Current reports on piracy by the IMO and the IMB - a comparison

<strong>Current</strong> <strong>reports</strong> on piracy by the IMO and the IMB - a comparison 1
M. Bruyneel
Information specialist
Abstract:
Short review of current <strong>reports</strong> on piracy by the International Maritime Organisation and the
International Maritime Bureau. A comparison between <strong>reports</strong> by both organisations is made.
Some examples of differences are highlighted and an explanation is offered for some of the
differences between <strong>reports</strong>.
Introduction
Piracy is a problem that has never really disappeared from the seas. It was not until the first
half of the 1980s, however that piracy became an increasing problem again. Even regular
media started paying attention to it. On an international level the problem was discussed and it
was decided that something needed to be done about it. The first step after identifying that
there was a problem, was analysing and defining it. To do that there was a need to collect
information on the problem. So far there are only two organisations which have tried to do
this: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Maritime Bureau
(IMB).
Reports by both organisations
The UN Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) regularly holds meetings and discussions on an
international level using the information collected by the IMO. Since the 1980s the IMO was
instructed by the MSC to investigate the problem and it produced the first three detailed
<strong>reports</strong> on the problem in 1983 – 1985. From this point on information on incidents was
systematically collected and analysed. At the sixty-fifth session of the MSC in May 1995 it
was decided that the IMO would publish it’s findings on a regular basis in monthly and
quarterly <strong>reports</strong>. At the sixty-sixth session of the MSC in June 1996 it was decided that the
IMO would prepare, after March of every year, an annual summary of all acts of piracy and
armed robbery against ships, which had occurred during the previous year and had been
reported to the Organisation, based on their actual date and time of occurrence. Since July
2002 the IMO was also instructed to classify separately: any reported incidents of piracy
and armed robbery at sea vis-a-vis acts of armed robbery allegedly committed in ports, as well
as attempted acts of armed robbery. Later that year it was amended to: any reported incidents
of piracy and armed robbery at sea (international or territorial waters) vis-a-vis acts of armed
robbery allegedly committed in port areas, as well as attempted acts of armed robbery.
Since the beginning of the 1980s the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) of the
International Chamber of Commerce has also been involved in investigations of the piracy
problem. In 1987 it co-hosted a workshop on piracy at sea together with the Marine Policy
Centre, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
1 This paper was prepared for the People and the Sea II Conference organised by the Centre for Maritime
Research (MARE) and the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) from 4 to 6 September 2003, in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The author would like to thank the MARE IIAS for providing the author with a
grant enabling him to attend the event. The views and opinions expressed in this paper as well as any errors are
the author’s own. The author can be contacted by email: m.bruyneel@ubvu.vu.nl

In 1989 the IMB published the book Piracy at Sea which contains much details on reported
piracy incidents. It was not until the establishment of the Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) in
1992, however, that the IMB started collecting and distributing information on piracy in a
systematic way. Each year since it’s establishment the PRC has published quarterly and
annual <strong>reports</strong>. Over the years these <strong>reports</strong> have come to contain more details on specific
piracy incidents as well as a detailed analysis of trends.
Information collected
With a lot of help and kind assistance of people at the IMO and IMB I have managed to
gather as much information as possible on the reported incidents reported by both
organisations. Over the past few years I have put the details of the reported incidents in a
database and using this database I have tried to match all reported incidents from both
organisations. An analysis of incidents is not easy because occasionally dates are not quite the
same or details of ships involved in the incidents do not completely match. For a detailed
comparison it is not possible to use the monthly <strong>reports</strong> of the IMO since on occasion the
reported incidents are excluded from the annual report. The reason is that some initial
reported incidents eventually do not turn out to be actual attempts or acts of piracy. For the
same reason the weekly piracy <strong>reports</strong> as well as the quarterly <strong>reports</strong> by the IMB can not be
used.
Comparison
A detailed comparison and analysis of reported incidents by the IMO and the IMB can
therefore only be made by comparing those reported in the annual <strong>reports</strong>. So far I have
managed to collect only some of the annual <strong>reports</strong> from both organisations. That is why the
comparison in this paper is limited to the annual <strong>reports</strong> on the last 5 years: 1998 – 2002.
Table 1 is a brief comparison of 5 years which is made based on the reported totals:
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
IMO 210 309 471 370 383
IMB 2 192 285 469 335 370
A more detailed analysis of the annual <strong>reports</strong> shows more differences in the <strong>reports</strong> for the
same years. Table 2 contains more information on specific differences:
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Reported by both IMB and IMO 182 277 456 323 357
Reported by IMB only 9 6 13 12 13
Reported by IMO only 28 27 15 43 26
IMB annual report 3 191 283 469 335 370
IMO annual report 3 210 304 471 366 383
All incidents in annual <strong>reports</strong> 219 310 484 378 396
2 The total number in later IMB annual <strong>reports</strong> for 1998 is 202, and the total number for 1999 is 300.
3 The total number of reported incidents for a year is often slightly higher than the number of incidents on which
full details are included in the annual report. That is why this row mentions lower numbers than the total
numbers of piracy incidents mentioned in table 1.

