TO: ALL ICS and ISF MEMBERS ICS/ISF(10)69 Copy: Shipping Policy Committee Marine Committee Maritime Law Committee Manning and Training Committee

Transcription

1 12 Carthusian Street London EC1M 6EZ Tel Fax November 2010 TO: ALL ICS and ISF MEMBERS ICS/ISF(10)69 Copy: Shipping Policy Committee Marine Committee Maritime Law Committee Manning and Training Committee UPDATED FLAG STATE PERFORMANCE TABLE Action required: to circulate the updated Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table as widely as possible amongst member companies, and to bring it to the attention of your administration. ICS and ISF, in conjunction with the other members of Round Table of international shipping associations, have updated their annual Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table. A copy of the updated table is attached, but it can also be downloaded from Printed copies of the new Table are being produced and should arrive by post within the next few weeks. Members are encouraged to distribute the new Table as widely as possible amongst their member companies, as well as bringing it to the attention of their administration. It will be recalled that the Table summarises factual data that is available in the public domain, and is based on the most up to date information available at the end of June It is intended to provide a general appreciation of a flag s performance and determine whether further questions need to be asked by shipping companies when electing to use particular flags. Members are reminded that the Table and its accompanying footnotes are designed to be read in conjunction with Section Two of the Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance which can also be downloaded from the web address shown above. For good order, a copy of a press release issued by the Round Table is also attached. The assistance of members in distributing the updated Table (and the internet link) will be appreciated. Simon Bennett Director, External Relations International Chamber of Shipping Limited. Registered in England No at the above address

2 Footnotes to Flag State Performance Table 1 Port State Control Source: Paris MOU Annual Report 2009, Tokyo MOU Annual Report 2009, USCG Port State Control Annual Report 2009 (including USCG Qualship 21 Qualifying Registries for 2010 ). Notes: Paris and Tokyo MOU data relate to their black lists, but not their grey lists. The USCG methodology for evaluating PSC detention ratios (USCG target list and Qualship 21) differs from the methodology used by other PSC authorities. While Paris and Tokyo MOUs use the detention ratio formula of detentions/inspections, the USCG uses the detention ratio formula of detentions/distinct vessel arrivals. 2 Non-Ratification of Conventions Source: IMO report Status of Conventions - full list (end June 2010), IMO web site ( ILOLEX listings Ratification of Conventions, ILO web site ( Notes: SOLAS 74 includes 1988 Protocol. MARPOL 73/78 includes one entry for ratification of MARPOL and its mandatory annexes (annexes I and II), and a second entry for ratification of the remaining, voluntary annexes (annexes III to VI). LL 66 includes 1988 Protocol. STCW 78 incorporates the 1995 amendments. ILO 147 excludes 1996 Protocol, but includes ratification of MLC 2006 which will supersede ILO 147. CLC/ FUND 92 includes 1992 Protocols Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table Based on data available as of end June UPDATE 3 Use of Recognized Organizations complying with A.739 Source: IMO GISIS database. Note: Number of non-iacs bodies authorised by the flag state to carry out statutory survey work on its behalf, as reported to IMO. Some non-iacs members fully comply with A.739 and the fact that a flag recognises a non-iacs RO does not necessarily mean that it is deficient. N/S indicates a failure to submit RO data to IMO in accordance with A.739, and therefore counts as a negative performance indicator. 4 Average Age Source: IHS Fairplay Ship Database (3rd Quarter 2010). Note: Second register fleet numbers are incorporated under main national register. Definition trading ships, over 100 gt, excluding barge, fish processing/catching, offshore drilling/support, tug, pushboat, research and survey, dredger, naval, non ship structure and other categories. Black blobs denote top 25% of entries listed in this table. 5 Reports Source: IMO MSC.1/Circ.1164/Rev.7, 1 June 2010 on reports of independent evaluation submitted by parties to STCW in line with Chapter I/8 of the STCW Code; Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010), ILOLEX database, ILO web site ( Note: Black blobs indicate a failure to achieve confirmation of the reports of independent evaluations confirming continuing compliance with STCW which are necessary to maintain a place on the IMO STCW white list, and a failure to submit all compliance and practice reports requested by ILO. 6 IMO Attendance Source: IMO meeting reports. Note: Black blobs indicate a country has missed at least one meeting of the MSC, MEPC, Legal Committee or Assembly over the past two years. Published by Maritime International Secretariat Services Ltd 12 Carthusian Street London EC1M 6EZ Telephone Fax post@marisec.org This table summarises factual information available in the public domain that may be helpful in assessing the performance of flag states. It should be read in conjunction with Section Two of the Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance, accessible at: The Round Table of international shipping associations - BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING, INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION and INTERTANKO - believe it is essential that standards of safety, environmental and social performance are maintained and enforced by flag states, in full compliance with international maritime regulations. This updated flag state performance table has been produced to help the international shipping industry contribute to this objective. Possible negative performance indicators are shown as black blobs. Like all statistics the data need to be used with care and individual indicators may provide an unreliable measurement of performance. On the basis of the data used, the following flag states have 12 or more negative performance indicators: Albania, Bolivia, Cambodia, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cote d Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Honduras, Lebanon, St Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome, Sierra Leone.

