Cargo Securing in focus: Preparing for the 2026 PSC CIC

The Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on Port State Control (PSC) will conduct a joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) focusing on cargo securing. As the campaign approaches, Jordan Hatch, Loss Prevention Executive at NorthStandard, shares insights on how shipowners and operators can prepare.

From 1 September to 30 November 2026, the Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on Port State Control (PSC) will conduct a joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) focusing on cargo securing.

During this period, PSC officers will apply a dedicated inspection questionnaire alongside routine inspections across ports in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

While avoiding deficiencies or detention will be a priority for operators, the campaign is also a timely reminder that shortcomings in cargo securing often reflect wider operational risks, many of which can ultimately lead to P&I claims.

More than a compliance exercise

Cargo securing is a fundamental part of safe ship operations. Poorly secured cargo can shift on passage, damage the vessel or other cargo, potentially compromise the vessel’s stability, create a risk to the crew, or lead to cargo being lost overboard.

Such situations can create environmental and navigational hazards, as well as having high associated costs of recovery.

From a liability perspective, the implications are significant. Under Article III Rule 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier must:

“Properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried.”

Where this obligation is not met, cargo interests may pursue claims against the carrier.

At NorthStandard, these exposures are familiar. In many cases, investigations identify the following shortcomings:

• Incorrect lashing arrangements applied to the cargo
• Stability considerations not properly addressed
• Incorrectly declared verified gross mass (VGM) and vertical centres of gravity (VCG)
• Poor condition of lashing or securing equipment
• Using lashing equipment incorrectly or outside the manufacturers design limits
• Failure to follow the vessel’s Cargo Securing Manual (CSM)
• Premature removal of lashings prior to port entry
• Failure to follow the requirements and guidance of the CSS Code

What PSC inspectors will be looking for

Although the final CIC questionnaire will be published ahead of the campaign, inspectors are expected to examine both documentation and how cargo securing procedures and the requirements of the relevant codes are implemented in practice, including:

• Availability and approval of a vessel-specific CSM
• Whether the CSM reflects the vessel’s current configuration and equipment
• Condition, maintenance and identification of lashing gear and securing fittings
• Procedures and implementation for withdrawing damaged equipment from service
• Crew familiarity with cargo securing requirements
• Evidence that the CSM is being followed during cargo operations
• Inspection and maintenance records within the CSM and Safety Management System (SMS)

Importantly, PSC inspections have increasingly moved beyond paperwork. PSC officers are likely to question crew and test their understanding of cargo securing arrangements in practice. A compliant manual alone will not be sufficient if it is not effectively implemented on board.

Lessons from previous inspections

Previous PSC and focused inspection campaigns provide a useful indication of the types of deficiencies likely to be identified.

A 2020 Focused Inspection Campaign by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) identified recurring issues such as:

• Exceeding permissible container stack weights
• Incorrect weight distribution within container stacks
• Cargo not being properly secured throughout the voyage

In some cases, deficiencies were sufficiently serious to result in detention. Several container vessels also required extensive restows to bring the cargo stowage back into compliance with the CSM, resulting in significant costs, delays and, in some cases, disputes with charterers.

Earlier campaigns also highlighted that:

• Containers were not always lashed in accordance with the CSM
• The condition of lashing equipment and fittings was often substandard

A consistent theme across these findings is that procedures were typically in place but not always applied correctly. This gap between documented requirements and onboard practice is frequently where both PSC deficiencies and P&I claims originate.

Common causes of cargo securing-related claims

From a loss prevention perspective, there is a strong correlation between these PSC findings and the root causes of claims.

For container vessels, common contributory factors include:

• Damaged or incorrectly engaged twist locks leading to securing failure
• Use of lashing equipment that is not approved, documented or compatible with the vessel’s CSM
• Worn or unserviceable lashing fittings and foundations
• Incorrectly declared VGM leading to overstressed securing systems, inaccurate stability calculations or adverse effects on vessel stability
• Stowage arrangements that do not comply with the vessels CSM
• Excessive vessel metacentric height (GM) leading to increased rolling accelerations and excessive loads on lashings and securing equipment

These issues can lead to container stack collapse and cargo losses, particularly in heavy weather.

For bulk carriers and general cargo ships, inadequate lashing, insufficient dunnage, or cargo securing arrangements not applied in accordance with the CSS Code can result in cargo shifting, structural damage, or stability concerns. 

Incorrectly declared or poorly understood vertical centres of gravity (VCG), particularly for heavy-lift and project cargoes, can also adversely affect vessel stability and cargo securing arrangements.

There has been an increase in project cargo carried on hatch covers of bulk carriers, where concentrated loading and the installation of dedicated lashing points can lead to hatch cover damage, potentially compromising subsequent bulk cargo operations within the holds.

Across all vessel types, failures are often traced back to poor planning, insufficient supervision, or a lack of understanding of the securing arrangements.

Preparing ahead of the CIC

With the campaign approaching, members may use the time ahead to ensure that cargo securing arrangements are not only compliant, but evidently effective in practice.

Key steps may include:

Cargo Securing Manual

• Verify that the latest approved version is on board and vessel-specific
• Ensure it reflects current securing arrangements and equipment
• Remove any outdated or superseded copies
• Ensure all lashing maintenance and inspection records required by the CSM are completed and kept up to date
• Verify that certification for cargo securing and lashing equipment is current and readily available.
• For container ships, cargo lashing arrangement plans should clearly identify maximum permissible stack weights and limitations, rather than relying solely on reference to the loading computer

Lashing equipment

• Ensure all maintenance is up to date
• Identify and remove damaged, corroded or non-compliant items. These should be placed in a designated quarantined area until disposed of

Maintenance and records

• Ensure cargo securing systems are included within the planned maintenance system and that records align with the CSM
• Maintain clear records of inspection, repair and replacement

Cargo planning and verification

• Check stack weights and distribution against CSM limits
• Where computer-based systems are in use, ensure the software is up to date, all cargo, container and lashing details are correct, vessel parameters are accurate and that all test conditions provide results that are within permissible limits
• Ensure VGM has been verified with the planner, and where applicable, the exact VCG of the cargo is considered
• Review lashing arrangements prior to departure and, on long passages, check and tighten lashings again within 24 hours of departure and before and after heavy weather
• For project cargo on general cargo vessels and bulk carriers, inspect cargo and lashings where safe to do so at regular intervals throughout the passage.

Crew competence

• Ensure officers and crew understand the CSM and CSS Code principles
• Where computer-based loading systems are used, ensure both senior and junior officers are familiar with the operation of the system.
• Reinforce procedures through onboard briefings and drills
• Encourage practical familiarity, not just theoretical awareness

Effective cargo securing protects not only the cargo itself, but also the crew, the marine environment and the vessel, while reducing the likelihood of costly delays, disputes and P&I claims. 

Above article has been initially published on NorthStandard’s website and is reproduced here with author’s kind permission.

source : safety4sea