Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

International Safety Management Code

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code is an international regulatory framework that establishes standards for the safe management and operation of ships, as well as , by requiring shipping companies to implement a structured Safety Management System (SMS). Adopted by the in 1993 through resolution A.741(18), it became mandatory for certain categories of ships engaged in international voyages on 1 July 1998 as Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The ISM Code's primary objectives are to ensure safety at sea, prevent human injury or loss of life, avoid damage to the environment in case of maritime accidents, and prevent loss of ships or property through proactive risk management and continuous improvement. It emphasizes the responsibility of shipowners and operators to foster a culture of safety at all levels, from top management to onboard personnel, by defining clear policies, procedures, and lines of communication. Key functional requirements include the development of safe practices for shipboard operations, maintenance of ship and equipment, defined responsibilities and authorities for key roles (such as the Designated Person Ashore), and mechanisms for reporting and addressing non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous situations. Implementation of the ISM Code involves certification processes administered by flag states and recognized organizations: companies must obtain a Document of Compliance (DOC) verifying compliance of their SMS, while individual ships receive a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) upon audit. The Code has been amended several times to address evolving risks, including updates in 2000 (effective 2002), 2004 (2006), 2005 (2009), 2008 (2010), and 2013 (2015), with later guidelines incorporating elements like cyber risk management and near-miss reporting. These provisions apply broadly to cargo ships over 500 gross tonnage and passenger ships on international routes, promoting global uniformity in maritime safety standards.

Overview and Purpose

Definition and Objectives

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code is an international standard adopted by the (IMO) for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. It establishes a framework requiring shipping companies to develop, implement, and maintain a (SMS) that integrates safety and environmental protection into all aspects of ship operations. The primary objectives of the ISM Code are to ensure at sea, prevent human injury or loss of life, and avoid damage to the environment—in particular, the marine environment—and to property. Additionally, it aims to extend these safety management objectives to shore-based support processes, thereby promoting active involvement from company management in shipboard operations to foster a culture of continuous improvement in practices. At its core, the ISM Code is guided by key principles emphasizing top management's commitment to , the systematic and of risks, and the establishment of appropriate safeguards against those risks. These principles require and at all organizational levels to maintain high standards of and tailored to varying operational conditions. The ISM Code integrates seamlessly into the broader IMO framework as a mandatory component of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), specifically Chapter IX, thereby supporting overall maritime safety goals without duplicating other SOLAS regulations on ship construction, equipment, or operational standards.

Scope and Applicability

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code, as mandated by Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, applies to companies operating specific categories of ships engaged on international voyages, irrespective of the ship's construction date or flag state. These include all passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft, oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers (including high-speed craft), bulk carriers as defined in SOLAS regulation XII/1 (i.e., those with a deadweight of 20,000 tonnes or more), and other cargo high-speed craft of 500 gross tonnage and upwards. The applicability extends to all other cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 1998, with the requirement broadening to existing such vessels by 1 July 2002. This framework ensures that safety management practices are standardized for vessels posing significant risks to life, property, and the marine environment during international operations. The Code's requirements target the "Company," defined as the shipowner or any other organization or person—such as a manager or bareboat charterer—who assumes operational responsibility for the ship from the owner, with the owner's consent, and agrees to fulfill all duties and responsibilities under the ISM Code. Companies must develop, implement, and maintain a (SMS) encompassing policies, procedures, and resources to ensure safe ship operation and , applicable to all covered vessels under their control. This obligation holds regardless of the , promoting accountability across global shipping operations. Certain vessels are exempt from the ISM Code to account for their limited risk profiles or specialized uses. Exemptions include cargo ships of less than 500 , ships not propelled by mechanical means, of primitive build, pleasure yachts not engaged in , vessels, and warships, naval auxiliaries, or other government-operated ships used only on non-commercial service. Flag administrations may grant additional exemptions for ships not normally engaged on international voyages but required to undertake a single such voyage without refitting, or for ships operating exclusively in sheltered waters or short voyages, provided they comply with equivalent safety standards determined by the administration. The ISM Code's global enforcement is underpinned by SOLAS ratification, with 168 contracting states as of 2024, representing approximately 98.63% of the world's merchant shipping —a figure that ensures coverage of nearly all international maritime trade. authorities worldwide verify compliance through inspections, with powers to detain non-conforming ships until deficiencies are rectified, reinforcing uniform application across jurisdictions.

