The effectiveness of IMSAS Audits of Member States in

implementation of IMO Regulations

Ajoy Chatterjee (Principal and Head, the Great Eastern Institute of Maritime Studies, Lonavala)
IMSAS Audits Lead Auditor and IMO Expert Consultant

KEY WORDS: IMO, IMSAS Audits, Flag, Port, Coastal State, Findings, III Code

ABSTRACT: On analysis of audit findings under the IMO Member State Audit Scheme since its inception in January 2016, five major
areas related to implementation, national legislation, enforcement, strategy and delegation of authority have been identified. The frequent
root causes were related to the lack of national provisions, policies and procedures; awareness, understanding or interpretation of the
requirements; insufficient human and financial resources and lack of technical capability.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the dedicated efforts of International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and its 172 Member States to ensure safer
cleaner and secure shipping, maritime accidents affecting to
human life and the marine environment still occur with high
frequency. One of the reasons contributing to maritime accidents
is considered by the IMO to be the lack of effective
implementation and enforcement of the Conventions by
Contracting Parties, especially Flag states, which are not fully
discharging their responsibilities and obligations.
IMO has incorporated a wide range of work programmes to deal
with preventive measures for collisions, groundings and
operational activities in the maritime sector, and continued its
work in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). In Article 91 of UNCLOS it is stated that
here must exist a ‘genuine link’ between the State and the ship.
Moreover, Article 94 of UNCLOS requires flag States to
effectively exercise jurisdiction and control over the ships
entitled to fly their flag which imposes flag State responsibilities
for maritime safety based on the principle of “genuine link”, and
the word “effectively” can be interpreted to the idea of flag State
performance. However, one of the main issues is that the
regulatory regime that is implemented and enforced is often
inadequate. It is believed that the under-performance of flag
States is caused by the failure of IMO Member States to
effectively comply with IMO Conventions. Due to these
concerns, for international organizations such as the IMO, it is
fundamental that each Member State properly implement and
enforce the legislative framework to which they are party rather
than only adopting new conventions.
Ever since the formation of IMO (earlier IMCO), a specialized
agency of the United Nations based in London around 70 years
ago, the International community has developed standards to
secure the safety of shipping and prevention of pollution over the
years. The current regulatory regime is adequate from a legal
perspective; nevertheless, it is highly dependent on the will of flag
States to follow the original intent of the regulatory regime. This
has resulted customary practice of delegation of authority to
private organizations and raised the contentious issue of allowing
a flag State to authorize its obligations for survey, certification,
and inspection to Recognized Organizations (ROs), which in
many instances have insufficient capacity to carry out the duties
of flag States. Moreover, the lack of direct enforcement powers
of IMO has hampered the effective implementation of IMO
standards by flag States, and led to ineffective measurement and
oversight of flag State performance. All IMO member States have
a right to a voice in defining standards and regulations that will
be applied to international shipping and the right is equal for all
regardless of the size of the fleet, the strength of their economies
or the depth of their maritime traditions. But the rights bring with
them responsibilities and accountabilities that are commensurate
with the rights. The important aspects of IMO regulations is that
once a Convention is ratified and has entered into force, it is
automatically applied to ships all over the world through flag
State control and port State control.
As per the inquiry report of the International Commission on
Shipping in 2000, the major reasons stated for the failure to
implement the necessary measures, were the lack of competent
personnel and financial resources, and a lack of political will in
many cases. There was a widespread view throughout the
Commission’s inquiry that the IMO’s work on flag State
performance has been largely ineffective. The Secretary General
of the IMO in 2001 stressed that the implementation and
enforcement of IMO instruments by flag States had failed and
stronger and most robust measures were required for its Member
States to carry out their obligations.

