search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
However, apart from reiterating the need for training and awareness, TT Club emphasizes that trust through the supply chain requires more. Due to the complexity of the international supply chain, the entity identified as the ‘consignor’ on the dangerous goods document may not have direct or physical control over key elements of the end-to-end process, but needs to be aware that legal liability rests with the ‘consignor’ and ensure that arrangements are in place to be in compliance with these international and national regulations. Not all ‘consignors’ will be conversant with such responsibilities with the result that counterparties should take additional actions. Thus, there are three steps inherent in achieving compliance and assurance throughout the supply chain:


1. Ensure that your own relevant employees are competent;


2. Inform all your customers, contractors and suppliers of their obligations to train to an appropriate level of competence; and


3. Obtain documentary evidence that all relevant employees of your customers, contractors and suppliers are trained to an appropriate level of competence.


While training to achieve ‘competence’ – or the ability to do a job properly – is critical and required by law, it needs to be followed through. This means that the training records not only should be maintained but also available. It is clear that the system has yet to work effectively.


The importance of carrying out due diligence was set out in relation to the CTU Code in the IMO Circular MSC.1/Circ.1531. Interestingly, that document envisages the checks being addressed to those who seek to select a ‘provider of CTU-related services’. In an age where looking counter-parties in the eye is rare, this provides a good model in both directions; it is as important for the ‘provider’ (forwarder, logistics operator or carrier) to


‘know your customer’ as for the customer to seek assurance in relation to the contractor.


Reality triggers should be applied to consider the risk of dangerous goods. A quick internet search can identify key characteristics of a shipper or consignor – and consignee. A chemical factory is more than likely to need to demonstrate compliance with the training requirement. Equally, recognise that a garden centre consignee may just as validly seek shipment of pesticides or fertilisers as tools and wheelbarrows.


The CTU Code is now a non- mandatory Code of Practice adopted by the IMO. While certain jurisdictions may or may not implement the code into national legislation, the entire freight industry must recognise that this detailed guidance may now be used in any litigation as demonstrating good industry practice. The TT Club cannot stress enough that all parties need to become familiar with the contents and develop ways to implement and encourage compliance with the CTU Code.


Having repeatedly drawn attention to the consequences of inappropriate load distribution and badly secured cargo within CTUs (including shipping containers), including bodily injury. An increased level of training of those employed by shippers, consolidators, warehouses and depots to pack containers and other transport units is now essential. As a result, TT Club commissioned Exis Technologies to develop e-learning training courses for the transport industry; CTUpack e-learning™ (www.ctupack.com).


While the IMDG Code is mandatory and all IMO member states


are required to incorporate its requirements in national law, enforcement is little known and inspections (on which evidence of transgression is reliant) are few and far between.


On analysing reports submitted to IMO in the past, TT Club has established that the number of member states reporting on their inspections, in comparison with those in membership of IMO, has always been less than 10% and currently stands at about 2.5%; on average only 4 or 5 of the 170 member states regularly report. Of the inspections that are carried out as many as 75% are usually in the US. Obviously this is a woefully low rate of inspection and next to useless in order to enforce the regulations, derive change requirements or provide evidence of frequent transgressors in terms of shippers and commodities.


TT Club working with partners will continue to put pressure on IMO delegates and participate, through its association with ICHCA, in preparing relevant evidential submissions to the organization’s sub-committees dealing with the safety in container transport. However it is clear that the effectiveness of its call for Cargo Integrity, must take a broad approach, not relying on the power of regulation or the vigilance and discipline of carriers or port operators, but carrying the message to the whole spectrum of industry stakeholders with a commitment to reduce uncertainty of outcome and improve safety for people, ships and the environment. Those involved in inspections, surveys and advice to the packing industry globally are amongst key potential agents of the significant culture change that is required


¹ Marine Aviation and Transport ² http://hazcheck.existec.com/hazcheck-systems/hazcheck-restrictions ³ http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/IMDGCode/Pages/Default.aspx 4 http://www.unece.org/trans/wp24/guidelinespackingctus/intro.html


The Report • December 2018 • Issue 86 | 73


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92