Historical Development

Background and Key Incidents

In the 1980s, a series of incidents exposed systemic failures in ship management and oversight, underscoring the need for enhanced safety protocols beyond traditional ship-specific regulations. One pivotal event was the capsizing of the roll-on/roll-off ferry Herald of Free Enterprise on March 6, 1987, shortly after departing , . The vessel listed severely due to open bow doors, which allowed water to flood the car deck, resulting in 193 deaths among the 539 passengers and crew aboard. Investigations revealed shore-side management negligence, including the absence of clear procedures for door closure confirmation and pressure to expedite departures at the expense of safety checks. Other notable disasters further highlighted procedural and company-level shortcomings. The 1989 grounding of the oil tanker off Alaska's coast spilled approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil, attributed to navigational errors compounded by inadequate company procedures for fatigue management and voyage planning. Similarly, the 1991 sinking of the Egyptian ferry Salem Express in the , after striking a during a storm, claimed over 460 lives due to procedural lapses in navigation and emergency response under adverse weather conditions. These events collectively demonstrated how management oversights, rather than isolated technical faults, contributed to catastrophic outcomes. The formal inquiry into the Herald disaster, known as the Sheen Report, played a crucial role in shaping responses to these failures. Released in 1987 by the UK Department of Transport, it criticized the ferry operator's lack of a , pointing to disorganized shore management, ignored crew reports on hazards, and the absence of accountability from the board level downward. The report recommended establishing international standards to enforce company responsibility for safe operations, influencing subsequent guidelines on management practices. These incidents marked a in , transitioning from reactive measures focused on individual vessels to proactive, company-wide systems that prioritize prevention and cultural change. This evolution addressed the root causes of negligence identified across multiple disasters, laying the groundwork for formalized international requirements.

Adoption and Entry into Force

The development of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code was initiated in response to major maritime incidents in the late 1980s, particularly those highlighting deficiencies in ship management practices. Following investigations into accidents such as the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987, the (IMO) directed the Maritime Safety Committee to develop guidelines for the management of safe operations on roll-on/roll-off passenger ships and for . Over the subsequent years, the Maritime Safety Committee drafted and refined the code with contributions from industry experts, including Captain Graham Botterill, who served as a specialist advisor on ship safety matters during consultations in the early . The ISM Code was formally adopted by the Assembly on November 4, 1993, as resolution A.741(18), titled "International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for ." This resolution built upon earlier guidelines, including those from resolutions A.647(16) in 1989 and A.680(17) in 1991, which had progressively outlined principles for safe shipping operations. The adoption represented a consensus among member states to establish a comprehensive framework for systems (SMS) applicable to shipowners and operators. To integrate the code into binding international law, the amended the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in 1994 by adding Chapter IX, which made compliance with the ISM Code mandatory. The amended SOLAS provisions entered into force on July 1, 1998, after ratification by sufficient member states representing the required threshold. Initial application targeted passenger ships of 500 and above, as well as oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers, and , requiring these vessels to hold ISM . A phased approach extended the requirements to all other cargo ships of 500 and above engaged on voyages by July 1, 2002, allowing time for global implementation and infrastructure to develop. This staggered rollout facilitated widespread adoption across the sector. The entry into force of the ISM Code through SOLAS solidified its status as a foundational element of international maritime safety regulation, with key flag states such as the , , and among the early ratifiers ensuring broad compliance. By mandating SMS implementation, it shifted focus from reactive measures to proactive , influencing over 100,000 vessels worldwide and reducing accident rates attributable to human and organizational factors in the years following 1998. This integration into SOLAS, ratified by more than 150 IMO member states by the early 2000s, established the code as a globally enforceable standard under the auspices of the specialized agency for shipping.

