В статье поднимается важная и актуальная проблема сокращения “бумажной работы” на судах.
ИМО воспринимается как генератор форм документов, которые становятся обязательными к заполнению и хранению на судах в результате заключения конвенций, принятия кодексов и др. правовых инструментов. В настоящей статье рассматриваются данные исследования относительно групп лиц, заинтересованных в решении упомянутой проблемы, степени обременительности административной документации (563 обязательных требований насчитывается в настоящее время), а также путей решения без ущерба для безопасности мореплавания, защиты человеческой жизни и сохранения окружающей среды. В Приложении к статье содержатся рекомендации по сокращению бремени бюрократических формальностей, которые должны соблюдаться на судах, причем около половины из этих рекомендаций связаны с автоматизацией управления и развитием электронных информационных технологий в области организации документооборота. По техническим причинам Приложение не приводится.
The increasing burden of paperwork, especially for the Master and other senior officers, has been a frequent topic in Seaways in recent months. But this is just the most recent evidence of a trend which has been causing concern for some time. It often feels as if complaints are going unheard, so it is good to see that the IMO, often seen as the generator of much of this paperwork, has undertaken its first ever consultation on the administrative burdens associated with mandatory IMO instruments, ie conventions, codes and other instruments.
In June 2012, an Inventory of Administrative Requirements in Mandatory IMO Instruments identified a staggering number of administrative requirements – over 560. This became a vital tool in the preparation of the consultation exercise and the subsequent analysis of responses. The exercise sought to answer two key questions:
- Whether the administrative requirements in mandatory IMO instruments are still necessary, proportionate and relevant.
- To consider measures that could potentially alleviate administrative burdens resulting from compliance with the requirements – without compromising IMO’s overriding priorities to protect safety of life at sea, maritime security and the environment.
In order to encourage the widest possible participation, the consultation was launched under the banner ‘Have your say!’ on a dedicated webpage. The webpage was active over a period of six months (May-October 2013) and responses could be given either on behalf of an organisation or in a personal capacity.
The consultation process was tailored to various stakeholder groups so that every respondent could more easily choose which mandatory instrument to comment on. The broad stakeholder categories were:
- Ship’s management (including ship masters, crews and shipping companies);
- Nominated surveyors and recognised organisations;
- Governments (in their capacity as Parties to IMO conventions)
- Maritime administrations (of flag, port and coastal States);
- IMO Secretariat (including the Secretary-General);
- Other stakeholders with an interest in maritime regulation.
The survey looked at mandatory IMO instruments related to safety (the SOLAS Convention); environmental protection (the MARPOL Convention); seafarers’ training and certification (the STCW Convention); liability and various other areas of regulation.
Responses and main findings
Some 60% of total responses came from ship masters, senior officers and ships’ crews. Results were analysed to establish whether administrative requirements were perceived to be problematic by an individual respondent (eg a senior ship officer), by a particular stakeholder group (eg ships’ crews), or by a variety of stakeholder groups (eg ships’ crews and shipping companies).
A major – and perhaps surprising – finding has been that the 351 out of the total of 563, or some 66%, were not perceived as being individually burdensome by any of the respondents. This result was captured in the reported view of one stakeholder that administrative burdens emanating from IMO instruments were ‘the very minimum’ compared with the voluminous paper work imposed by charterers, ship management companies, P&I Clubs and port agencies.
However, even when individual administrative requirements are justified, their combined volume causes ships’ crews to spend considerable time on bureaucratic tasks, rather than actually manning and operating the ship, and this in itself may risk compromising safety. In a similar vein, inspectors focus to a large extent on verifying conformity with the correct procedures and establishing that the necessary checklists, reports and other paperwork have been produced to prove that the procedures were followed correctly. An inspection thereby becomes ‘control of control’, with a tendency to evaluate the quality of the oversight system rather than the quality of the ship and the crew. In this regard, it is not necessarily a specific administrative requirement which generates the bureaucracy but rather the indirect impact of having to report and document daily routines.
What can be cut?
A total of 182 administrative requirements (out of the total of 563) were perceived as burdensome by at least one respondent, representing some 34% of the total. Many responses identifed problems with excessive paperwork associated with regulatory compliance. Comments included suggestions for urgent change, for instance, by working with ‘intelligent’ databases on websites with secure access in order to rationalise the fulfilment of administrative requirements.
This is indicative of a new, IT-sawy generation seriously questioning the need to keep multiple records covering the same event or subject matter, and asking why inspectors seemingly spend more time poring over a ship’s certificates than physically looking over the ship. It was instead recommended that certificates could be posted on a website giving access to accredited authorities, or, according to one stakeholder, ‘a Facebook for ships’, with all certificates available for observation.
As one stakeholder put it, the tendency to ‘smother everything we do in paper’ is also a result of a blame-orientated and litigious culture, encouraging everybody to increase the paperwork as a means to demonstrate that everything has been done to prevent mistakes or mishaps and thus to avoid legal liability – by pointing the blame elsewhere.
Significantly, it was noted that while the majority of the (182) administrative requirements perceived as burdensome were still necessary, proportionate and relevant, it is often the accumulation of requirements that represents a burden. This is an important issue IMO needs to address. It was concluded that some 24% of administrative requirements perceived as burdensome could be reduced by using forms of electronic reporting or notification. The figure was 14% with regard to the shipboard carriage of certificates and similar documents, for which electronic versions should be acceptable. Similarly, some 13% of burdensome requirements could be met more efficiently by electronic recording of information.
The current challenge for IMO is to decide on the best way forward and to learn from the many comments, views and suggestions this innovative exercise has generated. Administrative requirements that have been identified as particularly burdensome may nevertheless be essential to ensure full implementation and effective enforcement of IMO regulations and should therefore continue to be legal obligations. The 13 recommendations presented to the Council (see graphic overleaf) provide concrete opportunities to guide further work bv IMO, in cooperation with its shipping industry partners and other maritime stakeholders, to achieve improved solutions for meeting those obligations.
Steering Group results and recommendations on the ‘Have Your Say’ survey on bureaucratic burden
Источник: Seaways. – 2015. – February. – P. 21.