington covering Derelict Vessels, reimbursement for costs from owners of derelict vessels and a specified portion of vessel registration fees, as well as any gifts, grants, or endowments from public or private resources, be deposited into this account. Recreational vessel registration fees include US$2 for the fund as well as a US$1 surcharge to address the significant backlog of derelict vessels, and US$5 per registration from non-resident permits. The fund also receives US$1 per foot from commercial vessel registration. Unlike Oregon or California, there is no cap on the fund and the account is set apart from general revenue accounts.
With approximately 242,000 boats registered in the State of Washington (and about 1,300 commercial vessels), the fund contributes upward of US$700,000 to $800,000 annually to the removal of ADVs in perpetuity. While DVRP Manager Troy Wood suggested that more funding would always be welcome, the amount does allow the DNR to deal with emergency situations as well as provide outreach and education initiatives. While the funding formula is slightly more complicated than the outline above, Washington still has one of the strongest funding models on the Pacific Coast.
Wood noted that, over the past few years, the DVRP has shifted its focus from being reactionary to having a more proactive strategy. To bolster their
efforts, additional improvements to the legislation include: • The removal of a $200,000 funding cap for the DNR’s Vessel Turn-in
Program. • Reducing the length of a vessel from 65 feet to 35 feet for vessels subject to secondary liability law. Sellers of smaller boats now have to have the vessel surveyed and provide the buyer and DNR with a copy of the survey. The seller must also require the buyer to show proof of insurance for the vessel. The reduced length requirement allows for a larger number of vessels to be captured under the program. • Extending the ticketing authority of the DNR to now include vessels that are not properly licensed or registered with the state (albeit,
Wood indicated that ticketing would be used as a “last-ditch effort” to encourage responsible vessel ownership).
Despite having only three team members to deal with the entire state, Wood and his department have been receiving high marks from stakeholders. Darla Pyke, Harbormaster for La Conner Marina and RV Park with the Port of Skagit, was quick to point out that their “comprehensive website” was helpful in providing guidance with procedures in reporting derelict vessels. DNR received additional high marks for their inventory databases of vessels removed and vessels of concern.
And it doesn’t stop there. New initiatives and partnerships continue to look for solutions. For example, Sea Grant Washington has initiated a study to look at a fiberglass recycling program. With an estimated 170,000 fiberglass vessels within Washington, this single project has the potential to divert two million pounds of waste from state landfills each year as well as provide another end-of-life option for boat owners.
Lessons in best practices
There are many factors that play into Washington State’s success in addressing the problem of ADVs. The political will to continually improve legislation; support from boater alliances; the efforts of NOAA and their collaboration with DNR; and the inclusion of many stakeholders and not-for-profit organizations have all contributed to moving Washington’s program forward. Strong outreach and communication have also played a key role.
Not to diminish the efforts of other states and countries — all of whom provide programs and legislation that recognize the importance of abandoned and derelict vessel removal – it is apparent that Washington State has been able to leverage all of the factors into a cohesive strategy that can stand as an example of best practice in ADV management. PP
Good Jobs for the Skagit Valley
:PANDEMIC RESPONSE Taiwan ports successfully manage response to COVID-19
Prevention is the best medicine, as the old saying goes. And for Taiwan, who had experienced the rapid spread of SARS during the 2003 outbreak, the lesson was one they did not wish to repeat. The steps taken by the Taiwan government in 2004 and the years following have been key to Taiwan’s current success in keeping COVID-19 at bay. With great assistance from Ann Wu, Taiwan International Ports Corporation, Ltd. (TIPC), and Chaio Ying Chen, Maritime and Port Bureau (MPB), APP learns how that preparation allowed Taiwan’s international ports to keep this most recent pandemic from affecting operations.
Following the 2003 outbreak, the Taiwan government established the National Health Command Center (NHCC) as part of a disaster management center to focus on outbreak Specifically related to port management, again, preparation and anticipation have provided for a successful long-term strategy.
response and act as the operational command point for direct communications among central, regional, and local authorities. The NHCC unified command system included the Central Epidemic Command Center, the Biological Pathogen Disaster Command Center, the Counter-Bioterrorism Command Center, and the Central Medical Emergency Operations Center.
