imo news magazine, issue 4.2003

IM NEWST H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

Special Edition to mark William O’Neil’s 14 years of leadership at IMOI S S U E 4 . 2 0 0 3

Contents

Foreword

2 SPECIAL EDITION IMO NEWS No.4 2003 www.imo.org

Foreword by Dr. C.P. Srivastava ________________________________________________4-5

A demanding role in a vital industry_____________________________________________6-9

Feature

William O’Neil: an appreciation

Features

Mr. Kofi Annan __________________________________________________________________10

Mr. Jean Chrétien _______________________________________________________________11

Mr. John Prescott _______________________________________________________________12

Hon. Mr. Blas F. Ople ___________________________________________________________13

Mr.Zhang Chun Xian ____________________________________________________________14

Mr Censu Galea_________________________________________________________________15

Admiral Thomas H. Collins ______________________________________________________17

Mr. Alberto Alemán Zubieta_____________________________________________________18

Mr. Ilmar Reepalu _______________________________________________________________19

Mr. Chris Horrocks______________________________________________________________20

Mr. David Cockroft ______________________________________________________________22

Mr. Michael Everard_____________________________________________________________23

Dr. Gamal El-Din Mokhtar _______________________________________________________25

Mr. Peter Swift __________________________________________________________________26

Mr. Måns Jacobsson____________________________________________________________27

Mr. Roger Holt __________________________________________________________________29

Mr. Peter Nicholson_____________________________________________________________30

Mr. E.G. Embiricos ______________________________________________________________31

Mr. Ugo Salerno_________________________________________________________________33

Lord Sterling ____________________________________________________________________35

Mr. Nikolas P. Tsakos ___________________________________________________________36

Mr. George Poulides ____________________________________________________________37

Mr. J.M. Kopernicki _____________________________________________________________39

Mr. Alfred Popp _________________________________________________________________40

Mr. John C. Lyras _______________________________________________________________41

Rear-Admiral Sid Wallace _______________________________________________________43

Professor C. Th. Grammenos___________________________________________________45

Mr. Michael Julian _______________________________________________________________47

Mr. Themis Vokos_______________________________________________________________49

Mr. Basil Ph Papachristidis ______________________________________________________50

Captain Michel Pouliot __________________________________________________________51

Mr. Richard Sayer _______________________________________________________________52

Mr. Michael Grey________________________________________________________________53

IMO News interviews William A. O’Neil _________________________________________55-58

An international figure on the world stage ______________________________________59-62

IMO’s challenges and achievements ___________________________________________63-64

The Memorial to Seafarers______________________________________________________65-66

www.imo.org No.4 2003 IMO NEWS SPECIAL EDITION 3

William A. O’NeilIn this special edition of IMO

News, we pay tribute to the

career of Mr William O’Neil,

who moves on from the

Organization at the end of

2003 after a record 14-year

tenure in the post of

Secretary-General.


Ihave had the privilege of a closeassociation with Mr. William A.

O’Neil for nearly thirty years now as afriend as well as a colleague in diversecapacities in the service of theInternational Maritime Organizationand the wider world maritimecommunity. For me, this has been anenormously rewarding, indeedelevating experience. As a friend, Mr.O’Neil has been most kind,considerate, helpful and affectionate.As a colleague he has always displayedclarity of vision, firmness of resolveand strong support for all initiativesfor the purpose of enhancing theefficiency and efficacy of theInternational Maritime Organization.

Mr. O’Neil began his longassociation with the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) (- thencalled the Inter-GovernmentalMaritime Consultative Organization –IMCO) in 1972 as the delegate of hisgreat country, Canada, to the IMCOCouncil. At this time IMCO wasengaged in the development of newglobal technical standards formaritime safety and for the preventionof marine pollution from ships. A newConvention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping forSeafarers was also on IMCO’s agenda.This important task was beingaccomplished with excellence underthe overall guidance of the Council.Mr. O’Neil was deeply involved in theongoing work of the Organization andhad given it full support.

In 1980 Mr. O’Neil was elected asChairman of the Council, a post whichhe held with acclaimed distinctionuntil his election as Secretary-Generalof the Organization with effect from 1January 1990. During this decadeseveral fundamental developmentstook place in the Organization.Emphasis was shifted from thedevelopment of new standards,conventions and protocols to theeffective global implementation of thecomprehensive standards which hadbeen adopted already. Under theleadership of Mr. O’Neil, the Council

ensured that new standards oramendments to existing instrumentswere proposed only when there waswell proven urgent and essential need.This policy was greatly welcomed bymaritime administrations throughoutthe world.

Recognising that the developingcountries were unable to participateeffectively and meaningfully in thetechnical committees of theOrganization due to an acute shortageof advanced maritime expertise, theCouncil, under Mr. O’Neil’s

leadership, gave strong andunanimous support to theestablishment of a new globalinstitution as a centre of excellence forpost-graduate education in maritimeaffairs and for the transfer of advancedmaritime technology from thedeveloped to developing countries.This proposal was approved by theAssembly of the Organization in 1981,resulting in the establishment of theWorld Maritime University at Malmöin Sweden in 1983.

The name of the Organization waschanged in 1982 from Inter-Governmental Maritime Organizationto International Maritime Organization(IMO). This simpler and moreexpressive name was widely welcomed.

In the formulation andimplementation of new policies andprogrammes in IMO during the years1980 to 1989, Mr. O’Neil played, in hiscapacity as Chairman of the Council, avery sagacious and decisive role. I saythis from personal experience becauseI was the IMO Secretary-General atthat time and was working veryclosely with Mr. O’Neil.

On 1 January 1990, Mr. WilliamO’Neil succeeded me as Secretary-General of the International MaritimeOrganization. With the experience of8 years as the delegate of Canada andnearly 10 years as IMO CouncilChairman, Mr. O’Neil was extremelywell prepared and equipped for hisnew responsibilities. Under Mr.O’Neil’s leadership IMO has sinceundergone a sea change. It isfunctioning at a much higher level ofefficiency and effectiveness than everbefore. Mr. O’Neil has, from the verybeginning of his tenure, given the

highest priority to the effectiveattainment of the principal objective ofIMO, namely maritime safetythroughout the world. Recognizingthat the “human element” plays acrucial role in this regard, hepromoted the concept of even higherstandards for shipboard personnelthan those laid down in the STCWConvention of 1978 coupled with anappropriate and effective arrangementfor ensuring strict compliance with allthe enhanced requirements. MemberStates of IMO found these ideas inconsonance with their own wishes.Preparatory action for this purposewas set in motion and eventuallyresulted in the adoption ofcomprehensive amendments to the1978 STCW Convention. These far-reaching amendments have come tobe known as ‘STCW 1995’. A noveland far-reaching provision included inthese amendments was therequirement that all acceding MemberStates would submit to IMO a detailedand authentic report on their nationallegal and administrative arrangementsfor ensuring effective and completecompliance with all of the amendedSTCW requirements, for scrutiny by

Foreword

by Dr. C.P. Srivastava, K.C.M.G.

“Under Mr O’Neil’s leadership, IMO hasundergone a sea change. It is functioning at a muchhigher level of efficiency and effectiveness thanever before.”


Panels of Government nominees andapproval by the Maritime SafetyCommittee. The names of allMember States whose arrangementsfor implementation were found to befully satisfactory, would be madeknown. The implication was that shipsunder the flag of a “non-complying”State would be naturally subjected tostrict and detailed port State controlprocedures with all the attendantdelays and adverse financialconsequences.

This new arrangement is already inforce and is yielding the desiredresults. And IMO is now regarded asan Organization which not onlyproduces rules and regulations butalso ensures compliance. For thishistoric achievement I wish to expressmy sincerest admiration to all IMOMember States and to IMO’sSecretary-General, Mr. William O’Neil.

The adoption, during Mr. O’Neil’stenure, of two other cruciallyimportant instruments – themandatory International SafetyManagement (ISM) Code and themore recent International Ship andPort Facility Security (ISPS) Code alsocalls for prolonged applause. Thesetwo Codes, together with STCW 1995will go a long way towards ensuringmaritime safety globally and therebycreating a new ‘safety culture’ of Mr.O’Neil’s vision.

Before finishing, I wish to refer totwo other developments. During histenure as IMO Secretary-General Mr.O’Neil has, in his capacity asChancellor of the World MaritimeUniversity (WMU) and as Chairman ofthe Governing Board of the IMOInternational Maritime Law Institute

(IMLI), provided strong leadershipand determined support to theseinstitutions with the result that bothWMU and IMLI have won globalrenown for the exceptional excellenceof their programmes. The graduatesof the World Maritime University havechanged the scene in IMO. Thanks tothem, all Member States of IMO,developed and developing, are nowparticipating in IMO’s activities onequal terms. All Member States ofIMO now have maritime specialists ofhigh calibre. And I must refer also toanother of Mr. O’Neil’s admirable

creations – the Seafarers Memorial –an overdue acknowledgement of thecrucial role of seafarers in the safety ofinternational shipping.

When Mr. William O’Neil retiresfrom the service of IMO on 31December 2003 after an association of30 years – 8 years as the delegate ofCanada, 10 years as IMO CouncilChairman and 14 years as IMOSecretary-General, he will leavebehind an unmatched andunsurpassable record of exceptionallymeritorious service to a highlyrespected Specialized Agency of theUnited Nations – the InternationalMaritime Organization. I offer himmy warmest felicitations andcongratulations.

I conclude by wishing him many,many happy years in retirement.

“He will leave behind an unmatched andunsurpassable record of exceptionally meritoriousservice to a highly respected Specialized Agency ofthe United Nations.”

The 23rd meeting of the IMOAssembly will close just a few

short weeks before Mr WilliamO’Neil’s fourteen-year tenure asSecretary-General of IMO comes to anend. It will be asked to pass aresolution recording with deepappreciation the outstandingcontribution made by Mr. O’Neil to thepurposes and functions of theOrganization during the period of hisstewardship from 1 January 1990.

The resolution recognises withgratitude Mr O’Neil’s commitment tothe ideals and mission of the IMO inimproving the safety of life at sea, theprotection of the marine environment,and enhancement of maritime security,as well as to fostering and promotingglobal acceptance and effectiveimplementation of IMO’s safety,security and environmental treatyinstruments. It also refers to hisleadership, his counsel, his clarity ofvision and purpose, as well as hisstrong and effective advocacy of theadoption of an effective globalmaritime safety culture.

In doing so, it reflects the almostunique nature of the position of IMOSecretary-General, a job which hastwo quite distinct elements. On theone hand, the incumbent isresponsible for effective running ofthe IMO secretariat, with its staff ofabout 300 people based at the

Organization’s London headquarters.The secretariat provides the 162Member States and 3 AssociateMembers with a host of servicesincluding interpretation, translationand the production of documents, aswell as offering technical guidancewhenever it may be required. Some 46nationalities are represented on thesecretariat staff, which is structured insix divisions: Maritime Safety, MarineEnvironment, Technical Co-operation,Legal and External Relations,Administrative and Conference. It is ajob not unlike that of managingdirector of a medium sized company.Targets have to be met, budgets haveto be drawn up and adhered to,management and career structures

must be devised and implemented andthe whole Organization must functioneffectively on a day-to-day basis.

But, perhaps even more importantly,the Secretary-General of IMO must bean active, indeed pro-active participantin the pursuit of the aims and goals ofthe Organization. Whether it bebehind the scenes, such as in privatemeetings with industry groups orgovernmental delegations, or in thefull glare of the public eye, such as thehigh-profile speaking engagementsundertaken all over the world, theSecretary-General of IMO isconstantly playing his own, significantpart in moving forward theinternational agenda on maritimesafety, pollution prevention andsecurity.

There is perhaps no better exampleof the importance of this latter rolethan the intense round of diplomacyand lobbying that was undertaken bySecretary-General O’Neil earlier thisyear in the wake of the sinking of thetanker Prestige off the coast of Spain.This incident had caused a wave ofpublic and political indignationthroughout Europe and, as a result,the threat of unilateral action thatwould be outside the terms of theMARPOL Convention – theinternational treaty that deals withpollution from ships – seemed a veryreal one.

IMO’s Secretary-General– a demanding role in a vital industry


Visit to Peru

Opening of GMDSS laboratory, India

In January, anxious that any move tochange the regulatory frameworkconcerning oil tankers should bedirected through IMO and therebygain the appropriate internationalimprimatur, Mr. O’Neil and AssistantSecretary-General Mr. E.E.Mitropoulos went to Greece for talkswith Mr. George Anomeritis, thenMinister of Mercantile Marine ofGreece and President of the EuropeanUnion Maritime Transport Ministers’Council, to discuss the matter in detail.The thrust of this initiative was toconfirm to Mr. Anomeritis and,through him, to the European Union,that IMO was the appropriate forum toconsider and decide on any measureswhich the EU Members might feelwere in need of additional regulatoryaction at the international level, andthat the Organization was prepared toact expeditiously in this regard.

Mr. O’Neil invited Mr. Anomeritis toensure that any proposals in thecontext of the Prestige accident callingfor action at the regulatory level wouldbe submitted to IMO and assured Mr.Anomeritis that he would, inconsultation with MemberGovernments, see that prompt actionfor their consideration would be takenin the most expeditious manner. At theend of the meeting, the two sides wereable to express satisfaction for thepositive and constructive manner andoutcome of their consultationsconcerning action in the context of thePrestige accident.

Then in March, Mr. O’Neil followedup this mission with a meeting inBrussels with the Vice-President ofthe European Commission, Mrs.Loyola de Palacio, to further discusswhat action should be taken in theaftermath of the Prestige accident.After the meeting, both were able toexpress their satisfaction with thepositive and constructive manner andoutcome of their consultations, andconcurred that the opportunity shouldbe seized, as soon as possible, for IMOto further enhance the prevention ofpollution from tankers at the world-wide level.

Furthermore, Mrs. de Palacio statedthat as soon as the EU Institutions hadformulated their position in responseto the Prestige accident, appropriatemeasures would be proposed to IMOby the EU to revise the MARPOLConvention. Since then, proposalshave subsequently been submitted toIMO and the matter is currently beingdealt with by the Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee.

This successful example of pro-active diplomacy is typical of the rolethat an IMO Secretary-General mustundertake. Intense, high-levelnegotiations to co-ordinate efforts in aparticular direction, or engaging in

public debate to highlight the keyissues of the day, form a central coreof the Secretary-General’s work.

In the case of Secretary-GeneralO’Neil, there is a strong track recordof personal intervention in the work ofIMO that speaks of a man with apassionate and genuine interest in thevalues that the Organization seeks topromote. In his early years in office,for example, there was a sharp and, inhis view, unacceptable increase in bulkcarrier accidents. Mr O’Neil’sresponse was to present the IMOAssembly with a resolution on thematter, the first time such an initiativehad come from the Secretary-General.It was not to be the last.

Throughout his career with IMO,Mr O’Neil has taken a detailed interestin all the work of the Organization, as


With UK Transport minister Mr. Alistair Darling

Meeting with Capt. Wei of COSCO

Receiving ship model from Mr. Mohammed Al Gilani from Vela International

one would expect. But certain issueshave prompted his particular attentionand, over the years, the Organizationhas benefited from his personalintervention in major work items suchas ro-ro safety, large passengervessels, the shift in emphasis onto thehuman element and, more recently,the massive efforts undertaken by theOrganization to establish a regulatoryframework for an effective securityregime to cover international shippingand port activities.

That the Organization has the scopeand the resources to deal with theseand all the myriad other issues thatare brought before it is due in nosmall measure to the solid foundationprovided by the permanent secretariatfrom the Organization’s headquartersin London. Yet, when Mr O’Neil tookup the reigns as Secretary-General, itis no exaggeration to say that theOrganization was facing a financialcrisis. While the cost of providing theservices to the Members was naturallyincreasing, the financial contributionsfrom the Members at that time werefalling dramatically short of what wasneeded. Secretary-General O’Neilundertook to resolve this situationand, since then, his commitment toimproving the Organization’s financialframework has led to the achievementof contribution levels of 98 per cent,

which now rank IMO as amongst thebest in the United Nations system inthis respect.

In return, the Members havewitnessed prudent management of theOrganization’s resources and consistentdelivery of the Organization’s workprogramme and budget. Moreover,there has been a strong commitment toincreased transparency, innovation, andmanagement of change which ishelping the secretariat keep pace withthe fast moving, commercial world ofindustry with which it interacts on adaily basis.

Over the years, the scope of IMOhas increased significantly from itsoriginal role as a consultative bodyfocussed primarily on maritime safetyto its current manifestation, whichembraces issues such as marinepollution, maritime security, legalmatters, compensation and thefacilitation of maritime traffic.

During his period at the helm,Secretary-General O’Neil has alsoworked hard to broaden theparticipation in the Organization toreflect its expanding role. TheMembership, for example, now standsat 162 Member States and threeAssociate Members, one importantconsequence of which is that thatalmost all the nations of the world thathave a significant interest in shipping,whether as shipowning countries,coastal states, suppliers of maritimeservices or simply as trading nations,now have a voice in the Organization’swork. The most important IMOConventions, such as SOLAS,MARPOL, STCW, the CollisionRegulations and the TonnageConvention, now apply to more than90 per cent of the world fleet.

Mr O’Neil has also given strongencouragement to the activeparticipation in the Organization’swork by all sectors of the industry. Asa result, there are now more than 60


Visit to naval school, India

Signing technical co-operation agreement with minister Sung K. Huh, Republic of Korea

non-governmental organisations andover 30 intergovernmentalorganisations that enjoy consultativestatus with IMO and which regularlyattend meetings and participate in theOrganization’s decision-makingprocess. Bodies representing all facetsof shipping’s many and diverseparticipants, from naval architectsthrough ship builders, ship operators,ship suppliers, terminal operators andmany more, all play their part, asindeed do interests from outside theindustry, such as environmental, legaland financial organisations.

In developing the scope of theOrganization and expanding the baseof those who actively participate, theSecretary-General has also sought topursue new sources of extra-budgetary funding to support theOrganization’s technical co-operationprogramme which, over many years,has made a massive contribution tothe ability of the Membership, and ofdeveloping countries in particular, toadopt and implement theOrganization’s instruments.

To this end, Mr O’Neil has taken anotable, personal interest instrengthening the relevance andcapacity of the Organization’seducational institutions, which havebecome firmly established globalproviders of maritime training andeducation. Mr O’Neil has served as

Chancellor of the World MaritimeUniversity in Sweden and Chairman ofthe Governing Board of theInternational Maritime Law Institute inMalta, and he will continue in bothpositions after his departure from IMO.

Turning to wider fora, theSecretary-General pursues a relentlessand punishing schedule of speakingengagements and personalappearances worldwide It would notbe unusual to find, for example, akeynote speech on aspects of marineelectronics in the Far East to befollowed days later by the inaugurationof a new wing at a training centre inSouth America. It is an energy-sappingschedule that reflects both theextensive geographical spread and thediverse range of topics that areincluded within the ambit of this trulyinternational and multi-facetedOrganization.

William. O’Neil himself has beenassociated with IMO since 1972, whenhe attended the IMO Council asCanada’s representative. In 1979 hewas elected Chairman of that body andheld the post until his appointment bythe Council to serve his first four-yearterm as Secretary-General, whichbegan in 1990.

An engineer by training, Mr. O’Neilcame to IMO from the Canada’s StLawrence Seaway Authority, where hehad been President and ChiefExecutive Officer since 1980. Aftergraduating from the University ofToronto he had joined Canada’sFederal Department of Transport. In1955 he became Division Engineer incharge of bringing the Welland Canalup to the St Lawrence Seawaystandards and subsequently held othersenior posts with the Authorityincluding being in charge of theWelland Canal. In 1964 he becameresponsible for all Seaway constructionand major maintenance work.

In 1971 he took up the position ofDeputy Administrator, MarineServices, of the Canadian MarineTransport Administration and, fouryears later, became first Commissioner

of the Canadian Coast Guard. Inaddition, he was a Director ofCanarctic Shipping Ltd and a Directorof several intra-provincial andinternational bridge corporations.

Mr. O’Neil was unanimously re-elected to serve a second four-yearterm as Secretary-General beginningin 1994 and was again re-elected for athird four-year term beginning in 1998.He was elected for a further two-yearterm, beginning in 2002.

Mr. O’Neil’s contribution tointernational shipping activities hasbeen recognized by the worldmaritime and engineeringcommunities through the award ofmany decorations, honours andmemberships of professionalinstitutions.

But, perhaps most importantly, andas the IMO Assembly will be asked torecognise formally later this year,during his tenure there has been amaterial and sustained reduction inboth the loss of life at sea and marinepollution from ships. It is in theimmense efforts that lie behind thesesimple statistics that William O’Neilwill draw his greatest satisfaction. Thesatisfaction that comes from knowingthat a job which, although impossibleto declare finished, has been carriedforward with dedication anddistinction throughout his fourteenyears at the helm.


Floral greetings from Korea

Visit to Trinidad and Tobago

It is hard to imagine a world withoutshipping. Directly employing some

1.25 million seafarers, and transportingthe majority of the world’s commerce,shipping is a pillar of the globaleconomy and a leading example of aglobalized industry with the potential tomake a direct contribution to many ofthe primary goals of the UnitedNations. The International MaritimeOrganization is a key player in thisrealm: its resolutions carry globallegitimacy, its standard-setting facilitatesinternational cooperation, and itsprogrammes bring expert assistance torich and poor countries alike.

The IMO’s efforts to prevent marinepollution offer one example of valuablework that furthers the wider UNagenda and complements that of otherUN specialized agencies in theirresponse to the ‘Earth Summit’ of 1992and the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, held in Johannesburg in2002. The IMO has adoptedregulations for the prevention of air

pollution from ships, as well as anew convention to prevent the useof harmful anti-fouling systems onships. It has raised levels ofcompensation for victims ofincidents involving oil pollutionand other hazardous substances.And in 2004, it is expected to adopta new convention for themanagement and control of ships’ballast water, which may containharmful aquatic organisms thatcan settle as ‘harmful alien species’in new regions of the world,threatening biodiversity andcausing tremendous economicdamage as well.

The IMO’s long-standing workto ensure the security of shipping

has taken on new urgency in the wakeof the 11 September 2001 terroristattacks against the United States. Likethe United Nations Security Counciland General Assembly, whichimmediately condemned the attacksand set in motion a variety of stepsdesigned to intensify the fight againstinternational terrorism, the IMOAssembly acted quickly, calling for areview of all procedures aimed atpreventing acts of terrorism thatthreaten the security of passengers andcrews and the safety of ships. That ledin turn to a maritime securityconference in December 2002, which

adopted new measures, including theInternational Ship and Port FacilitySecurity Code (ISPS Code). The workon security is also focusing on capacitybuilding in developing countries, onseafarer issues (in co-operation with theInternational Labour Organization), andon strengthening security in thetransport of containers (in co-operationwith the World Customs Organization).