Key Components

Safety Management System Elements

The Safety Management System (SMS) under the International Safety Management (ISM) Code is defined as a structured and documented system that enables company personnel to effectively implement the company's and policy. This system provides a framework for managing risks associated with ship operations, ensuring compliance with international standards for safe navigation, , and overall . The ISM Code's Part A outlines key components in 12 sections that form the foundation of an effective , based on the functional requirements in section 1.4, each addressing specific aspects of . These components begin with a clear and established by top , which sets the company's commitment to continuous improvement in practices and . Defined levels of and communication between shore-based and shipboard personnel ensure seamless coordination, while procedures for reporting non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous occurrences promote proactive and resolution. Maintenance programs for ships and equipment are required to prevent breakdowns that could lead to incidents, and procedures outline responses to crises such as fires, collisions, or man-overboard situations. Additionally, the system mandates documentation procedures for all operational aspects, along with mechanisms for to evaluate performance and drive improvements. A key role within the SMS is the Designated Person Ashore (DPA), who serves as the primary interface between the company and its ships. The DPA is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the SMS, ensuring adequate resources and shore-based support are provided, and reporting directly to the highest level of on safety and matters. This position underscores the company's accountability in bridging onshore oversight with onboard operations. The integration of human factors is central to the , recognizing that outcomes depend on the , , attitudes, and of individuals at all levels. Companies must ensure members are qualified, certificated, and medically fit, with procedures in place to identify and provide necessary training to support the . This emphasis fosters a strong , where ongoing education and enhance performance and reduce human-error-related risks in operations.

Functional Requirements

The functional requirements of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code outline the essential operational outcomes that a company's (SMS) must achieve to ensure safe ship operations and . These requirements, detailed in 1.4 of the Code, are:
  • A and .
  • Instructions and procedures for safe operation of ships and protection of the environment.
  • Defined levels of authority and communication between shore and shipboard personnel.
  • Procedures for reporting accidents and non-conformities.
  • Procedures to prepare for and respond to situations.
  • Procedures for internal audits and reviews.
They mandate that every company develop, implement, and maintain an incorporating these elements to meet the Code's objectives of preventing human injury, , and damage to the . The core functional areas focus on delivering safe operation of ships and protection of the through compliance with international and , including defined responsibilities and authorities for personnel, as well as structured procedures for , , and drills. A primary is the establishment of instructions and procedures to ensure the safe operation of ships and protection of the . This encompasses clear guidelines for day-to-day shipboard activities, such as , cargo handling, and machinery operations, to minimize risks to , passengers, and the marine . Defined levels of and lines of communication between shore-based and shipboard personnel further support this by clarifying roles, enabling efficient decision-making, and fostering accountability across the organization. Additionally, recruitment processes must prioritize qualified and medically fit , while ongoing programs and regular drills ensure personnel are competent to handle operational tasks and understand relevant protocols. Handling hazardous situations and emergency preparedness form another critical functional pillar, requiring procedures to identify potential emergencies, such as fires, collisions, or man-overboard incidents, and to prepare effective responses. Companies must implement plans for immediate action, including evacuation, , and search-and-rescue operations, supported by periodic drills to test readiness and enhance coordination. These measures align with the Code's emphasis on proactive risk mitigation, where procedures for reporting accidents and non-conformities enable timely and corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Risk management is integral to the functional requirements, mandating procedures for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with ship operations, including the of shipboard . This involves regular inspections, planned maintenance systems, and reliability testing for critical machinery like engines, , and tools to ensure they function under all conditions. By applying techniques, companies can prioritize safeguards against foreseeable hazards, such as failure or adverse weather, thereby upholding the SMS's role in continuous operational . Continuous improvement mechanisms are required through internal audits and management reviews, which evaluate the SMS's effectiveness and incorporate lessons learned from incidents or near-misses. These reviews facilitate updates to policies and procedures, promoting a culture of ongoing enhancement in safety practices and environmental stewardship. For instance, post-incident analyses must lead to targeted improvements, ensuring the SMS evolves in response to operational feedback and regulatory changes. Pollution prevention is explicitly addressed as a functional outcome, with the SMS integrating requirements from the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for waste management, ballast water control, and oil spill response. Procedures must include shipboard plans like the (SOPEP) to contain and report spills, alongside routine handling of garbage, sewage, and emissions to comply with MARPOL Annexes I through VI. This integration ensures that environmental protection policies are actionable, reducing the risk of accidental or operational during voyages.

