SOLAS Chapter XIII: Verification of Compliance

Background

The implementation gap

For decades, the IMO has adopted SOLAS, MARPOL and other instruments through a process of negotiation, adoption, and entry into force, with each contracting government undertaking to implement the instruments. The challenge has been that adoption is the easy part; implementation is the difficult part. A treaty in force is only as effective as its actual application by the parties.

Specific implementation gaps that motivated the IMSAS development include:

• Flag state weakness: some flag states delegate extensively to Recognised Organizations without adequate oversight, allowing ships under their flag to operate with weaker compliance.
• Port state weakness: port states with limited inspection capacity may fail to conduct effective port state control inspections.
• Coastal state weakness: coastal states with inadequate hydrographic, navigational warning, or search and rescue capacity may fail to provide the services the IMO instruments anticipate.
• Casualty investigation weakness: states with inadequate investigation capacity may fail to produce timely or thorough investigation reports.
• Domestic legal framework: some states ratify IMO instruments without enacting the corresponding domestic legislation that gives them legal effect.

The cumulative effect of these gaps was that the global maritime regulatory framework operated at significantly less than its intended level in some areas, with safety, environmental and security consequences.

Voluntary IMSAS (VIMSAS) 2006-2015

In 2005, the IMO established the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS), providing an audit mechanism on a voluntary basis. By 2015, approximately 80 of the 175 IMO Member States had volunteered to be audited.

VIMSAS findings revealed:

• Substantial implementation variability across states.
• Common patterns of weakness (limited domestic legislation, weak Recognised Organization oversight, inadequate casualty investigation).
• Capacity-building needs in many developing states.
• The value of structured audit in driving implementation improvements.

The VIMSAS results, together with the recognition that voluntary participation was insufficient to ensure global implementation, led to the decision to make the audit mandatory.

Mandatory IMSAS adoption

In 2013, the IMO MSC adopted Resolution MSC.366(93) introducing Chapter XIII to SOLAS and making the audit mandatory under SOLAS reference. Parallel resolutions made the audit mandatory under MARPOL, STCW, Load Line, and other instruments. The mandatory regime entered into force on 1 January 2016.

Major milestones

• 1958: IMO (then IMCO) established. Convention for safe shipping enters into force.
• 1985-1990s: Various initiatives to improve implementation of IMO instruments without formal audit.
• 2002 SOLAS amendments: post-September 2001 changes including the ISPS Code, with implicit attention to implementation.
• 2005-2006: Voluntary IMSAS (VIMSAS) established.
• 2013: Mandatory IMSAS adopted (Resolution MSC.366(93) for Chapter XIII; III Code adopted as Resolution A.1070(28)).
• 2016: Mandatory IMSAS enters into force. First audits under the mandatory regime begin.
• 2017-2019: First-cycle audits roll out, with each Member State scheduled within a defined timeframe.
• 2020-2026: Second-cycle audits begin for early-audited states.

The III Code

The III Code structure

The III Code (Code for Implementation of IMO Instruments, Resolution A.1070(28)) is the audit standard. It sets out the implementation requirements that each Member State should meet, organised into:

• Part 1: Common areas including flag state implementation, port state implementation, coastal state implementation, and other functions.
• Part 2: Flag State implementation including ship registration, certification, oversight of Recognised Organizations, casualty investigation, and ongoing monitoring.
• Part 3: Coastal State implementation including hydrographic services, navigational warnings, search and rescue, and traffic management.
• Part 4: Port State implementation including port state control, port reception facilities, and port operations.

Each Part contains specific paragraphs addressing implementation expectations, with cross-references to the relevant IMO instruments.

Audit standard

The audit assesses Member State implementation against:

• The mandatory IMO instruments: SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, Load Line, COLREG, TONNAGE 1969 Convention, Search and Rescue Convention, and others.
• The III Code provisions: implementation expectations.
• Member State self-assessment: pre-audit document showing the state’s own assessment of its implementation.

The audit is not against domestic legislation per se but against whether domestic legislation, regulation, and administrative practice collectively achieve the implementation expected by the IMO instruments.

Audit process

Pre-audit phase

The pre-audit phase begins approximately 12 months before the scheduled on-site audit:

• Audit notification from the IMO Secretariat to the Member State.
• Self-assessment questionnaire sent to the Member State, covering all III Code areas.
• Document submission by the Member State including legislation, regulation, administrative procedures, performance data, and audit reports of relevant functions.
• Audit team formation by the IMO, typically 3 to 5 trained auditors representing geographic and expertise diversity.
• Audit plan development based on the self-assessment and the document review.
• Pre-audit communication between the audit team leader and the Member State to clarify scope and logistics.

On-site audit phase

The on-site audit typically takes 1 to 2 weeks and covers:

• Opening meeting with senior maritime administration officials.
• Document examination of legislation, regulation, administrative procedures, certificates issued, audit reports, casualty investigations, and other evidence.
• Process examination by walk-through and interviews of administrative processes for ship registration, certification, RO oversight, port state control, etc.
• Personnel interviews with maritime administration staff at various levels.
• Site visits to maritime administration offices and (where applicable) to ports, classification society offices and other delegated functions.
• Closing meeting presenting preliminary findings.