There has also been good co-operation between the IMO and the UNsystem in dealing with persons rescuedat sea, such as refugees and/or asylumseekers.

I am pleased to pay tribute to WilliamO’Neil for his role in these and otherinitiatives over the years. Hiscommitment to cooperation has forgedstrong ties between the IMO and itspartners, both within and beyond theUN system. His engineeringbackground has served him well oncritical technical issues. And hisconcern for the individual seafarercarrying the burden of this oftendifficult work led to the adoption of anew, mandatory International SafetyManagement Code and of revised,stringent, standards of competencies forseafarers.

It is fitting that one of his legacies willbe the International Memorial toSeafarers: those serving today, often indangerous circumstances; those whohave given their lives in the line of duty;and to the seafarers of the future, whowill bring new energies and ideas to anage-old profession and without whomthe global economy would not be ableto achieve its objectives. The statue of aseafarer on the bow of a ship, standingoutside IMO headquarters in London,reminds us all of the pivotal roleshipping plays in world trade anddevelopment. As Mr. O’Neil’s tenuredraws to an end, I would like to expressmy great appreciation for hisachievements and wish him well in allhis future pursuits. I also pledge mycommitment to continue workingclosely with the IMO in our commonquest to help people everywhere buildbetter lives for themselves andsucceeding generations.

William A. O’Neil: an appreciation

by Mr. Kofi AnnanSecretary-General of the United Nations

“His commitment to co-operation has forgedstrong ties between the IMO and its partners, bothwithin and beyond the UN system.”


I am pleased, on behalf of the CanadianGovernment, to contribute to this

special issue of the IMO News thathonours the contribution of WilliamO’Neil, the departing Secretary-Generalof the International MaritimeOrganization.

The IMO has a mandate that iscentral to Canada’s well-being, and tothe well-being of all other countrieswhose citizens venture on the oceans.It is a fine example of a multilateralorganization in which the membershipcomes together to address global issuesin its field of expertise. As a nationprofoundly dependant on maritimetrade and a healthy ocean environment,Canada has long supported the criticalwork of the IMO including Bulk CarrierSafety initiatives, implementation ofSafety Management Systems, the driveagainst sub-standard shipping andenvironmental issues such as airpollution from ships.

Throughout Mr. O’Neil’s leadership,the IMO’s objective of ‘safe, secure, andefficient shipping on clean oceans’ hascontinued to serve as the Organization’shallmark. Mr. O’Neil’s legacy includesthe revision of the InternationalConvention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping forSeafarers and the adoption of theInternational Safety Management Code.The IMO undertook significant reviewson the safety of passenger ships, bulkcarriers and tankers. Mr. O’Neil’stenure has also seen the increase of theIMO Council from 32 to 40 members tomore adequately represent the marinepopulation around the world and heestablished a Seafarers Memorial TrustFund to pay tribute to seafarers uponwhom the shipping industry relies.After the tragic events of September 11,2001, the organization responded swiftly

by amending the InternationalConvention for the Safety of Life atSea, and adopting a code onInternational Ship and PortFacility Security. TheOrganization also intervenedpromptly in response to thesinking of the Prestige off thecoast of Spain. Mr. O’Neil hasnever lost sight of the mostimportant issue, namely the safetyof the people who dedicate theirlives to the sea.

Canadians are proud that one oftheir own has served thisorganization with such distinctionover the past fourteen years. Mr.O’Neil became Secretary-Generalafter serving as the firstCommissioner of our Canadian CoastGuard and then as President of the St.Lawrence Seaway Authority. When aCanadian such as William O’Neil goesto serve in a senior position at an

international organization, he or she, ofcourse, is no longer a Canadian publicservant, but rather a servant of theinternational community. TheGovernment of Canada is happy to havemade Mr. O’Neil available for sucheminent service, and wishes him thevery best as he departs with such astrong record of achievements.


by Mr. Jean ChrétienPrime Minister of Canada

“Mr O’Neil has never lost sight of the most important issue, namely thesafety of the people who dedicate their lives to the sea.”


In the 14 years since he becameGeneral Secretary of the IMO, Bill

O’Neil has made an outstandingcontribution to shipping safety and tothe protection of the marineenvironment. His work will beremembered for many years to come.There have been so many significantdevelopments and achievements in thepast 14 years that it is difficult to knowwhere to begin.

Bulk CarriersTake bulk carrier safety, for example.In the past, losses of these carriers haveresulted in a significant and tragic lossof life and Bill has been a driving forcein getting the safety requirements forthese ships re-examined. In 1991 he

proposed that the IMO adopt aresolution to improve bulk carriersafety. And while improvements wereevident after the adoption of theresolution, further cause for concernresulted in Bill recommending to theIMO that it reconsider the whole issueof bulk carrier safety. I am pleased tosay that the United Kingdom report,which resulted from my re-opening ofthe inquiry into the loss of the

Derbyshire, made a significantcontribution to the IMO’sdeliberations. The resultingrevised requirements that havebeen agreed in principle representan important improvement in thesafety of these ships. I have nodoubt that Bill’s work has helpedto save lives.Human Element / ISM CodeAs many of you will know, I am apassionate believer in theimportance of high qualitytraining for seafarers. It issomething I have constantlyworked and campaigned for overmany years. During Bill’s tenure,the IMO has produced twoimportant publications to addressthis area, the International Safety

Management Code (ISM Code) and the1995 amendments to the 1978Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping forSeafarers (STCW 1995). The ISMCode requires ship owners to establisha safety and environmental-protectionpolicy to ensure safety at sea,prevention of human injury or loss oflife, and avoidance of damage to theenvironment. STCW 1995 has greatlyimproved seafarers standards and, forthe first time, gives the IMO itselfpowers to check Government actions inthis area. Both these measures arealready improving safety and pollutionprevention and will continue to do sofor many years to come.

Seafarers MemorialAnother milestone is the InternationalMemorial to Seafarers, which I had thehonour and pleasure of unveiling onWorld Maritime Day in 2001. TheMemorial is another example of Bill’scommitment to the world’s seafarers.Inspired by him, the proposal to erectthis monument was first mentioned in1998. It now stands, not only as atribute to Bill, but to all at the IMO,

and to those individuals andorganisations around the world whocontinue to dedicate themselves toimproving safety at sea.

Large Passenger ShipsDuring the Maritime Safety Committeemeeting in 2000, Bill raised the issue oflarge passenger ships and questionedwhether the current requirementswere adequate, not only for the largeships of today, but for the even largerand more luxurious cruise ships oftomorrow. What has followed is asignificant milestone in the history ofthe IMO. Not only is the IMOconducting one of the largest everstudies of the safety-related aspects ofa particular ship type, but this work isbeing conducted on a pro-active basis.This is a major cultural change for anorganisation that was previouslyreactive and that based almost all of itsdecisions on actual events.

SecurityAnother crucial piece of work for theIMO has been the promotion ofsecurity at sea. None of us will everforget the tragic events of 9/11 in theUnited States of America. As a result,Bill proposed that the IMO shouldcarry out a review of measures andprocedures to prevent acts of terrorismthat threaten the security ofpassengers and crews and the safety ofships. It is to Bill’s and the IMO’scredit that amendments to SOLASwere agreed in a little over a year.The most far reaching of theseenshrines the new International Shipand Port Facility Security Code (ISPSCode). Together, the reforms willgreatly enhance the security and safetyof those on the high seas.

ConclusionThe IMO plays the leading role insetting and maintaining high standardsfor the seafaring community and iscontinually striving to improve safety atsea and to protect the marineenvironment. Bill O’Neil, in his leadingrole at the IMO, has made a verysubstantial contribution to that processand I wish him well in his retirement.


by the Rt. Hon. Mr. John Prescott MPDeputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland


“There have been so many significantdevelopments and achievements it is difficult toknow where to begin.”

On behalf of the People andGovernment of the Philippines, I

wish to convey sincere appreciationfor the outstanding service you haverendered to the International MaritimeOrganization. During your fourteen-year stewardship of the Organization,the international community witnessedwider acceptance and effectiveimplementation of the IMO’s safety,security and environmental treatyinstruments. Under your leadership,the IMO gained unprecedentedrecognition as an effectiveinternational organization forimproving the safety of life at sea andprotection of the marine environment.

The Philippine Government isparticularly grateful for yourinvaluable assistance in helping thePhilippines in the implementation ofthe provisions of the InternationalConvention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeepingfor Seafarers, 1978, as amendedin 1995 (STCW 95) and theconsequent inclusion of thePhilippines in the IMO STCW‘White List’.

We deeply appreciate thevarious technical assistance theOrganization extended to thePhilippines during your watchthat helped the country in itscompliance with otherconventions and multilateralinstruments in respect of theIMO. We thank you in particularfor the decision to establish anIMO regional office in thePhilippines.

We convey our best wishes foryour good health and futureendeavours as you conclude your termof office in the IMO at the end of this

year. We look forward to a similarfruitful collaboration with yoursuccessor, Admiral Efthimios E.Mitropoulos.


by the Honorable Mr. Blas F. Ople Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines

“ IMO has gained unprecedented recognition asan effective international organization for improvingthe safety of life at sea and protecting the marineenvironment.”


Over the past 14 years, with theaccelerated development of

economic globalization and scienceand technology, maritime transporthas played an increasingly importantrole in the ever buoyant internationaltrade. In the face of new developmentsin international politics, economy,science and technology and trade, andto meet the demands of maritimeindustry development in the course,International Maritime Organization(IMO) has adjusted its strategy in aprompt and practical manner byputting in place a series of majorinitiatives, contributing positively tosafe navigation at sea and marineenvironmental protection.

IMO, as a specialized agency withinthe United Nations responsible formaritime affairs, has brought into fullplay its distinctive role as aninternational forum and successfullycoordinated the effective response tomany thorny major issues confrontedby the international maritime industry,

and thus effectively safeguardingthe universal action across theglobe. During the past 14 years,IMO has established andimproved many internationalmaritime legal instruments andtechnical standards, which as aresult, has pushed forward theenhancement of a harmonizedinternational maritime legalframework. In this process, IMOhas actively promoted thenurturing of maritime safetyculture and building up ofenvironment consciousness. Inparticular, with adoption of theISM Code and InternationalConvention on Standards ofTraining, Certification andWatchkeeping for Seafarers,

1978, as amended in 1995, IMO hasbrought into highlight the dominantrole played by the human element andmanagement in safety at sea andenvironmental protection.In parallel, taking into account thevarious needs of different countries,IMO has taken initiatives to carry outtechnical cooperation and providedtechnical assistance tailored todeveloping countries with a view tomaximizing the effective application ofconventions and standards of IMO inthe world.China, as a category-A councilmember of IMO, has alwayscommitted itself to strengthening

international cooperation. China hasbeen actively engaged in thediscussion of the issues like maritimesafety, security, environmentalprotection and facilitation of maritimetransport and made constructivesuggestions in the development andamendment of legal instruments

concerned. Meanwhile, China hasratified or acceded to virtually allmajor conventions and protocolsadopted by IMO and faithfullydischarged the obligations underthose instruments. In China, legal,administrative and technical measureshave been employed to strengthen flagstate implementation and port statecontrol so as to effectively safeguardsafety of navigation and environmentalprotection.As an active player at the internationalstage, China has always promoted andstood by the principle of IMO toaddress maritime disputes as well asissues of common interests within themulti-lateral legal framework andopposes to any unilateral action inwhatever form against internationalshipping by any country. Over the past14 years, China has cooperated withthe other states with a view tomaximizing internationalharmonization in the establishment ofinternational standards.Looking back at the past 14 years, wefully appreciate the outstandingcontribution made by IMO at the helmof H.E. Mr. William A. O’Neil to theinternational maritime industry. Whilelooking forward, we are also confidentthat in the consistent spirit of co-operation of the Organization, andwith the concerted efforts of allmember states, IMO will surely haveone glory after another in the futureand approach more closely to the goalof ‘Safer Shipping and CleanerOceans’, thus making greatercontribution to safety of navigation atsea and marine environmentalprotection.


by Mr. Zhang Chun XianMinister of Communications of the People’s Republic of China

“ In particular, IMO has brought into highlight thedominant role played by the human element insafety at sea and environmental protection.”


Avery important highlight of thefourteen-year tenure of Mr

William O’Neil as Secretary-General ofthe International MaritimeOrganization is undoubtedly therelentless drive by the Organizationtowards the universal adoption andimplementation of IMO conventions.

While international maritime lawrelating to safety and security ofshipping and the protection of themarine environment from shippingsources of pollution, clearly the remitof IMO, has continued to develop at afast pace, the Organization, has at thesame time devoted a great deal ofattention and resources towardsensuring a global implementation ofthese standards.

Mr O’Neil as Secretary-General ofIMO, as a true leader, throughout histerm of office has garnered thesupport of a highly competent anddedicated Secretariat. Besides that hehas also developed the necessary co-operation of both the member States ofthe Organization and of the maritimeindustry to update and renewinternational maritime law and toensure that the right mechanism is inplace for its worldwide implementation.

The undoubted considerable successachieved would not have been possiblewithout a comprehensive technicalassistance programme drawn up andcontinuously developed with foresightand vision. This programme had to bevigorously executed by the IMOSecretariat with the guidance andunder the leadership of Mr O’Neil.

Malta is proud with its closeassociation with this programme thathas also served to strengthen the tiesbetween Mr O’Neil and the Maltamaritime administration.

Malta hosts the Regional MarinePollution Emergency Response Centrefor the Mediterranean Sea and theIMO International Maritime LawInstitute. These two institutions wereset up before Mr O’Neil came to office.However, during his term as Secretary-

General they have been given anew lease of life and have becomeinstrumental in IMO’sprogramme for regional andinternational co-operation andassistance.

Operating on the basis of thedecisions of the ContractingParties to the BarcelonaConvention and financed by theMediterranean Trust Fund,REMPEC was the first suchRegional Centre in the world.Administered by the InternationalMaritime Organization REMPECis a tangible proof of whatregional cooperation can achieveand IMO has used the successfulREMPEC model in other regionsof the world. Mr O’Neil was, inter alia,instrumental in finalising negotiationsand concluding the 1990 host countryagreement between the Government ofMalta and IMO on the location ofREMPEC in Malta.

Malta also proudly hosts the IMOInternational Maritime Law Institute.IMLI has the principal objective ofproviding suitably trained personnel inmaritime law for the effectiveimplementation of the maritimeprogrammes of governments inaccordance with internationalregulations and standards. TheInstitute is yet another proof of theforesight and vision of IMO. IMLI is aninvestment in the future providingmaritime Administrations with themeans for a sustainable developmentof their maritime law infrastructureand the means for its implementationand enforcement.

During the recent years IMO hasnot only consolidated but alsoincreased its support towards thisInstitute. On the other hand the Maltagovernment sharing this strong beliefin the role, function and potential ofthe Institute and, working hand inhand with the IMO Secretary-Generalhas consistently been actively involvedin providing financial and othersupport.

Certainly IMLI would not be thesustainable project it is today were itnot for the determination of Mr O’Neilin ensuring, inter alia, a worldwidesupport for the Institute. Every year, atthe end of the academic year, despite avery heavy schedule, particularly atthat time of the year, Mr O’Neil, asIMO Secretary-General and asChairman of the IMLI Board ofGovernors makes the time to lead atthe graduation ceremony of the IMLIstudents. He takes personal interest inprogress of the students and continuesto enquire about their work and careerdevelopment long after theirgraduation. He is particularly delightedwhen he sees WMU and IMLIgraduates forming part of delegationsfrom member States participating atIMO meetings.

However important REMPEC andIMLI are they still remain a very smallpart of the initiatives and work of MrO’Neil. For fourteen years at the helmof one of the most dynamic, efficientand cost effective inter-governmentalorganizations Mr O’Neil hassuccessfully steered IMO throughdangerous and stormy waters neverloosing sight of the need thatinternational maritime law must becontinuously developed but fully awarethat such progress can only bemeaningful and can only be sustained


By Mr. Censu GaleaMinister for Transport and Communications, Malta



if it is complimented by a universalacceptance and global enforcementand implementation of these standards.

In recognition of his leadership andachievements several governmentshave bestowed honours on IMOSecretary-General. The University ofMalta has conferred a Directorate ofLaws Honoris Causa on Mr O’Neil.However, the best tribute paid to MrO’Neil is the universalacknowledgement of the internationalmaritime industry of the achievements

of IMO that he has led for such a longperiod of time. Now he is handing overto his successor a healthy and forwardlooking Organization. IMO, with thecooperation of the world maritimecommunity and under his leadershiphas worked relentlessly andsuccessfully towards ensuring safershipping and cleaner oceans. MrO’Neil is handing over leadership of anOrganization which now aims towardsa safer, a more secure and efficientshipping and clean oceans.

The Government of Malta paystribute to Mr O’Neil for his successand achievements as Secretary-General of the International MaritimeOrganization and augurs him furthersuccess in his continuing leadershiprole at the World Maritime Universityand the IMO International MaritimeLaw Institute.

“During recent years IMO has not onlyconsolidated but also increased its support towardsthis Maritime Law Institute.”


After years of distinctive service,we must now bid fair winds and

following seas to Secretary-GeneralWilliam O’Neil and congratulate himon his extraordinarily successfulnavigation through raging storms andhigh waters as he guided theInternational Maritime Organization(IMO) to safe harbor. Secretary-General O’Neil’s leadership hasexemplified the IMO’s objectives ofsafe, secure, and efficient shipping onclean oceans. He has raised the bar tounprecedented levels in the maritimeindustry that have resulted inimprovements to environmentalprotection, safety and security forcrews, ports, and ships at sea. He hasincreased educational and employmentopportunities for personnel in themaritime sector and has greatlyexpanded our Technical Cooperationprogramme.

For fourteen years, Secretary-GeneralO’Neil’s vision has led the IMO tosurpass both short and long-term goalsof improving the safety of life at seaworldwide. His personal involvementand commitment to seafarerseverywhere is a tribute to his characterand his success as our Chief Executive.Since taking office, Secretary-GeneralO’Neil has been a catalyst to increaserecognition of the importance ofmaritime safety and security around theworld. Truly, the IMO has risen tomeet the high expectations of theinternational maritime community,through the dedicated efforts ofSecretary-General O’Neil.

All segments of the maritimecommunity have been called upon by theSecretary-General to continue to improveworldwide standards. A good leadermust show excellent managerial ability; agreat leader, like Mr. O’Neil, possessesthe foresight and ability to rise tochallenges. Secretary-General O’Neilexhibited an introspective outlook on theInternational Convention for the Safety ofLife at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) requirementswhen he recognized the need to re-evaluate the regulations for the largepassenger cruise ships being built today.

This foresight has reduced the riskof potential catastrophes. In May2000, under Secretary-GeneralO’Neil’s direction, the IMOlaunched a comprehensive review ofthe SOLAS requirements to makecertain that they ensured the safetyof large passenger ships. Theinitiative addressed the protectionand safety of ships carryingthousands of passengers and crewmembers on the open seas.

Secretary-General O’Neildemonstrated his awareness ofthe need to balance industry andthe workforce improvements inpersonnel related issues when helead the development of theInternational Convention onStandards of Training,Certification, and Watchkeeping forSeafarers (STCW). Established in1978, the STCW Convention requiredseafarers to meet minimum standardsrelating to training, certification, andwatchkeeping. Countries were obligedto meet or exceed the minimumstandards, but different interpretationsof the regulations made consistencyand administration difficult.

In 1995, the STCW Convention wasamended to impose strict obligationsto be uniformly applied. Theamendments translated the STCWConvention into initiatives currentlybeing implemented.

International co-operative effortswere integrated into the establishmentof the International SafetyManagement Code (ISM) for the SafeOperation of Ships and PollutionPrevention. Secretary-General O’Neilguided the development of the Code tostimulate a culture of safety within theshipping community. The adoption ofcommon sets of rules and regulationsto protect the environment andincrease safety and security are atribute to the Secretary-General. Theintroduction of the ISM Code is aresult of the leadership andmanagement system he established,which is genuinely devoted to reducingthe number of marine disasters.

In the wake of the September 11,2001 and other tragic terrorismattacks, Secretary-General O’Neil ledthe IMO to increase maritime securitymeasures on an expedited basis. Theadoption of the International Code forthe Security of Ships and PortFacilities has established a benchmarkfor future co-operative development.Bulk carrier safety has improved, thusreducing carrier casualties, and itremains a priority on IMO’s agenda.

The United States Coast Guard takesgreat pleasure in extending ourwarmest appreciation to Secretary-General William O’Neil for hispersonal involvement and commitmentto raising world standards in themaritime industry. His value ofinternational co-operation in achievingmaritime safety and securityimprovements have marked hisexceptional career, and his zeal,dedication, and professionalism haveraised maritime standards. His spiritand determination leave us with themomentum to continue our IMOvoyage, continuing our quest, by wayof international co-operation, for safe,secure, and efficient shipping on cleanoceans. The United States CoastGuard bids farewell to Secretary-General O’Neil, and wishes him a safeand successful voyage on his nextadventure.

William A. O’Neil: an extraordinary voyage

by Admiral Thomas H. CollinsCommandant, United States Coast Guard


After 14 years of unwaveringservice, Mr. William O’Neil will

retire as Chairman of the InternationalMaritime Organization. The PanamaCanal family wants to express itsadmiration and respect for such aremarkable gentleman, andcommemorate his distinguishedcareer in the maritime industry.

Mr. O’Neil’s tenure at the helm ofthe IMO has been characterized byvery wise, yet practical decisionswhich led to safer shipping andcleaner oceans. Under Mr. O’Neil’sleadership, the IMO developed aproactive approach to maritimelegislation, offering viable solutionsand encouraging more hands-onparticipation by all Member States.With his guidance, the IMO’stechnical initiatives focused on thetraining and development of thenational administration’s humanresources in order to thoroughlyimplement international regulations.Mr. O’Neil also stressed theimportance of establishing furtherstrategic alliances with internationalgovernmental and non-governmentalorganizations. In co-operation with theIMO, these groups assure regulatorycompliance by all Member States.

As Secretary-General of the IMO,Mr. O’Neil established international

standards to address the safety ofbulk carriers and ro-ro ferries,and developed the InternationalSafety Management (ISM) Code.The ISM Code emphasizes theimportance of quality inoperations aboard ship and hasmade management directlyresponsible for safety andenvironmental compliance. Inaddition, a reduction innavigational accidents, which inturn saves lives and diminishespollution, has been attainedthrough implementation of theInternational Convention onStandards of Training,Certification and Watchkeepingfor Seafarers (STCW). TheSTCW recognizes the importance

of training and education in reducingaccidents. The International Code forthe Protection of Ships and PortFacilities (ISPS Code) establishesinternational standards andregulations to enhance ship and portsecurity.

Mr. O’Neil has been uniquelysensitive to the industry’sresponsibility to the public and hasguided efforts to reduce marinepollution and minimize accidents. Therecently ratified instruments thattackle marine pollution caused by anti-fouling paints (InternationalConvention on the Control of HarmfulAnti-fouling Systems on Ships) reflecthis strong stewardship.

