IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 23
2023 | Volume 2, Issue 1
for implementing the regulations
of the IMO, others have a far less
effective implementation.
In order to address this problem,
the IMO has developed the
International Safety Management
(ISM) Code, which was introduced
in 1998 [8]. This regulation
requires each organization’s
management to take on more
responsibility for overseeing
occupational health and safety
(OHS) on their ships to ensure the
preservation of the environment
and the protection of the asset
[9]. Its adoption resulted in a big
change from the old command
and control system, which relied
on inspections by inspectors
from a ship’s governing authority
(Flag State) to assure statutory
compliance. Instead, the ISM Code
requires managers to establish
work processes encompassing
risk management and all the
functionalities of a management
system, such as continual
improvement, internal audit, and
management of competence.
Nowadays, when the ISM Code
can be considered as a mature
management system for the
maritime industry, it can be
analyzed, and its contribution
can be shown on a sample of
268 ship accidents over a period
spanning before and after the
implementation of the Code. It
showed that the rate of incidents
due to human error as opposed
to other causes dropped from
around 64 to 52 percent. The
positive impact was particularly
evident in the tanker and roll-onroll-off passenger sectors, where
it dropped from around 84 to 55
percent [10].
In 2013, the IMO, having
considered the added value of an
effective management system
such as ISM code, contemplated
an audit scheme for the oversight
of the member states regarding
how they perform their duties and
how they exercise their authority
[11]. Although initially voluntary, it
soon became mandatory and is
based on peer evaluation between
the member states.
Similar to the IMO, the
accreditation and conformity
assessment worlds have the
International Accreditation Forum
(IAF). IAF promotes a uniform
global market by establishing a
mutual recognition agreement
among accrediting bodies,
ensuring that the results given by
conformity assessment entities
accredited by IAF Accreditation
Body (AB) members are
universally recognized [12]. An
appointed committee of peers
evaluates ABs that are signatories
to the IAF Multilateral Recognition
Arrangement (MLA) on a regular
basis to offer confidence in
the administration of their
accreditation programs.
To facilitate this goal, there have
been some regional groups
established in the peer evaluation
process in order to lessen the cost
of transporting auditors from the
other side of the world. The IAF
has regional clusters based on
certain economies as follows:
1. Economy: Europe; the body
responsible is European
cooperation for Accreditation
(EA)
2. Economy: Arab Region; the
body responsible is Arab
Accreditation Cooperation
(ARAC)
3. Economy: Americas; the body
responsible is InterAmerican
Accreditation Cooperation
(IAAC)
4. Economy: Africa; the body
responsible is African
23
Accreditation Cooperation
(AFRAC)
5. Economy: Pacific; the body
responsible is Asia Pacific
Accreditation Cooperation
Incorporated (APAC)
Although the IMO audit scheme
started on a voluntary basis, it
has been made compulsory as
of January 1, 2015 [13], when
the International Maritime
Organization urged the flag states
to fully implement the adopted
resolution. In terms of the above
conventions and the mandatory
IMO instruments, each state may
act under the following three
different capacities: First, as a
flag state, which means that the
vessels fly this country’s flag;
second, as a port state, which
acts as a receiving country for
foreign flagged vessels; and
finally, as a coastal state in case
the vessel is passing through that
country’s waters. The scheme
also contains an auditors’ manual,
and the management of the
process is being handled by the
IMO as the central authority.
The scope of these audits covers
the mandatory IMO instruments,
which are the following
conventions:
1. SOLAS 1974 [14]
2. MARPOL 73/78 [15]
3. STCW 1978 [16]
4. LL 66 [17]
5. Tonnage 1969 [18] and
6. COLREG 1972 [19]
Analysis & Discussion
The IMO has recognized two
challenges facing the organization
since the establishment of the
Flag State Implementation (FSI)
Sub-Committee in the early
1990s: the development of new
policies and regulations, and
