Handling hazardous cargoes at a terminal—such as crude oil, refined products, or liquefied gases—leaves little room for ambiguity. ISGOTT (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals) is the industry’s go-to guidance for safe ship/shore cargo operations, and its ship/shore safety checklist helps both parties confirm that critical controls are in place before and during transfer.
In this guide, you’ll learn what the ISGOTT ship/shore safety checklist is, why terminals rely on it, how it reduces operational risk, and how many terminals are moving toward a digital / electronic ISGOTT checklist to improve standardization and auditability.
In this article
The ISGOTT ship/shore safety checklist is a structured set of checks completed jointly by the vessel and the terminal to confirm that:
The checklist works because it forces explicit alignment: both ship and shore must review and confirm readiness—reducing the chance that assumptions, language gaps, or incomplete handovers turn into incidents.
ISGOTT has been developed and maintained by industry bodies and is widely used as a practical operational reference for safe cargo transfer planning and execution. It has evolved to reflect:
The 6th edition (2020) places stronger emphasis on:
Note: If you reference specific changes or quote the edition directly, link to an authoritative source page and/or official publication reference in your CMS.
Cargo transfer is a joint operation. The checklist becomes the shared language that ensures ship and terminal are aligned on:
Many maritime incidents trace back to procedural gaps, misunderstandings, or incomplete verification. The checklist reduces risk by forcing confirmation of the basics—before pressure, flow, and time constraints make corrections harder.
Terminals deal with varying vessel crews, different equipment configurations, and shifting operational constraints. A consistent checklist makes operations more predictable and easier to train, audit, and improve.
Below is a practical way to think about the checklist in three operational phases.
| <strong>Phase</strong> | <strong>Objective</strong> | <strong>Example checks (indicative)</strong> | <strong>Ship owner</strong> | <strong>Shore owner</strong> | <strong>Common failure point</strong> |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <strong>1) Before cargo operations</strong> | Confirm readiness + shared procedures | Communication protocol; emergency actions agreed; ESD/shutdown understanding; firefighting readiness; cargo plan alignment; compatibility constraints | Deck officer / cargo officer confirms ship readiness + procedures | Terminal rep confirms berth readiness + site procedures | “Assumed agreement” on shutdown signals, alarms, or stop-work authority |
| <strong>2) During cargo operations</strong> | Maintain control while conditions change | Monitoring rates/pressures; watchkeeping; comms cadence; deviation handling; stop criteria; escalation path | Watchkeeping + monitoring onboard | Monitoring + coordination ashore | Drift in vigilance after startup; unclear response to abnormalities |
| <strong>3) Completion / before departure</strong> | Close out safely + capture learnings | Final safety checks; close-out communication; documentation of deviations/near-misses; readiness for unberthing | Sign-off + documentation onboard | Sign-off + terminal reporting | Weak close-out documentation (losing lessons + audit trail) |
A common operational weakness is unclear ownership—especially across shift changes or when operations are under time pressure.
In practice:
If your terminal has recurring issues, add a short “responsibility clarification” subsection inside your checklist workflow (digital or paper).
These are areas where terminals often see operational risk—not because people don’t care, but because conditions change and communication degrades over time:
Fix: standard phrases + structured fields + optional multilingual guidance in digital checklists (where appropriate).
Paper checklists can work, but they often create:
Fix: move toward a controlled workflow where versioning, required fields, and sign-off logic are enforced.
Change fails when it feels like “extra admin.”
Fix: implement with operators:
ISGOTT compliance is a workflow problem, not a PDF problem.
A well-implemented digital ISGOTT checklist can help terminals:
Want to see what a digital ISGOTT checklist workflow looks like in practice?
See a digital ISGOTT checklist workflow
One of the best ways to improve checklist effectiveness is to clearly define:
This reduces hesitation during abnormal conditions.
If you include a case study, ensure it is either:
Example structure:
If you cannot substantiate a named port/statistic, keep it anonymized and avoid numeric claims.
See a digital ISGOTT checklist workflow
It’s used to ensure ship and shore jointly verify readiness and procedures for safe cargo operations—especially when handling hazardous cargoes.
Typically, the vessel’s responsible officer and the terminal representative complete it together and confirm mutual agreement on each safety point.
At a high level: stronger attention to human factors, clearer risk-based framing, and guidance that supports modern operational realities—including digital workflows.
In many contexts it’s not “law” in itself, but it is widely recognized and often expected by terminals, operators, vetting processes, and insurers. (Confirm your exact regulatory framing per region.)
Yes. Many terminals implement electronic/digital checklists to improve standardization, auditability, and operational continuity.
Reference official industry sources and/or your terminal’s controlled procedure documents. Avoid using uncontrolled copies that may be outdated.
The ISGOTT ship/shore safety checklist is more than a form—it’s a practical control that helps terminals and vessels align on readiness, responsibilities, and emergency response before cargo transfer begins. When executed consistently, it improves safety, standardization, and operational confidence.