VOLUNTARY IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME. Consolidated audit summary report. Note by the Secretary-General SUMMARY

Transcription

1 E ASSEMBLY 28th session Agenda item 9 12 September 2013 Original: ENGLISH VOLUNTARY IMO MEMBER STATE AUDIT SCHEME Consolidated audit summary report Note by the Secretary-General SUMMARY Executive summary: In the annex to this document is the seventh consolidated audit summary report containing findings from seven further audits Strategic direction: 2 High-level action: Planned output: Action to be taken: Paragraph 5 Related document: A 28/9 1 Pursuant to paragraph of the Procedures for the Audit Scheme, this document contains in the annex a consolidated audit summary report on seven further audits. 2 The consolidated audit summary report, which is intended to facilitate the attainment of two of the objectives of the Scheme as contained in paragraphs and of the Scheme's Framework, has been developed to reflect the findings identified during audits, which in themselves provide valuable lessons for Member States and would enable the Organization to further consider the effectiveness and appropriateness of its legislation. 3 The Framework and Procedures for the Scheme do not stipulate the format and method for the distribution of a consolidated audit summary report. As is now the established practice, the report is issued once a year as a Council document during the first year of a biennium and as an Assembly document during the second year. The report now contains findings and the related corrective action undertaken or proposed by the audited State, the root cause for each finding, areas of positive development, areas for further development, as well as any best practice identified during the audit. 4 In respect of the attached report, the Assembly may wish to request the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee to consider the report and, in due course, to advise the Council of the outcome of their consideration.

2 Page 2 Action requested of the Assembly 5 The Assembly is invited to take note of the information provided in this document and decide accordingly, in particular with the proposal in paragraph 4. ***

3 Annex, page 1 ANNEX CONSOLIDATED AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT INTRODUCTION 1 As required by paragraph of the Procedures for the Audit Scheme, this document is the seventh consolidated audit summary report of a further seven audits that have been completed. 2 The report reflects the six categories of General (findings relating to strategy, organization and legal system, with the latter dealing mainly with the incorporation of mandatory IMO instruments into national law), flag State activities, port State activities, coastal State activities, areas of positive development and areas for further development, respectively, from the previously issued seven audit summary reports. The general descriptions of maritime administrations have not been included in this report as they are specific to each audit summary report and can only be seen in that context. 3 The findings in this report are the non-conformities and observations identified during the audit, with each finding followed by a summary of the corrective action taken or proposed by the Member State. The root causes identified by the audited States for each finding have been included. 4 The findings provide valuable lessons on the implementation and enforcement of the 10 mandatory IMO instruments thus far covered by the Scheme. They also identify areas where States, in exercising their rights, meeting their obligations and discharging their responsibilities attendant to the applicable mandatory IMO instruments, have either fallen short in some areas or have encountered some difficulties in doing so. Areas of positive development reflect the strengths and, in some cases, novel ideas employed by States to effectively meet their obligations and responsibilities, which are presented as best practices. 5 In an effort to disseminate the lessons learned from audits, with a view to assisting Member States to enhance further their implementation and enforcement of mandatory IMO instruments and to inform the associated work of the relevant IMO bodies, the issuance of future consolidated audit summary reports will continue to be submitted either as Council or Assembly documents, as appropriate. GENERAL Non-conformities () 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 (SOLAS 74, article III(a), regulation V/7.2; LL 66, article 26; STCW 78, article VIII; MARPOL, articles 8, 11 and 12, Annex I, regulation 38; Annex II, regulation 18, Annex V, regulation 7; Code, part 1, paragraph 7.3). 7 The maritime administration will devise a procedure for reporting to IMO in accordance with mandatory IMO instruments. Also, the mandatory reporting formats required by MARPOL with reference to MEPC/Circ.318 will be incorporated into the procedures manual of the maritime administration. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is February 2013.