The audit team works according to ISO 19011 audit principles and IMO-specific guidance, maintaining auditor independence and objectivity.

Post-audit phase

After the on-site audit:

• Audit report drafting by the audit team, documenting findings and any nonconformities.
• Audit report distribution to the Member State for factual accuracy review.
• Audit report finalisation with the Member State’s responses incorporated.
• Corrective Action Plan developed by the Member State addressing each nonconformity with specific actions, responsibilities, and target dates.
• IMO Council reporting with summary results and emerging patterns.
• Public summary publication of audit results.

The Member State is expected to implement the Corrective Action Plan within agreed timelines.

Follow-up phase

The IMO conducts follow-up to verify implementation:

• Annual reporting by the Member State on Corrective Action Plan progress.
• Mid-cycle review at approximately 3 to 4 years after the audit to assess sustained implementation.
• Next audit cycle at the 7-year point (or sooner if the Member State requests) starting the cycle again.

Audit findings and patterns

Common findings across audits

Common audit findings (anonymised across multiple audits) include:

• Domestic legislation gaps: ratified IMO instruments not fully transposed into domestic law.
• Recognised Organization oversight weaknesses: insufficient flag state monitoring of RO performance, insufficient verification of RO findings.
• Port state control implementation: PSC inspection not conducted at the rate or thoroughness expected.
• Casualty investigation delays: investigation reports not issued within reasonable timeframes.
• Hydrographic service gaps: inadequate chart coverage, slow Notice to Mariners distribution.
• Search and rescue coordination: limited 24/7 RCC capacity, inadequate equipment.
• Reporting to IMO: required reports not submitted on time or with incomplete content.
• Domestic implementation of recent amendments: lag between IMO amendment adoption and domestic implementation.

Patterns by region and capacity

Patterns differ by region and Member State capacity:

• Developed states: typically strong implementation across most areas with specific targeted findings.
• Major flag states (open registries): extensive RO delegation with audit attention to oversight quality.
• Developing states with limited maritime sectors: capacity-building needs, with audit findings often focused on legislative and administrative framework rather than detailed implementation.
• States with substantial coastal but limited flag presence: audit attention to port state and coastal state functions, less to flag state.

Capacity-building support

The IMO provides capacity-building support through:

• Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP): training, technical assistance, and equipment support to states with implementation gaps.
• World Maritime University (WMU): post-graduate education for maritime administration officials.
• IMO International Maritime Law Institute (IMLI): legal education and training.
• Regional cooperation through Maritime Industry Foundation, IMSAS partner organisations.

The audit-and-support cycle is designed to be developmental rather than punitive, with the IMO supporting Member States in addressing the findings.

Member State performance reporting

Public reporting

The IMO publishes summary information on audit results:

• Aggregate findings by category (legislative, RO oversight, port state, etc.).
• Trends across cycles showing implementation progress.
• Best practice examples highlighting effective implementation approaches.
• Names of audited states with completion of audit reported (without detailed findings).

The detailed audit reports are confidential to the audited state and to the IMO, encouraging open audit cooperation.

Flag state white-grey-black lists

The Paris MOU and other regional MOU regimes maintain “white list”, “grey list” and “black list” classifications of flag states based on PSC detention performance. While these lists are operated by the regional MOUs (not by the IMO), they are influenced by IMSAS findings:

• States with strong IMSAS audit results often appear on the white list.
• States with weak audit results often appear on the grey or black list.

The MOU lists affect ship inspection priority and contribute to commercial pressure for improved implementation.

IMO publications

The IMO publishes various documents related to IMSAS:

• Annual report on audits completed.
• Documents on common findings and emerging patterns.
• Guidelines for audit team selection and training.
• III Code amendments as the audit standard evolves.

Comparison with ICAO USOAP

Similarity to ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme

The IMSAS is consciously modelled on the ICAO USOAP (Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme), the audit scheme for civil aviation safety implementation. USOAP has been operating since 1999 with progressively comprehensive audit coverage. Lessons from USOAP that informed IMSAS design include:

• Audit standard development: USOAP developed Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) as the audit basis; IMSAS uses the III Code analogously.
• Audit team training: USOAP has a structured auditor certification programme; IMSAS has adopted a similar approach.
• Public reporting: USOAP publishes detailed audit findings publicly; IMSAS uses a more limited public reporting model.
• Continuous monitoring: USOAP introduced continuous monitoring through annual data submission; IMSAS includes a similar element.
• Significant Safety Concerns: USOAP has a mechanism for flagging Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs) that pose imminent risk; IMSAS has a similar but less prominent mechanism.

Differences

Specific differences:

• Public visibility of findings: USOAP publishes detailed findings; IMSAS publishes only summary findings.
• Frequency: USOAP audit cycles are typically shorter (5 to 6 years); IMSAS is 7 years.
• Sanctions: USOAP has been linked (loosely) to operational restrictions on airlines from poorly-implementing states; IMSAS has no comparable direct operational consequence.
• Maturity: USOAP has been operating since 1999 with refined methodology; IMSAS is newer (mandatory since 2016).