Specifically related to port management, again, preparation and anticipation have provided for a successful long-term strategy. In 2011, the Taiwan government began carrying out the International Health Regulations (IHR) Designated Port Core Capacity Plan. Designated ports under this project included Keelung Port, Taichung Port, and Kaohsiung Port. A crossagency task force was formed to integrate resources effectively.
In response to the changing circumstances of the international public health crisis, initiatives undertaken included upgrades to port facilities and infrastructure, port employee training, and regular exercises to strengthen various core capabilities. In doing so, MPB was able to ensure that relevant personnel operating in the port had the emergency response capabilities required
Volumes through the Port of Taichung dropped in the first quarter of 2020 but rebounded in Q2 and have been stable ever since.
when encountering sudden public health risks. In addition, MPB ensured they were following and complying with international standards to enhance overall port safety.
The Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Ministry of Health and Welfare, announced the establishment of the Central Epidemic Command Center in response to the COVID-19 epidemic on January 20, 2020. The Central Epidemic Command Center serves the purpose of integrating various ministries’ resources (including the Ministry of Transportation and Communications) and manpower to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and ensure the nation’s public and safety.
At the beginning of the epidemic outbreak in March, MPB sent a written notification to the shipping industry outlining epidemic prevention measures for crew. Examples of measures included restrictions on disembarkation, limited to actual operational needs, when a ship is berthed at a port in the third-level warning area of the epidemic; records must also be kept on embarkation and disembarkation of crew members; and crew members were required to wear masks and gloves during the period when the ship is berthing. Crew member temperatures were also required to be measured twice a day with well-kept records during the voyage.
MPB and TIPC have been successful in keeping the virus away from Taiwan ports with no cases found in any of the four ports in Taiwan. According to the Regulations Governing Quarantine at Ports, foreign ships entering Taiwan’s international ports must notify the quarantine unit and apply for a quarantine review.
In short, the rules are as follows: “The captain shall notify the quarantine unit of the health condition of crew members on board and the hygienic condition of the ship 4 hours to 72 hours in advance prior to arriving at the port.”
According to the Regulations, the maritime health declaration (the captain and the ship’s doctor are required to record the status of the crew during the voyage), port-of-call list, ship health certificate and other necessary quarantine information should be submitted to the port quarantine unit by the ship’s agent when applying for entry into the port.
If the quarantine unit receives information such as a suspicious disease on the ship, they will board the ship to perform quarantine operations such as assessing the ship’s environment and crew conditions, or activating the medical evacuation mechanism, if necessary.
If MPB staff conduct Port State Control Inspection or TIPC staff receive information about a suspicious disease when conducting inspections via Vessel Traffic Services, they immediately notify the quarantine unit to board the ship for inspection to be able to effectively prevent the spread and avoid the commercial port becoming prone to the epidemic.
Turning our attention to efforts to guard against the virus being transmitted between port staff, MPB noted that they streamlined some epidemic prevention supplies, pilot prevention actions, and crew and border control measures as follows: 1.Epidemic prevention supplies — the government purchased prevention supplies such as eye protection, masks, forehead (ear) thermometers, ethanol, gloves, protective gowns and other anti-epidemic supplies and equipment for ship and container yard staff, and the environmental
disinfection is carried out on ships and office areas to ensure prevention of the spread of viruses and reduce the risk of infection. 2.Anti-epidemic actions for pilots: • To strengthen the disease prevention and protection of the pilot,
MPB issued a notification on April 7, 2020, to regulate the pilot’s health management and the epidemic prevention of ships entering the port on international routes, and to establish a connection platform and notification mechanism for pilots to guide ship operations.
If an international-route ship fails to implement epidemic prevention measures, the pilot may refuse to navigate according to the Piloting
Act. • In addition, in accordance with the decision of the Central Epidemic
Command Center, MPB sent a letter to TIPC to broadcast via VHF, asking international-route ships to complete disinfection operations on areas such as bridges and passageways where the pilot might walk through before the pilot boards the ship. 3.Crew border control actions: • MPB published “Operating
Principles of Seafarer Epidemic
Prevention and Health Control
Measures,” and Central Epidemic
Command Center published
“Guidance on Epidemic
Prevention Measures and Crew
Health Monitoring for Ships
Berthing for COVID-19” which were then sent to shipping companies, shipping agents, and shipping associations for reference. • The Central Epidemic Command
Center issued the “Declaration
Form for the Crew’s Health
Status” for the ship’s doctor to confirm whether crew members have had COVID-19 related symptoms in the past 14 days. The declaration is attached to the ship’s
During the pandemic, the Port of Kaohsiung, used for international-route vessels, had been impacted by blank sailings and shrinking slots.
