Step 1 – Description of the Ship including its Equipment and Systems

The Description of the Ship including its Equipment and Systems comprises at least the following:

  1. A description of the physical characteristics of the whole Ship, its MOD Shipping Activities and its operational capability.
  2. A description of the Ship’s environmental envelope i.e. the location(s) of where the MOD Shipping Activities or operational capability will be carried out;
  3. A description of the main characteristics of the operational phase (any production process), for instance, energy used and source, nature and quantity of the materials and natural resources (including water, land, soil and biodiversity) used;
  4. An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (such as water, air, soil and subsoil/ marine sediment, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, radio frequency and quantities and types of waste produced during the manufacturing, operation and disposal phases (including recycling and reuse);
  5. Any other relevant Environmental Aspects resulting from the Ship including its Equipment and Systems during its lifecycle (including programme key lifecycle stages e.g. refit, alteration and amendment which is not routine maintenance, out of service date and disposal); and
  6. The dates of validity of other certification awarded to specific Ship, Class or Type e.g. any other certificates required under regulation 5 – Certification of the ‘Shipping Regulations’ or certificate issued by another independent organisation or statutory Regulator.

Step 2 – Review of Environmental Protection Legislation

Carry out the review using a defined method or tool such as the ‘MLD (DMR, February 2017)’, legislation.gov.uk and/or http://eurlex.europa.eu/homepage.html.

Provide a list of all environmental DEDs applicable to MOD Shipping regardless of irrelevance. A Competent person as defined in ‘DSA03-DMR-Shipping Defence Code of Practice No 07: Tools, Techniques, Training and Competence (DRAFT, NOT PUBLISHED) either carries out the review or checks the review carried out by another person. A Competent person signs the review and outlines

their qualifications (including professional memberships) and experience under their signature.

For all Legislation reviewed, set out the following in full:

  1. The title of the Legislation;
  2. The purpose of the Legislation;
  3. The DED reference (e.g. paragraph number and text).; and
  4. A concise written statement giving clearly and precisely the reasons for how the Legislation and the DED within it, are both either relevant or irrelevant to the Ship including its Equipment and Systems drawing on the description presented under Step 1.

You may need to update the description of the Ship including its Equipment and Systems considering what the Legislation says. This demonstrates more clearly, the connection between the Ship and the Legislation and DED.

Step 3 – Write the Compliance Argument or Statement

Write the Compliance Argument or Statement using non-technical language and so that it is simple, clear, concise and non-repetitive.

Ships including their Equipment and Systems will meet the purpose of the Legislation and where reasonably practicable, the outcomes of Legislation in their entirety despite the presence of DEDs. This includes following statutory Guidance and other criteria produced by the statutory regulator as well as Case Law relating to a piece of Legislation.

The Compliance Argument or Statement contains a summary of the claims, arguments and proportionate evidence. It will be based on:

  1. The purpose of the Legislation;
  2. The scope of the DED. For example, Legislation where the DED relates to the whole of the Legislation will require a more detailed Defence Compliance Argument (e.g. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)) whereas other DEDs may only refer to the exclusion of information from public registers (e.g. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016); and 
  3. The maturity of the Legislation i.e. whether it is in draft (i.e. which has been made but is not yet in force or has been made but is not yet in force.

Evidence must be referenced and provided in annexes or as an accessible hyperlink to where it can be found. The DMR will look for evidence of including but not limited to the following within the ‘Request’: 

  1. Survey and certification carried out or issued by another independent organisation or statutory Regulator e.g. MARPOL Certificates etc. 
    1. Use of and reference to the latest scientific and technical research. 
    1. Early consideration of environmental Impacts beginning of and continued throughout the Ship including its Equipment and Systems lifecycle.   
    1. That various methods of assessment have been employed e.g. desk based and field surveys as well as qualitative and quantitative assessment. 
    1. ISAs and IEAs audit reports. 

Legal advice sought by the Accountable Person(s), Duty Holder(s) and/ or Authorities to clarify relevance or irrelevance and/or interpretation of the outcomes of the Legislation. 

A Competent in Environmental Protection person as defined in ‘DSA03-DMR-Shipping Defence Code of Practice No 07: Tools, Techniques, Training and Competence (DRAFT, NOT PUBLISHED) either complies or checks the Compliance Arguments or Statement complied by another person for the request. A Competent person in Environmental Protection signs the review and outlines their qualifications (including professional memberships) and experience under their signature.

Other Accountable Person(s), Duty Holder(s) and/ or Authorities will sign off any supporting information to accompany the request for their defined area of responsibility as set out in Part C of the ‘Shipping Regulations’ (DMR, September 2016). Through signing the supporting documentation, they are assuring that the scientific evidence and analysis is sound.

The Compliance Argument/ Statement is informed by and informs the Safety and Environmental Management Plan (SEMP), Safety and Environmental Cases, Maritime Legislation Database (MLD), other Risk Control Systems and other documents, as appropriate. Do not duplicate information contained within these documents unless the context is needed. Summarise and reference out to where more detailed information can be found providing a specific reference (i.e. paragraph and page number, document title, author, and date of publication/date accessed).

A Compliance Argument or Statement refers to the parts of the Legislation review set out under Step 2 and the parts of the description of the Ship including its Equipment and Systems under paragraph Step 1, which relate to the Legislation and the scope of the DED within it. Based on this, a Compliance Argument or Statement also includes the information set out below or refers to where it can be found.

A description of the Legislation outcomes for each piece of Legislation identified considering the scope of the DED (if relevant) including references to the paragraphs/articles/regulation etc. of the Legislation.

A summary of the assessment of reasonable (i.e. available and viable) measures for meeting or exceeding some or all or not meeting some or all the outcomes of the Legislation. Carry out the assessment to the same level of detail as the chosen measure. Give an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, considering:

  1. How the chosen options meet the purpose of the Legislation;
  2. The positive and negative impacts on operational capability drawing on the description provided under step 1,
  3. The health, safety and environmental Impacts and Risks and the interrelationship between these;
  4. The whole life costs of each reasonable option;
  5. Current and reasonably foreseeable future technology and availability thereof;
  6. The impact on the programme of delivery;
  7. The impact of likely future changes to the Legislation over the lifecycle of the Ship including its Equipment and Systems;
  8. Reputational damage and reparation;
  9. Views and opinions of other Ships, Ship Types or Classes as well as other areas of defence (evidence of collaboration with involving the sharing of information/ knowledge, resources and documented discussions of reasons for relevance/ irrelevance and consistency of Defence Compliance Arguments belonging to others);
  10. Efficacy i.e. will the chosen option can produce a desired or intended result (infrastructure capacity including availability of Competent staff in Environmental Protection);
  11. Ease of use of the current technology; and
  12. Whether any option compromises the ability to achieve compliance with any other health, safety or environmental protection legislation. If there are no reasonable measures and it is not reasonably practicable for meeting or exceeding all or some of the outcomes of the Legislation, provide an explanation giving clearly and precisely the full reasons considering at least the information above in a) – k). The Accountable Person(s), Duty Holder(s) and/ or Authorities will establish what is meant by reasonably practicable and include this in the explanation.

A description of the chosen measures to avoid/prevent, minimise or offset any adverse Impacts and Risks on the Environment including details of the preparedness for and proposed response to accidents and incidents through the Ship’s including its Equipment and Systems lifecycle. This may include monitoring of the measures to be implemented to ensure that they are working. Preference is given to first choosing measures, which avoid or prevent, then minimise and then as a last resort to offset adverse Impacts or Risks. The description explains how the implementation of the measures will comply with, exceed or to produce outcomes at least as good as those required by the Legislation.