Flag states and safety: 1997-1999

References and notes

• It is recognized that this term is a problematic one. Bergantino and Marlow [2], for example, cite six different definitions ranging from that of the OECD in 1958 to that of Bergstrand in 1983 [3], whilst Dickinson [4] outlines the problems that the ITF have with their own definition. There is no intention here, however, to contribute further to this debate, and the definition used is a very simple one: any flag state that is currently categorized by the ITF as being an FOC, will be deemed to be such for the purposes of this paper
   Google Scholar
• BERGANTINO , A. S. and MARLOW , P. B. 1997 . An Econometric Analysis of the Decision to Flag Out , Cardiff, , UK : Seafarers International Research Centre .
   Google Scholar
• BERGSTRAND , J. 1983 . Buy the Flag: Developments in the Open Registry Debate , Polytechnic of Central London . Transport Study Group Report. Cited in [2]
   Google Scholar
• DICKINSON , M. When is a flag an FOC? . Proceedings of the ITF Conference . June 4–5th 1998 , Oslo. pp. 64 – 68 . Cited in ([9])
   Google Scholar
• ITF . 1999 . Flag of Convenience Campaign Report , 3 London, , UK : International Transport Workers’ Federation .
   Google Scholar
• COUPER , A. D. , WALSH , C. J. , STANBERRY , B. A. and BOERNE , G. L. 1999 . Voyages of Abuse, Seafarers, Human Rights and International Shipping , London : Pluto Press .
   Google Scholar
• DONN , C. B. 1994 . National regulation of international industry. Industrial relations in the maritime industry . International Journal of Employment Studies , 2 : 211 – 227 .
   Google Scholar
• NORTHRUP , H. R. and SCRASE , P. B. 1996 . The international transport workers' federation flag of convenience shipping campaign 1983–1995 . Transportation Law Journal , 23 : 369 – 423 .
   Google Scholar
• ITF . Is there a better way to regulate the shipping industry? . Verbatim Report of the Conference Organized by the International Transport Workers' Federation and Lloyd's of London Press . June 4–5th 1998 , Oslo. London : International Transport Workers' Federation .
   Google Scholar
• JOHNSSON , L. 1996 . Funny Flags. ITF's Campaign Past, Present, Future , Sweden : Utbildningsförlage Brevskolan .
   Google Scholar
• OECD . 1996 . Competitive Advantages Obtained by Some Shipowners as a Result of Non-Observance of Applicable International Rules and Standards , ECD/GD(96)4 Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .
   Google Scholar
• TOH , R. S. and PHANG , S.-Y. 1993 . Quasi-flag of convenience shipping: the wave of the future . Transportation Journal , 33 : 31 – 35 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GAUNT , I. 1998 . Is There a Better Way to Regulate the Shipping Industry? Bankers' Bets: returns Whatever the Flag , 4 Oslo : Folkets Hus Conference Centre .
   Google Scholar
• ILU . Flags with Losses Above the World Average, Hull Casualty Statistics for the IUMI Conference 1995: Chart 25 , London : Institute of London Underwriters .
   Google Scholar
• LI , K. X. 1998 . Seamen's accidental deaths worldwide: a new approach . Maritime Policy & Management , 25
   Google Scholar
• LI , K. X. and WONHAM , J. 1999 . Who is safe and who is at risk: a study of 20-year-record on accident total loss in different flags . Maritime Policy & Management , 26 : 137 – 144 .
   Google Scholar
• NIELSEN , D. 1997 . The Acquisition and Analysis of Global statistics on Injuries and Fatalities of Seafarers as a Result of Accidents on Board Ships: Interim Findings , Cardiff : Seafarers International Research Centre .
   Google Scholar
• NIELSEN , D. and ROBERTS , S. 1999 . Fatalities among the world's merchant seafarers (1990–1994) . Marine Policy , 23 : 71 – 80 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The full database contains details of all casualties for the period 1978 to the present date. The authors have only utilized the data for the period 1997–1999 because of the fact that, in earlier years, the FOC system was less developed. The data for the years 1997–1999 contains details of 3194 serious and non-serious casualties to all types of cargo carrying vessels
   Google Scholar
• The reason for these divisions are as follows. First, it is generally recognized that the ‘traditional’ (usually, although not exclusively Western European) maritime states have a more comprehensive regulatory framework than some other countries, particularly those in the developing world. Secondly, it would appear that the older, more established FOCs are making some attempts to impose more rigid guidelines for the owners flagging their vessels to their fleets, whilst the newer entrants to the market seem to be aggressively marketing their services upon the very notion that such rigidity is absent. A fuller discussion of these points appears later in the text
   Google Scholar
• IUA . Marine and Casualty Statistics . IUMI Conference . 1999 , Berlin. London : International Underwriting Association .
