SCOPE

The Code concerns a great deal more than just having the right number of fire extinguishers or liferafts. It requires owners (or their appointed managers) to put in place management systems which are designed to ensure that the yacht is operated with the utmost regard to safety and pollution prevention. A complete culture of safety and continual improvement must be created.

RESPONSIBILITY

Where the yacht is technically owned by a single-purpose offshore owning company, ultimate responsibility for safety can nevertheless still lie with the beneficial owner. Responsibility under the Code, however, is said to lie with the ‘Company’. The Company is the party which has assumed responsibility for the operation of the yacht from the owner: it must establish the appropriate policies, and provide the necessary resources and shore-based support. The Company could be anyone, but someone has to formerly agree to take on this role if the owner is to avoid liability. This is where the managers step in. Under the Code, arranging safety systems becomes a surprisingly specialised task. This is why the managers should be chosen, and engaged, with the utmost care and attention to detail.

SYSTEM

The Company must implement a safety management system (‘SMS’), consisting of set, verifiable procedures. These are tailored to the individual yacht, and should ensure that the yacht is run in a way which complies with the Code.

The SMS is contained in sets of manuals, held both ashore and on board. They typically outline the system itself, state general safety and environmental policies, and describe the organisation of the Company. Shoreside manuals will set out the régime for audits, risk assessment and accident analysis. Shipboard manuals will also give the planning, operating and reporting procedures. They cannot just be left on the shelf like an engine manual, however. Port inspectors, for example, may examine the manuals and interview the crew, who will be expected to be both familiar with them and actually using them.

Key operational procedures and corrections are planned and recorded, as well as being audited internally and externally. Taken out of context some procedures may appear almost laughably prescriptive. In fact, in the context of the Code, this process leads both to a continual process of refinement, and independently certifiable standards of conduct.

NON-CONFORMITY

Where a Code ‘non-conformity’ is reported to the Company but is not remedied, or if a blind eye is turned to it, or if the system is such that non-conformities go reported, the Company will be in breach of the Code. Before the Code was introduced, the owner or manager could have legitimately said that there may have been safety issues on board the yacht which they were not aware about. By contrast, the burden is now on the Company to keep itself informed and act if all is not in order. All roles are now more accurately defined, meaning that it is now much easier to assess after an incident who was responsible for what, and what they knew or should have known.

FURTHER COMPLIANCE

The Code also requires and ensures observance of other international and flag state safety regulations. The obvious example is the fire drill, which cannot be meaningfully conducted unless all the correct fire fighting equipment is present. In fact, compliance with the Code requires compliance with a considerable array of international maritime conventions, ranging from crew training to vessel stability. From the owner’s point of view, this is a good thing.

DESIGNATED PERSON

A formal line of communication must exist between the Company and the yacht. This is absolutely vital. The Company has to appoint a designated person ashore (normally abbreviated to ‘DPA’ or ‘DP’) to sit at one and of that line. His (or her) job is to keep an eye on the safe and efficient operation of the yacht as the SMS demands, and take all necessary steps to ensure compliance. The DP must also ensure that proper provision is made for the yacht to be manned, equipped and maintained such that it is fit to operate in accordance with both the SMS and whichever other statutory requirements are dreamt up from time to time. The role of DP is often combined with others such as Technical or Operations Manager.

In order that the DP is able to do all this, he must have:

• Direct access to the highest level of the Company’s management;

• Sufficient authority to influence decision-making; and

• Appropriate knowledge and experience of the operation of the type of yacht in question.

So important is the DP’s role, that he may be jailed by the flag state should he fail to discharge certain key responsibilities. Port states can also be merciless with a DP, even where the DP is based overseas. A DP based in Denmark, for example, was recently the subject to an indictment by the United States Department of Justice.

As the DP can be called upon to take action at any time, a deputy may be appointed. Some managers have been known to appoint personal assistants or secretaries to this role. This is poor practice, and indicates a culture of profit over safety. Beyond the DP and his deputy, the Code states that the Company must ensure that all personnel involved with the SMS have an adequate understanding of the relevant rules, regulations, codes and guidelines.

Safety used to be the Captain’s domain, or at least the buck stopped with him or her. In terms of the immediate safety of the yacht, this remains the case. As the Company bears the responsibility of Code compliance on behalf of the owner, the existence of the DP ensures that the Company cannot leave responsibility resting on the Captain’s shoulders. Captains and managers must work together to ensure an adequate and workable system is developed. This is enshrined in the preamble to the Code, which explicitly states that in matters of safety and pollution prevention it is the commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result.