Convergence

Some convergence is occurring:

• Best practice sharing between IMO and ICAO.
• Audit team training with cross-fertilisation.
• Multi-modal coordination for state authorities responsible for both maritime and aviation safety.

Implications for ship operations

Flag state selection

Operators considering flag state selection are increasingly attentive to IMSAS audit performance:

• Strong-implementation flag states: provide certainty of timely amendment implementation, robust RO oversight, and strong support in port state interactions.
• Weak-implementation flag states: may attract higher PSC scrutiny, reputational concerns from charterers, and operational complications.

The IMSAS findings, while not detailed publicly, become known through PSC inspector experience, by industry intelligence (Lloyd’s List, IHS Markit, others), and by direct operator experience.

Charter market pressure

Major charterers (oil majors, container lines, cruise companies, dry-bulk operators) increasingly apply due-diligence requirements addressing flag state implementation. Some reject ships under specific flags or require additional verification when chartering ships under flags with implementation concerns.

Insurance pricing

P&I clubs and Hull and Machinery insurers price flag state risk into their premiums. Operators with ships under weak-implementation flags may face higher premiums, restricted coverage, or refusal of coverage.

Crew implications

Seafarers under weak-implementation flags may face:

• Difficulty obtaining recognition of their certificates in port states with strict requirements.
• Inadequate investigation of complaints or incidents.
• Limited access to repatriation support.

The MLC (Maritime Labour Convention 2006) audit interaction with IMSAS provides additional protection for seafarers.

Specific findings and lessons

Recognised Organization oversight findings

Recurring audit findings on RO oversight include:

• Insufficient verification of RO survey findings before flag state acceptance.
• Limited audit programme for delegated ROs.
• Lack of differentiation between RO performance levels.
• Inadequate response to PSC detentions of ships in delegated RO class.

The post-audit Corrective Action Plans typically address these through enhanced administrative procedures, audit programmes, and performance metrics.

Casualty investigation findings

Recurring audit findings on casualty investigation include:

• Slow investigation of significant casualties.
• Limited capacity for complex casualties.
• Inadequate cooperation with substantially interested states.
• Late or incomplete reporting to the IMO.

The post-audit Corrective Action Plans typically address these through capacity building (often with IMO support), procedural reform, and international cooperation agreements.

Search and rescue findings

Recurring audit findings on SAR include:

• Limited 24/7 RCC capacity.
• Inadequate equipment for offshore rescue.
• Limited coordination with neighbouring SAR regions.
• Communication infrastructure gaps.

These are often the most challenging findings to address because of the cost of physical infrastructure improvement.

Future development of IMSAS

Cycle 2 (2024 onwards)

The second IMSAS cycle began in 2024 with the early-audited states. Lessons from Cycle 1 are being incorporated:

• Updated III Code with provisions reflecting Cycle 1 findings and emerging issues.
• Auditor training enhancement with more focus on emerging areas (cyber security, decarbonisation, autonomous ships).
• Streamlined processes based on Cycle 1 experience.
• Greater attention to implementation of recent amendments (post-2016 amendments to all the major instruments).

Emerging audit areas

New audit areas developing for future cycles include:

• Cyber security implementation: post-MSC.428(98), audit attention to cyber risk management in flag administration and in ship operations under flag oversight.
• Decarbonisation implementation: as MARPOL Annex VI requirements tighten, audit attention to flag state implementation of EEDI, EEXI, CII, and FuelEU Maritime.
• Autonomous ships: as MASS regulations develop, audit attention to flag state implementation of MASS-specific requirements.
• Seafarer welfare: integration with MLC 2006 audit findings to ensure consistent flag state implementation.

Process refinements

Various process refinements are under discussion:

• Public publication of audit results (in more detail than current summary reports).
• Sanctions for sustained non-compliance: linking audit performance to operational consequences.
• Multi-mode audit: combining maritime and aviation audit for state authorities responsible for both.
• Risk-based audit cycles: shorter cycles for states with sustained issues, longer for strong-implementation states.

These refinements would require IMO Council and possibly Assembly decisions but are progressively under consideration.

Audit history and milestones

First-cycle highlights

The first cycle of mandatory IMSAS audits (2016-2024) covered approximately 175 IMO Member States and Associate Members. Key observations:

• Audit completion: high participation rate, with most Member States completing their first audit during the cycle.
• Common findings patterns: as discussed above, with implementation of recent amendments, RO oversight, casualty investigation, and capacity gaps recurring across the cohort.
• Capacity-building demand: substantial demand for IMO ITCP support, particularly from developing Member States.
• Quality improvement evident: states that completed audits earlier in the cycle showed measurable implementation improvements at mid-cycle review.
• Resource constraints: the audit programme has been resource-constrained with the IMO Secretariat at capacity managing the audit volume.

The first-cycle experience has informed the development of the second cycle.