maritime health declaration and then submitted to the CDC. 4.Border control measures: • Taiwan CDC announced that, starting March 19, 2020, noncitizens were prohibited from entering Taiwan. • Considering that there is still a need to exchange crew members, the CDC agreed that, starting from April 19, 2020, foreign crew members who serve in Taiwaneseowned national ships, foreign ships belonging to the Taiwanese ship transport industry, or those who come to Taiwan to deliver ships (but not including mainland China ships’ crew), may apply for entry to the National Immigration Agency,
Ministry of the Interior after receiving a business contract fulfillment certificate issued by MPB. They must undergo home quarantine (or quarantine at a hotel ) for 14 days.
This is to assist the shipping company in crew exchanges.
For TIPC staff, similar methods have been employed: 1.Following the Port Epidemic
Prevention COVID-19 Operation
Guidelines. 2.Infrared thermometers are installed in the domestic passenger liner travel halls in Keelung, Kaohsiung,
Budai, and Magong to detect the temperature of passengers on board.
In addition, port staff measure their temperature every day, wear antiepidemic masks and gloves, and keep a proper distance during operation.
Cleaning and sanitization are also carried out before and after passengers leave, ensuring no direct contact with the passengers. 3.Office staff also need to measure their temperature, wear masks, and keep a proper distance every day.
TIPC has prepared public antiepidemic materials, and established measures for colleagues to work in different places or from home and have trained staff on duty to respond to emergency situations.
As the year has progressed, Taiwan ports successfully implemented relevant measures against COVID-19 by following government policy and allowing port operations to maintain stability, but the pandemic abroad still had impacts on throughput.
Regarding container business, the main factor affecting Taiwan’s port volumes in 2020 was the pandemic. Given that Keelung port and Taichung port are comprised largely of TaiwanChina shipping routes, volumes dropped in Q1 due to the production halt that came with the lock downs in China but recovered gradually in Q2 and have remained stable ever since. On the other hand, Kaohsiung port, comprised mainly of ocean-going ships, was affected by shipping alliance carriers that had implemented blank sailings and shrinking slots since Q2 and was further worsened by port congestion in Europe and America as well as equipment and labor shortages.
As to passenger business, the Taiwan government has banned international and Taiwan-China cruises calling at Taiwan ports since February. Though the government gave special permission to the Explorer Dream cruise ship to operate island-hopping business in Taiwan, the number of passengers dropped significantly.
Looking forward, TIPC estimates that the Ports of Keelung, Taipei and Taichung would not see much of a difference and would remain stable over the next six months. Cargo is expected to rebound for the Port of Kaohsiung
given that route reduction and blank sailings will slow down.
In the meantime, TIPC will keep implementing continuous capability upgrades, optimizing safety and efficiency, and fulfilling port environmental protection to ensure sustainable growth for all TIPC port operations.
Both MPB and TIPC have gained great knowledge over the past year on managing port operations during a pandemic.
MPB, noting that, while the world is still being ravaged by COVID-19, Taiwan has been able to minimize the impact through quick and effective response and control.
Eight key factors contributed to Taiwan’s success in its epidemic prevention: their previous SARS experience; the establishment of the Central Epidemic Command Center; information transparency; good resource allocation; timely border control; smart community transmission prevention; advanced medical technology; and the high participation of citizens.
The success of Taiwan’s epidemic prevention depends on all epidemic prevention strategies formulated by central and local governments, and concerted efforts to fight the virus made by of its high-quality people. Apart from that, Taiwan’s long-term efforts in the medical and health field in the past have established an excellent health and medical foundation to implement epidemic prevention measures effectively and quickly.
The MPB’s role in Taiwan’s epidemic prevention work focused on cross-border control. Through the cooperation platform set by the Central Epidemic Command Center, transparent communications among industry, government, and academia have been well established. As such, they have been able to acquire timely epidemic prevention information and policy instructions, which may appropriately apply to quarantine operations in ports.
