Should Responsibility for declaration of weight become mandatory?

It is always pleasing to hear feedback from readers and my reference in the April edition to under declaration of the weight of freight containers seems to have hit a chord.

Some comments received concentrated on the large, modern terminal with sophisticated systems and procedures. It is probably true that some such could electronically match a declared weight with one registered by a lifting appliance on the terminal and, given sufficient lead time, could readily introduce such an arrangement.

It must be remembered, however, that the ICS publication Safe Transport of Containers by Sea was concerned with all container ships, large and small, and, therefore, every terminal that loads/discharges them and in every part of the world. Whilst some terminals have weighbridges, many do not and not every terminal has equipment and terminal computer systems that the largest usually have.

A weighbridge operation requires knowledge of the unladen weight of the tractor and the trailer — which of course is a variable — and it requires the terminal to set aside an area to receive overweight containers. On the other hand, a certificate from a reputable public weighbridge could be accepted.

I said in the previous article that loads found by the checking system to be under declared should be stopped from continuing the journey until the shipper has corrected it. On reflection that was not quite correct. As long as the overload is still within the gross safe working load of the container concerned and the equipment to lift and handle it and its true gross weight is communicated to the ship planners, it does not need to be stopped.

It can still be loaded on board the vessel, although there must be some provision for the shipper being made aware of the fact that he did not declare correctly, eg charging for the procedure.

There is, of course, one other aspect and that is when the weight of the container takes the gross vehicle weight over the legal limits applicable in the countries where it will be travelling by road.

Overweight containers are very much the concern of road hauliers — and rail and barge operators too — although an export terminal will not know the import country’s requirements and it will be for the shipping company to check once the true weight is known.

In the comments received, an argument has been made for the correct weight declaration to be made mandatory. However, it is already a condition of carriage that the full particulars of the consignment should be declared, thus creating a civil liability. With the IMDG Code being mandatory it can be argued that this certainly applies to DG.

What is needed is some firm enforcement action to underline what is lawful. I did notice recently that the Dutch Government has brought in a new law that would make shippers and forwarders equally responsible with hauliers for overweight loads on the roads. This approach is likely to be reflected elsewhere and it is a fact that overweight for road use is already illegal in many countries whereas an overload that jeopardises a ship is a new concept.

The US, among others, has required weights to be declared for road movements for some time (due to the low level of strength of various bridges and other highway structures) and that has an implication for import terminals. This has led to some terminals installing weighbridges. With regard to the small ports, it is perhaps easier for them because they don’t have the huge flows to contend with. But they have to lift containers on and off trucks and therefore the container handling equipment could probably be modified to give the driver a weight figure, perhaps in a print-out form. Thus, it wouldn’t really require a weighbridge.

The question of who pays for verification is a central point that has yet to be clarified and is likely to be decided between the two parties. If the actual weight is needed for the marine carrier’s purposes, it would seem logical that it should bear the cost of verification. It seems logical that the marine carrier and the terminals it uses should agree on whether and, if so, how the declared weights are to be verified — there are a number of differing ways of doing it, including those already highlighted. The question of weight and the need to correctly state it and to verify is clearly covered by the ICS publication (see 7.5 and elsewhere).

The question of who should address this issue was also raised. Should it be nation states and their shoreside national bodies such as labour inspectorate (workplace safety) transport ministry (road and rail movements) or maritime administration (marine conveyance)? Should it be addressed internationally by the ILO (shoreside) or the IMO (maritime)?

Cargo Systems understands that ILO is proposing to commence a new work item on the safety of freight containers which, in conjunction with IMO, will address the complete multimodal conveyance and would, of necessity, have to include this issue.

It is clear that this is a controversial subject and the MAIB report on the MSC Napoli has started a debate that will continue for quite some time.