TMI/EFCE/2017/12

Extra First Class COC Courses (Part “B”)

Subject: B1-Maritime Regulations; Assignment A of B1

Title: IMO Member State Audit Scheme and the III (Triple I) code

Student Name and Number: Mr. Pinaki Bhusan Choudhuri and TMI/EFCE/2017/12

ASSESSOR: Capt. S. G. Deshpande

Date of Submission: 12th of August 2017

 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

List of Figures, Graphs and Tables:

Figure 1. The Audit process

Table 1. The mandatory reporting of various MS from 2005-2009
Table 2. The mandatory reporting of various MS from 2010-2010
Graph 1. Ship inspection with deficiency from 2000-2010
Graph 2. Accident frequency per ship year from 1980-2010

(ii)
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
COLREG 1972 the Convention on the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended
III Code the IMO Instruments Implementation Code
IMSAS IMO Member State Audit Scheme
IMO International Maritime Organization
LDC Least Developed Countries
LL 1966 the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966
LL PROT 1988 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International
Convention on Load Lines, 1966
MARPOL 73/78 the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol
Of 1978 relating thereto, as amended
MARPOL PROT 1997 the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
Relating thereto, as amended
MEPC Marine Environmental Protection Committee
MS Member State
ROs Recognized Organizations
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SOLAS 1974 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, as amended
SOLAS PROT 1978 the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
Amended
SOLAS PROT 1988 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
Amended
UN United Nations
VIMSAS Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme

(iii)
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

Introduction:
International Maritime Organization (IMO), being one of the specialized UN
agencies, with its global membership and mandate, has developed a large number of
technical standards related to maritime safety, security and marine pollution
prevention. However, IMO has no enforcement and compliance monitoring role in
this regard.

The regulatory and enforcement paradigm of international shipping has following

actors:
1. IMO has the responsibility to develop universal technical safety, security
and pollution prevention standards relating to ships and shipping activities.
2. Governments have a duty to implement and enforce these standards.
3. RO’s have a duty to be impartial and exercise due diligence in carrying out
statutory tasks assigned to them by governments.
4. Shipping Companies are responsible for the consistent application of the
same standards to individual ships.
5. Seafarers have the task of putting into operation the above standards.

If these actors act independently, it would lead to loss of life, environmental damage
and economic loss amongst others. Hence, to have a safe and healthy maritime
industry, it is very important for the actors to act together.

Mr. W.A. O’Neil (S-G Emeritus, IMO) once said, “I think one point we could all
agree on is that the solution does not necessarily lie in creating more and more
legislation…They have certainly helped to improve the situation. However;
regulations are only effective if they are put in practice and are enforced and there is
no doubt that many IMO conventions and other standards are not implemented as
vigorously as they should be. Before adopting still more regulations, we should,
therefore, concentrate on assuring that the ones that already exist are, in fact, applied
to all ships throughout the world”.

1 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

Main Body:
(a) The previous audit scheme: IMO’s VIMSAS and its purpose
In June 2002, the IMO Council at its 88th session, put forward an IMO Model
Audit Scheme proposed by 19 MS. The IMO Assembly, at its 23rd sitting in
2003, adopted by resolution A.946 (23), the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit
Scheme. This was an audit scheme which was to be implemented on a voluntary
basis by IMO MS.

For the first time in the history of IMO, the VIMSAS had made it possible for
external audits of sovereign States. MS would open their doors fully to other MS to
assess their compliance of IMO instruments. In 2005, the Assembly at its 24th sitting
adopted Resolutions A.974(24), Framework and Procedures for the VIMSAS and
A.973(24), Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO instruments, the audit
standard. The adoption of these two resolutions opened the way for formal auditing
of all the MS on a voluntary basis.

The responsibilities imposed on The MS were as follows:

• Compliance with the code in Resolution A.973(24);
• Enact all national legislation for the applicable IMO instruments relating to
maritime safety and pollution prevention;
• The administration and enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations by
the MS;
• RO’s (if applicable), monitoring and control feedback mechanisms in place to
enable MS to check activities relating to survey and certification;
• MS other obligations and responsibilities under the IMO instruments.

The Audit assessed the extent of discharge of these obligations.

The outcome and benefit of the audit enabled MS access to the following:
• Foster capacity-building by identifying areas where the MS needed
further development and assistance in order to discharge their responsibilities;
• Outcome of the audit made available to various other MS;
• Provision of beneficial generic lessons from IMO to all MS.
• Systematic feedback of any lessons learnt during the audit for further
consideration by IMO to improve the audit scheme.

2 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

FIGURE 1 shows the Audit process (IMO, 2005c):

3 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

(b) Reasons for making the audit scheme mandatory (IMSAS)

The trends for Mandatory reporting of various reports also show that the IMO MS do
not always comply with their obligations, below are two examples:

Table 1. shows the mandatory reporting of various MS sourced from FSI 19/14.

Table 2. shows the mandatory reporting of various MS sourced from

MEPC.1/Circ.869.

4 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

The number of accidents per ship has increased than it was before. The flag states
seem to have a problem in enforcing safety standards which lead to increased
deficiency rate.

Graph 1.

Graph 2.

5 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

The IMSAS is intended to provide an audited MS with a comprehensive and

objective assessment of how effectively it administers and implements IMO
instruments under the purview of IMSAS. The benefits of IMSAS are similar to that
of the VIMSAS but in a magnified and enlarged form due to more availability of
data. In principle, the audit is mandatory while in practice the grant and authorization
from MS have to be gained first.