4 Annex, page 2 8 The maritime administration does not have a documented procedure for reporting to IMO in accordance with the mandatory instruments. 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 (SOLAS 1974, regulations XI-1/2, XI-1/6, XII/7.2 and XII/14; MARPOL, Annex I, regulation 20; (resolutions A.744(18), MSC.133(76), MSC.168(79), MSC.169(79) and MEPC.94(46), Code, part 2, paragraph 15.1). 10 The maritime administration will incorporate the mandatory IMO instruments into national legislation and implement them. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is March A periodic review of amendments to mandatory IMO instruments will be undertaken with a view to incorporating them into national legislation for implementation in a timely manner. 11 The maritime administration had not incorporated these mandatory IMO instruments in its national legislation It was established that mandatory reporting to IMO, as required by several mandatory IMO instruments, had not been carried out (MARPOL, article 11(1)(b) and (1)(d); SOLAS 1974, article III(a) and regulation V/7.2; LL 66, article 26 and STCW 1978, article VIII(3); Code, part 1, paragraph 7.3). 13 The maritime administration has established a list of all reporting requirements to IMO and the responsible departments within this administration as well as within other concerned ministries, to provide the required information. A dedicated person has been charged with the responsibility for reporting to IMO as required by relevant instruments. In addition, information in the relevant GISIS modules has been updated and will be kept up to date. The reporting obligation has been incorporated in the ISO annual internal audit system. The date for implementation of this corrective action is December 2013 (September 2013 for submitting the annual report with reference to MEPC/Circ.318.) 14 Reporting requirements have not been assessed and implemented within the maritime administration. At the time of audit, no dedicated personnel was charged with such responsibility. 15 A number of applicable mandatory IMO instruments and amendments thereto have not been fully adopted in national law. Furthermore, it was established that amendments were not adopted on a timely basis (SOLAS 1974, article 1(a) and (b); Code, part 1, paragraph 7.1).

5 Annex, page 3 16 The maritime administration is in the process to speed up acceptance of IMO instruments into national law. At present, MARPOL Annexes II, IV, V (amendments) and VI; LL 88 and COLREG amendments are in the process for acceptance into national law. All relevant codes will undergo a simplified legislative procedure and will be incorporated in the State's national legislation. A dedicated person has been designated to systematically follow up on new and amended mandatory IMO instruments and their entry into force dates to ensure their incorporation into national legislation. All mandatory IMO instruments and related amendments are being reviewed, so that the national legislation could be updated by incorporating the instruments or amendments which has not been done as yet. The legal department concurs with technical amendments for which violation does not constitute criminal charges, to be in the form of notices published by the designated inspectorate. In this regard, a prioritized list has been prepared in order to transpose current amendments into national legislation. 17 Insufficient resources within the maritime administration in the past caused delays in the updating of the national legislation. In addition, frequent updates/amendments of mandatory IMO instruments creates heavy burden on the maritime administration as the national legal system requires a lengthy process to ratify new conventions and/or amendments to existing legislations There was objective evidence to indicate that the enactment of national laws for amendments adopted through the tacit amendment procedure to existing mandatory IMO instruments was subject to delays (SOLAS 1974, article I; MARPOL, article 1; LL 66, article 1; Tonnage 1969, article 1; COLREG 1972, article I; Code, part 1, paragraph 7.1). 19 Revision of the maritime administration's executive guideline in order to submit tacitly accepted amendments to the Cabinet within the defined period will be undertaken. In the interim, authority will be obtained for the governing council of the maritime administration to submit technical amendments and regulations directly to Parliament. The deadline for implementation of this corrective action is 31 December If the problem persists, despite the above measures, authorization will be obtained for the Cabinet to approve technical amendments for incorporation into the national legislation. The deadline for the implementation of this corrective action is 31 December In order to complement the corrective action plan, the following actions are being considered:.1 issue general directives to all stakeholders, including shipowners, operators, managers and ROs, informing them of the requirements of complying with all statutory requirements;.2 provide stakeholders with all applicable statutory requirements, including amendments to IMO conventions and codes, for voluntary implementation until permanent procedures as proposed in the corrective action plan are implemented within the time frame indicated; and.3 formulate procedures for personnel of the Ship Registry Department to monitor the implementation of preventive measures.

6 Annex, page 4 20 As defined by the Constitution of the State, amendments to instruments pass through the same lengthy route as the basic instruments themselves, i.e. approved by the Cabinet first and then by the Parliament. The internal process of the maritime administration to prepare necessary documents for the Cabinet and Parliament for adoption, in compliance with national legislation, is done with some delay. 21 There was objective evidence that specimen certificates under all mandatory IMO instruments have not been submitted to IMO (SOLAS 1974, article III; MARPOL article 11; LL 66, article 26; Tonnage 1969, article 15; Code, part 1, paragraph 7.3). 22 A documented procedure will be incorporated into the integrated quality management system for submitting specimen certificates and other relevant information to IMO as required by the various mandatory IMO instruments, which will update personnel within the Administration. The deadline for implementation of this corrective action is 31 December In order to complement the corrective action plan, the following actions have been considered:.1 a procedure has been adopted by the Administration to update concerned personnel of the requirement; and.2 the current format of certificates used by the Administration has been submitted to the IMO on 25 October Misunderstanding of relevant requirements under mandatory IMO instruments by officials of the Administration The State's Law does not provide for the required empowerment of the ROs in order to require repairs to a ship, to carry out inspections and surveys if requested, by the appropriate authorities of a port State or to require immediate corrective actions (SOLAS PROT 1978, regulation I/6 and Code, part 1, paragraph 7.2). 25 The State's Maritime Law has been amended in order to empower the ROs to require repairs to a ship, to carry out inspections and surveys, if requested by the appropriate authorities of a port State, or to require immediate corrective actions in accordance with SOLAS PROT 1978 regulation I/6. 26 The State has overlooked to empower the ROs, through its national legislation, to require repairs to a ship, to carry out inspections and surveys, if requested by the appropriate authorities of a port State or to require immediate corrective actions.