These initiatives have all had apositive impact on the Panama Canal.More than 13,000 ships transit thewaterway every year and the majorityof the crossing is made through thepristine fresh waters of Gatun Lake.The Lake provides drinking water toPanama’s most populated cities, so it isimperative for our country that theships adhere to the strictest measuresand regulations to ensure safeoperations. In fact, the very low rateof transit-related accidents, reflects theresponsible operation and reliablemanagement of these vessels.

Mr. O’Neil is a great friend to thePanama Canal. His personal andprofessional involvement with thewaterway’s operation and its futurereveal a deep understanding of theimportant and critical role the Canalplays in the maritime world. Hispragmatic, well-balanced approach tonew issues and his clearunderstanding of the Canal arehallmarks of his holistic view of theconnection between shipping and thebroader economy. This is perhaps dueto his own professional backgroundand experience while in charge of theCanadian Saint Lawrence SeawayAuthority before being elected asSecretary-General of the IMO.

Mr. O’Neil will also be rememberedfor his ability to bring togetheropposing views while exercising agentle but firm leadership. Under Mr.O’Neil’s stewardship, the IMO led theindustry’s response in security mattersafter the September 11 attacks.

Appointed in 1999 as the first ofeleven members of the Panama CanalAdvisory Board, Mr. O’Neil was alsoelected as the first Chairman of thisBoard. His appointment as Chairmantook place at the crucial moment whenPanama was taking full charge of theCanal and needed to show the world itwas capable of running the Canal in anefficient and reliable manner.

Mr. O’Neil’s guidance wasinstrumental for the Canal’s success.

Mr. O’Neil maintains very close tieswith Panama and the Canal, alwayslending his support to ensure the long-term success of the waterway. Hisguidance and commitment are a greatasset in our on-going quest for a moreefficient, competitive and saferwaterway.

As Mr. O’Neil prepares for newendeavors, we express our best wishesto him.

The Honorable William O’Neil – A friend of thePanama Canal forever by Mr. Alberto Alemán ZubietaAdministrator, Panama Canal Authority


It feels natural for me to talk aboutthe World Maritime University in

connection with IMO and Mr. O’Neil’speriod as Secretary-General. Being arepresentative of the host city of theuniversity I am proud to say that bothWMU and the city have had aninteresting and exciting developmentfrom 1990 and up till now.

The city of Malmö has transformedfrom a traditional trade and industryenvironment to a modern Europeancity with new enterprises in high-techbranches like ICT and biotechnology.Malmö’s character has also changedradically since the establishment ofthe new university. We have alsoduring this period made the city muchnicer through different beautifyingmeasures in the physical environment.New residential areas have been builtclose to WMU and covering thewaterfront. I am convinced that allthese changes both physical andknowledge-based have made Malmö amore attractive city for WMU’sstudents, teachers and researchers.

As I have followed the developmentof WMU during many years now, I canalso say that the university haschanged in many ways since 1990.And it is also obvious that theuniversity is needed more than ever aswe demand competence to run well-managed ports and ensure that ourmarine areas and coastlines arehealthy and ecologically sustainable.

During the current period newprogrammes for education have beenintroduced. The number of specialcourses has increased. Now WMUoffers many short courses dealingwith specific and important issuesfacing the maritime world of today.

This means that the real numberof students over a year is morethan 500. I must say that I findthis to be a very impressivefigure.

Other examples of new orincreased activities regardresearch and consultancy. Aspecial research unit has beencreated. Together withconsultancy this means thatWMU generates income on theseactivities. This income makes anice contribution to the budget ofthe university.

I would also like to point at theimportant fact that WMU haspositioned itself in theeducational and scientificinternational community. Why is thatthe case? The answer is that theuniversity has exposed itself toexternal audit. This is of course a wayof increasing the credibility of theuniversity, but also a way to open upfor improvements. In the long runthis makes it possible to raise thestatus of WMU as an internationalinstitution for education and researchin the maritime field.

Since 1990 WMU has sought newinternational contacts and co-operationto develop its education programmes.In its hometown, Malmö University,which is important both for the twoparties and the city. By increasing co-operation between the universities,

Malmö’s new profile as a knowledgebased city is strengthened. This issomething that I really welcome andsupport.

To conclude, I would like to stressthat I myself and the city have alwaysbeen very proud to host WMU.

Because of that it is very satisfying tolook back to the beginning of the1990s and establish the positivedevelopment that WMU hasexperienced so far. Of course we canfeel still more proud than before. Andthis is a result of a joint effort by IMOunder the leadership of Secretary-General Mr. O’Neil and also to a largeextent the present rector of WMU, Mr.Karl Laubstein.

IMO and its grown-up maritime university

by Mr. Illmar ReepaluChairman of Malmö City Executive Board

“By increasing co-operation between WMU andMalmo University, Malmö’s new profile as aknowledge-based city is enhanced.”


The first time I remember meetingBill O’Neil was back in the dark

ages when he was still head of theCanadian Coast Guard. He will have norecollection of that occasion, becauseheads of Coast Guards receive courtesycalls on a daily basis. But for me,accompanying the then ICS Secretary-General, Rear Admiral Bill Graham, ona trip to Ottawa at a time whenCanadian pollution legislation wasproving worryingly innovative, it was aspecial event.

I guess that Bill O’Neil was alreadyattending IMO meetings at that time (orIMCO as it then was), no doubt as headof the Canadian delegation to theCouncil. But it must have been in 1980or thereabouts, by which time he wasrunning the St. Lawrence SeawayAuthority, that he was elected chairmanof the Council, a post he filled withgreat distinction for ten years.

There is arguably no better trainingfor an outsider aspiring to the post ofSecretary-General of IMO than a spellas chairman of the Council. As theelected senior body of the Organization,the Council is not only its principaldecision-making forum but also itspolitical weathervane, influenced asmuch by external factors as by theimmediate regulatory and legal issuesof the moment. The chairman needs afirm hand, a way with people and good

judgement to retain the confidenceof the Council for a full decade.

UN organizations are inevitablyassociated with the Secretary-General of the day and take on thepersona of the current incumbent.Fairly or unfairly, even the UnitedNations itself is remembered asmuch for who was in charge as forwhat it was doing at the time.

So it is with IMO. Those withlong memories will recall Sir ColinGoad, urbanely directing anefficient and largely apoliticalorganisation in the days when thetraditional maritime nations notonly called all the shots but alsocontrolled most of the ships. CPSrivastava brought the

organisation into the modern world,developing IMCO’s consultative roleinto today’s fully-fledged UN agency,IMO, and doubling its membership asthe developing maritime nations were

encouraged to play a full part in itsdiscussions. The Organization grew instature, it moved to splendid newpremises more appropriate to the onlyUN agency in the United Kingdom, andit established itself as an effectivestandard-setting body. If in the processit started to become more political, thatwas an inevitable sign of the times.

Bill O’Neil was elected Secretary-General after a Srivastava era of 16years. It must have been a daunting actto follow. But in succession to CP’sconsummate diplomatic skills hebrought with him not only a thoroughfirst-hand knowledge of the organisationbut also the pragmatic approach of aqualified engineer and very successfulmanager, aware of the regulatorydemands on IMO but equally familiarwith both the commercial constraints

on the shipping industry and thepolitical pressure points of his newresponsibilities.

When standing for election in 1989Bill O’Neil might have hoped thatconsolidation would be his principalobjective, following the successfulworld-wide implementation of the coreIMO maritime conventions – SOLAS,MARPOL and the like. If so, it was notto be. The Exxon Valdez disaster thatyear stirred up a political storm in theUnited States which was to give rise tothe US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). The pros and cons of OPA 90 havebeen exhaustively discussed. But thereis no getting away from the fact that itdamaged the widely-held principle thatIMO must be the single standard-setting body for the shipping industry,and set the example for the recentpredations by Brussels following theErika and Prestige incidents.

When the history books are written

Bill O’Neil’s great achievement will berecognised to be the skilful way inwhich he has managed not only toargue the case for universal recognitionof the role of IMO, but also to deliverthe promises he has made. It has beena bruising few years for theOrganization and the threat ofregionalism has certainly not goneaway. But despite the evident tensionsbetween members and the difficultiescreated by politicians looking forwhipping boys, senior officials attendingIMO meetings are arguably more awarethan ever before of the need to holdhard to the line that it is IMO whichmust establish the internationalrulebook for shipping. It is Bill O’Neilwho must be thanked for that.

If holding the Organization togetherunder threat has been his greatestachievement, there have been many

The Bill O’Neil legacy

by Mr. Chris HorrocksSecretary-General, International Chamber of Shipping/International Shipping Federation

“ IMO established itself as an effective standard-setting body. If in the process it became morepolitical, that was an inevitable sign of the times.”


others during Bill O’Neil’s 14 years inoffice. IMO watchers will all have theirown favourite examples. For me, thereare five that stand out.

First, the successful adoption ofSTCW 95, which not only provided amuch needed shake-up of seafarertraining and certification, but also sawIMO take its first tentative (andarguably overdue) steps towardsassuming an executive role, with theappointment of teams of ‘competentpersons’ to assess member states’readiness to join the STCW ‘white list’.This sort of role, initially controversial,is surely one which will becomeincreasingly commonplace for theOrganization in the years ahead.

Next, of course, the positive anddirect way in which IMO responded toEuropean demands to phase-out single-hull tankers in the wake of the Erika

incident. The speed of that response,and the way in which the Organizationrose to the challenge, showed greatdetermination and leadership.

Thirdly, improvements in bulk carriersafety, a campaign in which Bill O’Neilvested a great deal of personalcommitment and energy. Bulk carrierscan quickly become the forgottensector, ignored in the face of glitzierissues such as pollution incidents andpassenger vessel safety. The evidentdetermination of the Secretary-Generalto progress a programme which wouldgive bulk carrier safety the attention itdeserved was a major contributor to asuccessful series of regulatoryenhancements.

Fourthly, never to be forgotten, therapid response to United Statesdemands for heightened maritime

security in the wake of the terroristattacks of September 2001. From blanksheet of paper to ISPS Code in 14months was clear evidence of anorganisation trained to deliver.

And last, but by no means least, hisplan of action to address the mostimportant question of flag stateresponsibilities. This is unfinishedbusiness, and has been perhaps thehardest nut to crack during Bill O’Neil’stenure. If the concept of flag state auditcomes good, as we must all hope itdoes, it will not only improve regulatoryaccountability, but it will also stamp theauthority of IMO even more clearly onthe international maritime community.

Furthermore, it will become a lastingtestimony to a Secretary-Generaldetermined to ensure that he hands onto his successor an Organizationproperly empowered to take theresponsibilities which properly fall to it.

The Bill O’Neil era has provided afascinating and stimulating 14 years foreveryone involved in this mostfascinating and stimulating ofindustries.

“ If the concept of Flag Sate audit comes good, itwill stamp the authority of IMO even more clearlyon the international maritime community.”

22 SPECIAL EDITION IMO NEWS No.4 2003 www.imo.org.

The ITF, which participates in IMOactivities as the representative of

the ICFTU, has enjoyed an excellentrelationship with Secretary-GeneralO’Neil since his election. Our co-operation has been beneficial both tothe seafarers we represent and to themaritime community as a whole. BillO’Neil’s tenure has been during adifficult time as many issues havecome to the centre of public attentionwhich have required an urgentresponse from the IMO. Included inthis are bulk carrier safety, ro-roferries, single hull tankers, persons indistress, maritime security and thegeneral issue of Flag StateImplementation. His tenure of officehas also seen a move away fromhardware issues with more attentiongiven to the human element which isfundamental to maritime safety andthe protection of the environment.

The ITF appreciates the leadershipBill O’Neil has shown on critical issuessuch as bulk carrier safety and thesafety of large passenger ships. Whilemore still needs to be done to improvethe safety of bulk carriers, the ITFwelcomes the reduction in the numberof casualties and the needless loss ofseafarers’ lives.

Bill’s tenure has seen a major revisionof the IMO instruments and animprovement in international

minimum standards. Although,as he has frequently stressed, theenforcement of these standards isstill far from universal.

During his period of office, theSTCW Convention underwent acomprehensive revision. Whilethe process did not fully meet thehigh and, perhaps unrealisticexpectations we all had, it was asignificant achievement andintroduced new and innovativeoversight provisions andprovided a sound foundation forwork to address the widespreadproblem of fatigue amongstseafarers.

The human element is of coursemuch wider than training and

certification or even fatigue. Othermore sensitive issues have also beenaddressed in close cooperation withthe ILO, the UN agency withresponsibility for social questions. Ofparticular note is the work of the JointIMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert WorkingGroup on Liability and CompensationRegarding Claims for Death, PersonalInjury and Abandonment of Seafarersand Assembly Resolutions onFinancial Security in Case ofAbandonment and on Shipowners’Responsibilities in Respect ofContractual Claims for Personal Injuryor death.

The most recent period has beendominated by maritime security, andthe ITF is pleased that the IMO wasable to find a carefully constructedbalance between the real concerns forbetter security and the human rightsof those working on the world’s ships.The new provisions in SOLAS and therelated Ship and Port Facility SecurityCode (ISPS) should provide additionalprotection for both society and forseafarers.

The ITF has always attachedconsiderable importance to co-operation between internationalorganisations and believes thatbringing their special expertise to bearon issues can be beneficial, as can

using the overlapping competencies toaddress issues in a holistic manner.We therefore welcome theinvolvement of the IMO in the inter-agency Consultative Group on FlagState Implementation, which theUnited Nations has established.

The ITF has always supported theWorld Maritime University, bothpolitically and financially. Early in itslife, our Seafarers’ Trust was able tomake a substantial donation towardsthe establishment of a chair in humanfactors, and we have continued tosponsor WMU students. It isgratifying to see the real progress theWMU has made under Bill O’Neil’stenure.

The ITF exists to protect seafarers andto ensure that the interests of thosewho work at sea are reflected ininternational instruments. InSecretary-General O’ Neil, we havealways found a receptive ear. It isclear that he has always had theinterests of seafarers at heart andperhaps the most long lastingmanifestation of this will be theMemorial to Seafarers which standsby the IMO entrance and whichreminds all those who enter or leavethe building of the central role of theOrganization.

We wish Bill well for his well earnedretirement, which comes at the end ofa distinguished career. We also lookforward to working closely with hissuccessor to build on the firmfoundations he has built.

Tribute to Bill O’Neil

by Mr. David Cockroft,General Secretary, International Transport Workers’ Federation

www.imo.org. No.4 2003 IMO NEWS SPECIAL EDITION 23

The International MaritimeOrganisation that Mr William

O’Neil took over as Secretary-Generalin 1990 seems, in retrospect, verydifferent to that which he leavesfourteen years later. To those at the‘coal face’ of the industry, operatingships in one of the most commerciallychallenging periods in living memory,IMO in 1990 often seemed remote, itscommittees and sub-committeesinhabited by regulators detached fromthe business of operating ships.

Bill O’Neil seems to have made aconscious decision to bring industryinto the IMO loop, and he quickly setabout this task. We in the industrywere soon made aware of hispresence. He attended industryfunctions assiduously and seemedanxious to try and understand ourproblems. For his part he was able tocommunicate what IMO was doingand how it was going to affect us, inour particular shipping sector. Perhapswe didn’t quite appreciate it at the timebut this friendly and efficient Canadianwas bridge building between theindustry and the IMO and over theyears these links have strengthened.Due to his intervention, theorganisation has seemed morerelevant, and the regulators havebecome less remote. It has been a two-way traffic that surely must haveresulted in better regulation andregulators more attuned to thepractical realities of the shippingindustry.

The industry has also undoubtedlyappreciated the very personalcommitment to marine safety that BillO’Neil has brought to theOrganization. There were elements ofthe maritime world that he found quiteunacceptable and in his speeches he

was able to draw attention tothese. His attachment to thecauses of sinking of bulk carrierswas notable in this respect, whenhe in the early 1990’s took theunprecedented step to submit apaper to the Maritime SafetyCommittee requesting it to adopta new agenda item Bulk CarrierSafety. The item is still on MSC’sagenda, but likely to be taken offafter its next meeting in 2004. Alarge number of safety measureshas been and some remain to be,implemented for new as well asexisting bulk carriers. The effectof this can already be seen in thevery improved casualty statisticsfor this ship type. The Secretary-General lending the weight of hisoffice to such a problem clearly hasdone much to accelerate the processof finding solutions to this highlycomplex problem.

The pedestrian nature of IMO’sworking was also something, whichwe have seen changing markedlyduring Bill O’Neil’s time in office. Asan organisation of more than 150sovereign states and a commitment toaction through consensus it hasscarcely been IMO’s fault that yearswould sometimes pass between anagreement for a technical amendmentto a convention and itsimplementation. Governments havedifferent priorities. But without adoubt we have seen IMO speed up the

processes, often due once again to thepersuasion and diplomacy of theSecretary-General. Difficult matterswhere there was an element ofsovereignty at stake - one thinks ofFlag State Implementation - have beenchallenges that IMO has not shrunk

from. And when there was a real crisisof public confidence - following thetragic loss of the Estonia - IMO and itsmembers showed that it could movefast and effectively to make passengerro-ro ferries safer.

Throughout the past fourteen years,IMO and the industry have workedcloser together than ever before, andto good effect. The InternationalSafety Management Code is a perfectexample of industry and regulatorsworking in harmony, producing adynamic document designed to makethe seas safer and cleaner. The STCWConvention has been another instanceof the useful co-operation betweenIMO and industry, arguably moreimportant than almost any otherregulatory process in that it hasaddressed the human element that wenow know to be so essential.

Maritime events and regulatorymilestones inevitably encouragerecollection. One thinks of theconcern in tanker operating circlesafter the US Oil Pollution Act 1990,provoked by public and politicaloutrage after the Exxon Valdez andthe challenge that this provided to theorganisation as it strove to developinternational solutions for tankerconstruction and operation that wouldprevent unilateral action. We see this

IMO and fourteen years of William A. O’Neil

by Mr. Michael EverardPresident, BIMCO

“Bill O’Neil made a conscious decision to bringindustry into the IMO loop and he quickly setabout this task.”


pattern of events; of an accidentprovoking political action and threatsof unilateral or regional regulationrepeating itself in Europe, after theErika and Prestige incidents, and theSecretary-General providing seriousleadership skills in preventing whathas been described as a ‘regulatorypatchwork’ spreading over the world’sseas. Also, after both these accidents,BIMCO has been pleased to be invitedto participate in the Group of Expertson Impact Assessment, providing vitaland factual information to ensure thatthe subsequent regulations werebased on the best available facts. Anadded dimension has been produced

by the awful events of 9/11 and hereonce again, the IMO and industry hasbeen able to collaborate fruitfully toproduce the ISPS Code, in a timelymanner, to answer an urgent need.There is a system here that clearlyworks well.

As observers to IMO over the years,we at BIMCO have done our best tobring a practical industry perspectiveto the regulatory process. We haveappreciated the warm helpfulness ofthe Secretary-General and hissecretariat and the approachabilitythat is not always present in largeinternational organizations. We havebeen very conscious that we have

been part of a team hopefullyproducing better regulations, relevantto a shipping industry that continuesto change fast from a technical point ofview.

The proof of the pudding, so it issaid, is in the eating and despite all thepresent problems, the statistics of shipand personnel loss and the incidenceof pollution demonstrate clearly thatunder Bill O’Neil’s leadership the seasare safer and pollution much reduced.This is a matter for both pride andsatisfaction and we at BIMCO willapplaud the substantial contribution ofthe Secretary-General during hisfourteen years at the helm.


We cannot, as a rule, do withoutconventional standards which, at

least, ensure regularity andsystematically. But a rule is said to be arule because it allows for exceptions.And surely a man of destiny is anexception whom conventional standardsare too narrow to encompass. ‘Naturemade him, and then broke the mould’. The ‘man of destiny’ is the one and onlyinclusive term that could recapitulateHis Excellency W. O’Neil’s leadership ofthe International Maritime Organization(IMO) in the capacity of its Secretary-General. Through O’Neil, many of thegreat expectations placed on IMO havecome true. But in this short article I willconfine myself to two of his greatestachievements, namely the selection ofthe leaders of WMU and the TechnicalCo-operation Division. The two leadershave made an outstanding turnabout intheir fields. I will, here, refer to a coupleof situations that may give us insightinto the visions of this great man andhow his mind works.

1. When Karl Laubstein applied forthe Rectorship of the WorldMaritime University (WMU), allconventional standards coalescedagainst him. He was of Germanorigin and so was Professor Zade;he was a Canadian and so was MrO’Neil: two facts that could not bevery much welcomed by aninstitution based on the balance ofas many nationalities as possible.

Before Karl was appointed, theSelecting Committee hadunanimously nominated acandidate, who rightfully believed,according to the UNESCODeclaration, in the autonomy of theUniversity, thus asserting thatWMU should be independent of

IMO. It occurred to me thatsuch a concept in the case of theembryonic WMU would meandetaching the umbilical cordthat connected it to its parent,which could mean an abortion. Iwas really concerned because Ifirmly believed that separatingWMU from IMO would bedestructive. Moreover, DrLaubstein had been chosen byCanada to run a fishery projectof two billion Canadian dollars, achoice that must have come outof something since ‘nothing willcome of nothing’ asShakespeare puts it. I intimated my meditations tothe Secretary-General, askinghim to exercise his authority, asstipulated in WMU Constitution, byoverruling the decision of theSelecting Committee. It takes aman of destiny to identify anotherman of destiny, and thus Laubsteinbecame Rector of WMU.

Now, WMU presides at the apex ofpostgraduate maritime institutionsworldwide due to the support ofthe Nippon Foundation which isbecoming the largest donor of theannual Fellowship Programme,which could not have succeededwithout that generous support. Itsuffices to say that the NipponFoundation finances fourProfessorial Chairs (US$ 100,000each). Reference should be madeto the Agreement between WMUand the University of Wales (500years old) to jointly confer thePh.D. Degree.We should never fail to pay homageto O’Neil as one of the mainfounding fathers of this great

institution along with C.P.Srivastava.

2. O’Neil believes that co-operationbetween maritime organizationsand institutions as well as betweendeveloped and developingcountries is not a luxury. This isreflected by his support of allinitiatives in WMU, the AfricanAssociation of Maritime TrainingInstitutions (AAMTI) & theInternational Association ofMaritime Universities (IAMU).“The benefit is mutual”, he alwaysreiterates. Receiving assistancehelps those who receive to ensuretheir existence; providingassistance helps those who provideto satisfy their moral obligations. The choice of Edwards to lead theTechnical Co-operation Divisionmarks an essential transformationin the performance of theTechnical Co-operation Committee(TCC) and the delivery of theIntegrated Technical CommitteeProgramme (ITCP).