From table 2 it is immediately obvious that most reported incidents are included in the annual
<strong>reports</strong> of both organisations. Some incidents, however, are not included in the final total for
the year.
Table 3 shows some of the more obvious examples:
Vessel name: Year IMB IMO Total
Oxfordshire 1998 0 1 1
Spar Emerald 1998 2 2 3
Mihalis P. 1999 3 6 6
Uni-Modest 1999 1 0 1
Dutch Concrete 2000 0 1 1
Actuaria 2000 1 0 1
Actuaria 2001 2 4 5
P&O Nedlloyd Everest 2001 0 1 1
Hornestrand 2002 1 3 3
Vostochnyy 2002 1 2 2
Reasons for variations include:
! Some incidents are reported after the annual report was published and the details could
not be included anymore. This is usually the case where the annual <strong>reports</strong> of the IMB
are concerned since their <strong>reports</strong> are published in January: it is a well known fact that
some piracy incidents are reported by ship owners 1 or 2 months after they happen.
The IMO annual <strong>reports</strong> appear in March of each year so these <strong>reports</strong> are less affected
by this reporting time lag
! Differences in interpretation of reported piracy incidents. Both organisations use their
own definitions to determine whether an incident is really an act of piracy or armed
robbery at sea
! Differences in interpretations concerning individual piracy incidents: some piracy
attempts are heaped together as a single incident by one organisation while the other
organisation considers them to be separate acts/attempts
! Problems with regard to the communication of reported incidents between both organisations.
Despite close co-operation these may account for some differences. The
graphic below shows that the differences in reported incidents have already become
smaller in the past 7 years.
Graphic 1: Piracy incidents reported from 1981 – 2002 4 .
4 The numbers for this graphic are gathered from annual <strong>reports</strong>, books, and journal or newspaper articles.

Conclusion
If the piracy problem is ever to be analysed the collection of data is of the utmost importance.
The IMO and the IMB have done an excellent job over the years since it is not easy to collect
data on piracy. Many ship owners are reluctant to report attacks and/or attempts on their
vessels because it might damage their reputation and may bring extra costs if vessels are
delayed during investigations. Knowing all details of piracy attacks and when a piracy report
concerns an actual act or attempt will help further scientific research into the problem.
The first reason for the difference in reported piracy attacks has to do with the 1 – 2 month
time lag which may prevent the inclusion in the annual <strong>reports</strong>. This external reason for
reported differences can be solved by issuing an additional supplement sometime after
publication of the annual report.
The other reasons for differences of reported piracy incidents between both organisations are
in part based on the fact that each collects information on it’s own and both interpret the
incidents based on different definitions. As far as I can determine from <strong>reports</strong> on statistical
data by both organisations the differences have already become smaller since both
organisations started co-operating. The graphic on the previous page clearly illustrates this.
Closer co-operation may still further decrease the difference in the number of reported piracy
incidents. Especially if both organisations adopt a single definition or can agree on a similar
interpretation of <strong>reports</strong>. Ideally, setting up a single organisation which collects information
on piracy incidents and <strong>reports</strong> to both the IMO and the IMB, can also solve this. A single
database which can be shared between both organisations may also solve communication
problems.