The five Principles of the Audit Scheme are:

1. Sovereignty and universality
2. Consistency, fairness, objectivity and timeliness
3. Transparency and disclosure
4. Cooperation
5. Continual improvement

The mandatory IMO instruments addressed in this Code are:

1. SOLAS 1974, Protocol 78/88;
2. MARPOL 73/78, Protocol 1997;
3. STCW;
4. Load Line 66, Protocol 1988;
5. TONNAGE 1969;
6. COLREG 1972

(c) Member state preparations and obligations under the IMSAS and the III code

The MS has different roles to play. MS is required to act in its capacity as a flag,
port and coastal State. In all the roles the primary responsibility remains the same,
which is to have a system in place, adequate and effective enough to make sure
obligations and responsibilities under applicable international law in respect of
maritime safety, security and protection of the marine environment are being
followed.

For the above to happen the MS have to prepare and develop a strategy, covering the
following issues:
1. implementation and enforcement of relevant international mandatory
instruments;
2. adherence to international recommendations, as appropriate;
3. continuous review and verification of the effectiveness of the adherence;
4. The achievement, maintenance and improvement of overall organizational
performance and capability.

6 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

The MS should have its various arms like the administrative, legal and technical arm
be open for an audit in accordance with the audit standard; having the minimum
following scope for audit:
jurisdiction; organization and authority; legislation, rules and regulations;
promulgation of IMO instruments, rules and regulations; enforcement arrangements;
control, survey, inspection, audit, verification, approval and certification functions;
selection, recognition, authorization, empowerment and monitoring of recognized
organizations, as appropriate, and of nominated surveyors; investigations required to
be reported to the Organization; and reporting to the Organization and other
Administrations.

(d) How does the IMSAS and III code deal with the sticky issue of sovereignty of a
member state when subjecting itself to an external audit by IMO?

Audits should be positive and constructive in approach and be organized and

conducted in a way which recognizes the sovereignty of a Member State. As
mentioned earlier the MS has three obligations, namely flag, port and coastal State. If
the MS uses an excuse of sovereignty and does not authorize the Audit Team to audit
all three obligations, then what shall be done to fully implement
IMO’s monitoring power? The IMO would have its hands tied in spite of the
mandatory implementation of the audit. So far there is no definite solution. In
practice, the situation may not be so extreme, but it shows the complexity of the
mandatory implementation of the Audit Scheme.

In all situations, the IMSAS and III code have to stick to its most vital principle of
respecting the sovereignty of an MS.

(e) Your own comments whether the IMO audits will achieve their purpose of
improved implementation?

The implementation of the mandatory audit is the right thing to do but it will not be
an easy path but an uphill climb in the beginning. Practically speaking, IMSAS
brings good opportunities and big challenges with itself. In the long run, there is no
doubt that the merits and benefits will exceed the disadvantages and problems.
Many MS, especially the Least Developed Countries and the Small Island
Developing States, due to the limits in legal expertise, experience, and finance, might
not be at par with most of the MS but here is where we have to keep in mind the
words of Mr. E. E. Mitropoulos (S-G Emeritus, IMO) “With the purpose of rather
than causing embarrassment to those to be audited by exposing their weaknesses,
would instead bring both sides closer together - the one helping the other in pursuit
of the common goals of enhanced safety and environmental protection”.

It would be safe to say that IMSAS and the III Code have given the IMO some teeth
to ensure compliance.

7 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

References
Barchue, L.D. (2005). Making a case for the VIMSAS
Barchue L. D. (2009) The VIMSAS: An Accountability Regime for States on
Maritime Affairs.
Hinrichs, Dr.J.U, TRACEA Maritime Safety and Security IMSAS workshop Kiev.
IMO.RESOLUTION A.847(20) GUIDELINES TO ASSIST FLAG STATES IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF IMO INSTRUMENTS

IMO. IMO Model Audit Scheme. C 90/15/add.1 (9 June 2003).

IMO. Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme. A 23/Res.946 (27
November 2003).

IMO. Consolidated Report of the Pilot Audits conducted by France, Iran and
Singapore. JWGMSA 3/1 (11 January 2005).

IMO. FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES FOR THE VOLUNTARY IMO

MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME. A 24/Res.974 (1 December 2005).

IMO. Resolution A.973(24) CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS

IMO. VOLUNTARY IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME--

Consolidated audit summary report. A 26/9/1 (7 September 2009).

IMO. Further Development of the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme. A
26/Res.1018 (25 November 2009).

IMO. Consolidated Version of the Code for the Implementation of Mandatory IMO
Instruments, 2007

IMO. REVIEW OF THE CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS--Preliminary Study on the Consolidated
Audit Summary Reports. FSI 18/INF.7 (30 March 2010).

IMO. Maritime Knowledge Centre, INFORMATION RESOURCES ON THE

VOLUNTARY IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME

IMO. Resolution A.1067(28) FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES FOR

THE IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME

IMO. MEPC.1-Circ.869- Summary reports and Analysis Of Mandatory Report

Under Marpol For The Period 2010-2015

8 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12
 TMI/EFCE/2017/12

IMO. III 3/14. REPORT TO THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE AND THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Kwaku, A. AN ANALYSIS OF THE VOLUNTARY IMO

MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME,WMU.

Liejun, Y. Implications and impacts of making mandatory the

voluntary IMO member state audit scheme : from legal and practical
perspectives,WMU

Mitropoulos E. E. (2004). Opening Address at the 51st session of Marine

Environment.
Valvev, I. Technical Cooperation Division Presentation on IMSAS
http://www.tunnel2funnel.com/2017/06/imo-member-state-audit-scheme-imsas.html
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/MSAS/Pages/default.aspx
http://icsclass.org/news/imo-member-state-audit-scheme-imsas/

9 & TMI/EFCE/2017/12