William A. O’Neil: the man of destiny

by Dr. Gamal El-Din Ahmed MokhtarPresident, Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport

“A man of destiny is an exception whomconventional standards are too narrow toencompass. Through Mr O’Neil, many of the greatexpectations placed on the IMO have come true.”


The Exxon Valdez oil pollutiondisaster in Alaska 1989, and the

tough, unilateral OPA 90 legislation thatcame out of it, together sent a powerfulwave of change rolling over the tankerindustry. Enter the politician into amajor role in the world of tankershipping. Enter a growing mistrust inthe fundamental way the industryorganises itself. Enter a new intensity ofglobal environmental awareness. Andenter William O’Neil as SecretaryGeneral at the International MaritimeOrganization.

The timing of IMO’s change of leaderand the choice it made turned out to beimpeccable. O’Neil has helped theOrganization to maintain its relevanceas the regulating body for theinternational shipping industry, while atthe same time increasing the respect itattracts by ensuring that its machineryworks as fast as possible with flexibilityand understanding.

This Canadian engineer was called a‘builder of bridges’ in a Seatrade profilewritten ten years ago. And that isexactly what he has done. Bridgesbetween the IMO and its membergovernments as it works to gain theirconfidence. Bridges between the IMOand ship owners and ship operators.Bridges between the IMO and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

As one of the principal NGOs at the

IMO, INTERTANKO has felt theeffects of O’Neil’s challenge to allthe NGOs to justify their existenceat and involvement with the IMOby being active participants in theregulatory process. The result isthat the committees and workinggroups value greatly the input ofindustry experts. who help tobring about a regulatory endresult that is workable in practice.

O’Neil is not an extrovert.However, his willingness to attendevery sort of function as a tirelessambassador for the shippingindustry has been remarkable, hispersonal commitment unflagging.But this pleasant, gentle exteriorhides a steely determination,which has been very much in

evidence in his uncompromising desireto maintain an international view onregulation. He has given no support totaking the path to unilateral, regionalsolutions.

During his fourteen years of office,O’Neil has championed the ISM Code,moves against piracy, an internationalsolution to the post-Erika legislation toname but three key issues. He hastirelessly supported the seafarer. Hehas shown a genuine concern about theproliferation of inspections on ships. Hisresponse to the issues of the day isalways a responsible, practical,pragmatic approach - he is a man whodoesn’t promise what he cannot deliver.

He has also shown a keen awarenessof the contrast between the greatachievements of the shipping industryand its huge potential for disaster. Theiron (finger) ring worn by Canadianengineers (including O’Neil) has itsorigins in the Quebec Bridge. Thisbecame the world’s largest cantileverspan, an engineering triumph. But italso became Canada’s most spectacularstructural failure when it collapsedtwice during construction. Moving thatinto tanker terminology, the tankerindustry has seen its successful questfor safety and environmental soundnessseverely hit by the tanker disasters ofthe last 15 years, from Exxon Valdez to

Prestige, via Braer, Aegean Sea, SeaEmpress and Erika.

The 1990s saw environmental issuestake a growing share of the IMO’s workprogramme. Pollution prevention andpollution response; tanker design; shiprecycling (it used to be calledscrapping); ballast water management;anti-fouling coatings; air pollution; thedesignation of Sensitive Sea Areas. Asthese issues proliferated, so they alsogrew in importance as the ‘green’ lobbyshowed politicians a great way toimpress the general public by gettingtough on shipping.

The IMO’s Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee has movedmountains, comprehensively raisinginternational standards to preventmarine pollution by ships. O’Neil’sobservations at the opening in July ofthe 49th session of MEPC encompassedthe fundamental aspirations of thewhole organisation. Delegates facingone of the largest numbers of crucialissues ever packed into one workingweek were urged to ensure that theirdecisions were realistic, pragmatic andwell balanced so as not to lead to anynegative repercussions which mightdamage the concept of universality inthe regulation of shipping.

These aspirations remain for O’Neil’ssuccessor to nurture in the future. Butthe legacy of 15 years of increasingpolitical involvement worldwide is asituation where governments, anxiousto impress the voter with tough actionon environmental issues, get impatientwith the international process at IMOand take unilateral action. This threat tothe authority of the IMO won’t go away.Dealing with it will be one of the majortasks of the Organization over the nextdecade.

O’Neil has worked tirelessly andconscientiously for the IMO and hasbeen a dedicated servant of theinternational maritime community – hislegacy will be long appreciated by thatcommunity.


by Mr. Peter SwiftManaging Director, International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO)


The relationship between MrWilliam O’Neil and the

International Oil PollutionCompensation Funds (IOPC Funds)goes back to the time when he wasworking within the CanadianAdministration and his interest inIOPC Funds’ matters has always beena great encouragement to the Fundsand their Directors.

The Torrey Canyon incident, whichoccurred off the south west coast ofEngland in 1967, made it clear that therules on liability and compensation foroil damage caused by oil spills fromtankers were inadequate. Shortly afterthat incident, the IMO (or IMCO as itwas known at that time) commencedwork to develop a regime governingliability and compensation in this field.This work resulted in the adoption oftwo international Conventions somethirty years ago, the 1969 CivilLiability Convention and 1971 FundConvention. In his position within theCanadian Administration, Mr WilliamO’Neil contributed to Canada’s

ratification of these Conventions.Experience of some serious oil

pollution incidents in the late 1970’sand early 1980’s showed, however, thatthe 1969/1971 regime neededupdating. As a result, the regime wasamended by two Protocols adopted in1992 at a Diplomatic Conferenceconvened by the IMO. TheConventions resulting from theseProtocols (the 1992 Conventions)ensured that levels of compensationwere available and also enhanced thescope of application. Mr O’Neil took agreat personal interest in the efforts toamend the Conventions so as toensure better financial protection of

victims of oil pollution, and hewas clearly very pleased whenthe 1992 Protocols entered intoforce as early as 1996, aremarkably short time frame inthe context of internationalconventions. Mr O’Neil’sunstinting efforts to promote the1992 Conventions contributedgreatly to this success.

Several major oil pollutionincidents in recent years, theNakhodka (Japan, 1997), Erika(France, 1999) and Prestige(Spain, 2002), have given rise tocriticism of the internationalregime. It has been suggested inparticular that the amount ofcompensation available under the1992 Conventions, some US$180million per incident, is insufficient. Inthe light of the Nakhodka and Erikaincidents, the IMO Legal Committeeadopted in October 2000 twoResolutions increasing the limitsapplicable to the shipowner and the1992 Fund by some 50% with effectfrom 1 November 2003. As a result,

an amount of US$270 million perincident will be available forcompensating victims for incidentsoccurring after this date. Again MrO’Neil’s personal efforts were crucialin enabling action by the internationalcommunity to take place in such ashort space of time.

At the same time, the InternationalOil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992set up an intersessional WorkingGroup to consider the adequacy of theinternational regime so as to ensurethat it meets the needs of society inthe 21st century. Mr O’Neil hasfollowed the work very closely and hasemphasized the importance of the

continuing development of theinternational compensation regime. In2001, the Working Group elaborated aProtocol that would create aSupplementary Fund which wouldprovide additional compensation whenthe amount available under the 1992Conventions was insufficient. TheProtocol was adopted by a DiplomaticConference held under the auspices ofthe IMO in May 2003. TheSupplementary Fund will makeavailable some US$1050 million perincident for pollution damage in StatesParties to the Protocol, including theamount payable under the 1992 CivilLiability and Fund Conventions. It isexpected that the Protocol will enterinto force in the near future. Also inthis regard, Mr O’Neil has showngreat personal interest and given hisstrong support.

During Mr O’Neil’s time asSecretary-General, two otherConventions linked to the activities ofthe IOPC Funds have been adoptedunder the auspices of the IMO. In1996 an IMO Diplomatic Conferenceadopted a Convention on Liability andCompensation for Damage inConnection with the Carriage ofHazardous and Noxious Substances bySea (HNS Convention). ThisConvention, which has not yet comeinto force, is to a large extent based on

Oil pollution liability and compensation

by Mr. Måns JacobssonDirector, International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds 1971 and 1992

“Mr O’Neil’s personal efforts were crucial inenabling action by the international community totake place in such a short space of time.”


the model of the Civil Liability andFund Conventions and will set up anHNS Fund to compensate victims. In2001 the Convention on Civil Liabilityfor Bunker Oil Pollution Damage wasadopted.

As set out above, during Mr O’Neil’stenure as Secretary-General, the IMOhas, in addition to its great efforts toenhance the safety of navigation andprotect the marine environment, takenmajor steps towards creating acomprehensive system coveringliability and compensation for damagecaused by all types of substancescarried by sea which threaten themarine environment. This is in thefulfilment of the IMO’s motto ‘Safer

shipping, cleaner oceans’. As Mr.O’Neil continually emphasizes,however, it is not enough thatConventions are adopted at DiplomaticConferences; they must also beratified and implemented by IMOMember States in order to be of value.It is important, therefore, that theHNS and Bunker Conventions as wellas the Supplementary Fund Protocolreceive widespread ratification byStates in order to give the intendedprotection to victims.

Although the Funds areindependent organizations, their closelinks with the IMO made it attractivefor the Fund Secretariat to be locatedin the IMO building and the Funds

and their staff always felt part of theIMO family. However, as theSecretariat of the Funds expandedover time so did its requirements foroffice space and in 1999 it becamenecessary for the Funds to move intonew premises. Mr. O’Neil hasnevertheless assured the Funds thathe attaches great importance to themaintenance of the close linksbetween the IMO and the Funds andthe Funds remain deeply grateful thatthe IMO enables the Funds tocontinue to use the facilities in theIMO building during meetings of itsgoverning bodies.


When he first assumed office in1990, Mr O’Neil made it clear

that a central tenet of his missionwould be to actively deploy the globalauthority of the International MaritimeOrganization to rectify deficiencies ininternational shipping standards. Thisled almost immediately to one suchcampaign being waged in the dry bulksector of the industry.

At that time dry bulk carriers weresinking at the rate of more than one amonth, in many cases disappearingwithout trace with the loss of all onboard. A number of remedialmeasures had been taken by theOrganization to improve the safety ofthis type of ship but it was clear fromthe extent of the losses that muchmore was required. The situationcertainly exercised the conscience ofMr O’Neil because he decided to takethe then unprecedented step ofpresenting, in his name, a set ofproposals to enhance bulk carriersafety directly to the Assembly in1991. It was the first time a systematicapproach had been taken to bulkcarrier safety and the Resolution wasadopted unanimously.

The Resolution served to mobilisethe Organization, governments,classification societies, shipowners,shipmasters and terminal operatorsinto observing the prescribed rulesand recommended practices then inforce, and this resulted in aconsiderable reduction in bulk carrierlosses. Unfortunately the pendulumthen began to swing the other wayand, acting again on his own initiative,Mr O’Neil, proposed to the MaritimeSafety Committee in 1994, a thoroughreview of the safety of this type ofship, looking into those issues which

had not been actively pursuedbefore because of their longer-term implications and otherswhich had only recently surfaced.Specifically, he suggested theinvestigation should coverdesign, structural and operationalstandards, the ship/shoreinterface, management andtraining, and survey. Having setthis work in motion he carefullyshadowed and actively monitoredits progress. It led eventually toanother Assembly Resolution in1995 containing a series ofrecommendations to all thoseinvolved in the operation of shipscarrying solid bulk cargoes andto a Diplomatic Conference in1997 to enact amendments to theSOLAS Convention.

The successful conclusion of thisConference was not taken by MrO’Neil to be the end of the road. Hewent on to urge that carefulconsideration be given to the lessonsdrawn from the Derbyshire Inquiryand to encourage the setting up of afundamental and wide ranginginvestigation into bulk carrier safetyusing the disciplined approach of a

Formal Safety Assessment. This phaseculminated in further wide-rangingaction by the Maritime SafetyCommittee on bulk carrier safety. Itmay well mark the final milestone inthe quest to make this type of shipsafer.

All this activity over the years hasborne fruit. It has led to a steadyimprovement in constructional,operational and cargo-relatedstandards and this in turn to asustained decline in the number ofbulk carriers lost each year. The latestIntercargo Bulk Carrier Safety Report

provides evidence of this over the lastten years where the trend lines clearlyshow that the number of ships, livesand tonnage being lost continue to fall.

In many ways the success of MrO’Neil in enhancing the safety of bulkcarriers could be regarded as probablythe most praiseworthy of his manyachievements during the tenure of hisoffice as Secretary-General. Inpresiding over fundamental changes tothe regulation of ships in other sectorsof shipping, such as ro-ro passengerships, he had the backing of strongpublic pressure. But this wasconspicuously absent in the case ofbulk carriers. Public opinion waslargely indifferent to their fate and fewpoliticians chose to champion theircause, despite the fact that these shipsrepresent a very considerablepercentage of the world’s tonnage andthousands of seafarers man them. MrO’Neil had therefore to make the casefor change on his own assessment,sense of duty and powers ofpersuasion. The extent of what hasbeen achieved is a measure of hiscommitment, tenacity and dedicationto ensuring the safety of life at sea. Hiscontribution to the safety of bulkcarriers cannot be over estimated.


by Mr. Roger HoltSecretary-General, International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (INTERCARGO)

“The success of Mr O’Neil in enhancing the safetyof bulk carriers could be regared as as probably themost praiseworthy of his many achievements.”


At the end of his stewardship asSecretary General of the

International Maritime Organization,William O’Neil can look back withpride on a career of achievements,which leaves the world’s seafarerssleeping more comfortably in theirbunks. His period of office at the headof the world’s premier maritime safetyorganisation has brought many greatimprovements, not the least of whichhas been the practical introduction ofGMDSS and quantum steps takentoward implementing the IMO GlobalSAR plan.

A visionary leader, he has skilfullyhelmed the often-lethargic processesof global democracy, yet astutelyrecognised the need for rapid anddecisive action in response to theimmediate situations. In response toquestions raised by delegates at the17th International Lifeboat Conferencein Montevideo in 1995, Mr O’Neildescribed the initiatives taken by the

Organization, in the immediateaftermath of the Estonia disaster,in which 852 people tragicallyperished, before they could berescued. More recently, MrO’Neil inspired the MaritimeSafety Committee to institute areview of the SAR capabilities andstrategies, in view of the trendtoward the ever-increasingcapacity of large passengervessels. The InternationalLifeboat Federation is proud toplay an active role in this veryworthwhile exercise, which isalready highlighting key issuesrequiring further attention.

A true pragmatist, WilliamO’Neil recognised that theadvance of technology alone

could not bring about safer andcleaner oceans. “No matter whatwonders technology produces in thenext millennium, they will still dependon people for their implementation –and it is people, the seafarers, who willsuffer most if something goes wrong”,he said.

In spite of his busy personalschedules, William O’Neil has alwaysfound time for the men and women ofthe world’s Search and Rescueservices. He has often expressed hispersonal admiration for the selfless

dedication of SAR crews to theirhumanitarian cause. In 1999 MrO’Neil presented the IMO’sInternational Maritime Prize to theInternational Lifeboat Federation.“This is the first time that the prizehas been awarded to an organisationrather than to an individual and I thinkthat this indicates the great esteem inwhich the ILF is held by the Maritime

Community”, he said. When he addressed the 18th

International Lifeboat Conference atBournemouth in 1999, he tolddelegates that “the InternationalLifeboat Federation has played a majorpart in assuring that our safety andenvironmental objectives have beenmet and the commitment shown byyour members , often at the risk oftheir own lives, is legendary” He wenton to add “It would be a pious hopeindeed, because of the risky nature ofseafaring, to think that one day in thefuture we shall be able to celebrate ayear in which no ships have been sunkand no lives have been lost at sea andas a result no lifeboats have had to belaunched”.

A visionary aspiration indeed, butone which has moved steadily closerto becoming a reality, thanks to theinspirational leadership of WilliamO’Neil, in a period of particular changeand challenge within the maritimeworld.

At the helm of maritime safety

by Mr. Peter NicholsonChairman, RNLI and Trustee, International Lifeboat Federation

“ In spite of his busy personal schedules, William O’Neil has always found time for the menand women of the world’s Search and Rescueservices.”


Shipping transports ninety fivepercent of world trade and is

consequently of fundamentalimportance to the health of the world’seconomy. Shipping is an internationalindustry and it follows that itsregulation and the task of raisingstandards can only effectively beaccomplished on an international level,through the IMO.

The IMO has been remarkablysuccessful in this endeavour and agreat part of its accomplishments haveoccurred during the fourteen-yeartenure of William O’Neil, as Secretary-General. The Enhanced SurveyProgram, for tankers and bulkcarriers, the Revision of the STCWConvention, the ISM Code and thenew Security Measures are but a fewof Bill O’Neil’s achievements. IMO’smajor achievements are too numerousto mention here and, of course,include the SOLAS and MARPOLConventions and the InternationalConvention on Civil Liability for OilPollution Damage

It is difficult to over emphasise thegreat contribution of IMO to tankerand bulk carrier safety. Theintroduction, by IMO, of inert gassystems for tankers, combined withthe Enhanced Survey Program, hasresulted in a marked decrease oftanker casualties and consequently avery significant decrease in oilpollution. Inert gas not only minimisesthe risk of explosion in cargo tanks,but also significantly reduces the rateof corrosion in the tanks. This regime,when combined with the rigorousinspections of the Enhanced SurveyProgram, has made tankers some ofthe safest ships afloat.

The alarming increase in bulkcarrier casualties was largely arrestedthrough IMO’s introduction of theEnhanced Survey Programme,although there is more work to bedone in this field, particularly inrelation to new building standards.Only IMO can ensure thatClassification Societies cease tocompete among themselves in

‘optimising’ vessels’ scantlings –which really means reducing thescantlings – and adopt commonstandards for the construction ofrobust ships that are designed forthe twenty five year life spanduring which they can beexpected to operate.

Surprisingly, despite itssuccess, IMO often finds itselfunder attack. Some say that IMOis slow to take action. A carefulanalysis of IMO’s response torecent shipping casualties,however, shows that this criticismcannot be justified. IMO has notresponded slowly, it has done sowith deliberation, as is its duty,after full and sound technical,legal and economic analysis.

The greatest danger to the veryexistence of the IMO has been theEuropean Union’s threats, on eachoccasion, following the foundering ofthe Erika and the Prestige, to proceedwith unilateral legislation.

After the Erika incident, inDecember 1999, the European Unionmade proposals for an acceleratedphase out of single skin tankers.These proposals were made underthreat of unilateral European Unionaction, were they not to be accepted.The practical effect of the proposalswas studied by a Working Group ofexperts appointed by Mr. O’Neil, andthey were debated at length by theMEPC. The proposals, as drafted,were rejected on the grounds that theywere impractical and would damage

the world economy. The IMO,however, succeeded in correcting thedefective proposals and achievinggeneral agreement to an amendmentto MARPOL, which came into effect in

September 2002.Following the loss of the Prestige,

the European Union’s submissions tothe IMO, of 10 April 2003, were aresurrection, with minor amendments,of the phase out proposals, which itmade after the Erika and which theIMO had previously rejected. Onceagain, the proposals were made underthreat of unilateral action.

It appears that the IMO will, oncemore, succeed in correcting thedefective European Union proposalsand achieving a workable and efficientcompromise. However the EuropeanUnion is insisting on inserting anunacceptable, unilateral element in theagreement to the effect that: ‘A Partyto the present Convention shall beentitled to deny entry of oil tankersoperating in accordance with the

provisions ... of this regulation into theports or offshore terminals under itsjurisdiction.’ This would, of course, bean invitation for an international ‘freefor all’ and for chaos to ensue,


by Mr. Epaminondas G. EmbiricosChairman, Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee

“Some say IMO is slow to take action. Carefulanalysis of IMO’s response to recent shippingcasualties shows that this criticism cannot bejustified.”


seriously undermining, if notdestroying, the standing of IMO. It isnot possible to have effectiveinternational regulation if any nation isfree to ignore it.

The European Union, with its longmaritime tradition, should knowbetter. It appears, however, thatcertain politicians, who know littleabout the shipping industry and caremore about short-term political gain,today govern the agenda within theUnion. These politicians have notunderstood that if, inadvertently, theydestroy the IMO, they will haveoccasioned irreparable damage to the

maritime sector, to world trade andthus to the world economy. It is alsosurprising and most unfortunate thatthe European Commission, as well,appears to lack in-depth knowledge of,and serious interest in, the shippingindustry. Recently, and contrary tolong-standing tradition, someEuropean Union delegates to the IMOhave shown more interest in cateringto the political whims of their mastersthan in sound technical, legal andeconomic analysis. Europeanpoliticians and the Commission mustrealise that their actions have thepotential of not only harming the IMO,

but thereby also the European Union,the very constituency that it is theirduty to protect.

All genuinely concerned people,who value and cherish the maritimesector, should strive to support theIMO in overcoming these difficulties,so that it can continue to perform itsessential task with the same efficiencyand success that it has achieved todate.


The International Association ofClassification Societies and its

individual member societies haveshared with William O’Neil, during his14-year tenure as Secretary-General ofthe International MaritimeOrganization, a profound appreciation oftechnical precision and the need totackle complex risks in a scientificmanner.

Mr O’Neil has campaigned tirelesslyfor the need to pay greater attention tothe human element and the promotionof a safety culture in which people areencouraged to improve.

Although the traditional strength ofthe recognised classification societieslies with their technical expertise andcapacity for detailed technical rule-making and associated ship inspectionand survey work, all the IACS membershave always strived to entertain ahealthy awareness of the man-machineinterface. Nonetheless, they, too, havehad to adapt to new societal demandsfor improved ship safety and vessel-source pollution control, by committingthemselves much more to people-oriented and functional rules andregulations, management and trainingsystems.

Mr O’Neil has managed to confrontthese and many other challenges inpartnership with the IMO membergovernments and the maritimecommunity as a whole, bringing thenecessary global perspective to the twincauses of safety of ships, cargoes, crewsand passengers at sea and marineenvironmental protection. The IACSmembership is privileged to have beenvery much part of this process.

Out of all the important initiativesdeveloped during Mr O’Neil’s tenure

with his personal encouragementand support, I should like to listjust three that in my personalexperience deserve a specialmention, and to which IACS wasable to make a tangible, andlasting, contribution. Theyconcern, in no particular order ofpriority:

- the adoption, in 1993, of theInternational Safety Management(ISM) Code;

- the adoption of Formal SafetyAssessment (FSA) in order totackle in a scientific manner, usingcost-benefit analysis, specific safetyissues affecting particular shiptypes (eg passenger vessels, bulkcarriers); and

- the adoption of an ambitious newwork programme to improve the safetyof both new and existing bulk carriers.

The hallmark of the ISM Code is itsunequivocal focus on the humanelement with particular emphasis on thebenefits that may be derived for safetyfrom written procedures and adocumented safety managementsystem, shared between the companyand each ship in its fleet. As I already

mentioned, this radical shift from IMO’straditional emphasis on the purelytechnical aspects of ship safety has beena courageous, but highly necessary,initiative.

