A positive approach to safety at sea

MARITIME conventions can take many years to implement. Indeed, their gestation periods often outlive their progenitors. Yet, within the space of thirty days this year, two of the most important conventions ever adopted by the International Maritime Organisation are set to kick in.

On July 1, the first stage of the ISM code became mandatory. On August 1, maritime administrations had to submit to IMO their intended programmes for meeting the minimum qualification requirements under the STCW convention.

"I want to continue to identify potential problems in advance and not wait for the latest casualty to stimulate change. I want IMO to be far-sighted in its approach."

The comparatively smooth progress of these two vital conventions is due in no small measure to the quiet and unassuming energy of IMO secretary-general Bill O'Neil, who is now into his third term of office at the head of the UN agency. So how did he win the confidence of not only his own organisation but also that of the shipowners who would have to comply with ISM? "By getting others involved in the process," says Bill.

Bill involved the likes of classification societies, shipbrokers, BIMCO and the Baltic Exchange in discussions on how to persuade shipowners to adopt ISM. He also tried to broaden the participation in IMO beyond governments to bring in owners and to talk to P&I clubs and the legal community. He tried to anticipate in advance where the problems might arise. Historically, of course, shipping has been largely reactive in its attempts to improve safety at sea.

Upon his election as secretary-general in 1990, one of Bill's aims was to identify the industry's soft spots in advance, rather than simply respond to casualties with quick fixes that satisfied the press and public perception - a proactive rather than a reactive response.

In 1991, when Bill addressed his first assembly as secretary-general, he proposed changes to increase safety at sea for bulk carriers. At that stage, twenty bulkers a year - and usually their crews - were being lost. This was a problem he wanted to address straight away. When he was told that no secretary-general had ever done this before, he knew he had to try to convince his staff that 'No' isn't the first answer. 'Why can't we do it?' and 'Let's do it now' are two sentences that have a familiar ring to the ears of Bill's colleagues at IMO. This, mark you, from a man whose children complain that his first answer to any question is always 'No'.

"You first have to analyse a problem and the risks associated with it," says Bill. "But it is often just tradition, rather than practical obstacles, that stops something from happening. For instance, the need for traffic control is unquestionable when travelling by car, train or plane, so why not by sea? There is nothing sacred about somebody not on board a vessel telling someone on board what to do. But what is the best way of achieving this?

"You first have to analyse a problem and the risks associated with it. But it is often just tradition, rather than practical obstacles, that stops something from happening."

"It is common knowledge that the majority of incidents at sea are caused by human error. We spend time and money on making sure that ships are safe, but we should look more closely at the issues behind human error. We need more research on the psychology of accidents.

For example, why didn't the captain of the catamaran that went aground off Jersey in 1994 follow normal procedures and avoid the well-charted rocks around the island, and thus prevent the subsequent grounding? What thought process motivated that accident? A commercial decision, a loss of concentration, a desire to get there quicker?"

This year's progress in the enforcement of the STCW convention and the ISM code is a major boost for safety at sea. But isn't all this legislation simply serving to over-regulate the shipping industry and create a bonanza for maritime lawyers? Bill disagrees. He says, "The job of the courts should now be easier because they will be able to point to ISM or to STCW and establish whether or not the parties adhered to their codes of practice. It will now be easier for lawyers to establish who is liable and, in turn, for shipowners to limit their liability in the first place."

IMO has been criticised for being unwieldy and for taking too long to get things done - a fair criticism given the number of cultures, geographical spreads and people involved. So how did Bill address this when he first took over as secretary-general? "Working in this environment is a sociological situation," he explains. "You have to understand it and work with it. There are people I work with whose culture would automatically dictate that the boss is always right, regardless. For a North American like myself, this is anathema." IMO is very precise, according to Bill, in the way it runs its committee meetings. The meetings have clear start and finish times which are strictly adhered to, unlike those of its parent body, the UN. "While this in itself is important, it also brings a sense of discipline to the proceedings which permits the work to be undertaken in a businesslike manner," he says.