Comparing Taiwan’s response to that of the international situation, Taiwan adopted epidemic preparedness and prevention measures well in advance. The epidemic prevention measures not only respond to the current situation quickly, but also provides for plans at all stages, such as taking the lead in border control actions, fully supplying epidemic prevention materials, and using technology to reduce people’s contact. With that, MPB has effectively reduced the impact of the epidemic.
TIPC also noted that acting in advance was critical to their success. Effective initiatives included VTS broadcasts every hour through AIS text to inbound ships and the crew members to report health problems; the use of multiple facilities and equipment (such as multimedia billboards, marquees, posters, etc.) to strengthen the health education and guidance for passengers on domestic ships and port operators; and the sufficient supply of anti-epidemic materials and the installation of infrared thermometers.
TIPC also noted that the Port Epidemic Prevention COVID-19 Operation Guidelines and practical epidemic prevention guidelines that were established, along with related measures in port areas being adjusted in due course, have allowed for port operations to be carried out smoothly. PP
Port of Keelung
PORT SAFETY Port safety and risk management By Captain Brian Tuomi, Principal Nautical Consulting International Ltd.
In your port or waterway, is there more marine traffic, larger or different traffic, new infrastructure, significant dredging, or other changes that might affect risk or safety? Consider SIRA, the IALA (International Association of Lighthouse Authorities) Simplified Risk Assessment Model for Ports.
If we consider that safety in ports is an expensive undertaking, imagine the cost of accidents. This article will describe the IMO/IALA risk management assessment using the new IALA created SIRA, (Simplified Risk Assessment) tool and how it can analyze and quantify these risks and help make decisions to render risks as low as reasonably possible.
Background
All ports and waterways around the world have risks. Safety within ports is significantly defined by the effective management of these risks. Identifying, quantifying, and mitigating risks is an ongoing process whereby some ports rely on experience and local knowledge to manage risks while others rely on more formal procedures to safely manage vessel movement.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) previously put in place two risk assessment tools for ports and waterways: The first, IWRAP, is a quantitative program using AIS data which in the end identifies the risk of accidents; the second is PAWSA, a qualitative tool which requires a large stakeholder convention and identifies potential safety upgrades.
Both tools require significant amount of data input or stakeholder participation and as a result can be complicated and costly to complete. The International Maritime Organization endorsed these tools, thus identifying the importance of formal risk management, and encouraged port and waterway authorities to use them. Good quality historical AIS data, on which IWRAP depends, is not always available, even in advanced countries, nor are there always enough individuals with the necessary level of experience in the risk categories used by PAWSA.
A full IWRAP or PAWSA could cost more than $100,000 USD to carry out and thus there is a need for a simpler and less costly risk management tool for use by national and port authorities who cannot practically use IWRAP or PAWSA.
The Simplified Risk Assessment process (SIRA) was developed to enable port authorities to assess the volume of traffic and the degree of risk in their waters. SIRA is a basic tool that can be used to consider risk control options covering the potential, undesirable incidents that a port authority is required to address under SOLAS Chapter V, Regulations 12 and 13. It is intended to be used as an objective stakeholder consultancy.
Process
The SIRA process is based on the principles set out in IALA Guideline 1018 on risk management. Risk is defined as the product of two factors – the probability (or likelihood) of an undesirable incident occurring and if it does occur, the severity of its potential long and short‐term impact (or consequence). Satisfactory understanding of the maritime environment and maritime traffic patterns is an essential first step to understanding the risk level within a port. SIRA is designed to assist that process by identifying hazards and undesirable incidents. This leads to a qualitative estimate of risk and the production of potential risk control options to reduce such risk to acceptable levels.
A “hazard” is something that may cause an undesirable incident. The basic thinking behind the SIRA method rests on the fundamental causal relationship between hazards and the consequences of undesirable incidents, which the hazards may cause.
Based on the identified hazards, a number of possible incidents or scenarios are identified by a group of stakeholders. SIRA addresses each undesired incident or scenario, such as the grounding of a vessel on a reef, or the collision between two vessels. The probability or likelihood of the occurrence of each undesired scenario is estimated, as well as its impact (or consequences), considering both short‐ and long‐term consequences.