The introduction of Formal SafetyAssessment into the IMO decision-making process has been an equallybrave move, which has not beenwithout success, notwithstanding theabsence of any previous experience.The use of the FSA methodologyinvolves a complex and time-consuming

process and requires a longer-termcommitment on behalf of thosecarrying out the research, with obviousfinancial implications. The FSAapproach may, therefore, not bepracticable for every safety issue underconsideration at the IMO. However, theIACS membership is proud of itssubstantive contribution to this newIMO endeavour and which wasvindicated by the unanimous decision ofthe Maritime Safety Committee, lastDecember, to give the go-ahead to 16[sixteen] new regulatory initiativesconcerning bulk carrier safety.

Enhancing the safety of the bulkcarrier, the ‘work horse’ of the shippingindustry, is indeed another pressingissue that the IMO, in closecollaboration with industry experts, hasbeen able to progress with remarkablesuccess. The results of extensivestudies conducted by IACS, using itswealth of statistical data and surveyors’feedback, were critical to the successfulconclusion of the 1997 Safety Of Life AtSea (Solas) Conference, which adoptedthe new Solas Chapter XII. The rewardfor these efforts has come in the formof a marked reduction in casualties andlosses reported in recent years for thistype of ship.

My wish for the future, then, is thatmany more achievements may follow

Technical and scientific expertise unites IMO and IACS

by Mr. Ugo SalernoChairman, International Association of Classification Societies

“The radical shift from IMO’s traditionalemphasis on the purely technical aspects of shipsafety has been a courageous, but highly necessary,initiative.”


the above mentioned ones! Far frombeing wishful thinking on my part, Ifirmly believe that maritime safety canbe improved continuously - throughco-operation of all the partiesconcerned:

• Owners/Managers - bymaintaining good standards onboardtheir ships, renewing their fleet, andimproving the crew/ship interface.

• Regulators - by being morescientific in the formulation of IMOstandards, rules and regulations.

• Maritime administrators - byactively implementing mandatoryinstruments, rules and regulations, non-binding recommendations and otherguidelines that have been agreed

internationally and by closelysupervising delegated authorities.

• Port State Control officers - byobserving uniform procedures for shipinspections and abiding byinternationally agreed enforcementmeasures and by engaging in timely,full and transparent informationexchange.

• Underwriters - by practisingpositive discrimination through theprovision of economic incentives tohigh quality operators.

• Classification societies - byproviding the IMO with the bestpossible technical support, by acting asresponsible delegated authorities, andby assisting ship owners with high

quality services in the interests ofimproved understanding andimplementation of statutory and classrequirements.

In my capacity as IACS chairman, Iam proud of the personal dedication ofmany representatives of the class worldwho have taken part in the activities ofthe IMO committees and sub-committees, working and draftinggroups, and other informal andcorrespondence groups over so manyyears. Together with all of them, I amdelighted to raise my glass to Mr O’Neiland to wish him a long and happyretirement!


Bill O’Neil has had a long anddistinguished career, not only as a

civil servant working for the CanadianGovernment, but also latterly as theSecretary-General of the InternationalMaritime Organization where he hasserved with distinction for 14 years.

I met and had a long exchange ofviews with Bill within the first monthof his taking up this appointment. Hecame across as a person of the utmostintegrity and calmness who knew,almost instinctively, where he wantedto take the Organization. He waschairman of the IMO Council for 10years prior to being elected in 1989 tobe its Secretary-General so hadimmense knowledge of theOrganization long before taking up theposition.

During his 14 year tenure he hasfaced a number of challenges andovercome them with equanimity,always trying to move issues of safetyand the environment forward. He hasinspired the secretariat, and raised theIMO profile, at a time when theOrganization was under attack fromregional areas with their own agenda.The Secretary-General of anyOrganization such as IMO treads avery fine line between representingthe interests of its many members,and being proactive in pressingforward with what he believes arefundamental issues that needresolution. In his case, Bill O’Neil hasbeen implacably determined toprogress matters relating to overallsafety, whilst at the same timeacknowledging the various safety andtechnical issues and views that evolvefrom differing administrations. Hehas, in my view, managed to lead IMOand his staff through these variousminefields, and at the same timeraised the profile and immenselyincreased the credibility of theOrganization itself.

Bill has not been afraid to actquickly, particularly on safety issues, ifhe felt that unilateral action wasappropriate. As an example, he tookunilateral action to set up a Panel of

Experts to assess ferry safety inthe early aftermath of the sinkingof the ferry Estonia with itsterrible loss of life. Thedistinguished group representedall aspects of the ferrycommunity, and included anexperienced senior manager withferry command experience onsecondment from one of my ferrycompanies. This group quicklydeveloped technical proposals toensure that the possibility of aferry capsizing through theingress of water to the car deckcould not happen again. Thiswas a commendableachievement.

STCW 95 will also be one of hismajor pieces of completed work.It has set a modern standard forseafarer training and competency andfor the first time subjected nationalgovernments’ training and certificationto external audit by independent IMOexperts. Due to the seriousness of theposition existing at the time he set avery tight timetable to bring thisconvention into force, and by personalinvolvement ensured that thistimetable was maintained.

The environment has always beenclose to Bill’s heart. The sinking of oiltankers such as Erika and Prestige hasbrought to the world at large, throughthe medium of television, the horrorsof oil pollution. He has overseen theupdate of MARPOL Annex I to takeaccount of demands to reduce oilpollution by bringing forward thephase out date for single hull tankers.Whatever the rights or wrongs of theway the accidents were handled, heled IMO to develop revised world widesolutions which avoided regionalaction. That is the true sign of astatesman.

I would further mention hisattention to the tragic loss of lifethrough far too many bulk carriercatastrophies, and his persuasion ofMSC to develop enhanced safetymeasures for these vessels. Equallyhis speeches highlighting perceived

safety issues with large passengerships will ensure a fundamental debateat IMO into the safety of moderncruise ships. Whilst these ships havean excellent safety record, Bill hasreminded the world that this must notbe taken for granted. Finally, and mostrecently, he has led IMO to develop inquick time the ISPS Code to respondinternationally to security concernspost 9/11.

He leaves the Organization in finefettle under the capable hands of hisloyal deputy. It is natural in anOrganization such as IMO that thereis work outstanding - on Formal SafetyAssessment, Bulk Carrier and LargePassenger Ship Safety as well asenvironmental issues such as ballastwater exchange. Their finalcompletion will be testimonies to aglittering career.


by the Rt. Hon. The Lord Sterling of Plaistow, GCVO, CBEChairman, The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company


It is an honor, although tinted with abit of sadness, that I was asked to

write a few words about Mr. WilliamA. O’Neil at the time of his retirementfrom the International MarineOrganization.

Mr. O’Neil became SecretaryGeneral of the IMO at a very sensitivetime in Marine history. The tragicaccident of the Exxon Valdez inAugust of 1989 resulted over time inimportant new rules and regulationsfor Marine Safety beginning from 1990

when Mr. O’Neil took the helm.His tenure coincided with bigchanges in our field such as theUnited States’ Oil pollution Act of1990 and the position of double-hull vessels, which many feel issimilar to the change-over fromsails to steam-power in the 19thcentury. He has been quoted asbeing an ‘interventionist’, andwithout his pro-active style andstrong leadership qualities, wewouldn’t have the legislation wehave today. The shippingindustry is in a much better statefrom safety and pollutionprevention standpoint than it wasa decade ago. Over the last fewyears the IMO have achievedmany of their goals, and I think

many will agree that Mr. O’Neildeserves much of the credit for thoseaccomplishments.

As current Chairman of HELMEPAand member of the board for 10 years,I have had the pleasure of seeing first-hand the importance Mr. O’Neil placeson fighting Marine Pollution as well asthe emphasis on people. He hasalways been very supportive of ourprograms, working hard to ensure thatthe IMO and HELMEPA worktogether for cleaner seas. He has

visited us many times. And on onememorable occasion he invited themembers of HELMEPA Jr. to join inon an IMO session. Afterwards thechildren made presentations to theIMO members, and the day can bemarked down as a great success forall. I believe it will remain a fondremembrance for the children as wellas for the adults involved. I would liketo thank Mr. O’Neil for all his workand co-operation with HELMEPA onbehalf of the board members and staffof HELMEPA with whom he worked.He will always be welcome in Greecewith an open invitation to sit in on ourboard meetings and honor us with hisadvise, in our efforts to continueawareness of the human element inenvironmental issues.

On the other hand, we fell confidentthat from early next year, the ‘big’shoes of Mr. O’Neil will be more thanadequately filled by Mr. EfthymiosMitropoulos, with whom he hasworked for several years. I’m certainhe will continue Mr. O’Neil’s strongefforts successfully. From all of us atHELMEPA, we would like to wishboth these important shippingpersonalities all the bet in their futureendeavors.


by Mr. Nikolas P. TsakosChairman of the Board, Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Association (HELMEPA)

“ I have had the pleasure at seeing first-hand the importance Mr O’Neilplaces on fighting maritime pollution, as well as the emphasis on people.”


Of all the various type of ship afloat,cruise vessels undoubtedly have

the highest profile. This is not purelybecause cruise lines carry the mostprecious cargo of all – human lives –but also due to the fact that we dependon public awareness of our ships formarketing purposes.

Consequently, it goes without sayingthat safety considerations areuppermost in the mind of cruiseindustry executives. On top of the factthat we have a simple moral duty ofcare for the safety and well-being of ourpassengers and crew, a company’sreputation may not survive a seriousaccident.

The International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) has long been atthe forefront of analyzing maritimeincidents and absorbing lessons forpassenger ship safety as well astranslating them into legislation that hascontinually enhanced safety in ourindustry.

Over the years, IMO initiatives havespanned a variety of areas that comeunder the general umbrella ofpassenger ship safety, including but notlimited to security, navigational safety,fire prevention and detection,evacuation procedures, better equippedlifeboats, search and rescue planning,onboard health and safety, and thestructural capacity of ships to survivecollisions or groundings.

Not all measures have been specificto cruise ships or even passengervessels in general. Safety in ourindustry has also been promoted byumbrella legislation, such asamendments to crew training andwatchkeeping standards, theintroduction of the International SafetyManagement Code (ISM), and theIMO-initiated Global Maritime Distressand Safety System (GMDSS).

When William O’Neil began histenure as head of the IMO 14 years ago,passenger ship safety was already highon the agency’s agenda. In the earlyyears, this was largely as a result ofseveral terrible ferry tragedies that

marred the late 1980s as well asthe early 1990s.

In terms of the cruise industryin that period, special concern wasattached to the subject of securitymeasures following a couple ofisolated but nonetheless tragicterrorist incidents involving ships.This is not to say that cruise shipswere never involved in maritimeaccidents; there were a number ofregrettable incidents. But whetherby luck or by a capable responseby the companies concerned, thesehad not resulted in tragedies of thescale that blighted the ferry sector.

No matter – cruise vessels werealso included in the IMO’sfundamental rethink of severalbasic areas of safety. Amendments tothe Safety of Life at Sea convention –known as Solas ’90 – enhanced theresidual stability of passenger vessels inthe event of sustaining collision damagethrough requiring additional watertightsubdivisions. The changes also requiredadditional smoke detection andsprinkler systems in ships that werestarting to be built with grander spacesspanning three or more decks.

Among the latest new safetyregulations, that came into force lastyear, are requirements for passengerships to be fitted with a ‘black box’, orvoyage data recorder, and the so-called‘AIS’ or transponder that ensuresautomatic exchange of informationbetween ship and shore at any time.

In addition, Solas Chapter V has beenrevised to require vessels – andparticularly cruise ships that tend toroutinely transit different search-and-rescue regions – to carry efficientsearch-and-rescue cooperation plansthat are consistent with a commonformat developed by the IMO. Includedis the principle that informationbetween ship and emergency servicesin its area is exchanged beforehand sothat cooperation can begin withoutdelay in the event of a real emergency.

While there have been occasionalmistakes of judgement, such as a

requirement for cruise ships toincorporate helicopter landing pads ondeck (an idea that was later withdrawn),by and large the IMO’s efforts toimprove passenger shipping safety havebeen enlightened and successful. I amglad to say that on the whole they havebeen welcomed by the cruise industryand in some cases top companies havekeenly adopted new technologicaladvances well in advance of mandatoryrequirements. Individual corporateaction, however, can only supplementand cannot replace the industry-wideinitiatives enforced by the IMO.

If there can be any criticism at all ofthe IMO’s historic approach toenhancing standards for the design andoperation of cruise ships, it is that theapproach to legislation through the1980s and 1990s was a piecemeal one.Furthermore, legislators in generalhave struggled, and understandably so,to keep pace with the enormouschanges that have occurred in thecruise industry, more than practicallyany other sector of shipping.

When Mr O’Neil became head of theIMO no cruise ship had a totalpassenger capacity of more than 1,900.With the sole exception of the QE2, thevery biggest vessels being built wereyet under 50,000 tonnes.

By contrast today there are quite a

Cruise ships and the IMO

by Mr. George F. PoulidesChairman, The Festival Cruises Group


number of ships double this size.Currently the largest cruise liner is140,000 tonnes and this record will bebroken next year by the Queen Mary 2of 150,000 tonnes. Already the largestvessels carry 5,000 passengers and crew,and even bigger ships of 160-180,000tonnes are on the drawing board.

To his great credit, Mr O’Neil hasrecognized the possibility that existingIMO regulations are not sufficient tocover the new mega-ships. Since 2000,he has proactively initiated whatamounts to one of the largest and mostintensive examinations ever carried outinto the safety-related issues of aparticular type of ship.

Involving issues that cut acrossseveral different IMO sub-committees,the effort is a global review of everypossible aspect of safety as it applies tolarge cruise ships. It is also verywelcome that the industry itself hasbeen drawn into this process at a veryearly stage and has enthusiasticallyembraced the process.

The latest IMO initiative has spawneda host of specific tasks and objectivesbeing looked at by various committeesand work groups. These range from amyriad of navigational and crewingmatters, to onboard equipmentincluding lifeboats and fire systems, tosanitary issues affecting the healthy

operation of kitchens and Jacuzzis.But the organisation’s approach

hinges on a handful of major principlesthat are worth mentioning here.

They include:-• Enhanced casualty prevention• Improved survivability for large ships

in the event of a casualty• Improved evacuation procedures • Greater self-sufficiency to ensure

health, safety, medical care andsecurity until more specializedassistance is available

• Minimising environmental impact It is also welcome that the IMO’s

focus does not stop at the ship itself andevacuation procedures. It is alsoexamining the difficulties that mayjeopardize the rescue of passengersafter they have been transferred tolifeboats. The Organization hasrecognized the fact that thousands ofpeople in lifeboats and liferafts maypose a unique search-and-rescuechallenge.

In my view, more needs to be doneand new operating methods in theindustry are in a number of casesoffering the chance to do just that. Forexample, the almost universal adoptionof key cards for cabins – usuallycombined with cashless credit cardsystems for onboard payments and useof the same card for identification byship’s security, should now also becombined with a passenger’s musterstation and lifeboat number. This wouldremove the need for a passenger torush back to his cabin in the event of anemergency to remind himself of criticalemergency information!

As yet, it remains to be seen whatregulations may emerge from this latestinitiative by the IMO. But I am veryhopeful that the results will be amongthe most important legacies of MrO’Neil’s term in office – and a fittingtestimony to the outgoing Secretary-General.

“To his great credit, Mr O’Neil has recognizedthe possibility that existing IMO regulations are notsufficient to cover the new mega-ships.”


The Oil Companies InternationalMarine Forum is honoured to

contribute to this special edition of theIMO News to recognise the enormouscontribution made to the maritimeworld and especially for the safety ofships and the protection of the marineenvironment by Secretary-General,William O’Neil.

OCIMF has been actively andenthusiastically involved with the workof the IMO since being grantedConsultative Status in 1971, this,coincidently, being almost the entireperiod that Bill O’Neil has been aninternationally known figure, initially asthe Canadian representative to the IMOCouncil and latterly as theOrganization’s Secretary-General.

Throughout Bill’s long tenure asSecretary-General he has taken greatinterest in the continued safetransportation of oil by sea and in thesafety of those whose livelihood is thesea. We are grateful that Bill has oftenexpressed his support for the work ofOCIMF, and has on many occasionsoffered wise counsel as we haveendeavoured to enhance the maritimesafety guidelines and otherrequirements for the operation oftankers and oil terminals.

OCIMF has been privileged to haveBill O’Neil endorse many of thepublications it has produced, inparticular the ISGOTT GUIDE (now inits 5th revision), a publication whichprovides the oil industry with uniqueand comprehensive guidance for thesafe operation of both tankers and oilterminals. This publication drawsheavily on the many InternationalConventions established by IMO inpursuit of the Organization’s objectives.

In 1993 OCIMF launched theSIRE Programme, an internationalvessel inspection database, whichassists charterers to assess avessel’s suitability for charter.

The underlying framework ofthe SIRE Programme’s ‘VesselInspection Questionnaire’ is basedon MARPOL and SOLAS, twoInternational Conventions that,under the leadership of Bill O’Neil,have continued to be developedand amended to meet themaritime world’s changing needs.OCIMF has actively contributed tothese various debates anddiscussions at the IMO and knowjust how significantly Bill O’Neilhas quietly and with measuredfirmness steered thedevelopments to internationallysatisfactory conclusions.

In the last 14 years further(necessary) International Conventionshave been successfully developed andintroduced. The STCW Convention andthe ISM Code, AFS Convention and therecent amendments to the SOLASConvention, dealing with MaritimeSecurity, are now internationalrequirements and have, in most part,been brought promptly to the statute

book by the tenacity of Bill O’Neil.OCIMF applauds and supports thediplomatic efforts of the Secretary-General to ensure effectiveimplementation of these importantConventions, having a successfulinternational rather than regionaloutcome.

The relationship with IMO, indeedthe active partnership that has beenestablished between our twoOrganizations, continues to promote

safety and high international standards.IMO’s international successes over thepast 14 years are an enormous andlasting tribute to Bill O’Neil. OCIMF isproud to have been associated with himthroughout that period and welcomeshis successor, Efthimios Mitropoulos, tothis leading international role.


by Mr. J.M. KopernickiChairman, Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

“Bill O’Neil has quietly, and with measuredfirmness, steered developments to internationallysatisfactory conclusions.”


Ihave had the privilege and pleasure ofknowing William (Bill) O’Neil for

close to 30 years. I met Bill in1975 whenI was transferred to the Legal ServicesUnit of the Canadian Department ofTransport, which, at that time, was thegovernment department responsible forthe Canadian Coast Guard (CCG). Billhad just been appointed as the firstCommissioner of the CCG.

Some time prior to his appointmentas Commissioner, Bill had joined theCanadian Department of Transport asDeputy Administrator, Marine Services.In that capacity he assumedresponsibility for Canadian participationin the Intergovernmental MaritimeConsultative Organization (IMCO) asthe International Maritime Organization(IMO) was known at that time. By someaccounts, Bill did not know too muchabout this international organizationand when he had to attend his firstmeeting at the Organization, rumor hasit that he asked his executive assistant“what’s IMCO?” Well, Bill caught onquickly. Within a few years he waselected chairman of the IMO Councilfor the decade1980-1990, and in 1990 hebecame the Organization’s Secretary-General.

Under Bill’s guidance, theOrganization made great strides inmaritime safety and in protection of themarine environment. This is well

reflected in some of the majorprojects of the Legal Committee.During Bill’s mandate, importantinternational legal instrumentsaimed at protecting the marineenvironment have been adopted.The 1989 Salvage Convention,initially developed under theauspices of the Legal Committee,improved the lot of salvors byincluding economic incentives forthem to intervene with preventivemeasures in respect of vessels thatthreaten the environment, even ifthe vessel and its cargo cannot besaved. This was an importantdeparture from the traditional ruleof salvage law known as ‘no cure,no pay’ and represented asignificant step in improving the

protection of the marine environment.

In 1992, and again earlier this year,important changes were made to thecivil liability regime for pollution causedby oil tankers making very substantialincreases in the amount ofcompensation available. Under Bill’sleadership, the development of theseinstruments has demonstrated that theOrganization can and will respondswiftly to crisis and that internationalregimes, developed under the auspicesof IMO, are infinitely preferable toregional and national ones. The regimeof liability and compensation for shipsource pollution has been furtherenhanced, in 1996 and 2001,respectively, with the adoption of aregime for damage caused by themaritime carriage of hazardous andnoxious substances (HNS) and aregime for oil pollution caused by shipsbunkers.

Safety of life has also been a keyconcern of the Organization duringBill’s mandate. Following a series oftragic ferry disasters in the 80’s and the90’s the Organization responded with acomprehensive amendment to the 1974Convention on the Carriage ofPassengers and their Luggage by Seafor which the initial work was done inthe Legal Committee. Thoseamendments were included in a

protocol that was adopted by diplomaticconference in October 2002.

Under Bill’s leadership theOrganization responded quickly to thetragic events of 9/11. While the bulk ofthe work on marine security has beenaccomplished under the auspices of theMarine Safety Committee, significantwork is under way in the LegalCommittee, where a comprehensivereview of the 1988 Convention for theSuppression of Unlawful Acts Againstthe Safety of Maritime Navigation(SUA) has been undertaken.

Naturally, Canadian delegations tovarious bodies and committees of IMOwere proud to have Bill as head of theOrganization. In his quiet, low-keymanner he has nevertheless been adecisive influence on all aspects of thework of the Organization, somethingthat he had shown already in his yearsas Chairman of Council where, inrecognition of his outstanding ability, hewas re-elected no less than four times.

On a more personal note, Bill hasbeen a great source of inspiration to mein my own endeavors in the IMO. Hedispatched me to my first meeting ofthe Legal Committee in November 1975(29th session) and later when I hadbecome chairman of the LegalCommittee he passed on to meinvaluable tips about how to organizethe Committee’s work. I have alsobenefited from his advice when Ichaired the Committee of the Whole atvarious diplomatic conferences.

After such a distinguished career inthe public service, both of his countryand of the international community, itremains only to wish Bill a long andprosperous retirement, after a job welldone.


by Mr. A.H.E. Popp, QCSenior General Counsel, Dept. of Justice, Canada; Chairman, IMO Legal Committee


There is in the UK an institution thatmost exceptionally still survives, the

Royal National Lifeboat Institute(RNLI). It epitomises what used to beSociety’s perception of shipping andseafaring. Namely, that the sea can be ahostile environment, that ships cansuccumb to perilous conditions and thatwhen they do they require assistancewhich was granted voluntarily by menashore who risked their lives in doingso. Today distressed ships are refusedports or areas of refuge and theCaptains of ships that fail are oftensummarily imprisoned and detainedwithout being charged and security fortheir release set at levels that do notapply even for suspected terrorists. Thefact is that probably for the first time inhistory and since the Exxon Valdezincident society is alienated fromshipping. How can this dramatic changein sentiment be explained?