LIABILITY

Before the Code was imposed, yacht managers tended to take on the role of owner’s agent. They might have assisted the owner’s accountants, but it was the Captain who had the most to do the owner. The arrangement was based on reducing hassle for owners as much as possible. This arrangement may still, of course, suit owners of yachts not subject to the Code. As managers must take up a more interfering and directing role by virtue of the Code, there is no scope for resentment of this on the part of the crew. Instead, comfort should be taken in the fact that liability is shared with those ashore, who must keep safety issues under close scrutiny, and make sufficient resources available. Nevertheless, the owner may wish to keep an eye on whether the manager’s style is becoming too autocratic, perhaps leading to a dissatisfied crew.

CERTIFICATION

Once auditors from the flag state have examined the SMS, both on paper and in practice, a Document of Compliance (‘DOC’) will be issued in respect of the Company. A Safety Management Certificate (‘SMC’) may then be issued in respect of the yacht managed by that Company, as long as the SMS has been successfully implemented on board. Both these documents must be in place for the yacht to be operated legally. They will be audited regularly.

Because of the number of individuals involved in the planning, undertaking and recording of actions, and the independence of external auditors, deliberate falsifications are sure to highlight themselves. Where logs have been ‘flogged’, i.e. where false entries have been made with regard to, for example, hours worked, the DOC may be withdrawn immediately.

APPEARANCES

In comparison with trading ships, yachts may appear to have an unblemished safety record. This is a little illusory. Whilst crewmembers may exude joyful efficiency, and the yachts themselves are kept in immaculate condition, this can have more to do with complying with the owner’s aesthetic wishes than with the maintenance of a safety culture. Accidents involving yachts do happen: they tend, however, not to involve large scale loss of life or pollution, and are not especially newsworthy. That courteous crewmember may in fact have worked excessive hours during a busy charter season, or may have been left in command without the necessary experience or qualifications.

INSURANCE

Following an incident, insurers will consider their liability for the claim thoroughly. Standard insurance clauses typically allow an insurer to avoid paying out, if the yacht was subject to certain perils resulting from a lack of ‘due diligence’ by the yacht’s management. The actions of the Company will be open to scrutiny by the insurer seeking to establish whether due diligence was exercised, and will be subject to a post-incident analysis. The ISM Code paper-trail is the obvious starting point. All documents in the possession of the Company which may be useful to the insurer, including internal documents, may have to be made available in the event of litigation. Any conviction of the Company or DP for Code failings would provide the insurer with the best possible evidence of a failure to exercise due diligence.

INSPECTIONS

Inspections of yachts by port officials tend to occur less frequently than for trading ships. This is understandable given that yachts tend to wear more respectable ensigns, and it is normally the official policy at ports to concentrate inspections on vessels which are likely to pose the greatest hazard to that port and the surrounding coastline. Nevertheless, where safety failings lead to even trivial incidents, authorities may choose to detain or even take action against a yacht herself, making the use of standard liability-avoidance vehicles, such as companies and trusts, futile measures. The knock-on effects of breached charter agreements and all-round inconvenience are obviously best avoided.

The fact that the Code also helps to prevent pollution is a very good thing as far as owners are concerned. Pollution in some jurisdictions can lead to surprisingly hefty fines and even imprisonment. Spotter planes can find offending yachts with ease, and it is surprising how far even the smallest quantity of fuel will spread across the water.

Unfortunately, the Company cannot simply wave the DOC and SMC in the air and expect forgiveness from prosecutors or insurers. Whilst useful, neither guarantees compliance. They simply show that, at a particular point in time in the past, the SMS, as applied by the Company and on board the yacht, met the minimum internationally agreed standards. Further, the external audit which led to the award of the DOC and SMC will have been based only on samples, will not have taken that long, and will have been far from exhaustive. By contrast, once a prosecutor or insurance company is able to access the various manuals and records, these can be scrutinised against actual findings at their leisure. It has been recognised that less respectable flag states may chose to ignore their responsibilities and may be prepared to certify compliance in any event.

CONCLUSION

From a legal viewpoint, the Code can be the owner’s closest ally or most feared enemy, depending on just how successful its implementation and maintenance has actually been. Owners do least have the luxury of being able to buy-in the appropriate expertise. Arranging and maintaining Code safety systems is a highly specialised task, however, and owners should grasp the fundamentals of the Code, and choose the appropriate managers accordingly. Thereafter, they should consider whether the managers and crew are successfully working together: this required by the Code and is important for morale and staff retention.

Although the implementation of the Code does involve more paperwork and expense, it is the consequence of concerns about ineffective safety management stretching back many decades. Full and successful implementation will go a long way to ensuring that physical safety and pollution risks are kept under control.