7 Annex, page 5 27 No objective evidence was provided to demonstrate that the State has empowered the investigator(s) carrying out a marine safety investigation with the ability to board a ship, interview the master and crew and any other person involved, and acquire evidential material for the purposes of a marine safety investigation (Casualty Investigation Code, chapter 8.1 and Code, part 1, paragraph 7.2). 28 A legal basis will be enacted to empower investigators to carry out marine safety investigations according to the Casualty Investigation Code, chapter 8.1. Also, the State is in the process to conclude a new contract with an independent entity, which will be responsible for carrying out marine safety investigation on behalf of the State. This new contract will contain the required empowerment for accident investigators. The deadline for the implementation of this corrective action is the end of The State has overlooked to provide a legal basis to empower the entity which was responsible for carrying out marine safety investigation on behalf of the State in accordance with chapter 8.1 of the Casualty Investigation Code Amendments to the mandatory IMO instruments were not always enacted in national legislation in a timely manner. This was evidenced by the delay in dealing with, inter alia, resolutions MSC.261(84), MSC.267(85), MSC.270(85) (SOLAS 1974, article I; LL 66, article 1; Code, part 1, paragraph 7.2). 31 The State will formulate a new procedure for the national implementation of amendments to the mandatory IMO instruments, describing the procedure in a manual, for the use of all governmental entities dealing with IMO affairs. It will also continue to analyse and make use of all the judicial possibilities defined in the Constitution and in the national jurisprudential practice to make the national legal processes as flexible as possible. The target date for completion of this corrective action is 31 December As a mechanism for continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, the State will further develop processes for periodic performance evaluations concerning the effective and timely implementation of the amendments to the mandatory IMO instruments. This will include, inter alia, regular evaluation meetings between different governmental entities. 32 The delay in implementing conventions or their amendments was due to the complexity of the national legal process, especially those related to the requirements of the Constitution and was also due to a limited number of legal experts in the concerned Ministry. In some cases, legal analysis of the obligations was insufficient or inappropriately timed and the obligation to translate the relevant resolutions and all the national legislative acts into two official languages, as chosen by the State, increased the workload and administrative costs.

8 Annex, page 6 33 The State did not communicate all information, as required under the mandatory IMO instruments, to IMO and reporting to IMO was not systemically organized (SOLAS 1974, article III; MARPOL, article 11; STCW 1978, article IV; LL 66, article 26; Tonnage 1969, article 15; Code, part 1, paragraph 7.3). 34 The State will formulate a method of action to ensure that communication requirements are met. The State's transport safety agency will be responsible for the coordination of communication and reporting. This is to be done in a manner which benefits the maritime community more broadly, using, for example, web-based solutions. Detailed process descriptions will be incorporated into a manual, which will be prepared for the use of all governmental entities dealing with IMO affairs. The planned completion date for this action is 31 December To prevent recurrence in the future, the State will develop a process for periodical performance evaluations. 35 The State did not have a comprehensive system in place concerning the reporting requirements of the mandatory IMO instruments The Administration did not fully meet its obligation to communicate and provide IMO with national legislation enacting the requirements of the conventions (SOLAS 1974, article III; MARPOL, article 11(1)(a) and Code, part 1, paragraph 9). 37 Current amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act will be submitted to IMO by 31 December As a mechanism to ensure continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, the procedures within the quality management system will be rewritten to clarify roles and responsibilities. 38 The procedures within the quality management system, outlining the responsibility for the ministry responsible for foreign affairs to communicate this requirement to IMO, did not provide a closed-loop to ensure that defined actions were occurring as required Observations () 39 Although the State has a strategy for the implementation and enforcement of the relevant mandatory IMO instruments, such strategy has not been duly communicated to all concerned (Code, part 1, paragraph 9). 40 The maritime administration will communicate the State's maritime strategy to all concerned with a view to ensuring its implementation. This corrective action was completed through formally communicating the State's maritime strategy to all concerned.