No doubt modern ships canincidentally cause serious pollution orloss of life. This was not the case beforefossil fuels became the major source ofenergy for the economies of the world,before cruising became a significantpart of the mass commercialisation ofleisure and before the spectaculargrowth in ship sizes became a, if notthe, major determinant of economies ofscale for the industry. Society todaylegitimately expects that all that needs

to be done to prevent maritimeincidents is being done. Society hasbeen led to believe that in the case ofshipping this is far from true. They haveconsequently been led to believe thatmaritime accidents are exclusively theresult of omissions on behalf of theindustry and its institutions and aretherefore intolerable. This ‘zerotolerance’ as it is called is striking in

itself. It ignores the obviouspossibility of maritime accidents,which result from human error orunpredictable and extraordinarycircumstances. It also ignores thefact that the safety and pollutionrecord of the shipping industryhas been continuously improving.How in turn can this intolerancebe explained as it does not apply tosociety’s attitude to accidents inother modes of transport? I canonly offer a political explanation.

Shipping is at a severedisadvantage in terms of asupportive political constituencybecause it is and has always beena distinctly international activitythough nationally based. Inaddition today protection of theenvironment or local businesses aremuch more attractive political platformsthan supporting a competitive shippingindustry. Furthermore, commercialshipping is not publicly corporate, thereare no brand names in commercialshipping. It is also not a consolidatedsector but made up of thousands ofpredominantly private firmsinternationally. It, therefore, ordinarilymeans very little to consumers despitethe vital role it performs for them. Thismakes it much harder for the sector toproactively engage society, the mediaand the political establishment as we

live in a world dominated by giantglobalised corporations with theirparticular and familiar operatingculture. The fact is that shipping isisolated, invisible and misunderstood asa major feature of today’s politico-economic reality and becomes visibleonly when there is an accident. Then itis inevitably placed under a hostileinterrogatory spotlight. So, how can we

move forward in these circumstances?If the real common objective is safer

shipping and equally importantly if amaritime capability and maritime knowhow are to be maintained at a highstandard then co-operative‘partnerships’ need to be formedbetween the industry, its institutions,the regulators, the media, society andshipping’s immediate clients, thecharterers. Partnership and notconfrontation, based on good will,mutual trust, a long-term view and freefrom tangential or irrelevant agendas.This and not more regulations will trulyassist all stakeholders in reducingaccidents and in dealing with theoccasional inevitable failures in arational and objective manner. It willalso allow the industry to recruit newseafarers and entrepreneurs, which iscurrently a serious problem. It is worthremembering in this context thathistorically major shifts in maritimecapability have led to major shifts ingeopolitical influence.

These partnerships pre-suppose a fairhearing and an honest dialoguebetween the industry and its institutionsand the authorities, the media and thepublic. Of course, pre-conceived ideaswhether these concern the assumedunacceptability of all open registries, theassumed precarious condition of all


by Mr. John C. LyrasFormer President, Union of Greek Shipowners

“Co-operative partnerships need to be formedbetween the industry, its institutions, theregulators, the media, society and shipping’simmediate clients, the charterers.”


older vessels or the assumeddeliberated lack of transparency inshipping, to name a few, do not help.

Neither is it encouraging when, forexample, the results of the one and onlypublic hearing into the causes andhandling of the Prestige incident held bythe European Parliament are completelyignored even though it showed that theextensive pollution caused was not dueprimarily to the vessel’s configuration orthe actions of the captain but the lack ofpreparedness and misguided decisions ofthe authorities. We urgently need to moveaway from the current syndrome ofconfrontation and blame. The industrythrough its national and internationalorganisations is more than willing to do so.

The shipping industry has alwayssupported and continues to support theIMO, a major shipping institution. In asense, since the event which led to theintroduction of OPA 90, the IMO hashad to face similar problems with theindustry and for similar reasons. TheIMO too is misunderstood and invisible,except when an accident occurs. It too

fulfils a vital international task which asa matter of fact cannot always fullysatisfy all of its national constituents.

Furthermore many of its detractorsespecially in the EU wish to ignore thefact that their nations have failed toimplement aspects of IMO conventionswhich they have nevertheless ratified(notably MARPOL) and even EUdirectives (most notably those derivingfrom the Erika I and II packages).

It is unfortunate that since thepassage of the OPA 90 satisfyingpolitical and media pressures takesprecedence over dealing properly withthe substance of shipping issues. It isalso unfortunate that major regionalpowers are becoming increasinglyprone to unilateral or regional actionrather than seeking internationalsolutions to problems. The IMO hasinevitably been affected by these trendsand I would like to take this opportunityto express my appreciation to outgoingSecretary-General Bill O’Neil’s effortsto uphold the status and the role of theOrganization during his term of office

under undoubtedly difficultcircumstances. I doubt whether theOrganization was ever more activesthan during Bill O’Neil’s term of officeand a lot was achieved in terms ofprevention rather than cure (the ISMCode, revised STCW and FSI spring tomind). Bill O’Neil himself hasrepeatedly stated that more regulationsare not the solution.

The IMO remains the mostappropriate and effective forum forregulating shipping operationally,provided IMO Member States arewilling to enter into an open andmeaningful dialogue and address thereal issues. When this occurs the IMOhas shown that it can introduceeffective solutions and reach aconsensus very quickly.

In closing I would like to thank theIMO News for giving me theopportunity to contribute this articleand I would like to wish the newSecretary-General E. Mitropoulos everysuccess in his term of office. He istaking over the helm at the IMO at aparticularly difficult and challengingtime and his abilities and experienceanchored as they are in the perennialmaritime tradition of his birthplace, willprove invaluable.

“ I doubt whether the Organization was ever moreactive than during Bill O’Neil’s term of office and alot was achieved in terms of prevention rather thancure.”


IMOhas been an importantpart of my life during Bill

O’Neil’s tenure as Secretary-General,and I am grateful for the opportunity tocomment on the life and times of theOrganization during that period. I offerhere a highly personal commentary,opinions based on my following IMOproceedings for over three decades andparticipating in many of them.

Recently, I was a little startled by thisstatement made to me: “IMO’sdecisions in the last decade havechanged the face of shipping andaltered the fundamental ways thatbusiness is conducted in the shippingworld." This was the observation of avalued colleague who has great depth ofexperience as a delegate at IMO and oflate has been positioned to followdevelopments there closely, session-by-session.

After some thought and discussion, Irealized that my colleague was right ontarget. The message is this: A majortransformation has taken place becauseof the work at IMO since 1990, duringBill O’Neil’s watch. The modalities andbenefits for the shipping business andfor governments will continue to evolvein years to come, but the pattern hasbeen set and further change isinevitable. The transformation, thoughstill resisted by some, is a historic,affirmative development.

The transformation of the shippingworld effected by IMO stemmed largelyfrom the approach to emergingproblems taken while Bill O’Neil wasSecretary-General. The process of IMOrule-making changed in fundamentalways. The reaction to casualties wasoriented in new productive ways, andcertain codes, developed to adapt oldtreaties to new problems, expanded

regulation into areas of shipmanagement never beforereached.

IMO, as virtually every otherrule-making body, national orinternational, always has reactedto casualties, with timing oftendriven by political furore. Drawingon a deep understanding of howIMO actually works, and applyinglessons learned through decadesof tackling mixed engineering,operational and bureaucraticproblems in the Canadiangovernment, O’Neil did not sitback and wait for Member-Statesto react to a casualty. Actingquickly, he used the power of hisoffice, coupled with his formidablediplomatic skills, to make things happenin a systematic way working toward anachievable goal. He identified trends,such as the need for improvements inbulk carrier safety, before the IMObody politic recognized the severity ofthe problem.

Typically, Bill convened panels ofspecialists or experts (variouslyorganized and titled) to address thecircumstances surrounding casualtiesthat had profound safety orenvironmental dimensions. Estonia,Erika, Prestige, bulk carriers,passenger ships - all were among the

issues so addressed. He used a similarapproach when persistentinconsistencies among flag statesstalled effective STCW implementation(the STCW ‘white list’). Moreover, heseized opportunities in publicappearances and with the press to callfor action and, beyond that, to suggestthe form action should take and theresult it should seek.

O’Neil’s actions thus set the stagewhere Member-States were to meet,debate and decide. His openingstatements at formal IMO sessionswere distillations of ideas and positionshe had previously conveyed inmessages to governments and on thepublic record. Member-States couldcommence debate with a clear idea ofwhere the collaborative effort washeaded.

Some in industry and somegovernment delegates have opined thatthe Secretary-General should not getout in front of the IMO process thatway. He should wait for delegates tomeet and express their views and thenlimit his efforts to helping seeksolutions through consensus. Idisagree. Perhaps so limited a role forthe S-G was proper at some point in thepast. But times change, casualties occurand the Organization evolves andmatures. To be effective, a Secretary-General must deal with challenges inways that match the times andconditions.

That applies to IMO bodies as well.The MSC recognized this in recentyears by adopting new rules, the ISMCode and the ISPS Code, which inmany respects come ashore.Traditionally, IMO has focused on shipsin its rulemaking. IMO crossed the

Transforming global shipping

by Rear-Admiral Sid WallaceMaritime Lawyer, Washington DC

“Acting quickly, he used the power of his office,coupled with his formidable diplomatic skills, tomake things happen in a systematic way.”


boundary between ships and shoresidewhen incorporating these codes intoSOLAS. The implications long term areprofound.

The ISM Code was first, of course,the product of years of work in theMSC, MEPC and sub-committees. In anew departure for IMO, the codeforged mandatory links between theship (including crew) and managementashore. Owners and operators werecharged directly with responsibility forsupporting operations at sea and thecondition of the ship calling at ports.Documentation of this support wasmade a requirement, with failure todocument constituting a violationsubject to port state enforcement action.

Some owners resisted the ISM Code,and still do. No doubt itsimplementation in some cases is morepaper than purpose. But the die is cast.As time goes on, enforcement willbecome routine and rigorous. Port andFlag States alike will find that the code

suits their needs. It is a fundamentaland permanent change, and constitutesthe largest step toward assuringtransparency and managementresponsibility that has ever impactedthe international maritime community.

In many respects, the ISPS Code,developed under a totally differentimpetus and time frame, emulates theISM Code in establishing links tomanagement. Moreover, it goes ashorein other ways, daring to addressterminals and ports. This code alsoworks a fundamental and permanentchange in the regulation of shippingand related activities.

All told, the last 14 years havebrought monumental changes in the

way IMO conducts its business and theeffect the Organization has and willhave on world trade. The principalarchitect of the transformation has beenBill O’Neil, who showed exceptionalleadership through many difficult timesand trials. His successor, ThimioMitropoulos, takes office throughpromotion from within, a ‘first’ I notewith pleasure. I wish Bill fair winds andfollowing seas in his new life. And Icast a vote of confidence in Thimio ashe embarks on his voyage intounpredictable sea conditions, where thetools of transformation will help himsteer the good ship IMO clear of rocksand shoals.

“The last 14 years have brought monumentalchanges in the way IMO conducts its business andthe effect the Organization has and will have onworld trade.”


When I met William A. O’Neil –to his very many friends

around the globe, Bill – over a lunch inJanuary 1990, he had just undertakenhis new job, Secretary-General ofIMO, at the beginning of the month. Itwas then that he led our discussion ontopics, such as maritime safety,pollution and seafarers training, whilehe emphatically pointed out the needfor developing and cementing trulyinternational standards. It was theperiod that OPA 90 was to createwaves of negative criticism, and it wasobvious that Bill O’Neil was not happywith the unilateral action of USA. “Ifthere are substandard tankerscarrying oil to the USA, they will stopand continue to do so elsewhere”, hesaid with a bitter smile.

For me and my staff at the Centrefor Shipping, Trade and Finance ofCity University, the early 1990’s was aperiod of increasing public activity.From the inception of the Centre in1983, we set up three major objectivesof equal importance, which at theperiod I met Bill O’Neil had beenachieved at various degrees. Thesewere teaching, research and thecreation and strengthening of aplatform for international dialogue.

Regarding international dialogue, itwas Bill O’Neil, who wanted tocommunicate with the wider body ofmaritime communities and theirsatelites, and our major symposium in1992 with the theme, ‘Safety inshipping and protection of the Marineenvironment in the 1990’s andbeyond’, which I organised at CityUniversity that led the way. It was thefirst of its kind on a global basis andBill O’Neil accepted to be our keynotespeaker, while speakers were a galaxyof leaders representing shipowning,insurance, classification societies,banking and the government. Duringthe symposium different topics onmaritime safety including OPA 90,required global internationalstandards, flaws of the system andjoint responsibilities were livelydebated in the University’s hall, with

an audience of over 500participants.

In the years to follow, ourPiraeus annual meeting, whichwe organise jointly with thePiraeus Marine Club, and anumber of our public meetingsthat took place at City Universityor elsewhere were benefited fromBill O’Neil’s presence andcontributions. In 1999, when weintroduced the first City ofLondon Biennial Meeting, agathering of world businessleaders, policy makers andacademics to discuss and debate‘hot business issues’, he was notonly a speaker but gladly gave hispermission for the IMO buildingto be the venue of the meeting.

Bill O’Neil would reply kindly andpositively to all my invitations toparticipate in the various functions ashe wanted to foster and lead thedialogue, as well as extending itbeyond governments and shipownersto every business section whichserves shipping, such as, theclassification societies, insurancecompanies, national registers andcargo interests. He pointed out that allof them constitute a risk chain, and“failure of any part to deal with riskwill create shipping repercussionselsewhere”. This approach overlappedwith our approach to deal withfinancial and banking shipping risk:same approach, different viewpoint.

In our meetings, Bill O’Neil wasalways prepared to present andanalyse his beloved concept of a newculture in the shipping industry wheresafety and quality go hand in hand,and are shared unanimously byseafarers, shipowners, satellite

services and governments. The ISMcode and revised STCW Conventionare cornerstones in IMO’s new cultureconcept. Both initiatives deal withhuman resources - the seafarers andthe onshore management. ISM coversthe issue of safety managementsystems and creates overallresponsibility for safety and pollutionin the heart of the shipping company;while STCW extends the training ofseafarers into demonstratingcompetency and its measurement. Inaddition, the role of IMO is expandingfor the first time, and undertaking theverification of measures taken bygovernments to create the seafarers’required competency.

The new concept of safety andquality in shipping also facilitated myteaching and research in ShippingInvestment and Finance. In the secondpart of the 1970’s I had introduced thefive C’s of credit, as a new method ofassessing the credit risk – the

Bill O’Neil: fourteen years of contribution at the IMO

by Professor C. Th. Grammenos, OBE, DScPro Vice Chancellor, City University, London

“Bill O’Neil was always prepared to present andanalyse his beloved concept of a new culture in theshipping industry, where safety and quality gohand-in-hand.”


probability that the loan and/orinterest will not be paid by theborrower – of a loan to be granted forthe purchase of a vessel. The five Csare five words that start with C –Character, Capacity (Managerial),Capital, Collateral, Conditions – andmy credit analysis concentrates inthese areas. Either in raising fundsfrom banks or from capital marketsthe five Cs put a great deal ofemphasis on human element, qualitymanagement and safety. These topicsattracted further the interest of bank

and capital markets analysts that usethe five Cs of credit or similar type ofanalysis. This emphasis is partiallyowed to IMO’s focus on these areas,which are vital for the existence ofquality maritime transport:management, seafarers and vessels.

For the fourteen years that I havehad the honour and priviledge to beassociated with Bill O’Neil, I have hadthe opportunity to witness thecontributions of a true leader, who hadideas and targets, brought about

changes and led his organisation tonew break through activities. To alarge extent he persuaded themaritime communities and thegovernment to realise the need for hisnew culture. He also fought for thecreation of international standardsunder IMO. Bill O’Neil has achievedall this with his friendly smile,impeccable manners and inspiringfirmness - I salute him.


Ifirst met Mr O’Neil during the 15thIMO Assembly in November 1987.

As a member of the Australiandelegation, this was my first meetingat IMO headquarters and thereforemy introduction to the working of theInternational Maritime Organization.At this time Mr O’Neil was Chairmanof the IMO Council.

At a luncheon arranged by theCanadian and Australian delegations Iwas privileged to sit next to Mr O’Neiland recall being struck by his sincereand friendly manner, particularly hiswelcoming of a newcomer to IMO andhim providing me with a valuableinsight to the Organization and therole of the Council and the Assembly.

My next meetings with Mr O’Neilwere not until 1991. Firstly, when Ibecame the leader of the Australiandelegation to the Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee and attendedthis Committee for the first time atMEPC 31 and secondly, when MrO’Neil visited Australia to provide theKeynote address at Australia’sInternational Oil Spill ConferenceSPILLCON’91.

It was my very great pleasure toaccompany Mr O’Neil during hisattendance at SPILLCON’91, onQueensland’s Gold Coast, just south ofBrisbane and to ensure his visit toAustralia was both productive andenjoyable.

During Mr O’Neil’s stay we hadplenty of time to discuss the thencurrent priorities at IMO and inparticular those of the MEPC. We alsoestablished a closer professional aswell as personal relationship. AgainMr O’Neil’s natural and inclusive stylewas demonstrated by the way he met

and spoke to the manyconference delegates he met.

Over the period from 1991 to1997, as leader of the Australiandelegation to MEPC, I observedMr O’Neil to be very successfulin raising the profile of IMO inthe international shippingcommunity. He was particularlyskilful in clearly identifying thekey high level issues of the dayfor which IMO was responsiblesuch as bulk carrier and ro-rovessel safety, the role of thehuman element in maritimesafety and marine environmentprotection as well as the need fora greater awareness of themarine environment.

Not only did Mr O’Neil identify theimportant issues but his ability to laythe ground work and propose a meansby which they could be dealt with atIMO by the Member Governmentsbecame in my view one of hissuccesses as Secretary-General. Oneexample of this was his foresight andperseverance in encouraging theestablishment of the Flag StateImplementation Sub Committee.

My professional and personalrelationship with Mr O’Neil becamemore formally established during theperiod 1 January 1998 to 31 December2002 when I had both the honour andprivilege to serve IMO as the

Chairman of the Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee resulting in meworking closely with Mr O’Neil. Aswell as Chairing MEPC I also attendedmeetings of MSC, Council and theAssembly. This gave me theopportunity to observe Mr O’Neil, hisattributes and his dedication to the

work of IMO from a different as wellas from a much closer perspective.

During this period Mr O’Neilprovided very strong leadership to theOrganization in continuing throughhis public engagements at conferenceand media releases to identify the keymarine safety and marineenvironmental issues and how thesecould be dealt with, at the same timedemonstrating his strong commitmentto the protection of the marineenvironment from ship sourcedpollution.

A number of issues come to mindwhen recalling Mr O’Neil’s valuedcontribution to the protection of themarine environment these include:

• Mr O’Neil’s very strong support forthe work accomplished by MEPC atIMO Council and Assembly meetings,

• Mr O’Neil’s initiative, after both theErika and Prestige incidents, toestablish the independent group ofexperts to review firstly the impact onthe industry of bringing forward thephase out date of single hulled tankersand secondly reviewing the ability ofthe shipbuilding industry to cope withthe newbuilding requirement as oldtankers were phased out. Clearly,without this preparatory work MEPCwould not have succeeded in reachingagreement in making essential

Tribute to Mr. Bill O’Neil

by Michael JulianFormer Chairman, IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, 1998 – 2002

“His ability to lay the ground work and propose ameans by which important issues could be dealtwith at IMO became one of his successes asSecretary-General.”


amendments to MARPOL 73/78 at onesession.

• Also in connection with resolvingthe many issues arising out of theErika incident, Mr O’Neil’s initiative tobring forward an MEPC meeting so asto ensure the minimum time to adoptand bring into force the necessaryMARPOL amendments.

• Mr O’Neil’s frequent publiccomments as well as his initiatingmeetings with European Union (EU)Ministers and senior officialsestablishing IMO’s role as the soleinternational governmental agencyresponsible for the safety and marineenvironmental regulatory activity forinternational shipping.

• Mr O’Neil’s dedication and personalinterest in assisting developingcountries, particularly through IMO’sIntegrated Technical CooperationProgramme• Mr O’Neil’s personal interest infacilitating completion of MEPC’s keyareas or work in recent years namelythe OPRC HNS Protocol, regulatingAnti-fouling paint used on ships,Ballast Water Management andbringing the entry into force date ofMARPOL Annex VI on Air Pollutioncloser through his personal contactwith Member Governments andindustry organizations.• Mr O’Neil’s initiative of introducingthe concept of the IMO Audit Schemewhich he suggested in the course of

his Keynote address at an APECConference in Sydney in March 2001.

In conclusion, I would suggest thatin addition to Mr O’Neil’s vastexperience and knowledge of theinternational shipping industry it willbe for his personal qualities ofcomplete dedication, thoroughness,leadership skills and his calm andfriendly approach that he will beremembered.

We all owe Bill O’Neil a great deal ofgratitude for his bringing theOrganization to the high level ofachievement and recognition it enjoystoday in the world of internationalshipping , the United Nations and inthe Governments of the 162 IMOMember States.


For as long as I can remember – andthat takes me to the early sixties

when I was working as a journalist inLondon – everyone associated withshipping has been complaining that themedia and by extension the public andthe politicians, did not understand orcare for the maritime industry.

I always believed that the blameshould not be attributed only to thosethat did not understand but also tothose that did, that is to say themaritime community itself and itsvarious bodies and institutions.

There was always the temptation totrade public exposure and a publicimage for the perceived benefits ofenjoying ‘privacy’ and a low profile.

It is a universal fact that bad newsmake headlines while good news doesnot.

To turn good news into headlinesneeds effort, continuity and aprofessional approach.

I had the opportunity to discussthese thoughts with Bill O’Neil earlyon during his term as Secretary-General of the IMO. And I found hisapproach and sensitivity refreshing: hehad a clear understanding of the needto educate and inform those inGovernment who, many times underpressure from the media and thepublic, had to make decisions with farreaching impact on the maritimeindustry.

It was in this context that Bill’sencouragement and support helpedestablish the Annual Seatrade Awardsat the Guildhall in London. It was aplatform for showing the world theconstant efforts of the maritime

community to improve safety,protect the environment andinnovate in all spheres of theshipping business.

The presence of seniorpoliticians and other officials andmembers of the non-maritimepress, helped convey the messageof a responsible and vibrantindustry and cemented broaderrelationships.

I recall many occasions whenBill eloquently promoted thecause of shipping to the Awards’Guests of Honour at the Awards’dinner – to Secretaries ofTransport, who came knowingthat there were more votes intrains and cars than ships but leftwith a little better understanding of theissues; to Shipping Ministers, whoseportfolio sometimes included the filmindustry and were therefore eager tolearn about shipping; to members ofthe Royal Family who have a maritimetradition and have been constantsupporters of the Awards’ scheme.

During Bill’s years as the head ofIMO, the image of the shippingindustry has undoubtedly improvedand the issues that the IMO haspromoted have helped create a saferenvironment. IMO’s work around theworld has steadily lifted the profile ofthe shipping industry.