Second-cycle developments

The second cycle (2024 onwards) is incorporating lessons learned:

• Updated III Code (Resolution A.1117(30)) reflecting first-cycle findings and recent IMO instrument amendments.
• Auditor training enhancement with more structured continuous professional development.
• Risk-based scheduling based on first-cycle findings and continuous monitoring data.
• Streamlined documentation reducing the burden on Member States for self-assessment.
• Greater emphasis on cyber security and decarbonisation reflecting emerging issues.

Notable second-cycle audits

Several notable audits in the second cycle have been published in summary form:

• Major flag states with substantial fleet (Liberia, Marshall Islands, Panama, Bahamas) audited with focus on RO oversight evolution.
• Major port states (United States, China, Singapore, Netherlands) audited with focus on PSC effectiveness and port reception facility coverage.
• Developing Member States audited with focus on capacity development progress since first-cycle audit.

The second cycle is expected to complete around 2031, with the third cycle beginning thereafter.

Future evolution

Decarbonisation oversight

As the IMO’s GHG Strategy and the related MARPOL Annex VI amendments progress, the IMSAS will increasingly audit:

• Member State implementation of CII, EEDI, EEXI, FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS interactions.
• MEPC technical decisions translated into Member State legislation.
• Capacity for novel-fuel oversight as IGF Code expands to cover ammonia, hydrogen and other emerging fuels.
• Carbon trading and market mechanisms as the IMO’s market-based measure progresses.

Autonomous ships

As Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) regulations develop, the IMSAS will need to audit:

• Member State legislation governing MASS.
• Certification frameworks for autonomous and remotely-controlled ships.
• Casualty investigation capacity for MASS scenarios.
• Crew training and certification for autonomous-ship operations.

Cyber security

The 2017 IMO MSC.428(98) resolution requirement for cyber risk management is increasingly audit-relevant:

• Member State capability to assess flag administration cyber security.
• RO cyber audit capabilities including software review.
• Maritime administration cyber resilience.

Continuous improvement

The IMSAS itself is expected to evolve significantly through ongoing refinement of methodology, technology adoption, and accumulated experience from successive audit cycles. Several specific evolutionary developments are anticipated:

• More transparent reporting as Member States increasingly accept partial publication of detailed findings.
• Integration with broader IMO governance through the Council and Member State Audit Sub-Committee.
• Performance metrics tracking implementation improvement over time.
• Linkage to operational consequences through coordination with PSC and other mechanisms.
• Better integration with industry data: cooperation with CINS, IUMI, P&I clubs and classification societies on data exchange, providing fuller cross-validation of audit findings against operational reality.
• Multi-modal audit coordination: coordination with the ICAO USOAP and similar instruments where Member States have integrated transport ministries, reducing duplication and providing holistic coverage.
• Audit quality assurance: ongoing review of audit team performance and findings to ensure consistent quality across the global audit programme.

Continuous Monitoring Approach

Beyond the seven-year audit cycle

The seven-year audit cycle alone provides limited continuous oversight. The IMSAS has been progressively developing a continuous monitoring approach that supplements the cycle audits with ongoing data collection:

• Annual reporting requirements for selected indicators.
• Trend analysis across years to identify emerging issues.
• Targeted follow-up between audits where data suggests concerns.
• Cross-referencing with PSC detention data, casualty data, and other indicators.

The continuous monitoring approach is loosely modelled on the ICAO USOAP-CMA (Continuous Monitoring Approach) but is less developed.

Data sources

The continuous monitoring uses multiple data sources:

• GISIS database: ship identity, casualty, RO performance, PSC inspection data.
• MOU detention records: Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, Caribbean MOU, etc.
• Casualty investigation reports: published reports from MAIB, NTSB, BSU, JTSB, and others.
• Member State submissions: required reports under various IMO instruments.
• NGO and industry data: where credible and consistent (Lloyd’s List Intelligence, IHS Markit, INTERTANKO Vetting Reports, etc.).

The data is consolidated to provide a multi-dimensional view of Member State implementation.

Risk-based audit prioritisation

The continuous monitoring informs audit prioritisation:

• States with sustained issues may receive earlier follow-up audit.
• States with emerging concerns may receive informal IMO outreach.
• States with strong performance may receive routine cycle audit at the seven-year point.

Risk-based prioritisation is a future development as the audit programme matures.

Cross-instrument audit integration

Multi-instrument coverage

The IMSAS audit covers implementation of multiple IMO instruments simultaneously:

• SOLAS (safety of life at sea).
• MARPOL (marine pollution prevention).
• STCW (training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers).
• Load Line Convention (load line marking and freeboard).
• COLREG (collision regulations).
• TONNAGE 1969 Convention (tonnage measurement).
• SAR Convention (search and rescue).
• CSC (Container Safety Convention).
• INMARSAT C-ICTS (international convention for the safety of fishing vessels).

The integrated coverage allows efficient audit conduct and identifies cross-instrument implementation issues.

