Does industry lack integrity when it comes to dangerous cargo safety?
Posted on | January 25, 2012 | No Comments
Shipping industry conspicuously silent about Vinalines Queen death toll
In two months, the great, the good and the not so great or good will gather at the Connecticut Maritime Association’s annual three-day jamboree.
One of the perennial topics will be the image of shipping.
Although the economic challenges facing the industry are likely to overshadow most of our worries about our reputations, it might be useful to examine the degree of damage done by cases such as the sinking on Christmas day of Vinalines Queen , north-east of the Philippines. Just one crew member survived.
P&I clubs have campaigned to increase awareness of the need to test cargoes independently, and for safe loading of nickel and other ores. But several organisations failed even to comment on this latest tragic casualty, honourably excluding the dry bulk shipowners’ association Intercargo.
This gives a hint why we are not very effective in fighting our own corner.
In most of these dry bulk losses, three things have been noticeable: questionable or incorrect cargo documentation, no P&I survey and no third-party preshipment survey.
Also, there is usually an element of economic pressure behind the decision not to test cargoes through an independent party.
Under the circumstances, it is not too early to suspect that the loss of Vinalines Queen was caused by mishandling dangerous cargo. Industry failure to promptly regret the loss of life makes us all look uncaring.
A problem of this nature — one that has gone on for much too long — raises the suspicion that we, as an industry, lack the integrity generally expected of businesses in the 21st century.
Comments
Leave a Reply