The structures of the IMO have,over the last decade, also beenstrengthened thus increasing theeffectiveness of the IMO facilitatingthe intergovernmental tasks of theOrganization, at a time when differentgovernments and regions are looking

to impose unilaterally regulations thatwould adversely effect the globalnature of the shipping industry.

Bill O’Neil’s efforts to ensure thatthe IMO continues to be the onlyforum where maritime regulations areformulated and adopted will berecognized as one of his mostimportant contributions, a task that hisable successor Admiral Mitropouloswill promote further.


by Mr. Themis VokosFounder of the Seatrade Organisation and Chairman of POSIDONIA

“During Bill’s years as the head of IMO, theimage of the shipping industry has undoubtedlyimproved and the issues IMO has promoted havehelped create a safer environment.”


William O’Neil is sure to go downas one of, if not the, most

successful Secretary-General of theIMO.

His tenure at the IMO occurred atone of the most turbulent times inmodern shipping. It saw dramatic oiltanker disasters, passenger ferrysinkings, and bulk carrier losses.Many of these events wereaccompanied by tragic loss of life orpollution. They raised importantquestions on fundamental industryissues, from the design, maintenanceand operation of vessels, to thecompetence of the men who sail inthem, and the adequacy of the systemsgoverning their navigation. Theyraised questions as to the role ofgovernments in dealing with marinedisasters, and as to the ability of theindustry’s institutions to safeguard thewellbeing of seafarers and interests ofthe communities to whose shores theworld’s seaborne cargoes are carried.The crisis in confidence in theindustry and its institutions wasunprecedented, and the worldexpected action.

In addition to dealing with thesecrises, the IMO had to carry on itsimportant ongoing work, such as therevision of conventions andprogressing the multitude ofimportant regulatory tasks the world

looks to it to deal with. Not leastof the IMO’s challenges duringthis period was ensuring theadequacy and quality of theseafarers on whom seabornetransportation so vitally depends.

The IMO moves by consensusto avoid the perniciouspolarization that can underminethe work of internationalagencies. The Organization mustembrace the aspirations ofdistinct groups of nations andbalance their divergent - andoften diametrically opposed -interests. And in doing so, it mustscrupulously adhere to thepursuit of rational solutions,vigilantly promoting measures ofsubstantive benefit rather than

those wrought from politicalexpediency. No mean task – yet it isone that the IMO has carried out withremarkable success. And it is one thatBill O’Neil championed – despite thecommon refrain among the IMO’sdetractors that the process is toodeliberate.

While the IMO was going about itswork, politicians continued to seizedramatic marine disasters to furthertheir political agendas. Anxious toappear decisive, these self-appointedchampions of environmental causesincited public outrage and interferedwith the regulatory process in waysthat undermined the interests of theirconstituencies – not to speak of thoseof the world at large. And, as always,they showed their preference for vote-fetching unilateral or regionalmeasures over ones developed thoughthoughtful international accord.

Unfortunately, one of the mostmomentous events to rockinternational shipping occurred onthe doorstep of the United States, thecountry with the least interest inresolving problems throughinternational cooperation. It is ironicthat the Exxon Valdez accident shouldhave occurred so soon after America’srefusal to ratify important IMOprotocols dealing with liability for

pollution damage – thereby leaving avacuum to be filled by OPA90,arguably the most virulent example ofunilateralism shipping has ever seen.

And the challenges to the world’sregulatory establishment coincidedwith the ascendancy of the EuropeanUnion, and the desire of its politiciansand bureaucrats to build empires,legitimize their existence andperpetuate their jobs by carving out arole for themselves in this area ofinternational rule-making.

Few will seriously contest the IMOis the only legitimate body forpromulgating regulations affectingshipping – the most international ofindustries. Only through multilateralarrangements will the interests of theworld’s maritime and tradingcommunities be advanced in step andthrough a set of consistent rules withuniversal applicability. And only thuswill the safety of seafarers and theintegrity of our marine environment besafeguarded.

Bill O’Neil stood for this ideal. Bytemperament and training, he wasuniquely suited for the difficult role heundertook and challenges the IMOwas to face. Notwithstanding all theturbulence during his watch at theIMO, he was a voice of rationality,steering a steady course with focusand resolve, using his vision andstatesmanlike qualities to inspire andmobilize member nations and thecommunity at large. He will beremembered with respect andgratitude for what he did for theinstitution and, more significantly, forhis contribution to safety, theenvironment and the well-being ofseafaring and trading nations.

A steady hand on the tiller

by Mr. Basil Ph. PapachristidisPapachristidis Holdings Ltd.


It has been written that “there is atide in the affairs of men that when

taken on the flood leads on tosuccess”. Most certainly retiringSecretary-General William O’Neil hashad his tidal predictions right. He hasused the favourable tides of worldmaritime affairs to successfully guidethe International MaritimeOrganization, thus making the seassafer and therefore the oceans cleaner.

I have had the honour and privilegeof knowing Bill O’Neil for more thanthirty years. The relations withCanadian pilots did get off to a rockystart in the early seventies with thecoming into force of a new Pilotage actcausing friction between pilots and theadministration for which Bill had justtaken over as Deputy Administrator.Pilots withdrew their services duringthe Christmas season, ruining Bill’sfirst days in his new position and hehas on occasion reminded me of this,although always with humour thrownin. His tenure as DeputyAdministrator, Marine Services,Canadian Marine TransportationAdministration lasted four years andcoincided with his arrival on theInternational scene as CanadianRepresentative to the Council of theInternational Maritime Organisation.He then became Commissioner of theCanadian Coast Guard and thenPresident and Chief Executive Officerof the St. Lawrence Seaway Authoritywhile at the same time assuming theChairmanship of the Council of theInternational Maritime Organization.It was in 1990 that he was chosen asSecretary-General of the InternationalMaritime Organization and the rest ishistory.

He has been a source of support andguidance to me during the twelveyears I served as President of theInternational Maritime PilotsAssociation. He privileged many ofour International Biennial conferencesby accepting to deliver the keynoteaddress, always a source of inspirationon the many issues confronting safetyin general and marine pilotage in

particular. He graciously had tosometimes modify his very busyschedule in order to attend IMPAfunctions. His concerns with thetrends of the 1990s towards thederegulation of pilotage servicesmost certainly caused potentialdisciples of this new approach tohave second thoughts beforeembarking upon this dangerouspath. Those who did not heedthe wise advice of the Secretary-General and charged aheadblindly under the guise ofpseudo-economic gain are nowfaced with a deteriorating pilotservice where the sole victim issafety. In fact a number ofexamples show that thesemisguided experiments havecreated additional threats to safetywhilst failing to reduce the cost of thepilot service.

Bill supported changes that were inhis opinion conducive to improvingsafety but he was also quite vocal inexposing those whose proposedchanges were but cosmetic attempts tocreate greater profit at the expense ofsafety.

In the numerous keynote speecheshe made at our internationalconferences we felt a genuine supportfor our concerns with the unrelentingattacks on traditional pilotage. IMPAhas consistently objected to the assaulton marine safety through theintroduction of competition in pilotage.In the last decade the move towardsderegulation and competition has beenone of the most dominant andworrisome trends, not just in respectof pilotage but much more broadly. Inthe maritime sector, the public interestis best served and protected whenpilotage services are providedexclusively through independentpublic authorities. This is the bestapproach we have to ensure the safetyand economic efficiency of the world’smaritime system. The publicprovision of pilotage services ensuresthat pilotage standards remainrigorous and are not compromised by

competition. In turn, safetycontributes to economic prosperity.Safe operations cost less becausethere are fewer assets lost, fewerdisruptions to service and fewer usershave reason to seek other alternatives.It is in the public’s interest for thepilot’s judgement to be absolutely freeof economic pressure from theshipowner when piloting his vessel.

Most certainly Bill O’Neil’s tenure atthe IMO will have been marked by adramatic change in the manner inwhich safety is now addressed.Having to deal with more than onehundred and fifty delegations as wellas with a large number of non-governmental organizations whilstadopting a pro-active approach to themany important safety issues beforethe IMO has been quite anaccomplishment.

Safer ships and seas and cleaneroceans will certainly stand as BillO’Neil’s legacy. His tireless efforts toimprove maritime safety have not beenin vain. I have had the honour ofworking closely with him on manyoccasions over the years and amparticularly honoured to have him as afriend and fellow countryman.


by Captain Michel PouliotImmediate past President, International Maritime Pilots’ Association


Under the leadership of Bill O’Neilthe progress that the IMO has

made towards making shipping a safer,cleaner and more efficient business hasbeen phenomenal. The facts speak forthemselves. Since 1990, thanks to IMOinitiatives, the number of ships sinkinghas dramatically decreased, from 0.4per cent of the world fleet to 0.1 percent, the number of large oil spills isless than a third of those during the1970s and seafarer standards have

risen. The challenges facing shippinghave been huge and the IMO hasneeded a strong leader to face them.The September 11 atrocities andcontinuing menace of terrorism haveled to the development of a newsecurity regime for internationalshipping. Reacting so quickly andcomprehensively to this huge threat has been in no small way due to thediplomatic efforts of its Secretary-General.

Getting 162 countries to agree on acourse of action is no easy task. Getting

countries to adopt treaties isdifficult enough, but implementingthem can be even morecomplicated. The IMO’s efforts toassist flag states and theestablishment of regional portstate control systems have greatlyhelped in making resolutionsmade in London a reality. Sincethe introduction of the 1995amendments to the InternationalConvention on Standards ofTraining, Certification andWatchkeeping for Seafarers, theIMO has the ability to actuallycheck national governments’actions.

Sadly shipping only makes theheadlines when something goes

wrong and recent high profile Europeanpollution cases have put shipping backin the public eye for all the wrongreasons. This in turn has led to callsfrom some quarters to quick fix, localsolutions to global problems. I believethat it is essential that the concept of auniversal regulatory environment forshipping is maintained and that theIMO’s authority is not undermined. BillO’Neil’s diplomatic skills have helped toensure that this remains the case.

As the chairman of Maritime London,the promotional body for London’scomprehensive maritime servicesindustry, I am proud that London hasbeen home to the IMO headquarterssince 1959. London is after all thecapital of world shipping and it is onlyproper that the IMO as an organisationthat works closely with the shippingcommunity should be based here. Italmost goes without saying thatLondon’s maritime community standsfirmly behind the IMO’s commitment tomake shipping safer, cleaner and moreefficient.

Bill O’Neil will be sorely missed byhis many friends in the Londonmaritime sector. He will beremembered for his ‘can do’ attitude.His pragmatic role in focusing attentionon ship safety, whilst alwaysemphasising the importance of thehuman element has made a realdifference to the world of trade andtransport.

Bill O’Neil – a tribute

by Mr. Richard SayerChairman, Maritime London

“His pragmatic role in focussing attention onships safety, whilst always emphasising theimportance of the human element has made a realdifference to the world of trade and transport.”


Technical, practical, pragmatic andmost important, apolitical, the

International Maritime Organization isa UN agency that undeniably works.Indeed we are able to assess itseffectiveness by results, in theimprovements to marine safety,measured year on year and thereduction of accidental and operationpollution to the marine environment.Hopefully, the success of the thirdstrand of its endeavours, that ofmaritime security, will be similarlydemonstrable in the future.

In the fourteen years in which MrWilliam O’Neil has been Secretary-General of IMO, the Organization hasmatured and arguably has become lessremote from the maritime industryitself. In this development, the presenceof practitioners, either as part ofnational delegations and theorganizations with observer status, hashelped to knit together the fabric of anIMO that is seen by industry andregulators alike as a businesslike andresponsive Organization. Those in theindustry who, at one time might havebeen sceptical of the direct relevance ofthe IMO to their businesses, are todayappreciative of a Secretary-Generalwho, as a professional engineerunderstands the blending of men andmachinery that underscores successfulshipping and is an able ambassador foran essential world industry.

Similarly, speed of response of theIMO has been central to the changesthat have taken place, materiallyaltering the perception of theOrganization as a somewhatpedestrian bureaucracy in which

necessary regulatoryamendments were undertaken,but too slowly for some. Whilestill handicapped to some extentby the varying priorities ofmember governments, tacitamendment procedures, and thepowerful persuasion of the IMOsecretariat, and Mr O’Neil inparticular, has done much to seethe process betweenidentification of regulatory needand final implementation greatlyaccellerated. In the rapidregulatory action that followedthe tragic sinking of the Estoniaand more recently in the ‘postErika’ work , IMO has shownitself equal to the task. The factthat the Secretary-General hasidentified strongly with these criticalmatters in public, has been a powerfulspur.

The greater ‘democratisation’ ofIMO in recent years has been a featureof the organisation that it is impossibleto ignore, with more member nationsbeing prepared to increase theircommittment and participate moreenthusiastically in the sub-committees.During IMO’s first thirty years, it wasa fact that the lion’s share of the worktended to be undertaken by the‘traditional shipping nations’. Today theburden is more evenly shared, withsignificant participation and technical

resource being contributed by newershipping nations. The role of the IMO’sTechnical Assistance programme andindeed the work of the World MaritimeUniversity in promoting expertise mustbe recognised in this context.

The fact that the Secretary-Generalhas been able to put his ownconsiderable moral authority behindimportant ‘causes’ in marine safety,has itself been wholly positive. It isimpossible to forget the frisson ofsurprise at London’s Baltic Exchangein 1990 when Mr O’Neil made apowerful intervention about thedisgrace of the bulk carrier casualties,then running at about a ship lostevery week. The fact that the IMOSecretary-General himself actuallyintroduced a paper asking forinvestigation and subsequent action,might not in 2003 be seen assurprising ; in the early 90s it was thecause of many raised eyebrows!

Today, it is almost expected of theSecretary-General that he will speakhis mind about issues in which hebelieves are important. Why, forinstance, must IMO wait for a disasterbefore actually doing anything? MrO’Neil’s concern about the frightfulconsequences of a disaster to a verylarge passenger ship has been wellcatalogued, and has encouraged someoriginal thinking on the subject.

There has been no shortage ofserious challenges facing the IMOsecretariat during the period MrO’Neil has been in office. Theworrying unilateralism represented by

Maritime regulator to the world

by Mr. Michael GreyColumnist, Lloyd’s List

“The speed of response of the IMO has beencentral to the changes that have taken place,materially altering the perception of theOrganization as a somewhat pedestrianbureaucracy.”


the US in the post-Exxon Valdez eraand its important ramifications fortanker design. Financial crises, withthis modestly financed UNorganisation having to exhortprominent members to pay their dues.Fundamental regulatory changes suchas that of the International SafetyManagement Code and the ‘people-centred’ STCW Convention update,that acknowledged beyond doubt thecontribution of the human factor thatwas increasingly preoccupying IMO.

Facing up to the ‘politically correct’issues surrounding Flag StateImplementation and the fact thatsovereignty begets responsibility, asmuch as rights.

The enormous time-critical issues ofsecurity which emerged postSeptember 11, and the need to holdIMO together and produce consensualsolutions. The threat of regionalinterpretations and the patchwork ofregulations that the internationalshipping industry dreads. Many of

these remain live issues, but all ofthem have been confrontedenergetically . IMO, under Mr O’Neil,has never shrunk from its duty to theinternational maritime community.Marine safety, clean seas and securityare international responsibilities, andIMO does not see why they should bedevolved downward into unilateral orregional conclaves. IMO is, as it hasalways claimed to be, a regulator tothe world.


IMO News: Mr O’Neil, as youapproach the end of 14 years asSecretary-General of IMO, how do youassess, in overall terms, theachievements of the Organizationduring your time in office?. W. A. O’Neil: It’s been a veryinteresting 14 years and I think that,with respect to the main objectives ofthe Organization – safety of life at seaand prevention of pollution from ships– we have made gains which are quitesignificant. Under IMO’s leadership,standards in shipping have beenraised to unprecedented levels. Theworld’s fleet now consists of around46,000 cargo-carrying ships, and thevast majority of these operate for theirentire lives safely, cleanly andefficiently within the sound regulatoryframework that has been built up overthe years by IMO. The casualty ratefor all types of vessels has droppeddramatically over successive decadesand the amount of oil spilled into theworld’s oceans continues to diminish. If you look at the annual casualtystatistics from Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay, not only is there a distinctdownward trend in the number of

ships lost annually,but also the numberof lives lost at seaeach year continuesto decrease. And onthe pollution side,figures from theInternational TankerOperators’ PollutionFederation, forexample, show thatthe average numberof significant oilspills over 700tonnes has alsodropped oversuccessive decades.

IMO News: Whenyou look at theshipping industrytoday overall, are youhappy with what yousee?

W.A.O: The shipping industryprovides the cleanest and cheapestmethod of transporting more than 90per cent of the world’s goods, and it isdefinitely not in as bad a shape as it isoften depicted in the aftermath of aserious casualty. On the contrary,considering its achievements and itssuccess in accomplishing itsobjectives, I believe that shipping is anindustry to be proud of and that not asingle opportunity should be missed toemphasize this. And today it is in amuch better state, from the safety andpollution prevention viewpoints, than itwas a decade ago.However, I’d be the first to admit thatwe have not yet reached the end of thevoyage and that more needs to bedone if we are to create a safer, moresecure and environmentally friendliermaritime world.Overall, I see an industry that has ahistory and a tradition that few otherscan match, and yet which is asrelevant to the modern world as it everhas been – perhaps even more so,because without ships to move rawmaterials, finished products, goodsand foodstuffs around the world,

today’s global economy simply couldnot exist. There is a tradition inshipping of pride in a job well done, ofattention to detail, of skills diligentlylearned and painstakingly applied, ofseamanship, and these are the sort ofvalues that IMO is keen to promotethroughout the whole of the industry.

IMO News: How do assess the changeswithin the IMO itself since you becameSecretary-General in 1990?W.A.O: One of the main things Iwanted to do when I arrived at IMOwas to try to bring the Organizationcloser to the shipping industry, and torespond to what the industry thoughtwere the major issues and to ensurethat any work that we did of aregulatory nature would be of someassistance to them. I think something of a gulf haddeveloped between the desires of theshipowners and the industry on theone hand and the IMO system on theother. That is not to criticise theprevious system, because a lot ofthings were accomplished, particularlywith regard to technical co-operation.But I felt it was important that theindustry itself should be able to feelcomfortable with the work that IMOwas doing and that we were not in an‘us’ and ‘them’ situation. And I thinkwe have accomplished that. Certainlythe industry now plays a very full rolein the work of IMO, largely throughthe various bodies and associationsthat have consultative status with theOrganization. Their contribution hasbeen tremendously valuable and I amsure this will continue into the future.

IMO News: Of all the myriad issuesthat IMO has dealt with during yourtenure as Secretary-General, which arethe ones that you feel personally mostassociated with?W.A.O: Well, I am obviouslyconcerned about all the issues thatIMO deals with, but I suppose if yougo back to my early days, the firstissue in which I took a direct

A personal perspective

IMO News interviews IMO Secretary-General William A. O’Neil


involvement was that of bulk carriersafety. There had been anunacceptable increase in bulk carrierlosses in the late 1980s and into 1990and 1991, which caused considerablealarm in the shipping industry. Severalclassification societies launched majorresearch programmes and I felt thatthe situation called for immediateaction. I therefore took what was thenthe unprecedented step of presentingthe IMO Assembly with a draftresolution on this subject, in October1991. This was unusual because IMO,like any other United Nations agency,is an intergovernmental organizationand the normal procedure is for majorpolicy initiatives to come fromMember States. But I felt that thesituation was too serious and toourgent to rely on normal procedures.

Another issue that has been very closeto my heart has been IMO’s consciousdecision to shift the emphasisstrongly onto the human element ineverything it undertakes. That meansaddressing issues related to the peoplewho are directly involved in theindustry, and that starts with theseafarers. The fact that we were ableto put in place a revised STCWConvention two years ahead ofschedule, and to get the principleaccepted of IMO examining thetraining institutions in order toestablish the so-called ‘White List’, wasa very important factor. The aim wasto put some measurable level ofquality into the training and skillsrequired of seafarers and to make surethat the training institutions could infact provide the services necessary tomeet that requirement.

There was also a major concern aboutsubstandard management in shippingcompanies and shipping operationsand the ISM Code was intended todeal with that. The Code has requiredthat shipping companies focus on theiroperation in a more formalized and, inmany cases, different way than theyhave previously. In this way they lookat things that otherwise might beneglected and it has been successful.

Looking at other issues in which Ihave become personally involved, in1994, following the Estonia tragedy, Iproposed that a complete review of thesafety of roll-on/roll-off ferries becarried out by a specially selectedpanel of experts. This led to a specialconference being held at IMOheadquarters in November 1995,which adopted a number ofamendments to SOLAS, includingimportant changes concerning thecrucial question of stability.

Later, I became very concerned thatquestions of safety surrounding theadvent of huge cruise ships that beganto emerge during the 1990s should beproperly addressed and, in 2000, Iasked the MSC to add a review of thesafety of large passenger ships to itswork programme. There was nosuggestion that the new generation ofgiant cruise ships did not all complymeticulously with IMO requirements,rather that we had to make sure thatthe standards and operatingprocedures themselves had kept pacewith the changes in design andoperations that characterised thecruise ship revolution. I thought thatthe time had come for IMO to makean extensive examination of all safetyissues pertaining to large passengerships and this has developed into amajor piece of work that is beingcarried out across several of IMO’scommittees and sub-committees.

IMO News: You also took actionpersonally after the September 11thterrorist attacks in the USA. Could yousay something about this?W.A.O: In the aftermath of the attackson the United States it became obviousthat the global transport infrastructurewas extremely vulnerable, not simplyas a target for terrorist activity butalso, in the wrong hands, as apotentially highly destructive weapon.Although aircraft were the chosenweapon of the 9/11 terrorists, shipsmight just as easily have been selectedand you only have to consider the

implications of one of the mammothcruise ships referred to earlier fallinginto the hands of terrorists or of aladen chemical tanker being hijacked,or of even a conventional cargo shiploaded with explosives being blown upin a densely populated area or in avital shipping channel, to see howserious the consequences of terroristaction involving ships might be.I prepared and submitted a resolutionto the IMO Assembly in November2001, which was unanimously adopted,and as a result the Organizationembarked on an intense period ofwork to develop a proper regulatoryframework that would deal with theissues of ship and port security.December 2002 saw the culmination ofthis massive effort with the successfuladoption, by a Diplomatic Conference,of new measures that provide themaritime community with a well-considered regulatory regime onwhich to build a suitable maritimesecurity infrastructure. Among the raft of measures that havebeen adopted, the most far-reaching isthe International Ship and Port FacilitySecurity Code (ISPS Code), which willbe implemented through a newchapter of the SOLAS Convention. Inessence, the Code takes the approachthat ensuring the security of ships andport facilities is basically a riskmanagement activity and that, todetermine what security measures areappropriate, an assessment of the risksmust be made in each particular case.I think it is really important to stress,however, that all the hard work anddedication that has been put intocreating this regulatory framework insuch a short space of time will be oflittle value if the same level ofcommitment and expertise is notbrought to bear on its implementation.It is vital that all parties concernedshould put all the necessarylegislative, administrative andoperational infrastructure in place assoon as possible, without waiting untilthe entry-into-force date of 1 July 2004.