9 Annex, page 7 41 Owing to the involvement of a number of bodies that comprise the maritime administration, the process of preparing and agreeing the action plans within the administration's strategy took a long time and was finalized only by the start date of the IMO Member State audit, which was insufficient time to communicate it to all concerned. 42 Although the maritime administration has a posts-manual setting out the requirements and skills needed for its personnel, it does not specify the need for the number of personnel with maritime expertise to support the State's responsibilities as provided for in the relevant instruments and also no assessment has been carried out in this regard. Therefore, there are difficulties in keeping pace with the implementation of relevant international maritime instruments due to the lack of sufficient resources and appropriate procedures (Code, part 1, paragraph 7.3; part 2, paragraphs 23.2, 23.3 and 23.4). 43 The maritime administration will conduct a personnel needs-assessment and will make available, sufficient number of personnel with maritime expertise. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May The maritime administration does not have an up-to-date staff-posts manual focusing on the skills needed for various posts, including the number of persons with the requisite maritime expertise, to fulfil the State obligations under the various IMO instruments. 45 There was objective evidence that the decree by which the 1966 Load Lines Convention and the 1988 SOLAS Protocol were accepted as national legislation was not published in full in the official journal as required to give effect to the legislation. This was particularly true for the 1988 SOLAS Protocol. There was also significant delay in the legislative process of accepting the instrument, (Code, part 1, paragraph 7.2). 46 The maritime administration will publish the decree on the 1988 SOLAS Protocol in the official journal. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is April The maritime administration had not published the 1988 SOLAS Protocol in due legal form. 48 Although the maritime administration has a documented procedure for the management of records, they are not always readily identifiable and retrievable (Code, part 1, paragraph 10).

10 Annex, page 8 49 The maritime administration will conduct a study, with a view to implementing an effective record-management system covering its functional areas. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is August The maritime administration had not established a mechanism to ensure the traceability of records During the audit, it was observed that records of the performance reviews and evaluations of the maritime strategy, regional offices, and training records of some flag State inspectors were not readily identifiable or retrievable (Code part 1, paragraph 10). 52 Full establishment of an integrated quality management system within the Administration, to include the current quality management system used at regional offices. The integrated system will be brought in line with that of the headquarters and the Administration's planning system and revision of objective achievement methods will be amended. The deadline for implementation of this corrective action is 31 December In order to complement the corrective action plan, an upgrading of the Administration's planning system and the revision of objectives and performance monitoring system are being considered until such time when the integrated quality management system is fully established. 53 There was no integrated quality management system established at headquarters and regional offices, where performance evaluation is mandatory in accordance with national requirements, and the planning and objective definition of the management system did not pass through the executive level at headquarters No objective evidence could be provided to demonstrate that an overall maritime strategy for the State has been developed. The documented strategy provided to the auditors was related only to one Government entity (Code, part 1, paragraph 3). 55 The State will develop an overall maritime strategy as required by the Code by the end of There was a lack of awareness that an overall maritime strategy for the State had to be developed

11 Annex, page 9 57 The State did not develop a general strategy for meeting its obligations and responsibilities contained in the mandatory IMO instruments to which it is a Party. Furthermore, there was no overall mechanism to coordinate the different entities involved in the implementation and enforcement of the mandatory IMO instruments and there was no system in place for review and verification of the effectiveness of the State and for continuous improvement of its performance (Code, part 1, paragraphs 3 and 11). 58 The State will prepare a maritime strategy and consider incorporating into it, the commitment to, and the participation in, IMO activities, as well as the review and verification of the implementation and enforcement of the mandatory IMO instruments. The planned completion date is 31 December As a mechanism for continuous compliance with this requirement, the strategy will be updated, as appropriate, and its implementation will be monitored and evaluated regularly through meetings amongst the different governmental entities and in accordance with the general performance guidance procedure of the Ministry. 59 Although the State had several national and regional maritime safety and pollution prevention strategies, none of these were IMO specific. As the present strategies highlighted the importance of global rules for the maritime sector, especially IMO conventions and resolutions, no need for a specific IMO strategy had been identified. 60 There was no system in place in different authorities of the State for adherence to international recommendations. Even though there is a clear mandate in various acts, recommendations and guidelines from IMO are not formally taken into account and not evaluated systematically, so that they may be used as supporting technical documents in the implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments (Code, part 1, paragraph 3.2 and part 2, paragraph 15.1). 61 The State will implement the same holistic approach in evaluating IMO recommendations and guidelines as is already in use with the mandatory requirements. A proper process for decision-making and documentation management will be created in order to ensure that personnel in the maritime administration are aware of all relevant non-mandatory IMO instruments in a specific field and that those are taken into account when implementing IMO obligations. A documented procedure will be included in a manual, which will be prepared for the use of all governmental entities participating in the implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments and the adherence to non-mandatory instruments will be evaluated according to the same procedure. This corrective action is planned to be completed by 31 December To ensure continuous compliance, the State will develop processes for periodical performance evaluation concerning the effective implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments.