Coordination with MLC 2006 audit

The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 has its own audit mechanism (the MLC Special Tripartite Committee) operating independently of the IMSAS but on related areas. The two audit mechanisms cover related state functions:

• Flag state implementation of seafarer welfare provisions.
• Port state inspection under MLC requirements.
• Recognised Organization oversight for MLC certification.

Coordination between IMSAS and MLC audit teams is informal but increasingly structured.

Coordination with ILO and other UN bodies

The IMO coordinates with:

• ILO (International Labour Organization): on MLC and seafarer welfare matters.
• IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): on nuclear ship safety (INF Code interaction).
• WHO: on maritime medical and hygiene matters.
• UNCTAD: on shipping economics and capacity-building support.

The coordination is through formal Memoranda of Understanding and through working-level cooperation.

Specific implementation areas under audit

Flag State implementation in detail

Flag State implementation under the III Code Part 2 covers extensively:

• Ship registration: legal framework for ship registration, registration procedures, registration documentation, criteria for ship eligibility, treatment of bareboat charter registration, anti-discrimination requirements between national and foreign owners.
• Manning: minimum safe manning determination process, manning certificates, exemptions, treatment of seafarers from various nationalities, MLC 2006 implementation.
• Certification: issuance procedures for SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, Load Line, IBC, IGC, INF and other certificates, recognition of foreign-issued certificates, dispute resolution.
• Recognised Organization oversight: authorisation and audit of ROs, performance monitoring, scope of delegation, response to RO performance issues.
• Casualty investigation: investigation capacity, procedures, reporting timelines, cooperation with substantially interested states.
• Ship monitoring: ongoing monitoring of ships under flag including PSC interactions, casualty trends, complaint handling.
• Continuing oversight: complaint handling from seafarers, owners, and others; investigation of allegations; corrective action.

Each of these areas is examined in audit through document review, interview, and process examination. Findings often relate to legal framework gaps or to practical implementation gaps.

Port State implementation in detail

Port State implementation under the III Code Part 4 covers:

• Port state control: implementation of regional MOU procedures, inspection capacity, training of inspectors, detention authority, detention procedures, cooperation with other PSC regimes.
• Port reception facilities: capacity for waste, oil residues, sewage, garbage, and exhaust gas cleaning system residues; integration with terminal operations; cost recovery.
• Port operations: traffic management, pilotage, tug services, mooring, hot work permits, bunkering supervision.
• Port security: ISPS Code implementation, port facility security plans, security drills, coordination with national security authorities.
• Marine pollution preparedness: oil spill response, hazardous and noxious substance response, equipment availability, training, exercise.
• Customs and border: documentation handling, ship clearance, crew change facilitation.

The audit examines whether the port state has the legal framework, administrative capacity, and operational practice to implement these functions effectively.

Coastal State implementation in detail

Coastal State implementation under the III Code Part 3 covers:

• Hydrographic services: chart production and update, Notice to Mariners distribution, Tide tables, Sailing directions.
• Navigational warnings: NAVAREA participation, regional and local warning broadcast, integration with WWNWS.
• Aids to navigation: lighthouse, buoy, beacon maintenance; AIS Aid to Navigation; e-navigation services.
• Ship routeing: traffic separation schemes, recommended routes, ATBA establishment and enforcement.
• Search and rescue: 24/7 RCC capacity, SAR cooperation agreements with neighbouring states, helicopter and surface SAR resources.
• Vessel traffic services: VTS where established, VTS personnel training, integration with ship operations.
• Marine pollution preparedness and response: oil spill response capability, equipment, training, exercise.
• Coastal state authorisation: provisions for foreign ships in territorial waters, transit rights, special regulatory areas.

The coastal state functions are particularly capacity-intensive and audit findings often relate to capacity constraints rather than legal framework gaps.

Specific challenges in audit implementation

Open registry challenges

Major open registries (Liberia, Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Panama) have specific characteristics in the audit:

• Large fleet under flag: hundreds to thousands of ships, requiring scalable oversight processes.
• Extensive RO delegation: most flag state functions delegated to multiple ROs.
• Limited domestic infrastructure: small domestic shipping, with most operations conducted abroad.
• Strong administrative resources: most have well-developed flag administrations supported by classification society partnerships.

Audit attention to open registries focuses on RO oversight quality, flag state monitoring of ships abroad, and administrative consistency.

Developing state challenges

Developing Member States face specific challenges:

• Legislative drafting capacity: limited expertise in transposing IMO instruments into domestic law.
• Administrative capacity: small maritime administrations with limited specialist expertise.
• Hydrographic capacity: limited survey vessels and survey expertise.
• SAR capacity: limited offshore SAR resources.
• Port reception facilities: limited investment in waste management infrastructure.
• PSC capacity: limited inspector training and few inspectors.

The IMO ITCP is heavily focused on supporting developing states in addressing these challenges.

Major flag states with substantial domestic shipping

States with substantial domestic shipping (US, China, Japan, UK, Germany, etc.) face audit attention covering:

• Domestic legal framework for ships in domestic trade.
• Coordination between national, federal/state and local authorities.
• Implementation of recent amendments in domestic shipping rules.
• Coordination with non-IMO regulations (national environmental, safety, labour rules).