Bill is not afraid of change and how to manage it. Early in his career as a civil engineer in Canada, he was in charge of making improvements to the Welland Canal so that it would be upgraded to meet Seaway standards. He stepped in when a lot of new things were happening in hydraulics and in engineering in general, and he ultimately went on to become chairman of the St Lawrence Seaway Authority. Before that he reorganised the coastguard, in the process creating what is today the Canadian Coast Guard.

It was during this period, in 1979, that Bill was first elected chairman of the council of IMO. He was subsequently re-elected five times, thus setting a pattern for his later role as secretary-general.

It is Bill's engineering background, one in which meeting schedules and deadlines were the norm, that shaped his approach at IMO. But Bill admits that it took him time to settle into his role. "It took about 18 months to stop looking over my shoulder to see who was being addressed when I was called secretary-general," he says. He didn't know the shipping community in London. He was a Canadian living abroad for the first time, acclimatising to a new culture as well as a new job. But his unassuming and easy manner soon saw him make friends with the London Greek shipping community and at places such as the Institute of Naval Architects, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Lloyd's and the ILU.

During the Gulf war, Bill didn't hesitate to call up his friend Ian McGrath at Shell when IMO was asked to get involved in the pollution clean-up operation in the Gulf. Two computer experts were immediately dispatched to help set up the databank which was the core of the project.

Bill doesn't hesitate to use the CMI - in conjunction with his fellow Canadian Alfred Popp, who is chairman of IMO's legal committee - to tap into the talent and knowledge of different legislation and legal systems around the world. In return, Bill thinks the CMI should expand its funding of the International Maritime Law Institute in Malta.

So what are Bill O'Neil's hopes for the future of IMO? "I would like to see the changes I have brought about bear fruit," he says, "such as the ISM code, the STCW convention and the improved safety of bulk carriers being pushed through. I want to continue to identify potential problems in advance and not wait for the latest casualty to stimulate change. I want IMO to be far-sighted in its approach."

What about the laborious processes at the IMO that might stop this from happening? "I would like to move faster," explains Bill. "But in any negotiation you take what is achievable and worry about the rest another day. It is a question of knowing what is critical and what is not. And understanding the difference between what is urgent as compared to what is important. ISM and STCW were critical and so every effort was made to implement them effectively."

In his previous job, Bill would be called in to complete wage negotiations between the unions and the seaway. He learned early on that the secret of a successful negotiation was to find out what the parameters were and to work within them. He also came to realise that people would understand and respect just how far they could go.

When Bill became secretary-general of IMO, he was asked out to dinner by three international union officials. They were offering money to the World Maritime University at Malmo in Sweden, where Bill is chancellor. The sum negotiated over dinner rose from an initial $500,000 to a round $1m, and Bill believes this was because of the mutual respect that had been built up between himself and the men, who knew that the money would be channelled and used properly.

Bill believes that the way to build the confidence of the people you work with is by "demonstrating that you will produce what you have promised and that you are not frivolous in your requests. You always have to call it as you see it." It is this knowledge that gives Bill O'Neil the confidence to continue his role at IMO for a third term and through the millennium.

In his office overlooking the Thames and the Houses of Parliament there is a heavy brass diving helmet. It looks as if it is waiting for Bill's shoulders, but it is incredibly heavy and would take two to lift it. Bill tells the story of how in the 1950s he used the helmet and old fashioned diving suit a couple of times to descend, dressed like the Michelin man, to the depths of the Welland Canal to survey certain of its structures.

Bill now questions whether he would have not only the physical strength but the moral courage to be trapped in such a mantle again. He would. His job as secretary-general of IMO must sometimes feel like a metaphor for the brass helmet. But there is iron and resilience aplenty running beneath the depths of Bill O'Neil's calm exterior. This man with the 'can do' attitude will make sure things continue to happen at IMO.