宮古新報はモンゴル船籍タンカー「ＴＪ88」が横浜を出港した時に、保険が掛けられていたのか、保険に加入していれば、どこの保険会社だったのか、調べて公表するべきだ。また、地方運輸局担当官やPSC官、海上保安官のいずれかが立ち入り検査を横浜で行っていたのか、調べて公表するべきだ。

伊良部島沖の外国船籍座礁船　撤去の目途立たず 03/08/14 (宮古新報)

座礁したままのタンカー船＝５日、 伊良部島沖

　伊良部島白鳥崎沖合で昨年１月に起きた外国船籍タンカーの座礁事故で、 座礁したモンゴル船籍 「ＴＪ88」 の船体が、 事故から１年余り経過した現在も岩礁に乗りあげたままになっている。 海上保安署や沖縄総合事務局によると、 所有者と連絡が不通になり、 撤去の目途が立っていないという。 このまま進展がなければ最終的に県が撤去することになり、 多額の負担を強いられる。 また漁業被害や観光立県としてイメージダウンも懸念される。

　　宮古島海上保安署によると、 昨年８月に第11管区海上保安本部がシンガポールの所有者に撤去を求めた際に、 「保険で撤去する」 意向を伝えられたというが、 それ以降、 連絡が取れない状況にあるという。

　所有者が撤去しない場合、 最終的には漂着先の都道府県が費用を負担し解体することになる。 撤去にかかる費用は現場の地形や船の大きさ等にもよるが、 同船の場合は１０００万円以上かかるという。

　船体は岩礁に挟まった状態で固定措置などはとられていない。事故当時、船体から燃料等の流出があったが、 現在は確認されていない。

　同船が座礁した現場付近は伊良部の漁師たちの漁場やダイビングスポットとなっており、 複数の関係者は「今は油の流出等の心配はないがサンゴも相当傷ついている。 漁業への被害や２次災害も心配」 と不安視し、 一日も早く撤去されることを願っていた。

　また、 観光客にもマイナスのイメージを与えている。 近くには観光名所もあり、 展望台からは傾いて波にさらわれている船体が間近に見えるため、 海上保安署には、 観光客から 「船が座礁している」 との 「通報」 が月に１、 ２回はあるという。 近くで農作業していた男性は 「景観を損ねており、 知らない人が見たらどれだけ不安になるだろうか。 観光地としてのイメージダウンになるので早期に撤去してほしい」 と話していた。

　同船は日本から海外へ売船されたもので、 横浜からシンガポールに向けて航行中に座礁した。

衆議院会議録情報　第１８０回国会　国土交通委員会　第11号　平成24年7月25日（国会会議録検索システム）

　海洋や港湾での油流出事故に備えた国土交通省の船舶油濁損害賠償保障法の改正案が５日、明らかになった。これまでタンカーに限って義務付けていた燃料油の流出事故に備えた保険契約を、新たに客船や貨物船など１００トン以上の一般船舶にも義務付ける。

　２００２年に茨城県・日立港で座礁した北朝鮮船籍の貨物船の船主側が船体撤去や重油除去の費用を支払っていないことをきっかけとした見直し。政府は改正案を２４日に閣議決定し、通常国会に提出する。

　現行法では油流出の責任は原則、タンカーの船主だけが負う。改正案では１００トン以上の一般船舶の船主のほか、船を賃借している人の賠償責任も問えるとした。その上で、一般船舶の保険契約では、座礁した場合の船体撤去費用にも備えた額とすることを求めている。さらに保険未契約の一般船舶のうち、日本国籍の船は国際航海ができず、外国船籍は日本の港湾に入港できない。（共同通信）

2004/2/5

THE Cambodian-flag, 1,551 gt general cargo ship Pilgrim 2, was detained on Tuesday by UK port state control inspectors at Shoreham.

The Port State Control Officer (PSCO) from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency found twelve deficiencies, two of which were major non conformities under the ISM Code.

The PSCO noticed a heavily corroded extinguisher at the gangway, and found several more CO2 extinguishers with the horns missing. An accommodation fire damper was found lying on the deck.

The PSCO decided he had clear grounds to request the crew to carry out a fire drill. It evidently took considerable effort for the crew to understand, as the master and officers spoke almost no English. The Inspector had to write 'Fire Drill' on a piece of paper in large letters and hold it up.