These states typically have strong implementation but may have specific findings related to coordination across the multiple authorities involved.

Significant Safety Concerns

Mechanism for SSC declarations

The IMSAS includes a mechanism for declaring Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs): findings of such severity that they pose imminent safety risk and warrant urgent corrective action.

An SSC declaration would:

• Require urgent response from the audited state, typically within 30 to 90 days.
• Be reported to the IMO Council for awareness and potential response.
• Be communicated to other Member States so that they can apply heightened attention to ships of the affected flag.
• Trigger enhanced audit follow-up to verify resolution.

In practice, SSC declarations have been rare in the IMSAS to date. The audit focus has been on collaborative implementation improvement rather than on punitive declarations.

Comparison with ICAO

The ICAO USOAP equivalent (USOAP-CMA, Continuous Monitoring Approach) has used Significant Safety Concerns more actively, particularly in connection with airline operational restrictions. The IMSAS has not yet developed a comparable operational consequence link.

Audit transparency and confidentiality

Public summary information

The IMO publishes:

• List of audited states with completion dates.
• Aggregate findings by category and region.
• Trend analysis across audit cycles.
• Case studies illustrating implementation challenges and solutions (anonymised).

The detailed audit reports remain confidential to the audited state and to the IMO Secretariat, with limited access to IMO Council members for governance purposes.

Confidentiality rationale

The confidentiality of detailed audit findings reflects:

• Sovereignty concerns of Member States about public disclosure of internal administrative weaknesses.
• Encouragement of frank engagement during audit (states are more cooperative when findings are not destined for public broadcast).
• Constructive improvement focus rather than naming and shaming.
• Diplomatic considerations in IMO governance.

The trade-off is that the detailed findings are not directly available to industry stakeholders (ship operators, charterers, insurers) who must rely on indirect indicators (PSC detention rates, casualty experience, flag state reputation).

Pressure for greater transparency

Various stakeholders have pressed for greater transparency:

• Industry bodies (BIMCO, ICS, INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO) seeking more direct information for due-diligence purposes.
• Insurers wanting to refine risk pricing.
• Charterers wanting better information for vessel selection.
• NGOs advocating for environmental and safety transparency.

The IMO has generally maintained confidentiality, with limited steps toward greater transparency.

Linkages to other IMO governance mechanisms

IMO Council

The IMO Council (40 members elected by the IMO Assembly) receives the IMSAS aggregate findings and provides governance oversight. The Council’s specific roles include:

• Approving the audit programme and methodology.
• Receiving annual reports on audit progress.
• Approving updates to the III Code.
• Funding the audit secretariat through the IMO budget.
• Considering governance issues arising from audit findings.

IMO Secretariat

The IMO Secretariat (London headquarters) operates the audit programme through:

• Audit Coordination in the Marine Safety Division.
• Auditor recruitment, training and roster management.
• Audit scheduling and notification to Member States.
• Audit team support during planning, on-site, and reporting phases.
• Document management of audit reports and corrective action plans.
• Capacity-building coordination with the Technical Cooperation Division.

The audit programme is a substantial Secretariat function, requiring specialist staff.

Linkage to MEPC and Legal Committee

While the IMSAS is primarily a Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) matter, the related Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and Legal Committee have related interests:

• MEPC considers MARPOL implementation findings and MARPOL-related capacity-building.
• Legal Committee considers legal framework findings and supports legislative drafting assistance.

The cross-committee coordination is managed through the IMO Council.

Documentation

Self-assessment questionnaire structure

The Member State self-assessment questionnaire (MSSAQ) is a comprehensive document covering all III Code areas. It is organised by:

• Common areas applicable to all states (general implementation framework, legislative arrangements, administrative structure, communications with IMO).
• Flag State implementation including ship registration, manning, certification, RO oversight, casualty investigation, ship monitoring, training and certification of seafarers.
• Coastal State implementation including hydrographic services, navigational warnings, search and rescue, traffic management, port reception facilities, marine environment protection.
• Port State implementation including port state control, port reception facilities, port operations, security, marine pollution preparedness.

Each section contains specific questions requiring documented evidence:

• Yes/No with cross-references to legislative or regulatory provisions.
• Narrative responses describing administrative procedures.
• Performance data (numbers of inspections, certificates issued, casualties investigated, etc.).
• Documentation submissions including legislation, regulations, audit reports, casualty investigation reports.

Self-assessment preparation

Member State preparation for the MSSAQ typically involves:

• Inter-departmental coordination: marine administration, transport ministry, ports authority, coast guard, customs, environmental agency, foreign ministry.
• Document collection: legislation, regulations, ship registry data, port state control records, casualty investigation reports.
• Stakeholder consultation: with Recognised Organizations, port operators, shipping associations, seafarer unions, industry bodies.
• Quality assurance: review of self-assessment for completeness, accuracy, and consistency.
• Submission to IMO typically 6 to 9 months before the on-site audit.

