IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 22
22
The International Journal of Conformity Assessment
DOI: doi.org/10.55459/IJCA/v2i1/VL.SK
-ABSTRACTThis study compares the
International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Member
State Audit Scheme (IMSAS)
and ISO/IEC 17000 series as well
as ISO 19011. The part that we
investigate in this paper is the
marine industry audit cycle that
the IMO Member State Audit
Scheme uses, such as ISM code
certification of the vessels over
500 Gross Tonnage (GT) and
the IAF peer evaluation of its
members’ accreditation bodies.
The reasoning for such effort is
that both ISM code certification
of the vessels over 500 GT and
the IAF peer evaluation are long
established and more mature
assessment practices. The
contribution of our study is to
create a robust audit cycle for the
IMO Member State Audit Scheme,
which has not been examined in
the literature.
Keywords: IMO Mandatory Audit Scheme
(IMSAS), IMO Instruments Implementation
Code (III Code), conformity assessment
standards, auditor, ISO/IEC 17020, ISO/IEC
17021, ISO/IEC 17065, ISO /IEC 17024, ISO
9000, ISO 19011
©Freepik
Comparison of International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Member State
Audit Scheme (IMSAS) with ISO/
IEC 17000 Conformity Assessment
Standards Series and ISO 19011
By Vasileios Lymperopoulos, PhD (candidate), Bolton University, Mechanical
Engineer, LiberoGroup; and Sotirios Karagiannis, PhD, New York College
Introduction
Since the inception of the International Maritime Organization (ΙΜΟ)
in 1948 [1], the maritime community has been looking for a vigorous
system to prevent accidents, preserve the environment, and protect
the assets. Hence, the role of IMO was to construct the framework
for succeeding in this objective. Most of the legislations have been
developed after the occurrence of major and well-known accidents [2],
such as the chemical/oil tanker Amoco Cadiz, IMO 7336422, Liberiaflagged, American Bureau of Shipping-classed oil spill on the Brittany
coast in March 1978, which caused the most massive oil pollution on
record [3]; crude oil tanker Aegean Sea, IMO 7312452, a Greek-flagged
shipwreck that occurred en route to the Repsol refinery in La Coruña,
at the northwest of Spain near the harbor, when it encountered a heavy
storm. The accident was partly due to bad weather conditions and
possibly also to the poor condition of the ship [4]; the grounding of
the crude oil tanker Braer, IMO 7377220, Liberia-flagged, on January
5, 1993, which resulted in the spilling of 80,000 tons of crude oil in the
waters off Shetland [5]; oil tanker Erika, IMO 7377854, Malta-flagged,
which on December 12, 1999, broke in two and sank after experiencing
a heavy storm, releasing thousands of tons of oil into the sea, killing
marine life and polluting the shores around Brittany, France [6]; oil
tanker Prestige, IMO 7372141, Bahamian-flagged, which on November
13, 2002, carrying approximately 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, sank
during a storm, after having burst a tank [7]. The important aspect
on this casualty is that French, Spanish, and Portuguese member
states, among others, refused to allow the ship to dock, resulting in
considerable political and public outrage, which fueled the idea that
some registries are unable to maintain a functioning administration and
legal framework in order to meet their international law implementation
and enforcement commitments.
However, the IMO has no enforcement or compliance monitoring
function in this regard, and the flag, port, and coastline states’
governments are responsible for implementing and enforcing such
requirements. The member states are collectively responsible for
implementing the regulations and legislations. The IMO and the
European Commission (EU) have traditionally been concerned about
member states’ implementation and enforcement of international
standards. Whereas some of the member states have a robust system