The drill was not up to the required standard, as was displayed by the fire team. The team leader showed up in a fire suit wearing trainers and donned the breathing apparatus upside down with the waist strap around his neck which proceeded to choke him.

The second member of the team, without a breathing apparatus set, grabbed a length of hose and dashed into the engine room, the scene of the fire, which was supposedly ablaze. His progress came to an abrupt halt halfway down the first ladder when he ran out of hose. At that point the inspection was suspended and the vessel was detained.

Pat Dolby, head of the MCA's Inspection Branch said: "Safety on board all vessels is of paramount importance to us and this inspection, under the Paris MOU, revealed serious failings in the training and emergency preparedness of the crew. We have therefore no choice but to issue a detention notice preventing this vessel sailing until all the deficiencies are rectified. Safety of life at sea is our first priority and the MCA will not compromise on such issues."

04-06-01 Following the surprise announcement that the UAE has decided to prohibit vessels flying certain flags of convenience (FOC) from entering UAE waters, concern within the local industry has been very evident, in view of the potential effect on business that a blanket ban will have. Owners, operators and service providers concerned with the flags in question are hoping that some relaxation on the original announcement will be forthcoming, especially with respect to newer tonnage and non-tanker vessels. This notwithstanding, it is believed that one major factor in the compilation of the blacklist is the ease by which entry to these registers may be obtained through the back door, and if the registries concerned were to impose effective self-regulation they might be able to reverse the situation. The flags of convenience that were originally listed are Albania, Honduras, Georgia, St Vincent and Grenadines, Mauritius, Cambodia, Comoros, Bolivia and Belize. There was subsequent confusion regarding the inclusion of Belize because the announcement had come by way of a press release, and the registry, Immarbe, claimed that there had been a mistake. However, a source within the Ministry of Communications confirmed that Belize was indeed included. The source also said that clarification and further details on the government decision would be forthcoming "very soon".

A canvas of 20 marine companies (of various disciplines) was undertaken, and its results gave a unanimous indication that the local industry hoped any clarification issued by the government would relax the ban, to allow all cargo, utility vessels and tugs to enter UAE waters, but to apply restrictions on tankers over 20 years old, or younger if circumstances dictated. Such regulation could be enforced through the Port State Control (PSC) system, which is already in process of implementation in UAE ports. One spokesman for an operator based outside the UAE, but with several vessels under the St. Vincent flag, said that they were urgently waiting for clarification before sailing any vessels into the UAE. Furthermore, since their tonnage was relatively new, in good condition and did not include any tankers, he added that their ships did not threaten the environment and the company was still "very confused" by the 'blanket' ban. The inclusion of certain registries on the blacklist has also stirred international interest with widespread coverage on the subject in the marine press.

The inclusion of St. Vincent and Comoros has been questioned, the former because of its size and relative reputation to others on the list, and the latter, which is based at Ajman, because of its small size and very recent introduction as an open registry, the first to be established for an Islamic country. In an interview, Akram Mohmud Shaikh, the Comoros Commissioner of Maritime Affairs said, "We need the support of the UAE in this issue and our Consul General will be meeting with senior government officials to discuss the matter. We are only just born eight months ago with only about fifty vessels now on our register, very few being tankers. We do not understand why we have been included on the list."

Source: Gulf News Online ||A pipeline bypassing Israel has substantial economic implications31-05-01 Egypt and Jordan's effort to circumvent Israel with a natural gas pipeline under the Gulf of Aqaba may cost the parties up to $ 500 mm, an industry analyst told. "The countries' strategic decision to bypass Israel will have substantial economic implications," Amit Mor, director of Amit Consulting & Enterprising told. "The decision was made for political reasons, and not economic ones. The chosen route of the pipeline will allow Jordan to reduce its dependency on Israel." Egypt and Jordan signed an agreement to construct a natural gas pipeline from Al-Arish in Egypt, to Taba, under the Gulf of Aqaba and finally to Amman. From there, extensions are to be built to Syria and Lebanon. The four countries established the Eastern Gas company to construct and operate the $ 300 mm investment. The agreed upon project was chosen over an option to run the pipeline from Egypt, through Ashkelon and on to Amman.