Certification and Verification

Document of Compliance

The (DOC) is a issued to a shipping company, confirming that its (SMS) complies with the requirements of the International (ISM) Code for the types of ships it operates. It serves as evidence that the company is capable of establishing and maintaining an SMS that ensures safe operation of ships and prevention of environmental damage, as verified by the administration or an organization recognized by the administration. The DOC is mandatory for companies operating ships subject to the ISM Code, and a copy must be kept on board each relevant ship for inspection by authorities, though no formal authentication of the copy is required. The issuance of a DOC follows an initial verification audit, which examines the company's SMS documentation, procedures, and evidence of implementation, typically requiring at least three months of operational experience under the system. This audit confirms compliance with all functional requirements and elements of the ISM Code at the company level, focusing on shore-based aspects such as organizational structure, procedures, and resources. Upon satisfactory completion, the DOC is issued with a validity of up to five years. An interim DOC may be issued for up to 12 months to new companies or for new ship types, pending full verification. The scope of the DOC is limited to the specific ship types operated by as verified during the initial ; operation of additional ship types necessitates further and endorsement or a new DOC. To maintain validity, annual audits must be conducted within three months before or after the anniversary date of the DOC issuance, reviewing records and ensuring ongoing SMS compliance, often including examination of documentation from at least one ship per type. Renewal of the DOC requires a comprehensive verification audit completed no more than before expiry, assessing the full for continued compliance; the new DOC is valid for up to five years from the original expiry date if renewed within this window. If the renewal audit occurs more than prior, validity starts from the audit date. The DOC may be suspended or withdrawn by the issuing authority if an annual verification is not requested, if major non-conformities are identified and not rectified within an agreed timeframe (typically ), or if the fails to demonstrate effective implementation. Withdrawal of the DOC automatically invalidates all associated Safety Management Certificates for the company's ships.

Safety Management Certificate

The Safety Management Certificate (SMC) is a document issued to individual ships subject to the , confirming that the company's is implemented onboard in accordance with the Code's requirements. It signifies that both the company and shipboard management operate effectively under the approved to ensure safe operations and prevent pollution. The SMC is mandatory for ships covered by the under SOLAS Chapter IX and must be issued by the flag state's Administration or an authorized recognized organization. Issuance of the SMC begins with an initial verification conducted onboard the ship, which includes a thorough of SMS documentation, interviews with personnel, and observations of operational practices to confirm . This verifies that the has been in operation for at least and produces objective of its effectiveness. Upon satisfactory completion, the SMC is issued for a maximum validity period of five years. As of 2025, certain verifications may be conducted remotely under guidelines. To maintain validity, the certificate requires annual verifications within of each anniversary date, an intermediate verification between the second and third anniversaries (involving a full onboard similar to the initial one), and a within before expiry. These s ensure ongoing SMS implementation, with any non-conformities addressed through corrective actions; major issues may lead to suspension or withdrawal of the certificate. In cases such as newbuilds, change of company, or , an interim SMC may be issued for up to six months, subject to specific conditions and extendable once under exceptional circumstances. A key requirement for SMC issuance is that the ship must hold a valid from its operating company, confirming the SMS's applicability to the vessel's type and operations. The SMC must be prominently displayed onboard in a accessible to all personnel and carried as an original or at all times. Failure to maintain these standards can invalidate the certificate, potentially grounding the vessel. Port State Control (PSC) authorities play a critical role in enforcing SMC compliance by inspecting foreign ships in their ports to verify the certificate's validity, including endorsements from intermediate verifications. During routine or targeted inspections, PSC officers examine the SMC alongside the DOC and assess onboard SMS implementation for deficiencies; absence of a valid SMC or evidence of serious non-compliance constitutes grounds for detention until rectified by an authorized audit. Such detentions highlight systemic failures and trigger notifications to the flag state and recognized organization for corrective measures.