IMO News: Moving on to a differentsubject, how concerned are you aboutwhat appears to be an increasing threatof regionalism in shipping regulation?W.A.O: To me it is clear that allmeasures to improve maritime safetymust be taken at the internationallevel, to avoid a ‘patchwork’ ofdifferent standards and regulationsbeing applied in different parts of theworld, which would clearly beunworkable for an internationalindustry in which the principal assets– the ships – move between countriesand between legal jurisdictions.Having said that, there had been agreat deal of speculation that the EUcountries would take a regionalapproach to the introduction of newmeasures following the sinking of thePrestige in November 2002. However,they decided to submit their proposalsto IMO and, in doing so, they haveonce again confirmed the vital roleplayed by IMO as the only forum inwhich effective, global regulations forinternational shipping can beformulated, and reiterated their ownstrong commitment to this importantprinciple. I was particularly satisfied with this,because a great deal of effort hadbeen put into removing anyadministrative or political hurdles thatmight have prevented these proposedmeasures from being processed byIMO. I personally had meetings earlierthis year with the then President ofthe European Union MaritimeTransport Ministers’ Council, Mr.Yiorgos Anomeritis, and the Vice-President of the European Union, Mrs.Loyola de Palacio, during which Iurged Member Governments to bringany safety and environmental issuesrelating to the Prestige incident toIMO for consideration and appropriateaction.The MEPC has agreed to proceedwith these proposals at an extrasession of the Committee, to be heldin December, which againdemonstrates the urgency with whichIMO can address pressing issues and

the realistic, pragmatic and well-balanced approach that can beachieved within the framework of atruly international forum.

IMO News: But surely the reality isthat the Europeans have effectivelypushed through their own agenda at theexpense of true consensus?W.A.O: I don’t see it that way. IMOhas accepted the fact that theEuropeans want certain things done,and those items have been consideredby the MEPC. Certain matters havebeen dealt with, and the balance willbe addressed and, I hope, resolvedlater this year. The fact that theEuropeans brought the issues to IMOis, I think, quite significant. Theydidn’t, at that time, elect to go aheadalone. We’ll have to see how thisunfolds in the fullness of time. If theEuropean Union wants to go beyondIMO’s position and to establish certainother standards or regulations whichare within the ambit of the MARPOLConvention, fine. But if what they wantto do is not compliant MARPOL, andthey are Parties to MARPOL, thenthere may be a problem.

IMO News: Looking to the future,what do you consider to be the biggestchallenges facing the shipping industryin the years ahead?

W.A.O: The shipping industry iseffectively the facilitator for the newglobal economy and, as there is noobvious sign of any new technology onthe horizon that will replace shippingas the most cost-effective means oftransporting goods, components andraw materials in bulk around theworld, it seems reasonable to assumethat, as the 21st century progresses,shipping will have an impact on thelives of more and more people.

And so, in very broad terms, theoverall challenge that faces shipping isto continue to supply what the peopleof the world want from it. People havealways wanted a shipping industrywhich is inexpensive, efficient and

timely. And in the last 30 years or so,they have increasingly demanded thatthe industry improve itsenvironmental credentials. To mymind, it goes without saying that youcannot achieve those features unlesswe have an industry which is also safe.And the concept of safety must extendbeyond the oil tankers that capture thepublic imagination to embrace thebulk carriers, general cargo vesselsand all the other ship types that rarelyappear in the headlines. On a more specific level, a keychallenge will be to find an acceptablebalance between the diverse demandsmade of the shipping industry whichare sometimes contradictory.Measures to make ships safer andmore environmentally friendly willcost money and that cost willinevitably be reflected in the price paidfor goods and materials transported bysea. The world wants quality. It wantsan end to foundering tankers andpolluted coastlines, but it does notwant a significant hike intransportation costs. These are bothreasonable demands and I do notbelieve they are by any meansmutually exclusive. But I do think thatachieving them concurrently will be aconsiderable challenge. We must seek to find ways ofpermitting those within the shippingindustry who do recognise theimportance and the value of quality intheir operations and who are preparedto go that extra mile to deliver a safeand clean service to their customersand are not financially disadvantagedby less scrupulous operators who areable to undercut their prices bycutting corners.

IMO News: You’ve already mentionedthe human element. How important areissues such as training, education andsocial welfare for seafarers, now and inthe future?W.A.O: Seafarer training and socialconditions have a crucial role to playin promoting maritime safety. Crewperformance is a function of individual


capabilities, management policies,cultural background, experience,training, job skills, work environmentand countless other factors.In 1997, IMO adopted a resolution onthe human element, outlining thevision, principles and goals for theOrganization. It recalled a previousresolution which invited governmentsto encourage those responsible for themanagement and operation of ships todevelop, implement and assess safetyand pollution prevention managementsystems and another concerningfatigue factors in manning and safety,which aims at increasing awareness ofthe complexity of fatigue andencourages all parties involved in shipoperations to take these factors intoaccount when making operationaldecisions. It acknowledged the needfor increased focus on human-relatedactivities in the safe operation of ships,and the need to achieve and maintainhigh standards of safety andenvironmental protection for thepurpose of significantly reducingmaritime casualties. As we moved from the last millenniuminto the new, IMO took the consciousdecision to reinforce its emphasis onthe human element in shipping inpursuit of the Organization’s aims of asafer, cleaner and more secureindustry. It was recognised that, whiletechnical improvements would alwaysbe possible, the opportunity for majoradvances in the future would lie withthe people in shipping. In this context,I think one of the big challenges forshipping in the 21st century is thecreation of a genuine safety culturewithin the industry.Logically, the most important pre-requisite in the creation of a safetyculture will be the human resourceitself. Which means that recruitment,retention, training and education ofthe industry’s manpower base mustbecome a top priority. Shipping mustattract people of the right calibre andit must make sure that they aretreated in a way that encourages themto make their career in the industry –

which is especially difficult when somany choices are now available. Witha serious shortfall in the number ofproperly trained officers in theindustry widely predicted, the wholequestion of human resources forshipping will become a serious issuein the years ahead.

IMO News: Many people in shippinghave called for IMO to play a strongerrole in the enforcement of standards. Isthis possible or desirable?

W.A.O: On the whole, I think that theproper implementation of existingstandards is far more likely to yieldpositive results than the adoption ofmore and more new legislation. I’mnot saying that new legislation isn’tsometimes necessary but there isalways a danger of burdening thoseoperators who do routinely complywith standards with extra costs andthereby giving further financialadvantage to those who do not comply.

IMO is already beginning to addressthe issue of implementation andwhether or not the secretariat couldplay an expanded role. The first stepswere taken with the revised STCWConvention, which gave the secretariata part to play in co-ordinating theprocess whereby Parties to theconvention were assessed as to theircompliance, and the so-called WhiteList published for all to see. I thinkthat the Organization is going to haveto look further at some form of controlwhich will require countries that areParties to Conventions to adhere tothe commitment they make, and toadhere to whatever standards aredeveloped or whatever the Conventiondemands. Of course, if the secretariatis to play a stronger role in thatregard, there will undoubtedly beresource implications, which theMembers would also have to address.

In this context, it is worth mentioningthe proposed IMO Model AuditScheme which is currently underconsideration by IMO. This would bea means of auditing the performance

of governments – in their role as theParties to the various IMOConventions - to assist them to makesure that they, first of all, understandwhat the requirements of theConventions are and then to assistthem to apply them properly on boardthe ships that they have under theirflag. It’s a question of reflecting onwhat has been done and what isrequired and then to try to put in placecertain arrangements which will assistthem and ensure that therequirements of the Conventions arebeing complied with.

IMO News: Finally, could you say afew words about your successor as IMOSecretary-General, EfthimiosMitropoulos?W.A.O: Mr Mitropoulos and I haveworked together for a long time and Ifeel that we have built up a greatrapport over the years. He has been amember of the secretariat since wellbefore my time, and I first knew himwhen I was an IMO delegate comingfrom Canada. I respect his confidenceand I respect his sincere interest inpursuing the objectives of theOrganization. He has been very closeto me in our thinking about safety atsea and, particularly, the welfare ofseafarers. We both have beenconcerned about the problem of lossesof bulk carriers and the loss of life ofseafarers – which sometimes seems totake second place to theenvironmental issues. I think we haveseen eye to eye on the way theOrganization should respond to thesetopics and I feel very comfortable thathe is going to succeed me. I think thefuture of the Organization is in verycapable hands.


Throughout his 14 years in office atIMO, William O’Neil has travelled

extensively all over the world topromote the Organization’s goals ofsafer, more secure and more efficientshipping on cleaner oceans. Whethershaking hands with royalty, in

conference with ministers, signinghigh-level agreements, visitingworking vessels or just relaxing withmaritime students, Mr O’Neil hasmade friends wherever he has goneand has left a lasting impressionthroughout the wide and disparate

maritime world. In these pages weprovide a pictorial miscellanydocumenting just a small selection ofthe many missions, visits, conferencesand meetings at which Mr O’Neil haspursued the ambitions of IMO duringhis period as Secretary-General.

An international figure on the world stage

1. With HRH Queen Elizabeth II at the opening of the IMO Headquarters in London2. Relaxing during visit to Maritime Cyprus3. Ship’s engine control room, China4. Meeting – Prefectura Naval de Argentina5. With members of the Australian delegation to IMO6. The Onassis Foundation reception7. Welcome reception - Ghana

1

2 3

4

5

6 7


1 2

4

3

5

6 7

1. Dinner with the Maritime Organization of West and Central Africa2. Visit to Cuba3. Receives Honorary Doctorate, Korea Maritime University4. China – Yang Tse River tour5. Welcome reception - India6. With HRH the Duke of Edinburgh at the Seatrade Awards dinner7. Tour of coastal navigation aids - Uruguay


1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1. At the Baltic Exchange2. With Egypt’s Minister H. E. Mr Hamdy Al Shayeb and Dr Mokhtar3. With Dr Alcantara, professor, and IMLI students, Malta4. Signing co-operation agreement with Mexico5. SAR and GMDSS Conference, Republic of Korea6. With his close collaborator and successor Efthimios Mitropoulos7. With Dr K. Chikwe, former Minister for Transport, Nigeria


1

2

3

4

5

6 7

1. Signing MOU with Canada2. Visit to port facilities, Peru3. With members of the Greek Shipowners’ Association4. With Seafarers Memorial sculptor Michael Sandle5. At Panama Maritime conference with President H. E. Ms Moscoso 6. World Maritime Day, London7. Graduate from China at WMU, Sweden

IMO’s challenges and achievementsSome significant landmarks in William A. O’Neil’s 14 years at IMO

1990 (January) Mr. William A. O’Neil (Canada) becomes Secretary-General.

1990 (March) Adoption of Protocol to Athens Convention increasing amount of compensation payable.

1990 (November) Adoption of International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC). One of a number of measures adopted byIMO in response to the 1987 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

1991 Secretary-General became Chancellor of WMU and Chairman of IMLI Governing Board

1991 (March) Although not yet in force, OPRC Convention gets its first test during major pollution incident in Persian Gulf. IMO sets up Disaster Fund andestablishes Co-ordination Centre at Headquarters to help deal with threat to the environment.

1991 (May) Secretary-General proposes five point plan of action to improve safety standards and reduce pollution from ships. SOLAS amendments adopted:Chapter VI extended to cover carriage of cargoes (previously just grain).

1991 (November) 17th Assembly. Interim measures to improve bulk carrier safety adopted following initiative by Secretary-General.

1991 (November) Contracting Parties to London Convention adopt ‘precautionary approach’ which means that preventive measures must be taken when it is believedthat a course of action may be harmful, even if there is no proof.

1992 (February) Entry into force of GMDSS and beginning of seven-year phase-in period.

1992 (March) Entry into force of 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

1992 (March) Adoption of amendments to MARPOL 73/78 to improve safety of existing oil tankers by making double hulls mandatory for new tankers in a newregulation I/13F and also for existing tankers in a phase-in schedule, regulation I/13G.

1992 (April) Adoption of amendments to SOLAS including intact stability of ro-ro passenger ships and fire safety measures for passenger ships. Applicable to newand existing ships under a phase-in schedule.

1992 (July) Entry into force of MARPOL Annex III.

1992 (November) Adoption of 1992 Protocols to 1969 CLC and 1971 Fund Conventions, intended to replace original conventions. Compensation available for victims ofoil pollution greatly increased.

1993 (February) IMO group of experts visits south east Asia to advise on anti-piracy measures.

1993 (April) Adoption of Protocol to 1977 Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, intended to overcome difficulties preventing theparent Convention from entering into force.

1993 (April) First meeting of new Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation.

1993 (November) 18th Assembly adopts International Safety Management (ISM) Code.

1994 (February) Adoption of amendments to London Convention to ban dumping of radioactive wastes and phase-out dumping and incineration of industrial wastes.

1994 (July) Tonnage Convention becomes fully operational.

1994 (May) Adoption of three new Chapters to SOLAS: ISM Code is made mandatory by the new Chapter IX; International Code of Safety for High Speed Craftmade mandatory by Chapter X. New Chapter XI contains special measures to enhance maritime safety.

1994 (September) Ro-ro ferry Estonia capsizes with the loss of more than 850 lives. Secretary-General calls for an immediate review of all aspects of ro-ro safety.

1994 (December) Panel of Experts set up by MSC to study ro-ro safety. At the same time, the Committee forms a correspondence group to look into safety of bulkcarriers following worrying increase in number of accidents. Adoption of SOLAS amendments to make Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowagemandatory.

1995 (May) Entry into force of OPRC Convention.

1995 (July) Adoption of revisions to the 1978 STCW Convention. The amendments completely revise the STCW convention, making mandatory a new STCWCode and giving IMO responsibility for checking compliance – for the first time.

1995 (July) Adoption of International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F).

1995 (November) Adoption of SOLAS amendments to improve ro-ro passenger ferry safety, based on recommendations of Panel of Experts set up after Estonia.

1995 (November) 19th Assembly adopts resolutions on ro-ro safety, bulk carrier safety and other technical issues.

1996 (January) Entry into force of May 1994 SOLAS amendments (Chapters X, XI).

1996 (May) Adoption of International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and NoxiousSubstances (HNS).Adoption of Protocol to 1976 LLMC Convention

1996 (May) Entry into force of 1992 CLC and Fund Protocols.

1996 (June) Adoption of SOLAS amendments including revised Chapter III (life-saving appliances) and adoption of International Life-Saving Appliances (LSA)Code.

1996 (July) Entry into force of 1989 Salvage Convention.

1996 (November) Adoption of 1996 Protocol to London Convention. It incorporates the precautionary approach and bans dumping of all wastes with the exception ofclearly defined categories.

1997 (February) 1995 amendments to STCW Convention enter into force (with phase in period to 2002)

1997 (July) IMO awarded Onassis Prize for the Environment.

1997 (September) Adoption of new Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 containing regulations to prevent air pollution from ships.

1997 (November) Adoption of new SOLAS chapter XII Additional safety measures for bulk carriers.

1998 Secretary-General established Seafarers Memorial Trust Fund

1998 (May) Adoption of revised Annex to SAR Convention.

1998 (July) Entry into force of ISM Code, application to passenger ships, including passenger high-speed craft; and oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers,bulk carriers and cargo high-speed craft of 500 gross tonnage and above.



1998 (December) Adoption of amendments to STCW Code aimed at improving minimum standards of competence of crews sailing on ships carrying solid bulkcargoes.

1999 (February) Full implementation of GMDSS.

1999 (May) Adoption of SOLAS amendments to make mandatory the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutoniumand High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code).

1999 (July) SOLAS chapter XII on bulk carrier safety enters into force.

1999 (July) Adoption of amendments to MARPOL 73/78 making certain sized tankers carrying persistent oils (such as heavy fuel oil) as cargo subject to thesame stringent requirements as crude oil tankers.

1999 (November) 21st Assembly. Adoption of Resolutions A.900(21) A.900(21) Objectives of the Organization in the 2000s and A.901(21) IMO and Technical Co-operation in the 2000s, amongst other technical resolutions.

1999 (December) Erika incident off coast of Brittany, France

2000 (February) Entry into force of harmonized system of survey and certification (HSSC) which was adopted in 1988 through Protocols to the InternationalConvention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) and to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966. Introduction of HSSC also applies toMARPOL 73/78 and relevant international Codes.

2000 (March) Adotpion of Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNSProtocol).

2000 (October) Adoption of amendments to CLC and Fund Conventions to raise by 50 percent the limits of compensation payable to victims of pollution by oil fromoil tankers.

2000 (December) Adoption of SOLAS amendments, including: revised chapter V (Safety of Navigation) to include new requirements for carriage of VDRs and AIS;revised chapter II-2 (Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction) as well as new International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code); newhigh-speed craft Code (updating 1994 Code); prohibition of asbestos on new installations.

2001 (January) Castor incident in which salvors were unable to find a sheltered place to effect cargo transfer and repairs for some 35 days. Subsequently, Secretary-General calls for IMO to undertake global consideration of the problem of places of refuge for ships in distress.

2001 (March) Adoption of International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.

2001 (April) Adoption of amendments to Regulation 13G of MARPOL 73/78 Annex I brings in a new global timetable for accelerating the phase-out of single-hulloil tankers. The timetable will see most single-hull oil tankers eliminated by 2015 or earlier. Also adoption of condition Assessment Scheme fortankers.

2001 (August) Tampa incident involving persons in distress at sea.

2001 (September) Terrorist attacks in United States.

2001 (September) Unveiling of International Memorial to Seafarers at IMO headquarters in London.

2001 (October) Adoption of International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships.

2001 (November) 22nd Assembly. Adopts two resolutions proposed by Secretary-General on Review of measures and procedures to prevent acts of terrorism whichthreaten the security of passengers and crews and the safety of ships and Review of safety measures and procedures for the treatment of personsrescued at sea.

2001 (November) Adoption of amendments to COLREGS relating to Wing-in Ground (WIG) craft.

2002 10th Anniversary of IMLI.

2002 (January) Adoption of amendments to Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965 to add new standards and recommended practices fordealing with stowaways.

2002 (February) Full implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the STCW Convention which entered into force on 1 February 1997

2002 (February) Intersessional Working Group on Maritime Security produces recommendations, further elaborated in May 2002 MSC.

2002 (May) Adoption of SOLAS amendments to make the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) mandatory.

2002 (July) Final implementation date of ISM Code - Application of ISM Code extended to most ships trading internationally including mobile offshore drillingunits of 500 gross tonnage and above.

2002 (September) Intersessional Working Group on Maritime Security continues work on drafting new measures on maritime security.

2002 (November) Entry into force of 1993 Amendments to IMO Convention enlarging the Council to 40 Members.

2002 (December) Adoption of SOLAS amendments by conference on maritime security - comprehensive new measures to enhance maritime security, including newChapter XI-2 (Special measures to enhance maritime security) and International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code). Also adoption ofSOLAS amendments by expanded MSC – including new regulations to require bulk carriers to fir water ingress alarms. Also, MSC approvesrecommendations for future work on bulk carrier safety based on completion of FSA studies.

2003 20th Anniversary of WMU

2003 (May) Adoption of Protocol to the 1992 Fund Convention to add ‘third tier’ of compensation.

2003 (July) MEPC considers proposals on tankers (double hulls) in wake of Prestige incident – tanker sinks off coast of Spain.

2003 (September) Entry into force of Annex IV (Sewage) of MARPOL 73/78

2003 (November) 23rd Assembly.

The advances made in safety at sea,particularly in relatively recent

times, have been clear for all to see.Ships are now designed, built,operated and manned to standardsmore exacting than ever before.Nevertheless, every year severalhundred people are injured or losetheir lives in maritime accidents andusually their injuries and deaths golargely unrecorded. That is why, in1998, to mark the 50th anniversary ofIMO, William O’Neil established theSeafarers Memorial Trust Fund,dedicated primarily to education andtraining of seafarers, with the intentionof helping to raise standards and at thesame time save lives.

It was also proposed that the fundshould finance the creation of asculpture that would providesomething tangible and lasting inrecognition of the courage, dedicationand the sacrifices of those who sail the

ships on which the world depends.Several internationally renownedartists were asked to put forward theirinterpretations of the brief andMichael Sandle’s design was chosenby a steering committee from a short-list of three. Completed in 2001, thememorial today provides a continualreminder to delegates, IMO staff andvisitors, of what will always be IMO’smost important responsibility - thesafety of life at sea.

The project is truly monumental inscale. The finished sculpture is arepresentation of a traditional cargoship, with a lone seafarer standing atthe bow, looking out towards thehorizon. The whole thing stands overseven metres tall and is cast in 10tonnes of bronze. At the Morris SingerFoundry near Southampton, UnitedKingdom, some 20 people worked forseveral months to bring the project tofruition. More than 100 individual

pieces were compiled into four majorsections, which were transportedindividually to London, where thesculpture was completed in situ, readyfor its unveiling on 27 September 2001.

The Memorial to Seafarers - a lasting monument


To permit the artist greater scope indeveloping his work of art,modifications to the building housingthe International MaritimeOrganization Headquarters on theAlbert Embankment were required sothat a suitable setting would beavailable for the sculpture.

The prow of the bronze shipsculpture projects beyond the face ofthe building, high over the pavementwith the base of the ship restingbehind the public footpath.Floodlighting has been speciallydesigned to emphasise the scale andgrandeur of the sculpture ensuringthat this new monument will be visibleto all – drawing attention to the role ofthe seafarer and highlighting theimportant work IMO plays inimproving safety at sea and inpreventing marine pollution by ships.

Unveiled at a VIP ceremonycoinciding with World Maritime Day2001, this magnificent sculpture isdedicated to seafarers throughout theworld. Not only does it recognize theoutstanding contribution of seafarersto the smooth operation ofinternational seaborne trade, but atthe same time it constitutes anoverdue payment of tribute, at theinternational level, to the memory ofseafarers from all over the world whohave lost their lives in the service ofmaritime transport.

When he launched the SeafarersMemorial Trust Fund in 1988, WilliamO’Neil called on all concerned -Governments, industry organizationsand, in particular, shipping companies,shipowners, ship operators and otherentities that had been associated withthe work of IMO over the years - tocontribute generously so that theobjectives the Fund was set up toachieve might be implemented as soonas possible. The imposing memorialthat now stands outside IMOheadquarters is a physicalmanifestation that this generosity hasindeed been forthcoming.


The International Maritime Organization4, Albert Embankment

London SE1 7SR

UK

Tel +44 (0)20 775 7611

Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210

Email (general enquiries) [email protected]

Website www.imo.org

imo news magazine, issue 4.2003

Documents