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________1

FLAG STATE SELF-ASSESSMENT AND
VIMSAS TO IMSAS
To effectively address this issue, IMO took its first step by
promoting the IMO Flag State Self-Assessment Form (SAF form)
in 2001. This was intended to enable flag States to assess their
own performance and capability by completing a questionnaire
through which they could identify their weak points requiring
additional effort. However, about 17% of the IMO Member States
did not submit the SAF form since it was an entirely voluntary
methodology. Therefore, as a next step, a proposal was raised, at
the eleventh session of Flag State Implementation (FSI) sub-
committee at IMO in 2003, to counteract ineffective flag State
implementation and enforcement of mandatory IMO instruments
by amending IMO Resolution A.847(20), and introducing a
Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS).
VIMSAS benchmarked the audit programme of the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to monitor the performance
of each Member States to improve its performance, in November
2003 at the twenty-third session of the IMO Assembly. To
provide the audit standard and procedures for the upcoming
Voluntary Member State audit, Resolution A.973 (24)13 and
A.974 (24)14 were adopted at the twenty fourth IMO Assembly
in November-December 2004.
Since its inception in 2006, VIMSAS programme has been
acknowledged as the most successful tool for measurement of
flag State performance in terms of jurisdiction and control, and it
was believed that there should be mandatory standards for the
performance of flag States as well as the Recognized
Organizations. Moreover, the round table of international
shipping association (Consists of BIMCO, ICS, INTERTANKO,
and INTERCARGO) reaffirmed its intention to strongly support
the VIMSAS in November 2005 and decided that the results of
IMO audits should be the targeting factor of the port State control,
and the factor to identify areas that need to be improved for the
safety of the shipping.
Following on the success of the VIMSAS programme, the IMO
Assembly, in December 2013, decided to make the voluntary
member State Audit Scheme mandatory as an important step
towards the effective oversight of flag State performance to
secure the safety of shipping and prevention of pollution from
substandard ships, by adopting Resolution A.1068 (28) and
Resolution A.1070 (28), which underpinned the mandatory audit
scheme. It took almost 13 years for the VIMSAS to become
mandatory. During the VIMSAS phase, only 14 States
volunteered for audits up to March 31 2006, and a total of 75
member states have undertaken voluntary audits till December
2015.
The IMO decided not to adopt IMSAS by creating a new
convention, but by amending its most important conventions
and by making mandatory the IMO Instruments Implementation
Code (III Code), which provides a global standard to “Assist
States in the implementation of instruments of the
Organization”. The III Code acknowledges that different States
have different obligations under the Code. It first recognized
INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee
that States should “view this Code according to their own
circumstances”, meaning they are only bound by “those
instruments to which they are Contracting Governments or
Parties”, and secondly that the extent of the role as a flag-
coastal or port State may differ from State to State. To be able
to conduct the mandatory Audits of Flag States and to assist
Member States in terms of the implementation of IMO
instruments, the IMO Assembly adopted the IMO Instruments
Implementation Code (III Code) in December 2013 through IMO
Resolution A.1070 (28) which entered into force as a Mandatory
instrument on 1st January 2016.
The III Code is used for auditing the extent of implementation and
enforcement of IMO instruments by Member States. The Code is
the audit standard and highlights three main aspects for a
maritime administration, namely implementation, enforcement
and review. According to the III Code, a Member State has to
assess its performance periodically with regard to its
responsibilities as a Flag State, Port State and as a Coastal State
and the level of implementation and enforcement of the IMO
instruments to which it is a party.
On 1 January 2016, IMSAS and a majority of the necessary
amendments to IMO instruments became mandatory for audit
including gradual institutionalization of the scheme by the
corresponding resolutions. A total of 9 IMO instruments are
included in the scope of the scheme as follows:
• SOLAS 1974 by resolution MSC 366(93)
• SOLAS PROTOCOL 1988 by resolution MS 366(93)
• MARPOL 73/78 Annex I to V by resolution MEPC 246(66)
• MARPOL PROTOCOL 1997 Annex VI by resolution MEPC
247(66)
• STCW 1978 by resolutions MSC 373(93) and MSC 374 (93) –
STCW Code
• LOAD LINES 1966 (LL 66) by resolution A.1083 (28)
• LL 66 PROTOCOL 1988 by resolution. MSC 375(93)
• TONNAGE 1969 by resolution A. 1084(28)
• COLREG 1972 by resolution. 1085 (28)
Simultaneously IMO developed the ‘Framework and Procedures
for IMSAS Audits by adopting resolution A. 1067 (28) wherein
all details required for Flag State audits are described. For
example an Audit “Finding” is defined as a situation where
objective evidence indicates the non-compliance with a
mandatory requirement contained in an IMO instrument or in the
audit standard. Similarly the term “Observation” is a statement
of fact substantiated by objective evidence relating to a non-
mandatory provision of the audit standard
The analysis of the first Consolidated Audit Summary Report
(CASR) of 18 mandatory IMO Member State Audits (IMSAS)
conducted in 2016 had 267 findings, 21 observations and 748
corresponding root causes as identified by the audited States,
including references to requirements of the mandatory IMO
instruments, where available, and references to the IMO
Instruments Implementation (III) Code, as the audit standard.
__________________2
It is obvious that the performance of flag State is the main
problem of the implementation and enforcement of IMO
instruments as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. A review of
consolidated audit summary reports revealed that the major
causes of ineffective implementation of IMO instruments by the
audited States were the lack of procedures and processes; lack of
national provisions; lack of national resources; lack of
coordination with other entities; and lack of training programmes.
There are some practical issues that remains for IMSAS such as
training a sufficient number of auditors and scheduling the audits.
Moreover, the average cost for each audit is about GBP 11,000,
according to the IMO Council document. IMO is planning to
audit all the Member States that have not participated in the
VIMSAS first, and complete the audit cycle on a seven year
interval.
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS BY PARTS OF THE III CODE
The III Code contains four parts - Common Areas, Flag States,
Coastal States and Port States. Figures in this part of the analysis
provide an overview of the findings and observations classified
under these four parts of the III Code.

