An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century - California Ocean ...

Although many flag states take their responsibilities seriously and are active participantswithin the IMO, some lack the willingness or capacity to adequately oversee and enforceinternational requirements. In many instances, flag states rely heavily on independentorganizations, such as classification societies, for technical expertise and guidance concerningthese responsibilities. These organizations may be designated to exercise authorityon behalf of a flag state, in which case they are referred to as “responsible organizations.”Many of these organizations are highly professional and competent, but not all adhere tohigh standards of performance.Some flag states, known as open registries, allow ship owners to register vessels andfly their flag without any genuine link between the nationality of the owner and the flagstate. A few open registries have little interest in the duties of a flag state, other than tocollect registration fees. These flag states become havens for owners of substandard vesselsseeking to avoid meaningful oversight. The ability to rapidly change vessel registry fromone flag state to another makes it easy for irresponsible owners to avoid effective flag statecontrols over their operations.Over the past decade, the IMO has developed guidelines to improve flag state oversightand enforcement including a self-assessment program. However, less than one-third ofIMO member nations have participated in the program, and a consistently low numberof flag states submit mandatory reports to the IMO on actions taken to control pollutionviolations. 16 An IMO research study completed in 2001 also found an unexpectedly highincidence of fraudulent crew certification documents, with over 80 percent of those surveyedhaving detected forged certificates in the last five years. 17Mounting international security concerns have made effective flag state oversight andcontrol even more urgent. Recently approved IMO security initiatives require flag states toenforce comprehensive new security measures for vessels flying their flag, including theimplementation of vessel security plans, development of detailed and regularly updatedvessel histories, and verification of vessel and crew security documentation.The IMO also recently approved the establishment and development of a voluntaryModel Audit Scheme to assess how effectively member states are implementing andenforcing convention standards and to provide feedback on audit results. The IMO hasbeen working on a code that clearly enumerates flag state, port state, and coastal stateresponsibilities. The G-8 nations (the United States, France, Russia, the United Kingdom,Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada) and representatives from the European Union agreed towork together to accelerate the introduction of these IMO initiatives and expand technicalcooperation programs to assist flag states in meeting their international obligations. 18We have seen overand over again howold, out-of-date shipsflying flags ofconvenience havecaused untolddamage to theworld’s oceans.—Richard McCreary,Group President, HalterMarine, Inc., testimonyto the Commission,March 2002Recommendation 16–3The United States should work with other nations to accelerate efforts at the InternationalMaritime Organization to enhance flag state oversight and enforcement.These efforts should include implementation of:• a code outlining flag state responsibilities and obligations.• a voluntary audit regime, to be followed by adoption of a mandatory external auditregime for evaluating flag state performance.• measures to ensure that responsible organizations, acting on behalf of flag states, meetestablished performance standards.• increased technical assistance, where appropriate, for flag states that participate in selfassessmentsand audits.C HAPTER 16: LIMITING V ESSEL P OLLUTION AND I MPROVING V ESSEL S AFETY239