12 Annex, page There was neither a coordinated procedure nor was there follow-up with regard to possible incorporation of IMO guidelines into national strategy/implementation programme and practice. 63 Although some statistics and data were consulted and used from time to time by some entities, there were no formally adopted and implemented processes or measures for periodical performance evaluations of flag, coast and port State obligations (Code, part 2, paragraphs 42 to 44, part 3, paragraph 49 and part 4, paragraph 58). 64 The State, as a means of ensuring compliance with the mandatory IMO instruments in the future, will consider incorporating into the national strategy, the evaluation of performance, and will further develop processes for periodic performance evaluations of flag, coast and port State obligations, including, inter alia, a more comprehensive and systematic way of data acquisition and by making use of the existing statistics and data. This strategy will include regular evaluation meetings where the relevant statistical information on the performance of the maritime administration may be presented as a basis for defining measures to improve the overall performance of the maritime administration. This is planned to be completed by 31 December Obligations and responsibilities contained in the mandatory IMO instruments were delegated among several governmental entities. Overall, annual performance review and verification of various entities was an ongoing process. However, the scope of it had not covered the effectiveness of the State in the implementation of the obligations and responsibilities contained in the mandatory IMO instruments as a whole There was no strategy which meets the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Code with respect to a maritime administration carrying out its functions (flag, port and coastal State). The strategy has not been fully developed, implemented and/or communicated to all concerned (Code, part 1, paragraphs 3 and 9). 67 The establishment of a national maritime strategy will be included in public policies of the next national development plan, to be published by June Consultations with stakeholders in the maritime industry has begun and results will be analysed, assessed and validated for subsequent publication in the Official Journal, as a national maritime strategy, with a clearly defined public policy based on the domestic and international legal framework. In addition, provisions have been drafted in the General Regulations for the national law on maritime transport, to be published by the end of 2011, to provide a legal basis for an effective mechanism for implementation and enforcement of international maritime conventions, to which the State is a Party. As a mechanism for continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, a quality management system will be developed by 28 February 2012.

13 Annex, page An inadequate methodology was used to implement the guidelines contained in the Code, published in the Official Journal in The national development plan for and its respective sectorial programmes were drawn up without considering the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Code. 69 The State did not administer nor did it have a documented safety and environmental protection programme for establishing guidelines as set out in the Code, although it was found that some of the prescribed conditions were complied with on a customary basis, but without a standard procedure being established (Code, part 2, paragraph 16). 70 The maritime administration will analyse the current situation with regard to the processes necessary for administering the safety and environmental protection programme, as provided for in paragraph 16 of the Code, and take necessary action to ensure development and inclusion of appropriate procedures in a quality management system. The deadline for the implementation of this corrective action is 28 February An inadequate methodology was used to implement the guidelines contained in the Code, published in the Official Journal in The provisions of paragraph 16 of the Code were not implemented in a timely manner. 72 There was no procedure for establishing and maintaining records and records on mandatory communications and reports to IMO were not available (Code, part 1, paragraph 10). 73 The maritime administration will analyse the current situation with regard to mandatory communications to IMO and take necessary action to create a historical archive and establish necessary processes and procedures for record keeping and monitoring of mandatory communications to IMO. As a mechanism for continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, a quality management system will be developed by 28 February An inadequate methodology was used to implement the guidelines contained in the Code, published in the Official Journal in The provisions of paragraph 10 of the Code were not implemented in a timely manner A national strategy for meeting its overall obligations and responsibilities contained in the mandatory IMO instruments to which the State is a Party was not fully developed. This was evidenced by the lack of documentation setting out the strategy; absence of continuous review and verification of the effectiveness of the State in respect of its international obligations; and the overall organizational performance and capability had not been