Figure 1: Total number and percentages of findings and observations by parts of the III Code

The analysis of the findings from 18 audits shows that 43% of the obligations, followed by the Common Areas -31%, Port States -
findings are in the area of flag State responsibilities and 14% and Coastal States -12%

Figure 2: Percentage of audited and unaudited Member States

The 18 audits included in this analysis represent approximately 10% of the Member States and Associate Members that were audited.

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________3

Figure 3: Number of findings and observations according to parts of the III Code

The figure shows the distribution of the number of findings and observations amongst the four parts of the III Code

COMMON AREAS

According to the sections of the III Code, findings under the general, initial actions (legislation), communication of
Common Areas are classified in six groups, namely- strategy, information, records and improvement
.

Figure 4: Number of findings and observations under part 1 of the III Code

Figure 4 provides a more detailed view on findings classified related to communication of information, 16 observations
under the Common Areas part of the III Code. It shows that out (17.3%) related to strategy, 11 findings (12%) related to
of 92 findings and observations, 29 findings (31.5%) are related improvement, 10 findings (10.8%) related to records and three
to initial actions (legislation), followed by 23 findings (25%) findings (3.3%) related to general aspects.

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________4

Figure 5: Number of findings and observations under part 2 of the III Code – Flag States

Figure 5 depicts 131 findings classified in the six groups under flag State surveyors (19 findings, 14.5%), delegation of authority
the flag State part of the III Code. The number of findings reveals (17 findings, 13%), flag State investigations (16 findings, 12.2%)
that most recurrent findings correspond to implementation (44 and evaluation and review (12 findings, 9.2%).
findings, 33.6%), followed by enforcement (23 findings, 17.6%),

COASTAL STATES

According to the III Code, coastal States’ responsibilities are States. The number of findings reveals that most of the recurrent
classified in three main groups – namely implementation, findings (15 findings, 40.5%) correspond to implementation,
enforcement and evaluation and review. Figure 6 provides an followed by 12 findings (32.4%) relating to enforcement and 10
overview of the findings classified under the part of coastal findings (27 %) relating to evaluation and review.

