Flag state responsibilities

Infrastructure
A flag state should clearly have sufficient infrastructure, in terms of qualified and competent staff, offices and equipment, to meet its obligations under international treaties. Different flags have different approaches, eg staffing may depend on the extent to which flags delegate certain functions to bodies such as classification societies. But if a flag state does not appear to have separate inspection or crewing departments, for example, it is possible that the flags only effective function may be the collection of registration fees.

International maritime treaties

All flag states should endeavour to ratify the principal international maritime treaties, including those adopted by IMO and ILO. As a minimum, flag states should be expected to have ratified the following core international maritime conventions: 1 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended, including the 1988 Protocol, the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code (SOLAS 74). 2 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978, including Annexes I - VI (oil, bulk chemicals, dangerous packaged goods, sewage, garbage and atmospheric pollution) (MARPOL 73/78). 3 International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, including the 1988 Protocol (LL 66). 4 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 as amended, including the 1995 amendments (STCW 78). 5 International Labour Organization Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention 1976, including the 1996 Protocol (ILO 147), until superseded by the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. 6 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992, and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC/Fund 92). A responsible flag state should be able to provide a valid explanation for not having ratified any of the above, and in practice should be expected to implement and enforce national regulations that comply with the vast majority of the detailed requirements contained within these international regulations. In addition to the core maritime conventions mentioned above, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), flag states are particularly encouraged to ratify and implement the following more specific IMO Conventions: Control and Management of Ships Ballast (BWM); Anti-fouling Systems (AFS); Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) and its 1996 Protocol; Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS); and Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (Bunkers). However, because these instruments still lack widespread ratification, even amongst what might be regarded as leading flag states, they are not currently referred to in the accompanying Flag State Performance Table.

Implementation and enforcement

As a minimum, it is reasonable to expect flag states to have implemented the detailed requirements of the international maritime treaties listed above, and to have established effective mechanisms for their enforcement. For example, SOLAS, amongst other conventions, provides for regular ship surveys and the issue of certificates of compliance by the flag state, while STCW requires certification of crew competence. A simple means of assessing the extent to which international regulations are being properly enforced is through an examination of externally published data concerning the performance of ships registered with particular flags, not least port state control data (see Section Two and the table accompanying these guidelines).

Supervision of surveys In accordance with IMO Resolution A.739, flag states should establish appropriate controls over organisations, such as classification societies, nominated to conduct statutory surveys of ships on their behalf.
Such controls should include determining that the organisation has adequate resources for the tasks assigned, and entering into a formal written agreement covering the issues specified in A.739. Flag states should specify instructions detailing actions to be followed in the event that a ship is not found fit to proceed to sea, and provide information concerning national regulations that give effect to international maritime conventions. A verification and monitoring system should also be established to ensure the adequacy of work performed by organisations acting on a flag states behalf. The delegation of statutory survey work should be restricted to Recognized Organizations that comply with IMO Resolution A.739. In practice this will usually mean internationally recognised bodies, such as members of the International Association of Classification

Societies (IACS). International Safety Management Code

Flag states should have implemented the requirements of the ISM Code concerning the auditing of safety management systems (SMS), both on ships flying their flag and the shore based companies responsible for their safe operation. Flag states should also have established procedures for the issue and withdrawal of ships Safety Management Certificates (SMCs) and companies Documents of Compliance (DOCs). Flag states should also adhere to the Guidance contained in IMO Resolution A.788 concerning the implementation of the ISM Code. Flag states delegating ISM Code auditing and certification to other bodies should only delegate to organisations that comply with IMO Resolution A.739.

Maritime security
Flag states should have implemented the relevant requirements of the SOLAS Convention and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code concerning the approval of Ship Security Plans, the issue of International Ship Security Certificates and the provision to ships of Continuous Synopsis Records. Flag states delegating approval of plans and/or the issue of security certificates to other bodies should only delegate to organisations that comply with the requirements for Recognized Security Organizations as specified by the ISPS Code. Flag states are also encouraged to ratify and implement the ILO Seafarers Identity Documents Convention, 2003 (ILO 185).

Seafarers competence standards

Flag states should be placed on the IMO STCW white list of governments that have demonstrated compliance with the administrative measures needed to implement the 1995 amendments to the STCW Convention concerning the competence and certification of internationally qualified seafarers. As required by STCW, flag states should submit quality standards reports to IMO at five year intervals, outlining any deficiencies in their training and certification systems and measures taken to rectify them, in order to maintain a place on the updated STCW white lists periodically issued by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee. Flag states should issue STCW recognition endorsements to foreign officers serving on ships flying their flag, even when they have been issued with certificates of competence by another country. The flag state should have procedures in place to ensure that the foreign certificate issuing country complies with STCW training and certification standards. Flag states should maintain databases of the certificates they have issued to national seafarers and of STCW endorsements issued to foreign officers, and respond immediately to requests

from companies seeking confirmation of the validity of any certificate or flag state recognition endorsement issued by the flag state.

Employment standards
Flag states should implement the requirements of the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, including, but not limited to, the inspection and enforcement of ILO standards covering conditions of employment, food and catering, medical care and accommodation; the approval of ships Declarations of Maritime Labour Compliance; and the issue of Maritime Labour Certificates.

Safe manning and seafarers working hours

Flag states should approve safe manning levels for ships flying their flag and issue safe manning documents, in accordance with the provisions of IMO Resolution A.8902. Flag states should strictly enforce minimum seafarers rest hours that comply with the ILO Maritime Labour Convention (MLC 2006)3 in addition to the IMO STCW Convention. Flag states should require work/rest hours to be recorded in accordance with joint IMO/ILO Guidance4.

Casualty investigations
In accordance with IMO Resolution A.849, and taking into account the provisions of SOLAS and MARPOL, a flag state should carry out investigations of any serious and very serious casualty occurring to its ships, as soon as practicable after the casualty. Flag states should also co-operate with other nations investigating casualties in which ships flying its flag may be involved. The relevant findings of such investigations should be forwarded promptly to IMO, and should be made available to the industry and other interested parties.

Movement of ships between flags

A flag state accepting a ship transferring from the flag of another state should only accept such a ship when it is satisfied that it is in compliance with international requirements, and has survey reports confirming that the ship is in class. Flag states whose ships transfer to other registers have an obligation to provide all necessary information to the new flag state in which the ship is registered.

Repatriation of seafarers
In normal circumstances the employer is responsible for the repatriation of seafarers. Nevertheless, as required by the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, a responsible flag state should institute arrangements to ensure that in the rare event of normal procedures failing (eg due to bankruptcy of a shipping company) the seafarers working on board any ships flying its flag, including those that are nationals of other states, are repatriated to their country of residence. 2 As amended by Resolution A.955 to take account of the ISPS Code. 3 The work/rest hour requirements of the ILO Maritime Labour Convention are essentially the same as the requirements of ILO 180. 4 IMO/ILO Guidelines on Work Hour Record Formats, published by IMO in 1999.

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. IMO Member State Audit Scheme 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.