Circumventing Israel, he said, produces substantial additional costs, perhaps leaving the project economically unfeasible. "I'm not sure that the Al-Arish-Gulf of Aqaba plan is going to materialize," he said. "The second option of going through Ashkelon makes much more economic sense." Mor also said that he expects the proposed "pipeline for peace" project - slated to carry natural gas from Egypt to Israel -- to come to fruition despite Merhav's exit from Middle East Oil Refinery (MIDOR). "The pipeline for peace is a completely unrelated project and will not be affected by Merhav's sale. I believe that the Egyptians are going to go ahead with the pipeline." Merhav said that it has sold its 20 % stake in MIDOR, a joint Israeli-Egyptian oil venture.

Source: The Jerusalem Post Newspaper

　北海道・小樽港で、ウクライナ人船員１５人が乗り組んだ貨物船が、約１０カ月にわたって足止めされている。安全基準を満たしていないとして国土交通省が改善命令を出し、出港を差し止めたが、船主が放置。船員たちは置き去りになった。計２０００万円余の賃金も支払われておらず、家族との連絡も十分にできない状態が続いている。

　北海道運輸局や、船員らで組織する全日本海員組合（東京）などによると、ボリビア船籍の貨物船「ヤン・ホー」（１０７７トン）で、シニツィン・ビクトル船長（４３）ら男性１５人が乗り組む。

　昨年１２月１日にロシア・サハリン州から冷凍カニなどを積んで入港。同運輸局の船舶安全検査で、国際条約に適合する救命艇がないことなどがわかり、出港が差し止められた。１５人はその事実を知らされないまま、１２月２３日、それまでの船員と交代する形で、空路で北海道に入り乗船した。

　船舶代理店や海員組合が米国にいる船主に連絡を取っているが、倒産に近い状態で、改善に応じる様子はないという。ビクトル船長は「皆、借金をして仕事を見つけて来た。故郷には仕事がなく、給料をもらえずに帰国はできない」と話す。

　上陸はできるが、海員組合からの援助だけが収入源で、１日一人５００円相当の食料で暮らす毎日。国際電話も月に１度がやっとだ。

　苦境を訴える日本語の看板を１０月初旬に船首に掲げてからは、住民から果物や野菜をもらうようになった。機関士のフィシュチェンコ・セルゲイさん（３６）は「日本人には心から感謝している。友好の気持ちも芽生えた。でも、家族と今後の生活が心配でたまらない」と話す。

　海員組合はこれ以上の生活は無理と判断し、船主に船を売却し未払い賃金に充てるよう勧めている。応じなければ、船員たちを近く帰国させる方針だ。一方、小樽市は、全員帰国で船だけ残ると港の管理上支障を来す懸念があるとして、管理要員を残すよう、船側に求めている。

　北海道小樽港に昨年１２月入港したボリビア船籍の貨物船が「船体の安全基準を満たしていない」として出港差し止めを受けたうえ、船主が船の所有を事実上放棄したため、ウクライナ人の乗組員１５人が１０カ月以上も足止めされている。１５人は船内生活を余儀なくされているが、賃金は支払われず、日々の食料も不足がちで、関係者は対応に苦慮している。 　この貨物船は「ヤン・ホー号」（１０７７トン）。昨年１２月１日、ロシア・サハリン州のコルサコフ港からカニなど冷凍水産物約７０トンを積んで小樽に入港した。直後の国土交通省北海道運輸局の船体安全検査で（１）救命ボートがない（２）脱出用消防設備がない（３）日本で通用する乗組員資格についてボリビア政府の裏書がない――などの不適合が指摘され、改善するまで出港が差し止められた。 　シニーツィン・ビクトル船長（４６）ら１５人は同２３日に交代要員として空路、道内入りした。ビクトル船長は早速、米国在住の船主に連絡したが、資金難を理由に改善措置を取らなかった。賃金や燃料費、生活費の送金もなく、訴えを受けた全日本海員組合（東京都港区）や国際運輸労連（ＩＴＦ）が賃金などを工面するため船体を売却するよう求めたが、船主側は２６年前に建造された老朽船に法外な値段をつけ、商談に至っていないという。 　現在は連絡も途絶えてしまい、同海員組合は「船主としての責任を放棄し、モラルもない」と船主を厳しく批判。「乗組員の健康状態も心配。人道的立場から見過ごせない」と、組合員から旅費をカンパで集めるなどして乗組員を帰国させたい意向だ。しかし、１５人は「本国で借金をして来た。手ぶらで帰っては生活できない」と途方に暮れている。 　港湾管理者の小樽市は早期解決を求めているが、船体が放棄された最悪の場合、船主に代わって処分する代執行も検討する。【西端栄一郎】

