VTS 2000 Symposium

Speech by Mr. W.A. O'Neil, Secretary-General of IMO
VTS 2000 Symposium, Singapore, 18 January 2000

Mr. Chairman, Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to be with you today. This is the first visit I have made in the new millennium and I can think of no more fitting place to be than here in Singapore - and no subject that is more suitable for such an occasion than VTS. That is because Vessel traffic services represent the future. The systems are still evolving, still developing and this symposium is a part of that process. It will contribute to our knowledge, stimulate ideas and help us to decide how best to utilize the technology that has been and is being developed.

But although the use of VTS will certainly expand in the future, I think it is worth remembering that the idea of monitoring traffic from the shore is not a particularly new one. The first harbour surveillance radar system was introduced in the port of Liverpool in 1948 and the first IMO Assembly resolution on port advisory systems was adopted in 1968. The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue devotes one chapter to ship reporting systems and in 1983, general principles for ship reporting systems were adopted by IMO.

Also, in 1994 SOLAS was amended to permit the introduction of mandatory ship reporting systems. The first of these to be put in place was at the western entrance of the English Channel on 30 November 1996 and this was followed on 1 December 1998 by a mandatory ship reporting system in the Malacca and Singapore Straits. A number of these systems have now been introduced in many other parts of the world.

In 1997 the guidelines for ship reporting systems were modified and in the same year the SOLAS Convention was amended to enable mandatory vessel traffic services - as distinct from ship reporting systems - to be introduced. The amendments entered into force on 1 July 1999.

VTS has been with us, in one form or another, for more than two decades and many of the issues that are to be discussed during the next four days have been raised on different occasions. The most difficult of these is the relationship between the ship's master - traditionally the final authority where safety at sea is concerned - and those on shore who are responsible for VTS. Basically it comes down to one simple question: should the VTS operator have the right to tell the master what to do, or should his role be limited simply to giving advice? So far the relationship has been advisory in nature, but the question of positive control is still lurking in the shadows.

More than twenty years ago, the Nautical Review - the title of the magazine then published by the Nautical Institute - contained an article about an international symposium on marine traffic held in Liverpool. It referred to what it called the "controversial suggestion" that "it might be necessary to curb freedom of on-board decision making and reduce the crew influence in the control loop by shore-based radar guidance or marine traffic services."

The suggestion was considered controversial because it was seen by some to undermine the authority of the master. In certain circles it was also perceived as an infringement of the "freedom of the seas", which implies that ships have the right to operate more or less anywhere they wish. These principles had evolved over centuries and any hint of changing them was bound to stir up heated arguments.

But the questions that have been raised have not been prompted only by a desire to hang on to tradition. When the first VTS guidelines were being discussed at IMO in the early 1980s, the representative of the International Maritime Pilots Association pointed out that, since masters and pilots would have to use information which they were unable to verify, the VTS authorities should assume part of the responsibility for any adverse consequences arising from its use. IMPA wanted to know how the shipmaster, sometimes referred to as the sole master on board after God, who by traditional law of the sea is recognized as being the only judge of actions needed for the safety of his ship, could be held responsible for an accident when he was merely following orders from the shore?

In 1984, Friends of the Earth reported to the IMO Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation that, in their opinion, the debates on the legal aspects of VTS all revolved around the crucial question of the limits of national jurisdiction over shipping activities. They made the point that the establishment of mandatory VTS, even beyond territorial waters, should not be ruled out when there is a compelling and obvious need to improve safety. This could be seen as a challenge to the traditional freedom of the seas. It could also result in a coastal State being held responsible for damage caused due to a shipping accident.

This is a particularly important issue because of concern about oil pollution. Ever since the Torrey Canyon disaster of 1967 coastal States have been acutely aware of the danger that they face from oil tankers sailing along their coastlines. With this in mind, several initiatives were taken by IMO, including the development of the 1971 Intervention Convention, which gave coastal States the right to take action if an accident involving a foreign ship threatened them with pollution. Also, the introduction of traffic separation schemes and other routeing systems, such as areas to be avoided and deep water routes for large ships such as VLCCs was a result of environmental as well as safety concerns.

VTS is a part of that process. It makes shipping safer and also reduces the threat of oil spills in congested and narrow waterways. But there is no doubt that the development of VTS and associated technologies, such as the introduction of automatic ship reporting systems, has been delayed by a combination of many factors, two of which are more significant than the others. The first is a reluctance to adopt new ideas which threaten traditional practices and the second is a concern about being held responsible for the damage that might result from something going wrong.

