Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foreword
The Round Table of international shipping associations -
BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING/INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
FEDERATION and INTERTANKO - believe it is essential that standards of safety, environmental and social
performance are maintained and enforced by flag states, in full compliance with international maritime regulations.
These guidelines on flag state performance have been produced to help the international shipping industry contribute to
this objective.
The guidelines are addressed to shipping companies owning and/or operating merchant cargo or passenger ships trading
internationally. Although developed for shipping companies, they should also be of interest to policy makers involved
in maritime safety, and flag administrations themselves.
Guidelines such as these can only be recommendatory in nature, and companies may need to adapt them to fit their
particular needs and circumstances. On this understanding, the guidelines are intended to provide useful advice on what
a shipping company might reasonably expect, in its capacity as a customer, of an administration whose flag it chooses
to fly.
Note on the Second Edition
This is the second edition of the Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance, following initial publication
in 2003 (although the accompanying Flag State Performance Table has been updated annually).
The guidelines have been revised to reflect recent developments including the adoption by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) of the Member State Audit Scheme, and its accompanying Code on the Implementation of
Mandatory Instruments, whereby maritime administrations are subject, on a voluntary basis, to external audits by
other IMO Member States, in order to identify any shortcomings with regard to the full implementation of IMO
regulatory requirements. The Round Table of international shipping associations is a committed supporter of the IMO
audit scheme, which it is hoped will eventually become mandatory. These Shipping Industry Guidelines are intended to
serve as a complement to the IMO scheme, contributing to the objectives of maintaining safe shipping and clean seas.
This latest edition of the guidelines also reflects other important developments, such as the adoption by the
International Labour Organization (ILO) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and the entry into force of Annex
VI (prevention of atmospheric pollution) of the IMO MARPOL Convention. This edition also takes account of
numerous and helpful comments received from maritime administrations around the world, in order to make the
guidelines as relevant and objective as possible.
4
Section One
Flag states should participate in the IMO Member State Audit Scheme in order to identify areas for possible
improvement with regard to the implementation of IMO instruments, and which may benefit from IMO technical
assistance programmes.
In the interests of transparency and continuous improvement, the industry organisations believe that flag states
should publish the results of the IMO audits for the benefit of the industry as a whole.
Participation at IMO and ILO meetings
In order to keep appraised of the latest international maritime regulatory developments (and contribute to the
decisions made by IMO), flag states should be expected to attend all meetings of the following IMO committees:
• Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)
• Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
• Legal Committee (LEG)
• Biennial meetings of the IMO Assembly.
If possible, flag states should also participate in IMO Diplomatic Conferences and relevant technical sub-
committees of IMO, including the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation, as well as major maritime
meetings of the International Labour Organization. All flag states, particularly those from developing countries
which might benefit from technical assistance
programmes, should also be encouraged to attend meetings of the IMO Technical Co-operation Committee.
Consultation with shipowners
Flag states should have some form of consultative process to enable ship operators to engage in discussions about
maritime regulatory developments and other issues relevant to the safe operation of ships flying their flag, for
example, through the mechanism of a national shipowners’ association.
11
Section Two
the collective port state control record of ships flying a particular flag. included on regional PSC
The three principal regional Port State Control (PSC) authorities 5, which maintain ‘white lists’ because the
comprehensive statistics, are the countries of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding low number of port calls
(MOU), the Tokyo MOU and (though a single country) the United States. All three by their ships may make
authorities target particular flags on the basis of deficiencies and detentions recorded for them ineligible to
ships flying that flag. The targeting methods differ slightly, and some poorly performing qualify. The fact remains,
however, that ships
flags may be omitted because the number of their ships trading to particular PSC regions is
flying such flags will be
too small to be statistically significant. However, the table identifies flag states that appear
more likely to be subject
on the Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and United States Coast Guard (USCG) target lists of flag
to inspection.
states6. 12
As a further indication of performance, the tables also identify those flags which, though
not necessarily performing poorly, are not included on the Paris MOU ‘white list’, the
Tokyo MOU ‘white list’ or in the US Coast Guard ‘Qualship 21’ programme, and whose
ships may therefore be subject to a greater likelihood of inspections 7.
Ratification of major international maritime treaties
Ratification of international maritime conventions does not necessarily confirm whether
the provisions of these global instruments are being properly enforced. However, a flag
state should be able to provide good reason for not having ratified any of the instruments
referred to in the table.
The list of conventions referred to in the Performance Table is not as extensive as that
contained in Section One of these guidelines, the Performance Table including only those
‘core’ conventions, relevant to flag state responsibilities, which already enjoy widespread
ratification and enforcement. For this reason, because the ILO Maritime Labour
Convention (MLC 2006) was adopted as recently as February 2006, the table still refers to
the ILO Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention (ILO 147) as the main
maritime labour convention that flag states should reasonably be expected to have ratified.
However, the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 supersedes ILO 147 and will therefore
replace it in the Performance Table in due course, once states have had sufficient time to
ratify it.
5 There are various other regional and national PSC regimes worldwide, but in the interests of simplicity the performance
table only uses data from the three principal regional PSC authorities.
6 The Paris and Tokyo MOU data relates to their ‘black lists’, but not their ‘grey lists’ of flags whose record is worse than
Age of fl eet It must be emphasised that the age of a ship is not an indicator of quality and the condition
of a ship is ultimately determined by the standard of its maintenance. That said, a fl ag which has a
concentration of older tonnage is likely to attract poorer quality vessels, and a fl ag state that has a very
high age profi le may prompt further analysis. The table therefore shows the 25% of fl ags whose ships
have the highest average age amongst those listed, in terms of both numbers of ships and tonnage.
Reporting requirements To encourage implementation of international instruments, there are various
reporting requirements, both mandatory and recommendatory, concerning the submission of
information by fl ag states to bodies such as IMO and ILO. Information covering the extent to which fl
ags have complied with certain reporting requirements is not always available in the public domain.
However, as an indicator, the table shows fl ags that have failed to submit adequate reports of
independent evaluations to IMO confi rming continuing compliance with the STCW Convention, and
have thus failed to maintain a place on the most recent STCW ‘white list’. The table also shows fl ag
states which have failed to submit compliance and practice reports required by ILO. Attendance at IMO
meetings Although in itself not an indicator of their safety and environmental record, fl ag states that
do not attend the major IMO meetings (Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment Protection
Committee, Legal Committee and Assembly) may be thought unlikely to be seriously committed to the
implementation and enforcement of IMO rules. Attendance at these meetings is also important to keep
abreast of regulatory developments. The table identifi es fl ag states that have not been represented at
all meetings of these three major IMO committees or the biennial meeting of the IMO Assembly during
the previous two years.