Implementation and Compliance

Company Responsibilities

Under the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, shipping companies bear primary legal and operational duties to ensure the safe management and of vessels, as well as , by establishing a robust framework for oversight. The company, defined as the owner of the ship or any other or such as the manager or bareboat charterer who has assumed for the of the ship from the owner, must develop, implement, and maintain a (SMS) tailored to the company's activities, the size of its fleet, and the type of ships operated. This SMS must include a and environmental-protection , as well as instructions and procedures to ensure safe in compliance with international and legislation. To fulfill these core duties, the company is required to ensure that adequate resources, including personnel, equipment, and shore-based support, are provided to enable safe shipboard operations and to address emergency preparedness. A key aspect of these responsibilities involves defining clear policies and appointing a Designated Person Ashore (DPA) to provide a link between and those on board, monitoring the implementation of the and verifying its effectiveness. The DPA must have direct access to the highest level of management and sufficient authority to ensure that the functions as intended, with responsible for providing the DPA with adequate resources and support. Additionally, must document the responsibilities, authority, and interrelations of all personnel involved in managing, performing, or verifying work related to and , ensuring alignment with the objectives. In terms of personnel , companies are obligated to assess the of shipboard and shore-based personnel to carry out their duties safely, providing necessary programs to maintain and enhance skills in and . This includes ensuring familiarization for all personnel with their specific duties, the ship, and the , particularly for new or transferred crew members, to promote a culture of awareness at all levels. Competence assessment must be based on documented standards, with ongoing to address identified needs, thereby minimizing as a factor in maritime incidents. For incident reporting, companies must establish procedures within the for the prompt notification of accidents, hazardous occurrences, and non-conformities to the appropriate authorities, as well as internal reporting mechanisms to identify and address potential risks. These procedures facilitate the analysis of incidents to prevent recurrence, including the reporting of near-misses to enhance proactive safety measures. The shore-ship is critical for continuous oversight, requiring companies to maintain effective lines of communication between shore and vessels to monitor operations, provide technical support, and ensure compliance with the . This includes regular exchanges of information on issues, maintenance requirements, and operational changes, enabling real-time assistance and fostering a unified approach to across the fleet.

Audits, Reviews, and Corrective Actions

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code mandates a structured framework for audits, reviews, and corrective actions to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the (SMS) and compliance with safety and standards. These mechanisms enable continuous improvement by identifying deficiencies, verifying implementation, and addressing non-conformities through systematic processes. Internal and external audits, combined with management reviews, provide objective evidence of SMS performance, while corrective actions focus on to prevent recurrence of issues. Internal audits are a core responsibility of the company, conducted to verify that safety and pollution-prevention activities comply with the both on board ships and ashore. These audits must occur at intervals not exceeding twelve months, with records serving as evidence of SMS operation for certification purposes; in exceptional cases, the interval may extend by up to three months. The process involves reviewing procedures, observing practices, and interviewing personnel to assess SMS adequacy and implementation, ensuring all elements—from emergency preparedness to —are functioning as intended. Management reviews involve periodic evaluations by senior company personnel to assess the overall effectiveness of the and drive continual improvement. These reviews examine inputs such as results, non-conformity reports, incident analyses, master's reviews, and external feedback like inspections, leading to outputs including procedure amendments or new measures to enhance safety. Companies must formally communicate review outcomes to all relevant personnel and address any identified deficiencies with targeted corrective actions, ensuring alignment with ISM Code objectives. External verification is performed by the administration or an authorized recognized organization to independently confirm SMS compliance, supporting the issuance and maintenance of s. This includes initial audits before , annual verifications (within three months before or after the anniversary date), intermediate audits (between the second and third anniversary of the Safety Management Certificate), and renewal audits every five years. These audits evaluate SMS documentation, records, and operations using objective evidence, with major non-conformities potentially leading to certificate suspension or withdrawal if not resolved promptly. Corrective actions form an essential procedure for handling non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous occurrences identified through audits or reports, with companies required to establish mechanisms for their prompt implementation. Upon detection, non-conformities are classified ( or ), analyzed for causes, and addressed through specific measures to eliminate hazards and prevent recurrence, often within agreed timelines such as for verification follow-ups. Preventive actions may also be developed from near-miss to proactively strengthen the , fostering a of continuous safety enhancement.