Figure 6: Number of findings under part 3 of the III Code – Coastal States

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________5

PORT STATES
According to the III Code, port States’ responsibilities are
classified in three groups- namely implementation, enforcement,
evaluation and review.
Figure 7 depicts a more detailed view of the recurrent findings
classified under the port States part of the III Code. The number
of findings reveals that most of the recurrent findings (18
Figure 7: Number of findings under part 4 of the III Code – Port States
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The number of findings and observations per subgroup varies
between the different parts and is overall highest for
implementation in the flag State part, followed by initial actions,
communication of information and enforcement in the flag State
part, flag State surveyors, implementation and enforcement in
the port State part, delegation of authority, strategy and flag State
investigations. It is to be noted that some audits produced more
than one finding/observation in each of the above subgroups.
Communication of information, implementation (flag State),
initial actions, strategy, delegation of authority and flag State
INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee
findings, 38.3%) correspond to implementation and the equal
number of findings (18 findings, 38.3%) corresponds to
enforcement, followed by 11 findings (23.4%) relating to
evaluation and review. Most of the findings relate to the
provision of reception facilities and operational procedures,
training of port State control officers, provisions of the IMDG
Code, IMSBC Code and register of fuel oil suppliers.
investigations are the most common areas in which the 18
audited States are reported to have had some difficulties.
It is also noted that shortcomings in implementation (flag State)
of IMO instruments were the highest according to the references
made to the III Code in the audit reports. The most common
sections are initial actions (legislation), communication of
information and strategy under the part on Common Areas; and
implementation, flag State surveyors, delegation of authority,
enforcement and flag State investigations under the part on Flag
States.
__________________6
ANALYSIS OF MANDATORY IMO INSTRUMENTS

Figure 8 : Findings by mandatory IMO instruments an overview of the references made to conventions in findings

The major areas identified under SOLAS 1974 were
general obligations in accordance with article I which requires
the Contracting Governments to give full and complete effect to
the Convention by implementing national provisions;
communication of information in accordance with article III
(Laws and regulations) and search and rescue services in
accordance with regulation V/7, followed by carriage of
dangerous goods in accordance with regulation VII/2 and
authorization of ROs under regulation XI-1/1. The area of
Chapter V has the most recurrent references in total.

Figure 9 : Number of references to SOLAS 1974 articles and chapters

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________7

Figure 10 : Number of references to MARPOL

The major areas identified under MARPOL are general
obligations in accordance to article I, which requires the Parties
to give full and complete effect to the Convention and the annexes
thereto by implementing national provisions; communication of
information in accordance with article 11; port State control
operational requirements in accordance with regulation 11 of
Annex I; casualties to ships under article 12 (obligation of
investigating casualties affecting the marine environment) and
lack of provision of reception facilities, in particular under
Annexes I, IV and V.

Figure 11: Number of references to STCW 1978 by articles and regulations with the most recurrent references

The major areas identified under STCW 1978 were under information in accordance with article IV and regulation I/7 of
Chapter I, General provisions, and related to quality standards the Convention, as well as recognition of certificates issued by
in accordance with regulation I/8; followed by general or under the authority of another Party.
obligations in accordance with article I and communication of

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________8

Figure 12: Number of references to LL 1966, PROT LL 1988, COLREG 1972 and Tonnage 1969 in articles and
chapters/annexes with the most recurrent references

The major areas identified under LL 1966, PROT LL 1988 and TONNAGE 1969, in relation to giving full and complete effect
TONNAGE 1969 were related to communication of information to the provisions of the Convention. Regarding COLREG 1972,
under both Conventions and the LL PROT 1988, as well as to the the major area identified were also related to the general
general obligations under article 1 of LL 1966 and article 15 of obligations under article 1.

ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE

AUDITS

The five most specific areas identified in 18 audits were
implementation (124 references), initial actions/legislation (67
references), enforcement (65 references) and strategy and
delegation of authority (both with 43 references).
In addition, it has to be taken into account that many findings and
observations were issued with references to whole paragraphs of
the III Code, which in many cases contained multiple issues
stipulated in the sub-paragraphs. In order to capture the actual
meaning of the issues reported in audits in the most precise way,
such references to whole paragraphs have been analyzed at the
level of sub-paragraphs of the III Code and classified as
"categories of findings and observations". The categories of
findings/observations in the wider areas of findings/observations
and number of shortcomings reported for each category is shown
in Table 1.

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________9

Table 1: Number of shortcomings per areas and categories of findings

Areas of findings/observations Categories of findings/observations Number of

(paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of the III Code) shortcomings
Strategy Overall strategy (3.1) 14
Monitoring (3.2) 15
Review and improvement(3.3) 14
Total 43
General Promulgation of laws and regulations 3
(4)

Initial actions Promulgation (8.1) 23

Enforcement provisions (8.2) 20
Lack of personnel (8.3) 24

Total 67
Communication of information 23
Communication (9)

Records Records (10) 10

Improvement Continuous improvement (11) 8

Training programmes (12.1) 4
Regional and national drills (12.2) 4
Reward and incentive mechanisms 4
(12.3)
Review and analysis of non- conformities (13.1) 7

Implementation of corrective actions 7

(13.2)
Review of the corrective actions taken 7
(13.3)
Actions to prevent non-conformities 1
(14)
Total 42
Implementation (FS, CS, PS) Assignment of responsibilities (15.2, 16
46.2, 54.2 )
Resources and processes (16) 1
Administrative instructions/interpretative national regulations (16.1) 12

Audit and inspection programme (16.2) 5

STCW requirements (16.3) 2

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________10

 Areas of findings/observations Categories of findings/observations Number of
(paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of the III Code) shortcomings
Training and assessment of seafarers 2
(16.3.1)
Certificates and endorsements (16.3.2) 2
Impartial investigation (16.3.3) 2
Withdrawal, suspension or cancelation 3
(16.3.4)
Administrative arrangements (16.3.5) 6
Conduct of investigations (16.4) 2
Absence of guidance for the requirements that are to the satisfaction of 13
the Administration (16.5)

Safe manning (17) 4

Lack of implementation policies through national legislation and 54
guidance (15.1,
46.1, 54.1)

Total 124
Enforcement (FS, CS, PS) Enforcement measures (22, 24.1, 49, 40
57)
Control and monitoring programme (23, 4
23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 50, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3)
Qualified personnel and training (24.2, 9
24.3, 24.4, 24.5, 61)
Corrective measures (25) 3
Issuing certificates (26,27) 2
Establishing processes of PSC (59, 60) 5
No commercial interest for PSCOs (62) 2
Total 65
Delegation of authority Evaluation of ROs (18.1) 8
Agreement (18.2) 8
Instructions to ROs (18.3) 8
Providing ROs with national legislation 4
(18.4)
ROs records (18.5) 3
Oversight programme (20, 20.1, 20.2, 12
20.3)

Total 43

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________11

 Areas of findings/observations Categories of findings/observations Number of
(paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of the III Code) shortcomings
Flag State surveyors Responsibilities, authority and interrelation (28) 6

Qualification (29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36) 8

Training programmes for FSS (34) 4
Documented system for qualification and updating of knowledge (35) 12

Identification document (37) 4

Total 34
Flag State investigations Impartiality and objectivity (38) 11
Knowledge and experience (39) 2
Investigation of accidents involving personal injuries (40) 2

Investigation of accidents and reporting 13

(41)

