In association with Ramboll , Milieu & Tethys

1. The project is funded by the European Union SASEPOL Project Development of Security Management and Maritime Safety and Ship Pollution Prevention for the Black Sea and Caspian Sea EuropeAid/127221/C/SER/Multi 2nd RWG meeting BRUSSELS 28 th of Sept 2010 In association with Ramboll, Milieu & Tethys

2. Bottleneck on conformity:THE CONFORMITY PROCESS for International conventions, regionalregulations and andotherrecommendations Capt B. APPERRY

3. Conformity of what ? • Any ship in the world has a flag at her stern • Flag means the ship is « registered » by the country • NB: Flying the flag of the country does not mean that the ship is part of the national territory • The ship pays a fee to the state for this registration • But… • The Administration of the flag is responsible for the implementation of international and national mandatory instruments on board this ship and her company • Responsible means to be able to control and ensure conformity and inform the rest of the world via IMO Capt B. APPERRY

4. Whichconformity ? • Conformity with international conventions ratified by the country • or • International conventions amendments become mandatory by the tacit acceptance process Capt B. APPERRY

5. Which control ? • Any SOLAS ship and company must be periodically controlled (on a one-year basis) for safety and security conditions (ship and operations). • This is the Flag State Implementation (FSI) • Which could have been named Flag State Control (FSC) • This control is formalised under IMO rules, codes and other instruments • This is a self control system • IMO must be informed of some vital non-conformities in order to be able to inform other members of the IMO Capt B. APPERRY

6. Analysis of the results • It seems evident that if any flag is doing its job carefully under international standard, all ships will be built, maintained and operated in an acceptable manner for all States. • Nevertheless, poor sub-standard ships are still working in our waters and ports and around the world! And • As a paradox the situation of PSC in many countries is not too bad while the FSC control is poor! The reverse situation should exist! • It seems, for many states, that controlling the ships of other countries is easier than controlling its own ships! • What can we do? Capt B. APPERRY

7. Solutions ? • Remind the flag states responsible of the deficiencies of their ships: they are IMO members and if they have not the resources to perform controls they can ask for some help from IMO! • Controlling the ships with an international body?: inspectors from IMO do not exist. IMO has not this power under the IMO convention. • Stop their ships in ports? Yes: IMO has invented the PSC (Port State Control) with the detention process • But this is only for foreign ships calling in a port different from the state of the flag! • On the other hand the FSC is mandatory under international conventions while the PSC is only on a voluntary basis! • What can be done for the state-owned ships ? • Helping the flag states to improve their self-control: IMO and the EU are currently funding projects of this kind Capt B. APPERRY

8. Present Solutions • IMO has developed a Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP) which is designed to assist Governments with lack of technical knowledge and resources that are needed to operate a shipping industry successfully • Port State Control is working under regional rules called Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) • A system has been elaborated to allow IMO to carry out an external audit: here is the VIMSAS • Projects as TRACECA TENs corridors (BS SASEMAS) and SASEPOL are trying to improve the implementation of all instruments in a regional approach Capt B. APPERRY

9. The compliance flow chart Self Control system level 1 Control by foreigners in a regional system level 2 IMO audit Level 3 (voluntary basis at the moment) Supplementary Level 4 instrument All applicable International Conventions Flag State Implementation (or Control) Port State control VIMSAS Regional SASEMAS/SASEPOL system Capt B. APPERRY

10. Objectives achieved ? • Performance of Flag State Implementation (FSI) is paramount but there is a tendency for IMO members to delegate their responsibility to Recognized Organizations (95%) which they have to control: the control of controllers needs also resources; Have they? • Ports State Control (PSC) is working but can lead to detentions of ships perturbing the shipping business: not easy to solve! • VIMSAS even becoming mandatory will probably stay« confidential : if the Flag does not rectify non-conformities nobody can do anything more than PSC black lists! • As a consequence, at the moment a great number of sub-standard ship are concentrated in certain regions (ex Africa) • BS & CS SASEMAS/SASEPOL can be a regional solution provided all the neighbouring countries play the game! • The EU has decided that FSC and PSC are a couple of tools which will have to be used together • The conditions of Port State control have been reinforced by the ED 16/2009 while the ED 15, the same year (in the ERIKA III package), reminds on the importance of flag state control especially when they are delegated to RO. Capt B. APPERRY

11. Thankyou Captain Bertrand APPERRY SASEPOL KE 2 Capt B. APPERRY