14 Annex, page 12 assessed. Furthermore, the existing strategy had not been communicated to all stakeholders (Code, part 1, paragraphs 3 and 9). 76 A comprehensive and coordinated strategy plan is to be developed by a governmental Committee by 30 September Once the strategy plan has been developed, the Committee will disseminate the plan for action to the other involved government agencies. As a mechanism to ensure continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, the Committee will be the governing body to keep the plan under review and will play a role in monitoring its effectiveness. 77 Maritime responsibilities are devolved amongst several government agencies, but no central governing body was assigned to conduct oversight of those bodies, in order to ensure that the State carries out its international obligations. 78 There was no system to determine which regulations/directives/circulars, if any, needed to be promulgated under the Merchant Shipping Act to ensure full and effective implementation of the conventions and amendments thereto to which the State is a Party, as well as their communication to all interested parties before their entry into force (Code, part 1, paragraphs 7 and 9). 79 The IMO governance attendance procedure will be rewritten in a manner that defines the process as one aimed at identifying actions points and responses, as well as the creation of a central record of all changes, to instruments that affect the State which require action. Responsibilities will be assigned with target dates. This procedure will be rewritten by 31 December The procedure as outlined in the system was inadequate, in that it failed to ensure that a process was in place to ensure that changes were promulgated and communicated as necessary FLAG STATE ACTIVITIES Non-conformities () 81 An RO granted an exemption certificate to a national flag ship in accordance with MARPOL, Annex I, regulation , for a validity period of five years, using an incorrect certificate format (MARPOL, Annex I, regulation 9; Code, Part 2, paragraphs 16.1, 18.1 and 18.4). 82 The maritime administration will advise ROs in this regard and will specify the format in the procedures manual, in line with the MARPOL, Annex I, for granting exemptions. It will also review the procedures manual once a year in order to incorporate amendments to relevant instruments. The time frame for taking this corrective action is February 2013.

15 Annex, page The procedures manual of the maritime administration established a procedure for granting exemptions and/or waivers, without referring to the format required for the relevant certificates and/or to any action necessary with respect to the attached supplements, as appropriate. 84 No criteria exists at the maritime administration to assess the intact stability of national flag ships and did not have a copy of the intact stability information that is required to be provided to the master of a ship (SOLAS 1974, regulation II-1/5; LL 66, regulation 10(2), Code, paragraphs 15.1 and 16.1). 85 The maritime administration will issue guidance on the incorporation into national legislation of resolution MSC.267(85) on Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code). It will also incorporate into the procedures manual the requirement for the maritime administration to have a copy of the information on intact stability that must be provided to the master of a national flag ship. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May The maritime administration had not adopted or implemented resolution MSC.267(85) on Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), or met the requirement for the maritime administration to have a copy of the information on intact stability that must be provided to the master of a national flag ship. 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 (LSA Code, paragraph 1.2.3; SOLAS 1974, regulations III/ , III/4.5, IV/15.9, V/18.8, VI/5.6 and VII/5; Code, part 2, paragraphs 15.1 and 16.1). 88 The maritime administration will issue necessary policy and guidelines as appropriate, for implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments that have not been incorporated into the national regulatory framework. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May It will also arrange to periodically review the amendments to mandatory IMO instruments, with a view to incorporating them in a timely manner into national legislation. 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 (STCW 78, regulation VIII/2; STCW Code, section A-VIII/2; Code, part 1, paragraph 7).

16 Annex, page The maritime administration will prepare the national legislation on watchkeeping arrangements, pursuant to regulation VIII/2 of the STCW Convention. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is February The maritime administration had not arranged for the incorporation of the STCW Convention into its national legislation. 93 There was no systematic monitoring of the internal quality standard system and audits of the administration and training centres, and the system does not meet the requirements for the qualification and experience of instructors and assessors providing training for seafarers (STCW 78, as amended, regulation I/8.1.2, and STCW Code, section A-1/8.2, Code, part 2, paragraph 15.1). 94 Implement a quality standard system for the maritime administration and training centres in order to comply fully with STCW 78, as amended. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May The quality standard system does not fully comply with the STCW 78, as amended. 96 The delegation agreements between the maritime administration and those ROs that are members of IACS were excluded from the maritime administration's annual audit plan and also the agreements did not specify the scope of the delegated authority conferred on those ROs in the context of the relevant SOLAS regulation with reference to the provisions of resolutions A.739(18), as amended by resolution MSC.208(81) and A.789(19) (SOLAS 1974, regulations I/6(b) and XI-1/1; Code, part 2, paragraphs 18.1, 18.2 and 20). 97 The maritime administration will update these delegation agreements in pursuance of respective SOLAS regulation, with reference to resolutions A.739(18), as amended and A.789(19). The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May The maritime administration did not update the delegation agreements it holds with IACS member ROs, on the basis of respective SOLAS regulation, with reference to resolutions A.739(18), as amended and A.789(19). 99 Appointment of surveyors from the ROs was not regulated and no specific instructions were given regarding the responsibilities and conditions of the authority