Analysis
Select the waterway or portion of the waterway to be analyzed: • Define assessment zones and describe each area • Identify hazards within each zone and develop associated scenarios • Assess the probability and impact of each scenario • Identify and prioritize possible risk control options • Produce a comprehensive report of the risk assessment • Communicate result to decision makers
Once zones have been selected, each zone must be described in terms of: • Volume of traffic and mix • Bathymetry (charts) • Geometry of routes in the area, traffic choke points and sharp bends • Oceanographic, meteorological and environmental conditions • Existing fixed and floating Aids to
Navigation and routing measures
• Availability of VTS and pilotage • History of maritime incidents such as collisions and groundings • Stakeholders of the zone
Hazard identification should be based on all available relevant information including: • Volume and mix of traffic along all routes and areas within the zone • Geometry of routes in the area, traffic choke points and sharp bends • Waterway complexity • Isolated dangers including wrecks and obstructions • Quality of hydrographic data and charted information available • Anchorages, fishing grounds, aquaculture, and offshore energy sites and the routes to and from them • Safe minimum depth (chart Datum) required for vessel operation within the waterway • Meteorological visibility in the zone • Passages through a narrow channel, restricted waters or port entry • Possible effects of low sun, background lighting or glare • Spoil grounds, undersea cables, military exercise areas and particularly sensitive sea areas • Information in IMO Ships’ Routing publication and Sailing Directions • History of maritime incidents such as collisions and groundings
When identifying hazards, largest scale charts covering the zone should be used.
The hazards identified may lead to several different undesired incidents or scenarios. Each hazard should be considered carefully — and the possible scenarios it may cause — should be identified and recorded.
Unwanted incidents or scenarios can be categorized as follows: • Grounding • Collision • Allision • Foundering • Structural failure • Other
Probability and impact
Descriptions of probability
Descriptions of impact
The acceptability of risk
Having determined probability and impact scores by consensus, the risk value can be calculated in accordance with the matrix in the table below:
Risk value matrix
Objective
The objective of the assessment is to identify risk mitigation options for each undesirable incident that would, if implemented, reduce the risk to an acceptable level. These may include:
• Improved co‐ordination and planning • Additional training and education • New or enforcement of existing rules and procedures • Improved charted hydrographical, meteorological and general navigation information • Enhanced aids to navigation service provision • Improved radio communications • Active traffic management such as
Vessel Traffic Services • Changes to the waterway • Improved decision support systems • Pilotage requirements
A formal record of the risk assessment process and its outcomes is prepared that provides evidence of the decision process and risk mitigation measures considered and
recommended. It also provides for a comprehensive record when future deliberations take place about the waterway. The report includes: • Description of the waterway and individual zones • Stakeholders present at the remote workshop and their relevant experience • Hazards and scenarios identified within each zone • Mitigating measures identified and recommended • The completed risk matrix • Any other amplifying information regarding the assessment Note: portions of this report have been extracted from IALA guideline “G1138 Use of SIRA”
Captain Tuomi is a graduate of the Canadian Coast Guard College and following a career there including 12 years as a ship’s captain, is now a consultant for Nautical Consulting International. He has worked in 18 countries on marine infrastructure and safety projects for agencies such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. He is certified by IALA, the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities to conduct their formal ports and waterways risk assessments IWRAP, an AIS based program, PAWSA, a consultative process and SIRA, a Simplified Risk Assessment now being delivered remotely. Details and quotations on a SIRA risk assessment for your port can be obtained at info@nauticalconsulting.com
Building partnerships throughout the Pacific
APP members share a common vision: To provide an efficient, fluid, and cost-effective supply chain in a safe, environmentally sustainable and economically viable manner...
We can help. With a focus on collaboration, the APP encourages and facilitates best practices and professional development through networking conferences, technical workshops and strong communications.
Visit www.pacificports.org (or see page 53) to learn more about the benefits of membership.