Amendments and Guidelines

Major Amendments

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code has been revised through several major amendments to refine its provisions, incorporate lessons from incidents, and align with broader standards. These updates have focused on enhancing the effectiveness of (SMS) without altering the code's core structure. The first significant revision occurred in 2000 via IMO resolution MSC.104(73), adopted on 5 December 2000 and entering into force on 1 July 2002. This amendment added definitions to section 1.1, modified section 7 on emergency preparedness, and introduced new chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Part B to formalize and verification procedures. It also revised the appendix to include standardized forms for the Document of Compliance (DOC) and Safety Management Certificate (SMC), thereby providing clarifications on SMS documentation requirements and verification processes. In 2004, resolution MSC.179(79), adopted on 10 December 2004 and effective from 1 July 2006, targeted the by inserting additional details into and SMC forms in the appendix. These changes strengthened documentation related to emergency preparedness drills and crew training competencies, ensuring that evaluations better accounted for operational readiness in crisis situations. The 2005 amendment under resolution MSC.195(80), adopted on 20 May 2005 and entering into force on 1 January 2009, further refined the appendix by adding specific text to full-term, interim , and SMC certificates. This update emphasized improved procedures for identifying and reporting non-conformities, alongside enhancements to integration within maintenance and audits. Resolution MSC.273(85), adopted on 4 December 2008 and effective from 1 July 2010, brought broader substantive changes to Part A sections 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, as well as Part B sections 13 and 14, and the SMC form. Notable additions included explicit requirements for voyage planning under section 7, expanded obligations in sections 8 and 10 to cover operational hazards, and provisions in section 12 for periodic SMS reviews that could address emerging risks such as cybersecurity. The most recent major amendment, resolution MSC.353(92), adopted on 21 June 2013 and entering into force on 1 2015, focused on Part A sections 6 and 12, along with updated footnotes for cross-references. It reinforced the allocation of resources to support the master's authority in section 6 and mandated more robust company verification and oversight mechanisms in section 12 to ensure ongoing SMS compliance. As of November 2025, no further major amendments to the ISM Code have been adopted. The (IMO) has issued several non-binding circulars and resolutions to facilitate the practical application of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, providing detailed guidance on operational aspects of safety management systems (SMS). These documents emphasize best practices for implementation, focusing on areas such as documentation, , personnel qualifications, incident reporting, and emerging threats like cybersecurity. Adopted following amendments to the ISM Code, they support companies in achieving compliance while promoting a proactive . The revised guidelines outlined in IMO circular MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.8, adopted on 28 June 2013, offer comprehensive recommendations for the operational implementation of the ISM Code by shipping companies. These guidelines stress the importance of designating a person with direct access to top to monitor SMS effectiveness on ships and ashore, ensuring adequate resources for personnel, , and materials. For documentation, companies are advised to establish clear procedures for recording non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous occurrences, including the master's role in reviewing the SMS and reporting deficiencies. practices highlighted include analyzing near-misses to identify root causes, implementing corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and conducting periodic evaluations of SMS performance to address gaps. Internal audits are recommended at least every 12 months, with provisions for extensions in exceptional cases, to verify ongoing compliance and safety awareness. Guidance on the qualifications, training, and experience for the Designated Person Ashore (DPA) is provided in circular MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6, issued on 19 October 2007. The DPA serves as the primary link between the company and its ships, responsible for verifying implementation and reporting to . Selection criteria include in , , or physical sciences from a recognized ; alternatively, Standards of Training, and Watchkeeping (STCW) with relevant seagoing experience as a certified ; or other formal education combined with at least three years of senior-level ship experience. Training requirements encompass knowledge of the Code, mandatory international rules, safety principles, auditing techniques, shipping operations, and communication skills to effectively promote a . Companies must document evidence of the DPA's qualifications and provide ongoing support, including procedures for incident analysis and non-statutory compliance verification. To enhance safety learning, circular MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7, dated 10 October 2008, establishes procedures for near-miss reporting within the Code framework, particularly under section 9 on hazardous occurrences. A near-miss is defined as a sequence of events or conditions that could have led to , environmental , or loss but was averted by or chance. The guidelines promote a environment, emphasizing non-punitive reporting with confidentiality to overcome barriers like fear of blame, while distinguishing between acceptable errors and willful misconduct. Companies are required to define reporting procedures, including on incident details (who, what, when, where), , and implementation of recommendations to prevent recurrence. Reports should be archived for and shared across the organization to foster continuous improvement in risk awareness and effectiveness. Addressing post-2015 developments in digital risks, circular MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3 (Revised 3, 4 April 2025) provides interim guidelines on cyber , recommending its integration into existing as an extension of traditional and processes. is urged to cultivate a culture of cyber awareness, starting with risk identification through inventories of critical digital assets like , propulsion, and cargo systems to assess vulnerabilities. Protection measures include implementing unique credentials, strong passwords, , regular backups, and annual cybersecurity for all personnel. Detection involves continuous monitoring and staff education on recognizing threats, while response and recovery protocols encompass incident reporting plans, , system restoration, and post-event reviews to minimize operational disruptions. These high-level recommendations align with international standards like ISO/IEC 27001 and support resilience against evolving cyber threats to and ship operations. Complementing these guidelines, Resolution MSC.428(98), adopted on 16 June 2017, affirms that approved must account for cyber in line with ISM Code objectives for safe operations and . The resolution encourages administrations to ensure cyber risks are addressed during the first annual verification of the Document of Compliance after 1 January 2021, and invites member states to disseminate awareness among stakeholders. It references the functional elements of identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover, urging companies to incorporate these into to maintain operational amid increasing digital interdependencies in .