17 Annex, page 15 delegated to nominated surveyors or ROs for completing their tasks. Also, there was no evidence that the Organization had been provided with the list of surveyors appointed by the maritime administration (SOLAS 1974, article III(a) and regulation I/6(b); MARPOL, article 11(1)(b), Code, part 2, paragraphs 18.3 and 19). 100 The maritime administration will regulate the appointment of surveyors from ROs and will also provide specific instructions regarding the responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated to the appointed surveyors from ROs for completing their tasks. It will also communicate the list of such surveyors to IMO. The estimated date for completing this corrective action is May There have been no regulations or identification of the competency requirements to be met by the surveyors from the ROs acting on behalf of the maritime administration. Also, there was no system or procedure in place to provide specific instructions to those surveyors regarding their responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated to them; and to communicate a list to IMO, of the surveyors authorized to act on its behalf It was established during the audit that the Administration had no written agreement signed with its ROs, although statutory certificates under SOLAS 74 and LL 66 Conventions, as amended, were issued by them on behalf of the Administration on a regularly basis (SOLAS 1974 regulation XI-1/1; resolution A.739(18); Code, part 2, paragraph 18.2). 103 National legislation will require all ROs acting on behalf of the State to be signatory to a formal agreement approved by the legal section of the ministry responsible for transport. A system of orderly auditing of ROs will be incorporated in the ISO annual internal audit system. A formal written agreement between the maritime administration and ROs has been drafted based on the relevant IMO resolutions A.739(18), A.789(19) and the model agreement (the new RO Code will be incorporated in due time). The agreement has been legally approved and sent to all relevant ROs. A formal agreement has been already signed with an RO and a finalized format of agreement has been sent to other ROs. 104 National legislation provided automatic recognition of all IACS members, without requiring the signature of a formal agreement Amendments to RO agreements were not concluded in accordance with resolution A.739(18) and MSC/Circ.710-MEPC/Circ.307 (SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/1; resolution A.739(18) (Code, part 2, paragraph 18.2). 106 The agreements between the Administration and ROs will be amended and a procedure for incorporating amendments to mandatory IMO instruments relative to the

18 Annex, page 16 implementation of the agreement will be established. Provision of sufficient staff at the Ship Registration and Certification Department for monitoring of ROs will be undertaken. The deadline for implementation of these corrective actions is 31 December Establishment of an integrated quality management system within the Administration will assist in eliminating such shortcomings. The deadline for implementation of this corrective action is 31 December As an interim measure, the Administration will consider increasing the staff complement at the Ship Registration and Certification Department to monitor activities of ROs in line with resolution A.739(18) and MSC/Circ.710-MEPC/Circ.307 until the implementation of the corrective action plan. 107 There is no integrated quality management system established within the Administration, which could have been a tool in identifying shortcomings in the circulation of amendments to mandatory IMO instruments to all parties concerned. The workforce within the Ship Registration Department is insufficient No objective evidence was provided to demonstrate that an independent evaluation has been carried out every five-year period in accordance with the provisions of regulation I/8 of STCW 1978 (STCW 1978, regulation I/8; STCW Code, section A-I/8 and Code, part 2, paragraph 16.3). 109 Regular independent evaluation, in accordance with the provisions of regulation I/8 of STCW 1978, will be established. The evaluation should have been carried out in 2011 but took place in 2012 instead. As a mechanism for compliance with this requirement in the future, more effective internal management controls have been established to ensure that an independent evaluation will be carried out every five years. The next evaluation will take place in Due to a lack of efficient internal controls the State has missed the regular independent evaluation by one year. 111 No objective evidence was provided to demonstrate how the State ensures that all ships entitled to fly its flag, before entering the Antarctic area, have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all garbage, while operating in the area and have concluded arrangements to discharge such garbage at a reception facility after leaving the area (MARPOL, Annex V, regulation and Code, part 2, paragraph 15.1). 112 The Administration will issue a circular at the beginning of 2014, which is binding under the State's legislation, informing all interested parties about the requirements of regulation of Annex V of MARPOL and ensuring the compliance of ships flying the flag of the State with the requirements of the aforementioned regulation.