Contact: Jane McIvor jane@pacificports.org | 1+604-893-8800
ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC PORTS
Today’s harbour master Ensuring safety, security, and environmental protection
Captain Yoss Leclerc, recently “It is a huge responsibility, encompassing all aspects elected President of the International Harbour Masters of a port’s operations, including people, infrastructure, Association (IHMA), succinctly summarizes the duties and tasks of a harmovement and berthing of vessels, transportation bour master. “Harbour masters are there systems, and cargo.” to ensure safety, security, and environmental protection of all activities under his jurisdiction,” he said during an interview with APP’s Jane McIvor. “It is a huge responsibility, encompassing all aspects of a port’s operations, including people, infrastructure, movement and berthing of vessels, transportation systems, and cargo.” While the overall role of harbour masters may be similar around the world, it is the uniqueness of their port that determines the true commercial and financial constraints, International Standards Organization, scope of their work. Regardless of their the IHMA was able to recognize and the International Chamber of Shipping, duties, harbour masters can look to the build on the strong common purpose and the International Marine Pilots IHMA for guidance on best practices, each harbour master shared — to man- Association to name just a few, have and representation within the maritime age safely the movement of shipping resulted in the successful collaboration industry as a whole to ensure their voice within his or her area of jurisdiction. on several initiatives and projects, such is heard. This includes the management of: as the development of: Background While formally established in 1996, the roots of the IHMA can be traced back much further. Various regional and national associations, some for• • People, including vessel traffic services operators, port operators and associated staff Safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally sound port operations • • • Guidelines and best practices for terminal design and operations Standards for exchange data information (S211) Technical guidelines for mooring mal organizations while others simply • Finances and marine assets equipment and systems informal gatherings to share informa• The provision of pilotage • Guidelines regarding the handling of tion, date back to the 1950s through • The leisure use of the harbour large vessels to the 1980s. One of the strongest Today, with over 250 members and The IHMA is also part of Navigating associations, the European Harbour 23 sponsors, the IHMA represents the a Changing Climate (NaCC), a multiMasters Association, with members common interests of those charged with stakeholder coalition of nine associafrom 14 European countries, recog- overseeing port operations, regardless tions committed to working together nized the importance of taking a more of their title. They have Consultative to support the inland and maritime uniform approach to port operations Status at the International Maritime navigation infrastructure sector as they and standards, particularly with regard Organization as well as the International respond to climate change; and the to administration and navigational ser- Hydrographic Organization that Maritime Anti-Corruption Network vices, safety, and security. It was out of ensures the world’s seas, oceans and (MACN), an initiative working towards this organization that the IHMA grew. navigable waters are properly surveyed the vision of a maritime industry free of
Although it is accepted that ports and charted. Their input and partici- corruption. vary greatly in geography, size and pation on these, as well as other, like- Leclrec, who took over the leadership environment and operate with different minded organizations, such as the role at the IHMA in October 2020, is
well-suited to the position. His maritime career spans over 30 years and includes senior harbour master and operations roles within the Montreal Port Authority, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and, currently, the Port of Quebec. He is also the President and principal consultant with Logistro Consulting International Inc. (LCI), a Canadian-based international firm offering consulting services in marine, transportation, and supply chain management worldwide. LCI is involved from the concept stage to delivery of all projects including strategic development together with project management and implementation.
Today’s harbour master
When asked how the role of the harbour master has changed over the years, Leclrec was quick to point out that increasing operational and social complexity has definitely affected the skills required for this critical position. “Indeed, nowadays, the harbour master is not only the port operations expert (regulatory, intermodal supply chain, performance, infrastructure projects, etc.), but must also be proficient in management skills and with a deep knowledge of technological advances (especially in operational systems and new greener/more efficient innovations),” he said. “The harbour master must also be strong in communications (with stakeholders, officials, communities, etc.) and be savvy in negotiations.” To address the requirements of this ever-changing skill set, the IHMA has partnered with Lloyds Maritime Academy to offer members the opportunity to apply for a contributory bursary towards the Harbour Master’s Diploma program. This is in addition to IHMA’s HM Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program, launched in 2018. “The objective of this initiative is to provide members with a method for tracking and documenting the skills, knowledge and experience gained both formally and informally beyond any initial training,” Leclerc said. “It includes a self-assessment measurement tool and the functionality to record CPD activity against occupational standards recognized by the IHMA.”
Leclerc also described how the IHMA implemented a mentoring program where senior harbour masters from around the world provide coaching and mentoring to junior individuals. “In some instances, we have even enabled internship opportunities to allow junior individuals to join other ports around the world for a period of time to get theoretical and practical experience,” he added.
Today’s harbour
Most definitely, the skills required for today’s harbour master demonstrate the growth and diversity of port activities.
