The Audit Scheme – an IMO success story
Posted on | December 16, 2009 | 2 Comments
As I was sitting in the back of the main conference room at IMO two weeks ago, a fellow delegate leaned over and said; “Every so often, something happens here that is really important.”
He was speaking of the Member State Audit Scheme. This awkward title describes a very big change in vessel quality, safety, and the protection of the marine environment. The impact will be vast.
Over the course of many years, and for the great majority of IMO’s existence, since 1948 (when it was IMCO), the subject of flag state control, or implementation, was virtually taboo. One of the political reasons for this was that flag states, or, to use SOLAS-speak, administrations, were synonymous with “flags of convenience” or, latterly, open registries. They were by definition unclean, in the eyes of trade unions and indeed of the “old guard,” traditional, maritime nations.
This, of course, did nothing to stunt their growth. But it was felt that recognition of flag state responsibility, and therefore holding the open registries to the same standards as “traditional” flags, would somehow represent a patent of respectability or legitimacy, frowned upon by trade unions, legal scholars, and academics. So it happened that port state control, originating in MARPOL and sanctified by Article 218 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came to be seen as the principal means of enforcing vessel quality standards. This notwithstanding the fact that Articles 94 and 217 of UNCLOS delineate the duties and enforcement responsibilities of flag states. The enforcement framework, from this point, became lopsided, and to a degree, less than fully effective.
The complications for the IMO were also considerable. In its early years, the traditional maritime constituency at IMO, led by what became the OECD countries, did what it could to clip the wings of flags of convenience. This led to a celebrated case brought before the International Court of Justice, which the open registries won, giving them the same voting rights at IMO as governments that claimed a true “genuine link,” that is, that the owners of their ships were actually domiciled within the flag states. The “genuine link” argument was used for years as a means to delegitimize the open registry countries, primarily Liberia and Panama, and latterly Cyprus and the Bahamas, as “proper” administrations. The argument is still occasionally seen and heard in academic and political circles that flags of convenience or open registries are somehow, by definition, substandard. This contention has been given traction by the appearance of some “nouveau” administrations, or rather flags without effective administrations, in recent years.
One of the most famous, and unsuccessful, attempts to phase out open registries did not take place at the IMO at all, but at the prompting of the Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in Geneva, from 1977-1986. This political effort, supposedly intended to benefit the developing countries, proved to be as much of a fiasco as its close relative, the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences.
While all this was going on, open registry fleets continued to grow until the ships registered in their flags came to constitute more than 50% of the world’s merchant fleet by tonnage. A number of these flag states developed exemplary safety and port state control records.
One of the features of IMO, as it evolved from its former acronym of IMCO (the “C” stood for “consultative”) was that the organization did not have any formal enforcement responsibilities, or “teeth.” Exactly who benefited from this state of affairs can be guessed at, but flag state administrations that did not live up to their responsibilities, and that proved to be refuges for somewhat substandard tonnage, were obviously content with the status quo. So too were the maritime unions and, to a decreasing extent, the OECD countries, who remained in the driver’s seat at IMO.
Some day, a study will be done on how all of these factors have slowed the development of enforcement mechanisms for flag state compliance.
But, as the title of this essay indicates, there is very good news from IMO, for which we can thank the leadership of its current Secretary-General, Admiral Efthimios Mitropoulos. Others, working quietly in the background, have also played a major part.
As a result of growing concern about substandard flag state administrations, the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI) of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee came into existence more than a decade ago. From it, almost miraculously, emerged the notion that flag state administrations should be audited. To sweeten the pill, it was agreed that these audits would be purely voluntary.
At this point, it is important to put a good word in for the IMO, because that organization is so often misunderstood. The IMO does move slowly, as any organization of its kind will, and probably must. The IMO is however a worthy organization, for many reasons that do not get a frequent mention: some of the best brains in the maritime industry gather there, on both the secretariat and as members of delegations, including non-governmental organizations. Over recent years, the IMO has become more than a mere drafting-shop, producing conventions. The influence of governments, including those of the European Union, and major maritime constituencies around the world, has led to a rethink of what the IMO is all about.
Which brings us to the Model Audit Scheme. This concept encapsulates a clarification of the relationship between flag state administrations and so-called Recognized Organizations, which often function on their behalf as experts on vessel design, construction and maintenance – - a concept going back to the Load Line Convention.
It also bring us to an awareness that flag state administrations should have certain attributes, and not be mere “paper mills,” eager to accommodate the lowest common denominator in the shipping marketplace.
The implications down the road are enormous. At last month’s IMO Assembly, it was agreed that the Audit Scheme would be “institutionalized,” that is, made mandatory over a period of years running from now until all of the necessary steps are put in place.
There will be many consequences, described further in this blog over the coming weeks. The biggest, as can be seen, will be to bring about a much more effective enforcement mechanism for safety at sea and protection of the marine environment. The value of this – - the actual implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS, MARPOL, and SOLAS, as they apply to flag state administrations – - will over time be enormous. In fact, the body of knowledge that will be developed about the effectiveness of individual flag state administrations is bound to have far-reaching results. At a time when the maritime industry’s support level, among the general public, appears to be at a low point, this is a great victory for the industry, and of course for the IMO an institution.
Over the coming weeks, we will talk a little bit more, and hopefully in less turgid detail, about what the coming changes will mean. But right now, let’s celebrate.
Comments
2 Responses to “The Audit Scheme – an IMO success story”
Leave a Reply
January 8th, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
This is good news. As an multi-decade inspector, so much is up to the admin who contracts to class who is paid by owner. Many do right but so much is riding on the honor of the participants. Not all in the chain of events are there for vessel safety. Every PSC had limited resources, mostly time, to ensure vessel and industry safety. Independant audits help keep some plain honesty in the industry we all appreciate. I think it works with ISM/SMS so why not a broader stroke.
May 25th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Please note that the Audit Scheme scope does not include UNCLOS. The scheme covers only the following mandatory IMO conventions – SOLAS, MARPOL, LL, COLREG, STCW and TONNAGE and other instruments made mandatory through these conventions.
However, the Code for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments (the standard for the audit) mentions UNCLOS as a reference and to stress the Administrations’ responsibilities of ensuring that their flagged ships are fitted for service “from the point of view of safety of life at sea and protection of marine environment”.