The self-assessment is the foundational document for the audit and shapes the audit team’s preparation.

Common self-assessment challenges

Member States face common challenges in self-assessment:

• Document availability: legislation may be in non-English national languages requiring translation.
• Data fragmentation: information held by multiple agencies without consolidated reporting.
• Definition consistency: terms used in domestic legislation may not match IMO terminology exactly.
• Performance data gaps: some performance metrics may not be routinely collected.
• Capacity constraints: smaller administrations may have limited staff for the substantial preparation effort.

The IMO provides capacity-building support including training workshops on self-assessment preparation.

Audit team selection and training

Audit team composition

Each audit team typically consists of:

• Lead auditor: an experienced maritime administrator from a different region than the audited state, with auditor certification.
• Audit team members: 2 to 4 additional auditors with complementary expertise (flag state, port state, coastal state, casualty investigation, etc.).
• Auditor experts: subject-matter specialists for technical areas (hydrography, communications, structural engineering) where deep expertise is needed.
• Observer (optional): from the audited state’s region to provide local context.

The team is selected to ensure independence (no conflict of interest with the audited state) and to provide diverse expertise.

Auditor qualifications

Auditors must hold:

• Maritime administration experience: typically 10 to 20 years in flag, port or coastal state functions.
• Auditor training: IMO-approved auditor training course covering audit methodology, III Code, and audit practice.
• Lead auditor training: additional training for those leading audits.
• Continued professional development: refresher training and ongoing audit practice.
• Regional and language diversity: the IMO maintains a roster covering all regions and major working languages.

The auditor roster is recruited from Member State maritime administrations, with auditors typically released part-time for audit work.

Auditor training programme

The IMO’s auditor training programme includes:

• Audit Initial Training Course (ITCP): 2-week course at the World Maritime University or other approved venue.
• Lead Auditor Training Course: additional 1-week course for those who will lead audits.
• Apprentice audits: 1 or 2 audits as observer or junior team member before independent service.
• Continuous professional development: annual update on III Code amendments, audit findings, and emerging issues.

The training has been progressively refined since the 2006 voluntary scheme started.

Audit team conduct

Independence and objectivity

Auditors must maintain:

• Independence from the audited state (no nationality, employment, or contractual relationship).
• Objectivity in evidence gathering and finding development.
• Confidentiality of information accessed during the audit.
• Professional conduct including respectful interaction with audited state officials.

Concerns about independence or objectivity are managed through team composition, audit protocol, and ongoing oversight by the IMO Secretariat.

Audit methodology

The audit methodology follows ISO 19011 audit principles:

• Risk-based approach: prioritising areas of higher implementation risk.
• Evidence-based findings: each finding supported by specific objective evidence.
• Sampling: examination of representative samples (not exhaustive review of every record).
• Triangulation: cross-checking through documents, interviews, and observation.
• Constructive engagement: working with the audited state to clarify and verify rather than adversarial stance.

The audit is intended to identify implementation gaps and to support improvement, not to penalise.

Audit techniques

Specific audit techniques include:

• Document review: legislation, regulations, procedures, certificates, audit reports.
• Interview: with administrators at various levels, from senior officials to working-level staff.
• Observation: of administrative processes in operation.
• Walkthrough: tracing a transaction (e.g. a ship registration, a certification, an inspection) end-to-end through the administration.
• Sampling: selecting specific cases to examine in depth.
• Data analysis: examining performance data for trends and outliers.

Each technique provides different evidence; the combination produces a balanced picture of implementation.

Findings classification

Finding categories

Audit findings are classified into:

• Major nonconformity: significant gap in implementation that materially affects compliance with the IMO instruments.
• Minor nonconformity: smaller gap or specific weakness that does not materially affect overall compliance.
• Observation: an area where improvement is desirable but not strictly required by the III Code.
• Best practice: an area where the audited state’s implementation exceeds the III Code minimum and could serve as a model for others.

The classification has implications for the corrective action timing:

• Major nonconformity: typically requires action within 3 to 6 months.
• Minor nonconformity: typically requires action within 6 to 12 months.
• Observation: action is recommended but timing is at the audited state’s discretion.

Sample finding text

Audit findings are documented in standardised language:

• Reference: III Code paragraph or IMO instrument provision.
• Finding statement: the specific gap identified.
• Evidence: the documents, interviews or observations supporting the finding.
• Audit team analysis: the team’s reasoning.

A typical finding might read:

Reference: III Code Part 2, paragraph 9 (Flag State implementation of Recognised Organization oversight) Finding: The audited state has not implemented a structured audit programme for delegated Recognised Organizations. Evidence: Document review of RO delegation agreements showed no provision for periodic audit. Interviews with the maritime administration confirmed that no RO audits have been conducted in the past 5 years. Analysis: The III Code expects flag states to maintain ongoing oversight of delegated ROs through a structured audit programme. The absence of such a programme leaves the flag state without verification of RO performance.

The findings are agreed with the audited state for factual accuracy before report finalisation.