Total 28
Evaluation and review Evaluation and Review (42, 43, 44, 51, 34
(FS, CS, PS) 63)

The most recurrent shortcomings reported in audits under the five identified major areas is as depicted in figure 13:

Figure 13: Number of shortcomings reported in audits by major areas identified in the audits

INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee __________________12

MAJOR AREAS IDENTIFIED IN AUDITS
The shortcomings identified under the area of implementation
mostly comprise the following: lack of implementation of
policies through the issuance of national legislation and
guidance; assignment of responsibilities; absence of guidance for
the requirements that are left to the satisfaction of the
Administration; administrative instructions/interpretative
national regulations as well as administrative arrangements
related to the implementation of STCW 1978.
In relation to initial actions/legislation, there are three recurring
areas relating to the lack of ability to promulgate laws, lack of a legal
basis for the enforcement of the national laws and the lack of
sufficient personnel to assist in the promulgation of the necessary
national laws and to discharge all the responsibilities of the State,
including reporting as required by the respective conventions.
From the findings/observations and related corrective actions, it
would imply that Member States, which have encountered
difficulty in this area, may not have established a system for
analyzing and integrating IMO instruments to which they became
Parties, as well as newly adopted amendments, into their national
regulations and may not have tackled the discrepancies that may
exist between their domestic legislation and relevant IMO
provisions.
In relation to enforcement, findings in all three areas of
enforcement (flag, coastal and port State) have been included
under this area in order to capture all enforcement issues, which
have later on been associated with the related root causes. The
shortcomings identified under the area of enforcement mostly
comprise the following: absence of enforcement measures to
secure observance of international rules and standard;
provision of qualified personnel and training; and establishing
processes for PSC.
For the area of strategy, the reported shortcomings indicate
that, in many cases, States lacked a methodology to monitor and
assess that their strategy ensures effective implementation and
enforcement of the relevant international instruments; there was
an absence of a strategy and also a lack of mechanism for
continuous review of the strategy in order to achieve, maintain
and improve the overall organizational performance and
capability of the State as a flag, port and coastal State.
The majority of the audit findings regarding delegation of
authority revealed that the most common issue faced by the States
was the lack of an oversight programme in accordance with the
provisions of the III Code; an absence of evaluation of ROs as a
basis for delegating authority; issues regarding the formal
agreement between the Administration and ROs, as well as the
lack of instructions issued to ROs and not providing ROs with
national laws and interpretations thereof.
Whilst the non-effectiveness in the communication of information
to IMO was, for the most part, identified in all audited areas, in
this particular part of the analysis the number of findings in
relation to any specific clause of the III Code was not high enough
to justify inserting this area in this part of the analysis. It should be
kept in mind that on the one hand, the III Code does not contain
INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee
any explicit reference that could be used for the lack of reporting,
and on the other hand, most of the audit findings referring to
the communication of information were identified with respect
to related articles and other provisions of the mandatory IMO
instruments and have been shown and discussed in the analysis
in that context. Related communication includes communication
to IMO of text of laws, decrees, orders and regulations;
communication under MARPOL using MEPC.1/Circ.318;
communication under STCW 1978, including independent
evaluation; casualties; dispensations; exemptions and
equivalents; ROs and details of port reception facilities, to
mention only the most frequent.
AREAS AND CATEGORIES OF ROOT CAUSES IN
RELATION TO MAJOR RECURRENT AREAS OF
FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS
For the purpose of this analysis, the root causes associated
with the respective findings and observations from 18 audits have
been categorized, grouped and analyzed under four main areas,
which are legislation, policies and procedures, management and
implementation.
The analysis revealed that the most frequent categories of root
causes contributing to lack of effective implementation in the
major areas identified in audits were related to the lack of national
provisions; lack of policies; lack of awareness, understanding or
interpretation of the requirements; lack of established written
procedures; lack of management system; insufficient human and