3 N/S No data submitted to IMO - can be regarded as a negative indicator N/A Data not applicable - US not eligible for Qualship 21 or USCG target listing * UK dependent territories - entries for non-ratification of conventions, STCW white list and IMO meetings attendance as UK + Netherlands dependent territory - entry for non-ratification of conventions, A739, STCW white list and IMO meetings attendance as Netherlands Flag State Performance Table (Based on the most up to date data available as of end of June 2010). To be used in conjunction with Section 2 of the Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance. Black blobs suggest possible negative performance indicators (although individual indicators should be considered within the context of the table as a whole). For detailed explanation of criteria for performance indicators, see footnotes overleaf. Not on Paris MOU white list Port State Control Non-Ratification of Conventions A739 Average age Reports IMO Port State Control Non-Ratification of Conventions A739 Average age Reports IMO On Paris MOU black list Not on Tokyo MOU white list On Tokyo MOU black list Not in USCG Qualship 21 On USCG target list (safety) SOLAS 74 (and 88 Protocol) MARPOL including Annexes I-II MARPOL Annexes III-VI LL 66 (and 88 Protocol) STCW 78 ILO 147 CLC/FUND 92 No. of non IACS bodies High age (ship numbers) High age (GT) Not on latest STCW white list Not completed full ILO reports IMO meetings attendance Not on Paris MOU white list On Paris MOU black list Not on Tokyo MOU white list On Tokyo MOU black list Not in USCG Qualship 21 On USCG target list (safety) SOLAS 74 (and 88 Protocol) MARPOL including Annexes I-II MARPOL Annexes III-VI LL 66 (and 88 Protocol) STCW 78 ILO 147 CLC/FUND 92 No. of non-iacs bodies High age (ship numbers) High age (GT) Not on latest STCW white list Not completed full ILO reports IMO meetings attendance Albania N/S Algeria 0 Antigua & Barbuda 0 Argentina N/S Australia 0 Bahamas 0 Bahrain N/S Bangladesh 0 Barbados 0 Belgium 0 Belize 20 Bermuda* 1 Bolivia 4 Brazil 2 Bulgaria 1 Cambodia 11 Canada 0 Cayman Islands* 0 Chile N/S China 0 Colombia 1 Costa Rica N/S Cote d Ivoire N/S Croatia 1 Cuba 1 Cyprus 1 Dem. People s Rep. of Korea 1 Dem. Rep. of the Congo N/S Denmark 0 Dominica 5 Egypt 2 Estonia 0 Finland 0 France 0 Georgia 13 Germany 0 Ghana N/S Gibraltar* 0 Greece 0 Honduras 11 Hong Kong (China) 0 Iceland N/S India 0 Indonesia 2 Iran 2 Ireland 0 Isle of Man* 0 Israel 0 Italy 0 Jamaica 1 Japan 0 Jordan 2 Kenya N/S Kuwait 0 Latvia 0 Lebanon 1 Liberia 0 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1 Lithuania 1 Luxembourg 0 Malaysia 1 Malta 3 Marshall Islands 4 Mauritius 0 Mexico 0 Mongolia 8 Morocco 0 Myanmar N/S Netherlands 0 Netherlands Antilles+ N/S New Zealand 0 Nigeria 0 Norway 0 Pakistan 0 Panama 16 Papua New Guinea 0 Philippines 1 Poland 1 Portugal 1 Rep. of Korea 1 Romania 0 Russian Federation 0 St. Kitts & Nevis 3 St. Vincent & Grenadines 6 Sao Tome & Principe N/S Saudi Arabia 0 Sierra Leone 8 Singapore 0 South Africa 1 Spain 0 Sri Lanka 0 Sweden 0 Switzerland 0 Syrian Arab Republic 3 Thailand 0 Tonga N/S Trinidad & Tobago 0 Tunisia 0 Turkey 1 Tuvalu 1 Ukraine 3 United Kingdom 0 United States of America N/A N/A 0 Uruguay N/S Vanuatu 1 Venezuela 1 Viet Nam 2

4 23 November 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SHIPPING INDUSTRY UPDATES FLAG STATE PERFORMANCE TABLE The Round Table of international shipping associations (BIMCO, International Chamber of Shipping/International Shipping Federation, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO) have published their latest Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table. The Table, which is updated annually, can be downloaded at The Table, which accompanies the well established Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance, summarises factual information derived from the public domain. The intention is to provide a general understanding of a flag s performance and to encourage ship operators to reflect on a flag s quality before using it. The results of the 2010 study demonstrate that the vast majority of the world fleet is registered with flag states which take their responsibilities very seriously. Many flags have ratified most of the key International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions, adequate enforcement of which is shown by their Port State Control records. There is, of course, always room for improvement and most flags continue to receive a small number of potential negative performance indicators, as denoted by black blobs on the Table. However, many flags have improved their performance in previous years, some dramatically, and notably six flags had no potential negative 1

5 performance indicators at all in Since the Table was first compiled in 2003, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of flag states that appear on the black lists of regional Port State Control authorities. Unfortunately, there are still a number of poorly performing flags and for 2010 the list of flags which the Round Table believes shipowners should think very carefully about before using includes: Albania, Bolivia, Cambodia, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cote d Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, Honduras, Lebanon, St Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, and Sierra Leone. The Table and accompanying Guidelines are intended to complement the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, by which maritime administrations are subject to external audit under the auspices of IMO with regard to their implementation of IMO Conventions relevant to the safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. The shipping industry associations have welcomed the decision taken by the IMO Council to make this scheme mandatory in future. (end) For more details please contact: BIMCO - Peter Grube, pg@bimco.org Tel: ICS/ISF - Simon Bennett, simon.bennett@marisec.org Tel: INTERCARGO David Jones, david.jones@intercargo.org Tel: INTERTANKO Bill Box, bill.box@intertanko.com Tel: