EDITORIAL COMMENT


Mutual recognition needs collective thinking


U


RGENT action is needed to heal the rift that has developed between class and equipment suppliers over EU plans for


the mutual recognition of class certificates. Latest soundings from the International Association of


Classification Societies suggest a way forward can be found, if a form of words can be arrived at that is acceptable to both sides for inclusion in a revision of the EC’s proposed Class Directive 94/57 on the contentious issue. The EC’s Transport Committee will vote on the proposals in


February, with a plenary vote in the Parliament due for April, after which the European Council of Ministers will make its pronouncement. At the turn of the year, IACS pointed to wide-ranging maritime


support for its opposition to EU plans to harmonise equipment certificates issued by class. However, hackles were raised at certain of Europe’s ship owner associations after IACS cited the International Chamber of Shipping as among those supporting its efforts to head off EU plans for the mutual recognition. The statement, which also cited support for class from


INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO, the Committee for Excellence in Shipbuilding Standards, International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) and International Group of P&I Clubs, came after Rapporteur and MEP Luis de Grandes Pascual’s report on the Draft Classification Societies Directive revised a key passage. Instead of urging class societies to


EMEC points out that allocation of class society, dictated by the hull work that represents 30% of a ship’s value, also governs the 70% of value contributed by ship’s equipment


However, Europe’s maritime equipment suppliers


unequivocally support the EU proposals, in part seeing themselves as the ‘cash cow’ of the classification societies. The European Marine Equipment Council argued that the


way individual class societies were allocated ship projects on the basis of hull work, which represents 30% of the ship’s value, only to then have control over certifying the 70% of value afforded by ships’ equipment, represented a ‘monopoly’ position. EMEC suggested that the EU proposal ‘will guarantee


the application of the fundamental principles of the internal market, which represent the core of the EC Treaty, to the marine equipment sector’. Certification of marine equipment is reckoned to earn class


societies€1 billion a year. Repeating the lengthy and costly certification process


(‘sometimes up to 10 times for the same piece of equipment’, according to EMEC) before a product can be placed on the market generated no added value but siphoned off 5%-6% of the sector’s turnover – money that could have been spent on, for example, research and development aimed at enhancing safety. EMEC added that it recently assessed crank relief valve rules


across the main classification societies. It found that, while technical rules were more or less identical, costs for equivalent certification ranged from€300 to€3,000. The Danish Shipowners’ Association has gone on the record


as agreeing with its Danish Maritime Equipment counterpart in support of the harmonisation. Hans Henrik Petersen, the Danish Shipowners’ Association’s


head of nautical department said that, in the real world, the mutual regulation of certification provided the ‘backbone’ for how ships operate. ‘Every IMO member state accepts certificates issued by others. If mutual regulation is not accepted, we see great problems. We fully understand the concerns expressed by IACS that you may get a recognised organisation too low in quality for IACS but that is something that should be solved by some other means – it is to do with being appointed as an RO in the first place.’ The European Community Shipowners’ Association and ICS


‘work towards’ harmonisation, it instructed 13 classification societies, as European Union Recognised Organisations, to introduce mutual recognition of certificates based on equivalent standards. In its opposition to such moves, IACS argued that consistency


and the liability chain could only be ensured by continuing the single class society certification approach. Mutual recognition of certificates would lead to 'dilution and


fragmentation of the certification responsibility,' which would lead to ‘reduced, not improved, safety of ship construction and operations. This fragmentation of responsibility is a major concern whenever something goes wrong.’ IACS gained public backing from Norway’s Central Union


of Marine Underwriters in January, which insures 40% of ocean going tonnage. CEFOR managing director Tore Forsmo said: ‘The classification of vessels is a systematic and holistic exercise where integration and interfacing of components, structural elements and systems are vital to ensuring the right quality and inherent vessel integrity and safety. I fear that a fragmentation of responsibilities will invariably be detrimental to the work and reputation of classification societies and the shipping community at large. In the end there will be no winners if this motion is carried, and marine insurance will be paying for it all!’


THE NAVAL ARCHITECT FEBRUARY 2007


declined to comment further on the issue at time of writing, indicating that this is a live issue. But, as this issue was going to press, IACS looked to be


in more conciliatory mood. According to Lloyd's Register's Robert Smart, who is coordinating the IACS position, class accepts that the indirect costs associated with separate certification is a burden to European industry. 'We believe that 75%-80% of costs associated with


certification are indirect costs and we need to look at the process and make it more efficient without compromising safety,' he said. 'By improving the process we can bring down the cost of certification holistically and, in that way more money can be put into R&D by the equipment suppliers.' CEFOR shares this view, where Mr Forsmo said: ‘To


have a number of class surveyors running around approving the same items for their societies’ individual standards is an unacceptable duplication of work that class will need to deal with on an urgent basis in cooperation with the industry.’ (However) ‘What we need now is for class itself to rise to


the challenge and meet demands for efficiency rather than a political diktat in the form of new regulations. I believe that class has proved capable of working with legislators in the past and should be given this opportunity now.’ Mr Smart said IACS was willing to set up an expert group in collaboration with EMEC to see what could be done.


3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105