Since the implementation of the ISM Code, the maritime world is still waiting for clear case law on the DPA’s responsibilities. Particularly when it is proven that the DPA has not done its job! To clarify this, it is therefore essential:
- That the DPA’s role is clear and sufficiently detailed - That the Company cover the costs of defending the DPA in the event of a possible indictment
- That the right of withdrawal be provided for in the event of a major dispute, particularly due to the following: “ensuring that adequate resources and appropriate support for the vessels are provided by the Company ashore, as needed”!
This seems easy at first glance. However, when looking around, case law hasn’t clarified much yet, not even during the Costa Concordia trial. And for the DPA, sometimes it’s only the « right to quit » possibility that works!
I don’t think this aspect of the DPA’s role will be clarified soon ... the will doesn’t seem to be there! We are in a sensitive area that, for example, the Masters are well aware of ... so … are Masters and DPA fighting the same battle?
6-SOME DEVIATIONS REMAIN
After the publication of the circular concerning guidelines for companies, many companies have gained a better understanding of the role of the DPA, which is nonetheless “unique” and certainly not a heap of new safety management responsibilities in the hands of the Company’s operations manager, whether they be the ship’s Master, fleet director, or safety officer!
The wording in the ISM Code is clear enough to understand that the idea was to appoint a new person on shore to ensure, in all cases, a liaison between the ship’s managers and the CEO, when necessary, while also ensuring reliable link communication between the Company and those on board. As well as monitoring the
safety and pollution prevention aspects of each vessel and ensuring that adequate resources and appropriate shore- based support are provided.
The text of Section 4 of the ISM Code was sufficient clear in itself to define the role of the DPA. But given the many misinterpretations, the IMO had to clarify this invention!
The circular in question therefore emphasised the DPA’s responsibilities related to a modern management method, and indeed, everything we have just seen now even more justifies a high-level position for the DPA within the Company’s management, whether large or small.
Some companies sometimes felt they could not afford or did not want this new manager independent of the more traditional ones.
Surprisingly, these companies have easily granted their DOC and SMC, meaning “compliant with the ISM Code” ... So?
By comparing the two possible situations identified below:
1. The DPA is the Operations Manager or other traditional marine superintendent, assuming all the responsibilities listed above, and
2. The DPA is a person independent of the traditional managers to avoid information blockages like those of the HOFE and also assumes all the responsibilities listed above.
In the first case, we see that access to important information to the CEO is practically the same as before, and therefore the risk of blockages remains (HOFE Case). Ultimately, we are simply modernising operations, i.e., with management focused on self-monitoring and continuous improvement.
Wow, all that for that!
ISM/DPA Flow Chart compliant with corresponding IMO CIRCULARS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)
RP DPA RELIABLE DIRECT LINK to CEO when necessary - Safety Survey of ship's operations at sea or in ports
- Ensure adequate resources and support to vessels by the company as needed, particularly in emergency situations
- Ensure the general functioning of the SMS including related cyber security - Participate in the << ISM Company policy >> communication process - Organize and monitor ISM audits
- Report/analyse NCs and other irregularities including potentially dangerous incidents
- Evaluate and review the effectiveness of the SMS - Conduct appropriate periodical SMS reviews as necessary· - Conduct internal investigations in the event of an accident
- Identify appropriate measures to ensure his/her own responsibilities
ISM WAY
RETURN
NORMAL WAY
COMPANY OPERATIONAL DEPARTMENTS:
SHIPS MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL/IT DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT
Moderation Mediation
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MARKETING DEPARTMENT
PASSENGER RELATIONS DEPARTMENT LOGISTICS and SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
RETURN
NORMAL WAY
SHIPMASTER/CREW/SSC THE REPORT | MAR 2026 | ISSUE 115 | 83 RETURN
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 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
