Who leads in safety and sustainability?

By Peregrine Storrs-Fox, risk management director at TT Club

11/10/2023

With the next series of amendments to the IMDG Code becoming mandatory on 1 January next year, Peregrine Storrs-Fox, risk management director at leading freight insurer TT Club, takes the opportunity to consider the trajectory of changes and improvements in the safety of the global supply chain.

Philosophers have mused as to which came first, the chicken or the egg. In the logistics supply chain, there are multiple tools to deliver good practice in safety and sustainability. Emerging risks need to be researched and assessed. Emerged risks need to be controlled and mitigated. Regulation is often necessary to help mitigate these risks but it is the responsibility of all in the freight supply chain not just to abide by the rules but to lead the safety charge wherever and whenever they can.

While the overall governance of the regulations and the Dangerous Goods List is centred in Geneva and housed in the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, commonly known as the UN Model Regulations¹, the IMO², domiciled in London, has responsibility for the implementation of these regulations in the maritime mode.

The next version of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG code₃), being Amendment 41-22, will shortly enter mandatory application. Consequently, TT has, in conjunction with UKP&I, updated the well-established ‘Book it right, pack it tight’⁴ publication to provide general assistance and route map to the industry in these important matters.

Charcoal

While there have inevitably been numerous changes ⁵embedded in this IMDG Amendment, a number of consequential debates remain underway at this inter-governmental level. IMO committees are, for example, currently seeking to reach finalisation on how to fashion a revised safety framework regarding the transport by sea of Charcoal / Carbon (UN 1361). This vexed⁶, frequently resulting in fires while in the supply chain, has encountered protracted debate. As previously reported, the concerns relate essentially to lump charcoal that is intended for burning on barbecues and the like – sometimes having been treated with accelerants to boot.

Tests and research are ongoing to determine certain particular hazards, however it appears that there is agreement over key safety measures that may be adopted. These will only become mandatorily applicable from 1 January 2026 in Amendment 42-24. There remain some concerns relating to the differentiation between this cargo and Activated Carbon (UN 1362), which is produced from the raw material. Further, there are non-lump forms of Charcoal, such as produced for artists materials, that have quite distinct burning, cooling and packaging processes; deft handling of such issues will be required by regulators, carriers and enforcement agencies.

Lithium ion batteries

The topic arguably giving rise to most debate in the transport and logistics industry – lithium ion batteries, in their various forms – has yet to reach centre-stage at regulatory level. It is, however, almost a year ago that TT published the joint whitepaper⁷ on this, raising a number of calls to action. Subsequent papers, such as the guidance produced by CINS⁸ or the best practices from IUMI, have demonstrated both developing safety thinking and the need for further robust research.

The global need for decarbonisation and related demand for effective battery storage drive research towards power output and speed of recharge, but not necessarily enough towards safety through the supply chain and end-to-end life cycle. TT continues to lobby for engagement between manufacturers and the transport industry to reach a common understanding of the hazards presented and how these can best be controlled. In part, this requires thorough independent scientific research – as much for the existing and legacy chemistries as for what is emergent, since the former will continue in circulation for many years, including in increasing states of degradation.

Incident investigations – such as following the serious fire aboard ‘Freemantle Highway’ – will doubtless shape diverse regulatory change, but there must surely be opportunity to get ahead and in the meantime implement safety innovations to protect seafarers, broader workforce, assets and the environment.

Container inspections

The UN agencies are necessarily constrained by the submissions that are raised, either by member states or affiliated organisations. Relevant here are the container inspection⁹ findings that are reported to IMO annually. Those lodged for 2022 continue to be too sparse to guide decision-making (and below the annual average count over the last two decades), while demonstrating continuing concerns in key safety issues such as placarding (the external alert) and effective packing.

It is heartening that NCB are repeating a broad-based inspection initiative* to shed more light on general container packing safety. Indeed, the work of the Cargo Integrity Group, where TT was a founding partner, continues to be highly important in promoting safe packing practices**, linking to the IMO/ILO/UNECE CTU Code***.

Perhaps a ground-breaking initiative is the Cargo Safety Program**** recently announced by World Shipping Council that seeks to standardise cargo screening across the liner shipping industry, combining this with container inspections and creating a machine learning powered feedback loop, linking also to a ‘Verified Shipper Database’. There are a number of technology providers who deliver parts of such a matrix, but combining all elements has the potential not just to tackle non- or mis-declaration, but also beneficially segregate and reward those actors who habitually adopt good practice.

Conclusion

It is in everybody’s interest to improve certainty of outcome; innovations and initiatives such as these have the potential to deliver far beyond regulatory change.

TT regularly focuses on regulatory compliance and the adoption of sound safety practices. In this regard, we would remind all involved in the container supply chain of the judgment statement in ‘MSC Flaminia’ that regulations set the baseline for safety. In other words, it is insufficient merely to comply where you have reason to believe that other factors need to be taken into account. Using a simple universal analogy: traffic speed restrictions are not intended to urge the driver to adopt a given speed. Good driving practice requires that all hazards are continually and fully assessed, and appropriate actions taken accordingly.