“Today, harbour masters are involved in supply chain efficiency that can sometimes extend well beyond a port’s jurisdiction,” said Leclerc. “They must also address operations sustainability and social licence as well as climate change adaptation.”
Other factors that have impacted port operations and, hence, the harbour master’s responsibilities, include the increased size of vessels and the adaptations required by a port to accommodate them — both in terms of the physical logistics (capacity, depth, channel design, turning basin, bollard strength, energy supply, etc.) and operations (intermodal supply chain, railway, roads, etc.). Directly related to operations and the supply chain is digitalization, amplified by COVID19. “There is electronic data exchange in every aspect of port operations (for example, e-commerce, electronic navigation, vessels information exchange, cargo, regulatory data information exchange, blockchain, intermodal performance),” Leclerc said. “This trend has caused some disturbance in the way ports were accustomed to operating and the transition has been very resource intensive, hence, very challenging for smaller ports.”
The environment is another top priority for all ports. Ports not only need to address and implement complex international and national regulatory performance requirements but also enforce them, which involves important resources and necessitates acute internal expertise. Along with the environment, climate change is also of great concern for ports. “Across the planet, we are experiencing the effects of climate change — oceans rising, the frequency of hurricanes and the increased intensity of winds, waves, and extreme temperatures,” he said. “Ports must make significant investments in the resiliency of their operations and infrastructures to keep up. Moreover, the world is transitioning from a carbon economy, pushing ports, along with the rest of the marine industry, to develop, test and implement new technologies, energies, regulations, processes, and protocols to address greenhouse gases and smart supply chains.
Yet another trend that has changed today’s harbour dramatically is the increased urbanization of coastal zones, usually in close proximity to port operations, requiring greater inclusion of the public to gain social licence.
“This non-exhaustive list of challenges proves that ports are amongst the most resilient organizations. They have been able to adapt to these huge disruptive natural and human trends while ensuring a safe, secure, and efficient maritime gateway to facilitate world trade.”
Beyond tomorrow
New initiatives are always in the works with the IHMA. One that is at the forefront of priorities for port management is “just-in-time arrival” systems. “IHMA is currently involved in an IALA (International Association of Lighthouse Authorities)-led project regarding standardization of port call messages. As we know, land-shore communications as well as exchanges amongst supply chain actors are the cornerstone of the supply chain performance, and they happen at all levels of the logistic and transportation system. In order to support the system’s enhancement, these communications need to be standardized and formalized,” said Leclerc, adding that the initiative is one of many being developed. “Port collaborative systems, the emerging time stamp standard, route exchange formats, Electronic Product Code Information Services empowered by Global Standards One, National Single Windows are projects that all have the goal of improving efficiency of the supply chain.”
Additional work ahead for Leclerc and the IHMA team includes establishing a branch of the Association in Africa to focus on regional maritime issues common to the continent and to also look at whether there would be interest from harbour masters in North America to do the same.
In the long term, Leclerc said that the IHMA is looking to develop port operational standards and provide auditing services to ports around the world that wish to enhance their operations. “We would also like to strengthen our regulatory and technology watch to be able to inform members of emerging issues and provide guidance on the best path forward for these,” he said, using the example of Canada’s Single Window initiative which, although viable, could be improved by expanding and enabling broader integration of supply chain stakeholders, including the ports.”
For those wanting to learn more about the IHMA, please visit www. harbourmaster.org.
About Captain Yoss Leclerc, MBA, B.Sc. President, IHMA
Captain Yoss Leclerc has over 30 years of experience in the maritime, logistics, transport and port industries. During his career at sea, he specialized in gas carriers (LNG, LPG), chemicals and oil tankers. Ashore, he has had the opportunity to work and collaborate in the strategic development of several major Canadian ports, such as the port of Metro Vancouver and the Port of Montreal. During his many years in the maritime sector, he used his experience to develop durable solutions in response to a multitude of complex and diverse problems related to safety, security, emergency preparedness, Environmental protection and project management. His role as President of the International Harbour Masters Association enables him to work on various international maritime issues with international organizations such as IMO, ILO, IPA and PAINC. Yoss holds a master’s certificate (FG), a Bachelor of Science degree and a Master’s degree in Business Administration with specialization in logistics and transportation from the University of Montréal. Yoss also sits on the board of Directors of the International Sailor Society of Canada.