   Google Scholar
• Taking the ITF data as an example, the largest of the FOC fleets mentioned as having one of the worst loss records, has a fleet size 3000% bigger than that of the smallest fleet mentioned, Cambodia. This disparity is even more marked if tonnage is considered, where the Panama GT is 158 000% bigger than that of Cambodia!
   Google Scholar
• The formula used throughout this paper for the calculation of ‘average casualty rates’ is as follows: first, the number of casualties per flag state in each year is divided by the number of vessels in the non-fishing fleet for that state for that year, and then multiplied by a factor of 100 in order to give a ‘casualty rate’ by fleet size. Secondly, the casualty rates for all 3 years are totalled and divided by a factor of three, in order to give an average 3 year casualty rate for the period. The calculation of such a rate alleviates, to some degree, the problems of comparing casualties for flag states that have vastly differing fleet sizes; whilst the averaging process for the 3 years, again, alleviates, to a certain extent, the problem of very poor performances by states in just 1 year out of the three, overly skewing the data. All data relating to fleet sizes, etc. has been taken from Lloyd's Register, World Fleet Statistics [24]
   Google Scholar
• LLOYD'S REGISTER . 1997, 1998, 1999 . World Fleet Statistics , London : Lloyd's Register of Shipping .
   Google Scholar
• The 0.05 level of statistical significance has been used throughout this analysis
   Google Scholar
• It is, indeed, likely that the only reason that the casualty rate for second/international registers is not statistically significantly different from the others, is the relatively small sample size for this group in comparison to the other two groups
   Google Scholar
• It is recognized, however, that vessel type has a different impact upon vessel age, in that certain types of vessels have longer life spans than others
   Google Scholar
• The categories are comprised of the following flag states: Old FOCs: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bermuda, Cyprus, Honduras, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Panama and St. Vincent, and the Grenadines. New FOCs: Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, Canary Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Equatorial Guinea, Gibraltar, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Myanmar, Netherlands, Antilles, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Second/International ship registers: Anguila, British Virgin Islands, Channel Islands, DIS, Falklands Islands, Faeroes, Faeroes (FAS), Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Kerguelen Islands, Macao, Madeira, NIS, Philippines, Sao Tome and Principe, Singapore, Turks and Caicos, Ukraine, and Wallis and Futuna. Traditional maritime nations: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay, USA, and Venezuela. Emerging maritime nations: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Columbia, Comoro, Congo, Congo (DR), Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, St. Helena, St. Kitts Nevis, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leono, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somali Republic, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia. The category New FOC includes those flag states that have only recently been classified as such by the ITF. It should also be noted that these states represent all 179 flag states during the period 1997–1999, as shown in Lloyd's World Fleet Statistics [24]. As mentioned previously, only 121 flag states actually suffered casualties in this period, but the data on all flag states has been included when calculating average grouped casualty rates in order to give a more complete picture
   Google Scholar
• The research is an ITF sponsored project entitled ‘Flag State Audit’ examining the regulatory regimes in 37 flag states. The research commenced in May 1999, and was completed on 30th June 2001
   Google Scholar
• MCA . Flagging-In to the UK. What You Need to Know! , Southampton : Maritime and Coastguard Agency . undated
   Google Scholar
• Many FOC registers do, indeed, have an annual recurring fee which, in many cases, is the virtual equivalent to an annual tonnage tax
   Google Scholar
• METAXAS , B. N. and DOGANIS , T. 1976 . The Impact of Flags of Convenience , London : PCL .
   Google Scholar
• UNCTAD . 1981 . Action on the Question of Open Registry , New York : United Nations .
   Google Scholar
• METAXAS , B. N. 1985 . Flag of Convenience: A Study of Internationalisation , Aldershot : Gower .
   Google Scholar
• VOGEL , R. 1993 . “ Flag states and new Registries ” . In The Marine Environment and Sustainable Development: Law, Policy and Science , Edited by: Couper , A. and Gould , E. Honolulu, Hawaii : Law of Sea Institute, University of Hawaii .
   Google Scholar
• ITF . 1998 . The Panamanian Ship Registry—Proud to be an FOC?
   Google Scholar
• WINCHESTER , N. J. 2001 . How the squeeze on standards enables small flags to flourish . The Sea , 151 : 4
   Google Scholar
• CSR . Cambodia Ship Registry undated
   Google Scholar
• KINDLEBERGER , C. P. 1985 . Multinational ownership of shipping activities . The World Economy , 8 : 250 – 251 .
   Google Scholar