19 Annex, page The Administration has overlooked to take any actions in order to ensure that all ships entitled to fly the flag of the State comply with MARPOL, Annex V, regulation Authorizations for six out of seven ROs have been granted without a formal written agreement in place between the Administration and the ROs (SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/1 and Code, part 2, paragraph 18.2). 115 The Administration has commenced the conclusion of new comprehensive agreements with all the relevant ROs, in accordance with SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/1. Three new contracts have been signed and the contracts with the remaining three ROs will be signed by mid The Administration has overlooked the implementation of the requirements of SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/1 with all the ROs. 117 The exemption issued to a ship on 27 March 2013, was not in accordance with the requirements of SOLAS 1974, chapter II-2, regulation (SOLAS 1974, regulation II-2/1.4.1 and Code, part 2, paragraph 21). 118 After reviewing its internal procedures for the issuance of exemptions, the Administration has decided to delegate the task of issuing exemptions to the ROs. 119 Exemptions were erroneously issued by the Administration. 120 It was established that the State had not ensured that investigator(s) carrying out a marine safety investigation are impartial and objective, nor that the marine safety investigator(s) are able to report on the results of a marine safety investigation without direction or interference from any persons or organizations, who may be affected by its outcome (Casualty Investigation Code, chapter 11.1 and Code, part 2, paragraph 41). 121 The Administration is in the process of strictly distinguishing between the contractor that carries out surveys and a contractor that carries out safety investigations after a casualty. Under the new arrangements, the contractor that carries out surveys and the contractor that will be carrying out safety investigations cannot be the same entity. The deadline for the implementation of this corrective action is by the end of 2014.

20 Annex, page The Administration has overlooked to establish safeguards in order to ensure that investigators carrying out a marine safety investigation comply with the requirements of chapter 11.1 of the Casualty Investigation Code The State did not prescribe the form and contents of the logbook for fuel oil change over operations (MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 14.6; Code, part 2, paragraph 16.1). 124 Relevant national laws will be amended by 31 December 2013, to include the form and contents of the logbook for fuel oil change-over operations. To prevent similar issues in the future, the State will develop processes for periodic performance evaluations concerning the effective implementation of the mandatory IMO instruments. The State will also improve the national legislative procedure to include detailed analysis of all the obligations in the mandatory IMO instruments and their appropriate incorporation in the national legislation. 125 Obligations and responsibilities contained in the mandatory IMO instruments were delegated among more than 10 governmental entities, including several ministries and agencies. As a result, some obligations of a technical nature were not fulfilled properly There was no communication of information and reports to IMO as prescribed in the various international instruments that the State has ratified (SOLAS 1974, article III; MARPOL, article 11; Tonnage 1969, article 15). 127 The Administration will analyse the current situation with regard to mandatory communications to IMO and take necessary action to create a historical archive and establish necessary processes and procedures for record keeping and monitoring of mandatory communications to IMO. As a mechanism for continuous compliance with this requirement in the future, a quality management system will be developed by 28 February An inadequate methodology was used by the Administration for monitoring mandatory communications to IMO and for record keeping. 129 It was verified that, although the State is on the White List under the 1978 STCW Convention, as amended, the department responsible for training, evaluation of competence, certification, endorsement and revalidation does not currently have a quality standards system in accordance with regulation I/8.1.2, and has not reported to IMO the result of the independent evaluation as established in section A-I/8.3 of the STCW Code (STCW 1978, regulation I/8 and STCW Code, section A-I/8.3).

21 Annex, page The Administration has carried out the recertification of processes related to certification, endorsement and revalidation, conducted within the Administration. The Administration has implemented measures to ensure sufficient budget for the purpose of maintenance and certification of the quality management system in the future. 131 The recertification of the quality system, covering training, evaluation of competence, certification, endorsement and revalidation activities of the Administration failed due to the lack of an adequate budget. 132 There was no legislation to establish and enforce rest periods for watchkeeping personnel and to bring to the attention of companies, masters, chief engineers and all watchkeeping personnel, the requirements, principles and guidelines specified in the STCW Code, so as to ensure that at all times every seagoing ship maintains watchkeeping arrangements appropriate for the circumstances and conditions of STCW Convention (STCW 1978, article I, regulations VIII/1 and VIII/2). 133 The national law on maritime transport will be amended to establish minimum safety manning standards for ships and, in particular, maximum hours of work and minimum rest periods for watchkeeping personnel in accordance with the applicable provisions of international standards. The deadline for the implementation of this corrective action is 22 November In addition, the Act contains provisions to sanction breaches to international treaties and national legislation in its chapter dealing with sanctions. 134 There was a lack of specific measures necessary to give the Convention full and complete effect through national provisions, owing to the inadequate methodology used to fulfil the Administration's functions as flag State and port State. 135 Although the Administration delegated authority to six ROs between 2008 and 2010, no agreement was signed with them in accordance with paragraph 2 of resolution A.739(18), neither has it implemented a monitoring and control system for those ROs in accordance with paragraph 3 of the same resolution (SOLAS 1974, regulation XI-1/1 and Code, part 2, paragraphs 18.2 and 20). 136 The procedure for authorization, as well as for monitoring, control and supervision of the ROs will be included in a quality management system that will be implemented by the Administration by 28 February 2012.