By Toby McIntosh
The International Maritime Organization conducts mandatory “audits” to evaluate whether member states are implementing and enforcing of maritime laws and conventions, but these extensive and not infrequently critical audits are rarely disclosed.
An audit is released only if the scrutinized member state approves of its disclosure. Very few do.
Only two countries agreed to disclosure out of the 50 countries audited in 2016 and 2017, according to an IMO “Progress report on the implementation of the audit scheme,” published Sept. 15, 2017. By early June 2018, the audits had yet to be posted on the IMO website because of “technical issues,” according to an IMO spokesperson.
In prior years, when audits were voluntary, only about a dozen reports were made public out of the 152 audits done since 2006. The most recent one disclosed, in 2013, concerned Tunisia.
Not even other IMO member states can view the reports unless the subject country concurs.
The 2013 disclosure policy on audits states:
6.3.2 Audit interim and final reports, audit records and relevant information and material related to the audit should be confidential and available only to the audited Member State, the audit team and the Secretary-General. An audited Member State may authorize the release of the above-mentioned reports by the Secretary-General and make available to other parties details of the findings and observations and of its own subsequent actions.
Countries are not required to release the executive summary report (ESR), corrective action plan (CAP) and member state’s comments on the progress made on the implementation of its corrective action plan (CPICAP).
[This article is one of a series. See main article here.]
Annual Report on Audits Shows Weaknesses
An annual summary of the reports is public, but it lacks country names.
The summary does not draw overall conclusions. The conclusions from the individual audits appear to be strung together sequentially in the 53-page 2013 report (A 28/9/1). The format for the audits is to have “observations,” root causes” and “corrective actions.”
For one anonymous country, the report states:
6 There was no system in place to ensure reporting and no relevant reports were provided to IMO by the maritime administration as required by mandatory instruments …
And later:
9 There was objective evidence that several amendments to the mandatory instruments had not been implemented at the national level and were therefore not in force …
Further along, for probably another unnamed country:
87 No standards, policies or administrative instructions on the process of survey, inspection and certification were found to exist for the implementation of mandatory IMO instruments …
89 There was a delay by the maritime administration in transposing mandatory IMO instruments into national legislation …
90 It was found that there were no national legislation to enforce STCW 78 regulation VIII/2 on watchkeeping arrangements and principles to be observed on board national flag ships …
Much deeper:
330 Although pollution contingency plans exist at national and regional levels, they did not fully address the relevant IMO guidelines, nor have they been updated …
And.
333 The maritime administration did not have an effective system of receiving reports of, and responding in a timely manner to, reported incidents of marine pollution that occur in the State’s territorial waters …