It is scarcely surprising, in these circumstances, that progress has been slow. We have tended to ignore the fact that one of the principal reasons for introducing change - and as far as IMO is concerned, the main reason - is to improve safety. Tradition is fine, but not if it gets in the way of progress. New ideas should be embraced - but the safety implications should always first be carefully assessed. If shore control of ships through VTS will improve the safety of international shipping, then we should welcome it and find ways to overcome the difficulties that stand in the way of its implementation.

I believe that we cannot continue to shake our heads and talk about difficulties that may or may not exist. We have known for decades that ship reporting systems and vessel traffic services have introduced a new element into the traditional relationship between ship and shore - so why are we still discussing what to do about it? Why have we still not established a positive, comprehensible, global policy?

We all know that the introduction of a vessel traffic service can be costly. Yet the debate about who should pay still goes on. Should it be the coastal State, which may have no direct involvement with the ship but is likely to be damaged in any pollution incident? Or should it be the beneficiaries of those using the waters? This is a complex issue, partly because of the costs involved. But surely if there is a will, and particularly a political will, to find a solution it is not beyond our ingenuity to do so.

This symposium is about VTS. But the challenge presented by the availability of new technology affects virtually every aspect of our industry. We have become so used to technological changes in our daily lives that we sometimes forget how dramatic they are. I think that our greatest challenge will be learning how to manage change properly and how to cope with changes that will accelerate rather than slow down in the years to come. Just look at what is happening through the development of powerful personal computers and the expansion of the Internet.

Most of us have grown up in an industry that has evolved very rapidly during the last few decades, but the advances that have taken place so far have been comprehensible and have been absorbed. The development of containerisation, the emergence of superships such as VLCCs and the introduction of satellite communications have all revolutionised shipping, yet they were all extensions of earlier technologies and they all took some decades to mature. We had time to adjust. We were, to some extent at least, guided by experience acquired over the centuries.

That will not necessarily be the case in the future. We shall be presented with new conceptions, inventions and ideas for which there will be no precedents to guide us. The danger is that the commercial advantages to be gained will blind us to the possible dangers. With the advantage of hindsight, I think it would be generally agreed that when the roll-on/roll-off passenger ship was being designed not enough attention was paid to safety. Thousands of people died as a result. The VLCC was a great commercial success. Yet it also contributed to a series of massive oil spills which took the shipping world by surprise.

Today the sectors of shipping that are doing best and are rapidly expanding include the cruise industry and high-speed passenger craft. But can we be sure that everything that needs to be done to ensure the safety of these ships has actually been attended to? Can we guarantee that in the event of a major emergency on a modern cruise ship everyone on board can be evacuated and rescued safely? Can we say for certain that a collision or grounding involving a high-speed craft travelling at fifty knots will have no more serious consequences than an accident to a ship travelling at twenty? There have been hints and warnings that this is not necessarily the case. My concern is that we should put these activities under the microscope now so that insofar as is possible we will not be faced with a major disaster one day that should have been predicted and could have been avoided.

We have all too often been forced to learn from some tragic experience, thereby giving the world the impression that we in the shipping industry are at the mercy of events rather than in control of them. We cannot allow this attitude to continue and thanks to the advances of technology we are in a better position to influence what happens than ever before. By using computer simulation techniques, by analysing casualty data and by using procedures such as risk analysis and formal safety assessment, we have the ability to predict more clearly the consequences of our decisions and to make the right ones.

We are fortunate to be in this position and must seize the opportunities that technical advances offer us, which cannot be underestimated. Our problem will be to fully appreciate and utilize them to our advantage.

While you are specifically addressing the issues of VTS there is a thread woven through the whole of your programme focussing on the future of technological advances and how they can be used to enhance maritime safety. I would hope that your deliberations will serve as a pattern in that regard and that the process will be transferred to other topics of concern so that they may benefit from the approach being taken here.

Your programme in the next few days is an extremely interesting one and we are fortunate to have speakers who can present their expert knowledge and experiences to you. I wish to congratulate the organizers of the symposium for the excellent arrangements which have been made and once again thank you very much for inviting me to join you and I wish you every success.

	NEWSROOM
	Speeches by the Secretary-General
	2010
	Opening speeches of IMO meetings
	Archived speeches