2. Presentation by Gunnar A. Knudsen Manager, Ports and Terminals Section for Andromeda Shipping (India) Mumbai, 28 November 2003

3. INTERTANKO International Association of Independent Tanker Owners Safe Transport Cleaner Seas Free Competition advocating

4. International Association of Independent Tanker Owners INTERTANKO today 246 Members246 Members 2,150 tankers2,150 tankers 160 million dwt160 million dwt 45 countries45 countries 280 Associate Members280 Associate Members OsloLondonSingaporeWashington

5. INTERTANKO’s purpose S pokesman, representative S ervices M eeting place

6. P hase out single-hull tankers L iability E nvironment C hemical tankers, Revision of Annex II V etting/Oil company screening S ecurity U se of committees and Regional Panels INTERTANKO’s Agenda

7. Tanker performance strong Courtesy ; Thenamaris Ships Management Inc. N o disruption of trade S afety record excellent 99.998% of oil arrives safely

8. Multiple Inspections P&I Clubs Port State Control Flag State Class ISM Maritime Security Terminals Independent oil companies

9. Multiple Inspections Addressed through: Vetting Committee IMO SIRE, Class and PSC CDI “A Guide to the Vetting Process” C/P vetting clauses Feedback forms

10. Multiple Inspections INTERTANKO’s programme: Frequency of inspections Industry partners IACS, PSC, P&I Clubs, Flags, CDI, SIRE, OCIMF, SIGTTO The quality considerations

11. Terminal Vetting Database Summary: Pilot project Tanker terminals world-wide. Simple fact-sharing exercise Terminal and berth conditions One page/15-20 questions Directly from the ships Report form and simple explanation on the INTERTANKO web INTERTANKO can act on continuous problems

12. Terminal Vetting Database Review: Over 2000 entries Working group INTERTANKO’s Vetting Committee Source kept confidential Not an approval stamp of terminals Quality enhancement Officers participation

13. Port State Control Active relations with Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU, Viña Del Mar, USCG NAV/IMO Co-operation with industry associations The INTERTANKO vetting and PSC feedback form 5 th edition of “A Guide to the Vetting Process”

14. Port State Control INTERTANKO’s position: Targeting USCG and Paris MoU already active Expanding the drive Naming the charterer Owners’ right to appeal “Close-out”

15. Port Waste Reception Facilities Summary: MARPOL and EU Directive 2000.59 Constant problem for tanker owners Non-special fee system Feed-back from the industry FAL/IMO Flag states reporting non-conformities Targeting

16. Port Waste Reception Facilities Review: Delays and extra cost High fees INTERTANKO’S Environmental Committee “Port Information” services European ports

17. Port Waste Reception Facilities INTERTANKO’s position: (cont.) The Gulf as MARPOL Annex 1 Special Area INTERTANKO raises awareness EU court reactions

18. Maritime Security Applicable laws/regulations: SOLAS 74 as amended International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), Oct. 2002 U.S. Interim Temporary Rule, 1 July 2003 U.S. Final Rule, 22 October 2003 European Commission Proposed Regulations, 2 May 2003

19. Maritime Security INTERTANKO’s work: IMO/MSC, USCG and EC Target of our work Extra cost for tanker owners Seamen’s living and working conditions Effects on seaborne trade Work partners WG on MARSEC Comments to IMO on Model Training Courses Deadline 1.7.2004

20. Maritime Security Members’ reports: Appointment practices for CSO and SSO Confusing training requirements (internal/external) Flags’ delegation for SSP approval and shipboard verification not finalised. Lack of mandatory training courses Differing contents and duration Video and CBT training

21. Maritime Security Members’ reports: (cont.) Operational flexibility Approved training centres IMO Model Training Courses Office copies for internal training manuals Progress report for SSA/SSP work Assignment duties

22. Maritime Security Members’ reports: (cont.) Onboard CCTV fitting Evacuation procedures Port compliance registered at IMO Readiness of coastal states

23. Maritime Security Recent observations: Complete compliance? What if? Backlog of applications Consultants’ dropping fees tempt owners to start implementation work late Seafarers’ security concerns US MARSEC Budget USCG/Paris MoU pre-checks from 1.1.04 Approval by USCG after all?

24. Maritime Security Questions: How will a CSO know which PFSOs to talk to prior to assessing a ship tramping in worldwide trade? How can an SSP become so ship- specific that each crewmember’s security duties are identified to the ”T” and every recommendation of the SSA incorporated rigidly?

25. Maritime Security Questions: Should only one Class society be appointed for all vessels or appoint for each vessel the assigned Class society or the Flag? How many ports have a PFSO who can advise the CSO of particular threats?

26. Maritime Security IMO Assembly this week Long Range Tracking An IMO Assessment/Inspection scheme Tracking of charterers USCG main MARSEC activities

27. Thank you for your attention!