financial resources; lack of technical capability (trained
personnel, hardware/equipment); and insufficient capacity to
promulgate national legislation and keep it updated.
In relation to root causes in the area of legislation, the
predominant difficulty for the audited Member States was the
lack of national provisions and capacity to promulgate and to keep
updated national legislation and internal directives, as well as a
lack of assigned responsibility to entities of the State. These
three categories of root causes contributed the most to the non-
effectiveness in 'implementation' and 'enforcement' of Flag,
coastal and Port State requirements.
Under the area of policy and procedures, the most frequent
categories of reported root causes were lack of policies, lack of
established written procedures and a lack of processes through
which the State could effectively implement various requirements.
The lack of policies, procedures and processes contributed to
non-effective implementation and enforcement of flag, coastal
and port State requirements.
Under the area of management, the most frequent categories of
root causes were related to a lack of awareness, understanding
and interpretation of the requirements; lack of management
systems; lack of resources - both human and financial; and lack
of coordination among various State entities. Lack of awareness,
understanding, interpretation and management system-related
difficulties were major factors that hindered the effective
__________________13
implementation and enforcement of the relevant international
instruments (flag, coastal and port State); as well as requirements
related to delegation of authority. In addition, human and
financial resources, if taken together, present the single most
frequent root cause for non- effective implementation of
requirements in the area of management and the adverse effect of
non-availability of sufficient resources is significant in almost
PURPOSE OF IMSAS AUDITS AND FOLLOW-UP
MEASURES BY IMO
IMO was established to adopt legislation and Governments are
responsible for implementing them. When a Government accepts
an IMO Convention it agrees to make it part of its national law
and to enforce all of the provisions contained therein.
The IMSAS Audits is seen as a key tool for assessing member
States' performance in meeting their obligations and
responsibilities as flag, port and coastal states under the relevant
IMO treaties and then offering the necessary assistance where
required, for them to meet their obligation fully and
effectively. The Audits are expected to assess, monitor and
review the current level of implementation of IMO instruments
by States in their capacity as flag, port and coastal States, with a
view to identifying areas where States may have difficulties in
fully implementing them. The CASR, which is intended to
facilitate the attainment of three of the objectives of the Scheme
as contained in paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of the Scheme's
Framework and Procedures [IMO Resolution A.1067 (28) ], has
been developed to reflect the findings and observations issued
during audits, as well as corresponding summaries of root causes
identified by the audited States and summaries of corrective
actions taken or proposed by the Member State, which provide
valuable lessons for Member States. The CASR also contains best
practices revealed in audits, in order to share them with Member
States, with a view to assisting them to enhance further their
implementation and enforcement of mandatory IMO instruments.
After thorough analysis of the Consolidated Audit Summary
Reports (CASR) of IMSAS Audits of member States, IMO’s
Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III) has
a remit to review issues relating to implementation, and its tasks
include:
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE IMO MANDATORY AUDIT
SCHEME:
• Transparency of the information gained from audits
• Improving performance of IMO instruments
• More homogeneity in international regulations regarding
shipping and safety
• IMSAS does not impose a rating on the audited country but
if it is discovered that there is a problem with the maritime
INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee
all major areas of findings and observations.
Under the area of implementation, the most frequent category of
root cause was lack of technical capability and poor technical
instructions/guidelines, as well as the lack of training programmes
which significantly contributed to non-effectiveness in the areas
of implementation, enforcement and delegation of authority
• review the rights and obligations of States emanating from
the IMO treaty instruments;
• assess, monitor and review the current level of
implementation of IMO instruments by States in their
capacity as flag, port and coastal States, with a view to
identifying areas where States may have difficulties in fully
implementing them;
• identify the reasons for the difficulties in implementing
provisions of relevant IMO instruments, taking into account