Corrective Action Plans

Plan development

After receiving the audit report, the Member State develops a Corrective Action Plan:

• Each finding addressed with a specific action.
• Responsible authority identified for each action.
• Implementation timeline agreed with the IMO Secretariat.
• Verification approach for confirming completion.
• Resource requirements identified.

The plan is shared with the IMO Secretariat for review and acceptance.

Implementation

Implementation typically involves:

• Legislative amendment for findings related to legal framework gaps.
• Regulatory development for findings related to administrative procedures.
• Capacity building for findings related to limited resources or expertise.
• Process redesign for findings related to operational inefficiency.
• System improvements for findings related to information management.

Implementation can take months to years depending on complexity.

Reporting and follow-up

The Member State reports progress at agreed intervals:

• Quarterly progress reports during active implementation.
• Annual reports during longer-term implementation.
• Completion reports when actions are fully implemented.

The IMO Secretariat reviews reports and provides feedback or further support as needed.

Mid-cycle review

At approximately 3 to 4 years after the audit, the IMO conducts a mid-cycle review:

• Document review of progress reports.
• Limited verification of selected actions through direct contact with the audited state.
• Status report to the IMO Council.

The mid-cycle review confirms sustained implementation or identifies issues requiring further attention before the next full audit.

Capacity building and the IMO Technical Cooperation

IMO ITCP

The Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP) is the IMO’s primary capacity-building mechanism. It supports developing Member States in:

• Legislative drafting: providing model legislation and drafting assistance.
• Administrative development: helping establish or strengthen maritime administrations.
• Training: through workshops, fellowships, and certification courses.
• Technical assistance: equipment, software, and infrastructure support for specific implementation needs.

ITCP is funded by IMO Member State contributions plus voluntary funding from donor states. The annual ITCP budget is in the order of US$30 to 50 million.

World Maritime University

The World Maritime University (WMU), established 1983 in Malmö, Sweden, provides post-graduate education for maritime administration officials. WMU offers:

• Masters of Science in Maritime Affairs: 14-month full-time programme.
• Distance-learning programmes: remote education for serving administrators.
• Short courses and workshops: targeted training on specific topics.
• Research and consultancy: supporting Member States with specific implementation needs.

WMU has trained thousands of maritime administrators since its founding, with alumni in senior positions in flag, port and coastal administrations worldwide.

IMLI

The IMO International Maritime Law Institute (IMLI), established 1989 in Malta, provides legal education with focus on maritime law. IMLI graduates serve in legal advisory roles in maritime administrations and as parliamentary drafters of maritime legislation.

Bilateral and regional cooperation

Beyond the IMO mechanisms, bilateral cooperation between developed and developing states provides additional support:

• Twinning arrangements between maritime administrations.
• Donor-funded programmes through agencies like JICA (Japan), KOICA (Korea), GIZ (Germany), AFD (France), DFID (UK), USAID (US).
• Regional cooperation through bodies like the Pacific Islands Maritime Authority, the African Maritime Authority Coordination, the Caribbean Maritime Initiative.

These arrangements supplement the IMO ITCP and provide region-specific support.

Documentation

The audit process generates substantial documentation:

• Member State self-assessment: pre-audit document.
• Audit team report: confidential to Member State and IMO.
• Public summary report: published by IMO.
• Corrective Action Plan: Member State document.
• Annual progress reports: Member State submissions.
• IMO Council reports: aggregate findings and patterns.
• Audit team training records: internal IMO documents.
• III Code current version: regulatory document.

Most documents are public; the detailed audit reports are confidential to encourage frank engagement.

Related Calculators

• SOLAS XIII - IMSAS audit cycle tracker Calculator

See also

• SOLAS Convention parent article
• SOLAS Chapter XI-1: Special Measures to Enhance Maritime Safety
• SOLAS Chapter II-1: Construction, Subdivision, Stability, Machinery and Electrical Installations
• Classification Society
• Flag State and Flag of Convenience
• Port State Control
• ISM Code
• STCW Convention
• MARPOL Convention
• Load Line
• MLC 2006

Additional calculators:

• Flag State - IMSAS Audit
• IMO A.1067(28) - IMO Member State Audit Scheme
• IMO MSC.216(82) - SOLAS II-1/II-2 amendments - fire + safety

Additional formula references:

• Flag State Audit Imsas
• Solas Load Line Marks
• Test Imo Nox Technical Code

Additional related wiki articles:

• SEEMP I, II and III

References

• IMO, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended, Chapter XIII.
• IMO Resolution MSC.366(93) (2014), Adoption of amendments to SOLAS introducing Chapter XIII.
• IMO Resolution A.1067(28) (2013), Framework and Procedures for the IMO Member State Audit Scheme.
• IMO Resolution A.1070(28) (2013), IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code).
• IMO Resolution A.1117(30) (2017), updated III Code.
• IMO Council documents on IMSAS implementation and findings.
• IMO Secretariat reports on capacity-building support to Member States.
• ICAO USOAP documentation for comparison.
• World Maritime University publications on flag state implementation.