There are people missing from this room. Look about the room, and you will see not one chartering manager, and no one from a shipowner’s accounting department. And yet, wherever one looks, outside of this room, one sees that decisions are driven by these very people, in other words, by cost. So, how do we make quality a determinant factor in pricing?

One solution, both drastic and superficially attractive, would be to introduce a large economic penalty factor, spread widely across the industry. “Make the enabler pay, for damage and loss of life. Identify him, them or it, end limitation of liability, and extend it (liability) to charterers, brokers, bankers, underwriters, classification societies?and, oh, yes, ship registries.” But what would the effect of this be, assuming it could really happen?

It might make quality a paying proposition, but it would also discourage investment. Charterers?not to mention cargo interests other than charterers?and underwriters, and lenders, may be impervious to such things as “grey lists”, detentions and the like. But the extension of liability, to them, would get their attention. Is this the best way to cleanse our industry’s tarnished image?

Yes, the “substandard” must be punished.

And, no, detentions are not enough?not that they don’t help. But could “making the enablers pay” be a cure worse than the disease?

As any competent lawyer can tell you, it is easy to inflict economic pain. And economic pain would, indeed, get the attention of those people, outside of this room, who count the euros, who look at the numbers, and who ultimately decide whose ship to charter, to mortgage, to insure, and so forth.

And, a subject very dear to me and my colleagues at IRI: The choice of a vessel’s registry can and must be made an important economic factor, so that appraising its quality; judging the standards by which it is built, crewed and maintained; have economic impact on these interested parties. If we do make registry or “flag” into a more aggressively examined test, for quality,--something we could do if the IMO’s “voluntary” audit scheme becomes compulsory, and if we begin to actively punish the substandard, phony, flags, we could find a way to an economic impact on the operators, the “enablers”, the users, of substandard shipping.

Because shipping is often perceived to be a boom-and-bust, highly volatile form of investment (and the current capesize boom may seem to be an example), it has not attracted the kind of capital investment that is needed to train better crews, and to build, maintain, and operate better ships. Shipping has, traditionally, been down through the years the home of many “marginal”, fly-by-night operators. However, new rules on single-hulled vessels; regulation of maritime security; of liner conferences; oversight of flag states, which I have mentioned; audit of classification societies (I would suggest we need fewer of both class societies and registries), and, again, the “naming and shaming” of the banks, classification societies, underwriters, brokers and charterers who deal in “trash tonnage” and “trash registries”, are making and in future will increasingly make shipping an industry in which quality does pay. I am convinced of that.

Finally, there is something more that we need to change: the industry’s ancient and honourable tradition of polite silence, or omerta, in the face of facts that need fixing. Such is the case of naming, and blaming, these “substandard”, or “trash” operators, and those who use them, pay them, finance them, inspect and classify their ships?and turn a blind eye to them.

Should not those others, when something goes wrong, also be required to pay? Let us try to eliminate this tradition of “enabling” the substandard, without wrecking the industry’s access to finance and insurance, in the process.

That, as we at International Registries see it, is the critical task before us. If, for example, in the case of the PRESTIGE, the American Bureau of Shipping is held liable for damages, to the extent that it ceases to be effective, or if even its survival is placed in doubt, the destructive consequences will be enormous. Clearly, ABS is not an “enabler” of substandard tonnage; however, the example now before us should be a warning not to throw the industry’s baby out with the bathwater.

What we can, I think, see happening is a regime that would penalize the private sector to a greater degree than is now the case, for the, in effect, subsidy of the substandard sector. There are two specific parts of the industry where this might be successful: insurance and banking. Very few owners or operators can survive in today’s business environment without subsidy or support from those two components. Up to now, many marginal operators have managed to find friendly or sheltering support from those two areas. If money is not available to subsidize the substandard, many of the regressive practices that haunt us will undoubtedly disappear.