any relevant information collected through, inter alia, the
assessment of performance, the investigation of marine
casualties and incidents and port State control (PSC) data,
while paying particular attention to difficulties faced by
developing countries;
• consider proposals to assist States in implementing and
complying with IMO instruments by the development of
appropriate instruments, guidelines and recommendations.
• analyze investigation reports into marine casualties and
incidents and maintain an efficient and comprehensive
knowledge-based mechanism to support the identification of
trends and feed into the IMO rule-making process;
• review IMO standards on maritime safety and security and
the protection of the marine environment, to maintain an
updated and harmonized guidance on survey and
certification related requirements; and
• promote global harmonization of PSC activities.
administration, it is expected that several disadvantages will
be imposed on the audited country such as increase in
insurance premiums, exclusion of charters, and
strengthening of PSC inspection of its flag ships.
• It is expected to ultimately reduce the gap between
implementation and enforcement of IMO instruments.
__________________14
CONCLUSIONS:
Since the IMO’s main goal is to ensure maritime safety and
marine pollution prevention, implementation and enforcement of
IMO instruments by IMO Member States is the key to assessing
whether or not IMO’s goals are achieved. Developing countries
might be especially at a disadvantage in building up an
appropriate evaluation system and implementation measures
given the human and financial resource constraints. Moreover the
Member States has to perform systematic analysis, evaluation and
review of the maritime data for continuous improvement.
IMO has also developed a Strategic Plan for the organization, and
a set of 42 performance indicators to measure the progress of 13
strategies. However, the current developed performance
indicators cannot measure the individual flag States and this
limits the IMO’s capability to identify weakness in the system.
As far as the evaluation of flag State performance is concerned,
developing of Key Performance Indicators for flag States is a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
General guidance received as an Auditor under IMSAS from the
Department for Member State Audit and Implementation Support
of the IMO Secretariat, London
REFERENCES:
ANDERSON, D. (1998). The roles of flag States, port States,
coastal States and international organizations in the enforcement
of international rules and standards governing the safety of
navigation and the prevention of pollution from ships under the
UN convention on the law of the sea and other international
agreements.
BARCHUE, L. D. (2009). The voluntary IMO Member State
Audit Scheme: An accountability regime for states on maritime
affairs. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs
FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES for IMO Member State
Audit – Resolution A. 1067 (28). Retrieved from IMODOCS
HOSANEE, N. (2008). A critical analysis of flag state duties as
laid down under Article 94 of the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. UN-Nippon Foundation
Fellowship Thesis (Masters).
IMO INSTRUMENTS IMPLEMENTATION (III) Sub
Committee meeting document III 5/INF.3 dated 20 July 2018 -
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INMARCO 2018 Chatterjee
crucial task to measure their performance and identify problem
areas.
It is believed that "If you can’t measure it, you cannot manage it”.
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) is an objective performance
tool that helps organizations find deficiencies, benchmark
improvements, and maintain self-improvement. Performance
indicators are a key component as a measuring tool for
organizations because it is not possible to determine the success
or failure of a performance goal if the achievement is not
accurately measured. KPI is commonly implemented to monitor
and review performance in practice. The review of CASRs is an
ongoing at IMO. Member States may use the study as a means to
assess areas within their own administrations, either when
preparing for IMSAS audit, or as a general review of their own
internal arrangements.
Analysis of Consolidated Audit Summary Report under IMSAS.
Retrieved from IMODOCS
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION -
Resolution A.847 (20), Guidelines to assist flag States in the
implementation of IMO instruments. IMO. Retrieved from
http://gisis.imo.org
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION -
Resolution A.1068 (28), Transition from the voluntary member
state audit scheme to the IMO Member State audit scheme. IMO.
Retrieved from http://gisis.imo.org
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION -
Resolution A. 1070(28), IMO Instrument Implementation (III)
Code. IMO. Retrieved from http://gisis.imo.org
IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME – Consolidated
Audit Summary Report (CASR)- Circular letter No. 3772 dated
4 September 2017.
__________________15