References

  1. [1]
    The International Safety Management (ISM) Code
    The purpose of the ISM Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    [PDF] IMO | ISM Code
    Oct 25, 2012 · 1 The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.
  4. [4]
    International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974
    The main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, compatible with their safety.<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    [PDF] INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SAFETY OF LIFE AT ...
    Nov 23, 1995 · Content of the consolidated text. 4 This publication contains a consolidated text of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, the 1988 SOLAS. Protocol, and ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] International Safety Management (ISM) Code implementation
    Safety Management Audit – a systematic and independent examination to determine whether the. Safety Management System (SMS) activities and related results ...<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Free Article: The IMO: roles; structure; outputs - Nautical Institute
    Sep 30, 2024 · Name. Number of States Party. Percentage of World Tonnage ; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. 168. 98.63%.
  8. [8]
    The Capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise - UK P&I Club
    Jan 27, 2022 · The capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise revealed negligence involving the ship's crew as well as the significant responsibility of the management of the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Do you know which major maritime accidents led to major regulations?
    Feb 27, 2025 · RMS Titanic (1912) and the birth of SOLAS · Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989) and oil pollution regulations · Herald of Free Enterprise (1987) and the ...
  10. [10]
    Maritime Disasters That Led to Changes in Marine Law
    Notable incidents such as the Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1967, the Amoco Cadiz disaster in 1978, and the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 ...
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    Ferry Survivors Describe a Night of Horror, Heroism : Sea disaster
    Dec 17, 1991 · After the second full day of search and rescue operations, up to 485 passengers and crew members from the Salem Express were still unaccounted for.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] FormalInvestigation_HeraldofFre...
    8.4. When the full-scale experiment using the PRIDE OF FREE ENTERPRISE was undertaken in early June at Zeebrugge it was found that the ship could not ...Missing: ISM | Show results with:ISM
  14. [14]
    Safety management and safety culture
    The ISM Code, adopted in 1993, is the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, and became mandatory in 1998.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] MSC 81/17/1 - deutsche-flagge.de
    Dec 21, 2005 · 1.1 The International Safety Management (ISM) Code's origins go back to the late 1980s, when there was mounting concern about poor management ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  16. [16]
    About Us - Ferriby Group
    History in the development of international ISM Code. In 1991, our Founder, the late Captain Graham Botterill, was appointed specialist advisor to the House ...
  17. [17]
    MSIS 2 International Management Code for the safe operation of ...
    Nov 8, 2024 · The ISM Code provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.
  18. [18]
    EUR-Lex - 52003PC0767 - EN - European Union
    'International Safety Management (ISM) Code' means the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention as adopted by ...Missing: exemptions | Show results with:exemptions
