THE International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a well-developed regulatory framework to ensure ships operate in a safe and environmentally friendly way. A crucial element of this is the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for the prevention of pollution.

However, regulations are worthless unless they are enforced effectively. Last week, I watched a television documentary featuring a port state control (PSC) inspection of a multi-purpose vessel in a UK port, carried out by two obviously experienced inspectors. As they arrived at the ship, one remarked that it was possible to get a rough idea of what she was going to be like just by taking a good look at her from the dockside – which they duly did. That survey revealed a clearly visible hole in the hull plating, just under the hawse pipe of the port anchor; there was also an issue with her load-line markings. 

The inspection had been prompted by a complaint from a pilot that the wooden and rope pilot ladder had been rigged incorrectly and was dangerous. That was found to be true, but more than 15 other deficiencies were uncovered. Some might appear relatively minor, but cumulatively, these shortcomings amounted to an unsafe vessel.

It was abundantly clear that there was little in the way of a safety culture on board, and nobody was bothering about the ISM Code.

One particular moment in the documentary stood out. The ship’s walk-in cold store was an enclosed space – that is, it was not ventilated, making it a potential death trap if someone is stuck in it for a lengthy period.

The inspectors asked one of the ship’s galley crew to enter the space, shut the door and come out again, using the handle on the inside of the door. He couldn’t exit the store and had to be let out. One of the ship’s officers was heard pleading: “One more try, one more try”, but the inspectors weren’t having any of that. The ship was detained and barred from leaving the port for some 10 days, while the many identified deficiencies were put right.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

Note that this was a PSC inspection. Over the past several decades, PSC has become the most effective tool in enforcing minimum standards.

Legally, however, the responsibility for ensuring regulations are adhered to lies with the flag state, the country where the vessel is registered. PSC has just become the de facto way of ensuring compliance with IMO because flag states, in general, are unable to effectively enforce standards on their own fleets. (Incidentally, the producers of the documentary carefully avoided showing the name of the ship or her port of registry.)

This, of course, leads to that perennial source of contention – “flags of convenience” or “open registers”, depending on your point of view.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has just published its updated Flag State Performance Table. The table is too large and complex to reproduce here, but you will be able to see it here.

The table shows how flag states perform in 19 “performance indicators”. These cover six broad categories: port state control, ratification of conventions, recognised organisations (such as classification societies), vessel age, submission of reports to IMO and participation in IMO’s audit scheme.

A positive performance indicator is shown by a green rectangle, while its absence in a particular category is signalled by a red one.

Singapore is among 13 out of more than 175 states that each have an unbroken row of green.

ICS is careful to urge caution in interpreting and using the table. Specifically, ICS advises that a flag with a solid row of green should not be viewed as superior to another with one or two red squares, “for which there may be good reason”.

ICS gives the example of a flag state that may not have ratified a particular IMO or International Labour Organization (ILO) instrument because of a conflict with its national law, while nevertheless implementing the relevant convention’s main requirements. 

It adds: “Another example of why a flag may be lacking one or two positive indicators could apply to PSC data, especially if it has had too few port calls to gain a place in the ‘white lists’ of certain PSC regimes.” 

However, ICS also warns: “The above notwithstanding, if a flag state is lacking several positive indicators, then shipowners may want to ask serious questions about the performance of that flag state.”

Using carefully measured language, the global shipowners’ body said that the fact that some flag states have a majority of negative indicators highlight the “need to encourage shipowners and operators to examine whether a flag state has sufficient substance before using it”.

ICS also recommends that ship operators, when talking to flag state administrations, use the table to identify areas for further improvement over the next 12 months.

Overall, ICS asserts, the table indicates “continuing positive performance by the vast majority of flag states which are responsible for the safety and environmental performance of the world’s merchant ships”.

However, ICS does mention that “a number of flag states (including Togo, Algeria, and Comoros) continue to record large amounts of negative performance indicators”. 

So does the ICS table support the arguments on either side in the flag of convenience/open register debate? No, not really. 

The flag states with positive indicators for all the criteria used in the table are Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Denmark, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore and the United Kingdom.

The “squeaky clean” group includes both open registers and states that maintain a “genuine link” between flag and a ship’s beneficial owners. The debate will continue.

Oh, and I would love to know the flag state of the ship in the documentary.