  19. [19]
    What is International Safety Management Code or ISM Code?
    Jun 2, 2023 · The International Management Code provides an international standard for the management and operation of ships and pollution prevention.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Revised ISM Code Effective as from 1 January 2015 - ClassNK
    13.5 The Document of Compliance should be withdrawn by the Administration or, at its request, by the Contracting Government which issued the document, when the.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Resolution A.1118(30) Adopted on 6 December 2017
    Dec 6, 2017 · The company policy should include the objectives defined by the ISM Code. 3.1.2 Administrations should verify compliance with the requirements ...
  22. [22]
  23. [23]
    ISM Code Certification and Verification - DOC, Interim DOC, SMC ...
    Sep 28, 2022 · A Document of Compliance (DOC) is issued when the companies are compliant with the shore-side aspects of the SMS and the ISM Code.
  24. [24]
    None
    ### Role of Port State Control in Verifying Safety Management Certificate under ISM Code, Including Detention
  25. [25]
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    [PDF] RESOLUTION A. 788(19) adopted on 23 November 1995 ...
    Nov 23, 1995 · The ISM Code provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. The ISM Code ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] MSC.273(85) - International Maritime Organization
    Dec 4, 2008 · (INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE). THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE,. RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International ...
  30. [30]
    None
    ### Summary of Management Reviews and Corrective Actions in the Context of the ISM Code
  31. [31]
    [PDF] resolution msc.104(73) - International Maritime Organization
    Dec 5, 2000 · Page 15. RESOLUTION MSC.104(73). (adopted on 5 December 2000). ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) CODE.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] ISM Code / Amendment Status - deutsche-flagge.de
    Res.MSC.179(79). 10.Dec.2004. 01.Jul.2006. Appendix(DOC, SMC). 2005 Amendments. Res.MSC.195(80) ... Res.MSC.273(85). 04.Dec.2008. 01.Jul.2010. Part A(1, 5, 7, 8, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  33. [33]
    [PDF] RESOLUTION MSC.179(79) (adopted on 10 December 2004 ...
    Dec 10, 2004 · HAVING CONSIDERED, at its seventy-ninth session, amendments to the ISM Code proposed and circulated in accordance with article VIII(b)(i) of the ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  34. [34]
    [PDF] MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.8 28 June 2013 REVISED GUIDELINES FOR ...
    Jun 28, 2013 · 3 The ISM Code requires that Companies establish safety objectives as described in section 1.2 (Objectives) of the ISM Code, and in addition ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    [PDF] IMO Ref. T2-HES/4.2 MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.6 T5-MEPC/1.01 19 ...
    Oct 19, 2007 · The Designated Person needs formal education, training in safety management, and experience in presenting ISM matters and assessing safety ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] IMO Ref: T2-HES/4.2 MSC-MEPC.7/Circ.7 T5-MEPC/1.01 10 ...
    Oct 10, 2008 · 1.1 Companies should investigate near-misses as a regulatory requirement under the “Hazardous Occurrences” part of the ISM Code.
  37. [37]
    None
    ### Summary of Interim Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management
  38. [38]
    None
    ### Summary of Resolution MSC.428(98) on Maritime Cyber Risk Management