Yours Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen

Let me start my thanking the organisers of this conference for raising an important topic in international shipping. A focus on flag states and what constitutes a quality register and flag is a welcome one, as well as an important one in promoting shipping as a safe and environmentally friendly means of transportation. I would also like to praise the philosophy behind such conferences in general, as they have proven to be excellent informal forums to voice both divergent and common views on shipping. I have no doubt that it will force us all to better visualize future challenges. Those of you familiar with Norwegian politics will recognise that I am not the Norwegian Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr. Ansgar Gabrielsen, but rather his deputy Oluf Ulseth. Unfortunately Mr Gabrielsen was at the very last moment not able to join us here today, and had to cancel his attendance. I promised to bring his best regards to the organisers and to the conference.

Shipping, being a global business, has always been based on international trade and co-operation. It feels particularly relevant to discuss important topics in shipping in Greece, being the largest seafaring nation within the European Union. From Norway we feel strong ties with Greece within shipping matters.

Do we need a focus on quality shipping? Is that not evident ? Some people still seem incorrectly to believe that quality standards must be lowered to gain a competitive edge in this industry. I believe this is a truly short term view, doomed to fail even in the short run, and absolutely in the long run. Quality standards are definitely in the best interest of the industry over the long haul. This is a common challenge for all of us here. For obvious geographical reasons Norway has always had close bonds to the sea, and we do not and will not accept that standards should be lowered for any of our ships. The international position we have built up these last 150 years is mainly thanks to a maritime community and government willing to adapt to the challenges arising in this industry, though never disregarding issues of quality on board ships or the people who man them.

This “supply-side” conference, bringing together flag states and shipowners, have a common goal in maintaining the competetiveness of shipping both in the short and the long term. Recent events of global proportions also represents new challenges to our industry. In the aftermath of September 11 last year there will be new challenges on our industry and on flag states. The current processes in IMO with regards to an increased level of maritime security for cargo, vessels, crew and ports represents a true challenge. I believe these processes will increase the demand for quality registers and recognised flag states.

The year 1987 marked a turning point in Norwegian shipping policy. A new international shipping register was established – the Norwegian International Shipping Register – better known as the NIS. I am therefore pleased to say that it will be celebrating its 15 ^th> anniversary this year, and its prospects for the future look good. At present there are registered approximately 780 vessels at 19.2 million tonnes. These numbers have remained moderately stable during the last ten years.

The NIS allows the employment of non-Norwegian seafarers on ships registered in the NIS at local salary levels. When establishing the NIS we had two major goals: firstly, to ensure that the operation of Norwegian ships in international trade under Norwegian flag could be competitive; and secondly, it was clear from the onset that the NIS was to be a register for quality tonnage. The key lies in maintaining the long-established “stamp of quality” on all our shipping services. We have taken great care in ensuring that the vessels are fully operated in line with our international obligations, most notably under IMO and ILO regulations. In addition, NIS ships are subject to Norwegian law. Perhaps most importantly to emphasize here is that the safety requirements are exactly the same as for ships in our other and more local register - the NOR, or “Norwegian Ordinary Register”.

The keynote speakers have been presented a challenge to suggest what type of ingredients should be found in a quality register in the 21 ^st> century. We have already heard a great deal of wisdom from the previous speakers. Let me provide you with what I consider to be the five fundamental building blocs:

As the first and foremost all shipping countries must become parties to relevant international conventions as soon as possible. What conventions are relevant? In fact, quite a few. Let me mention what I consider the most important:

Countries should do their utmost to become parties to the United Nations Convention on law of the sea (UNCLOS), which has become a foundation stone in international maritime law. Other basic instruments are the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), the Maritime Pollution Convention (MARPOL) with annexes, and the Convention for Standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers (STCW). In this connection I wish to mention the implementation of International Safety Management Code (ISM) standards.

Only 72 out of the 158 members of the IMO are parties to the Search and Rescue Convention (SAR), which is only half the world’s tonnage. Unfortunately, none of the four largest registers have ratified it. I also wish to mention ILO Convention No. 178 on inspection of seafarers working and living conditions. So far only five countries have ratified it. These are all fundamental cornerstones of international shippig and trade.

My second building bloc is that administrations must establish registers with strict procedures. We need to put in place strict safeguards to prevent double registrations and registry of “phantom” ships. In the fight against terror these issues have gained renewed attention. On a practical level our administrations should only accept original documents. If provisional or temporary registration is accepted, the procedures must be no less strict than for permanent registration. The registration process must include adequate surveys to ensure compliance with all mandatory instruments.

Thirdly, we must maintain strict procedures for survey and certification of ships. Most flag states find it necessary to delegate some of their duties. Even though flag states can delegate duties, they cannot delegate the ultimate responsibility. I believe that there are at least 46 different recognized organizations that are used around the world for statutory work. We must ask ourselves if all of these organizations can be considered guarantors of quality? In Norway, we have limited ourselves to only five recognized organizations, all of which are members of the IACS (International Association of Classification Societies).

We must be able to place a great deal of trust in the work being done by our recognized organizations, though we should put in place safeguards that verify their work by performing audits of the organizations and unscheduled inspections of delegated ships. This requires that the flag states must have enough fully qualified personnel to evaluate all aspects of the tasks that have been delegated. Furthermore, flag states must issue instructions necessary to eliminate any potential loopholes and misunderstandings.

My fourth point is that we must maintain strict procedures for certification of personnel on board our vessels. The flag state can accept employment of officers certified by others, but remains responsible for ensuring that the personnel are fully qualified as required by STCW. We should establish safeguards against certificates or endorsements being counterfeit, forged or fraudulently obtained. We need to see these measures also in a broader context with regards to identification, and I know that there is circulating a number of proposals on how to improve crew identity control. All cases of unlawful practices should be investigated, and we should prescribe severe penalties for proven unlawful acts.

And as my fifth and last building bloc, I would suggest that we must be diligent when investigating casualties and detentions. It is essential to thoroughly investigate all serious casualties. For lack of a better word, flag states should aim at being “proactive”.

It is never pleasant to have a ship detained by another port state, but detentions based on probable cause can be considered a method of assisting the flag state. Detentions must therefore be investigated by the national authorities, and followed-up by requiring appropriate corrective actions. The findings and recommendations should be reported to the IMO. Full transparency of information is essential.

Another question asked is whether there can be common ground between national registers and open registers. I believe that there already is common ground, because the responsibilities, the obligations and the duties are the same for all registers, including the “open registers”. Being an open register does not automatically mean low quality, though I would ask these registers to become more involved in the issues at hand. I support the voluntary scheme for auditing flag states, which is being developed by the IMO. However, I am a bit uncertain whether all registers will accept such a challenge.

One thing is certain, it is increasingly evident that coastal and port states will no longer tolerate registers, national or open, which accept that sub-standard ships operate under their flag.

Flag State Implementation (FSI) was established by decisions of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Maritime Environmental Protection Committee in the early 1990s. The commendable and intended role of FSI is to advise member states regarding how to fulfil flag state obligations, as well as providing assistance regarding implementation of IMO instruments by flag states.

To be perfectly honest, we had hoped that FSI had produced more bite, with more progress than what has been achieved so far. The self-assessment form is a step in the right direction, but it can hardly be characterized as a major step. I am not going to point a finger of blame at anyone, because the FSI’s tasks have been difficult. We have unfortunately been witness to a lack of willingness to seek rapid progress. It is my hope that the development of the IMO audit scheme for flag states will make rapid progress and revitalize the FSI sub-committee.

FSI has also started development of procedures for change of flag and change of class. This will hopefully prevent sub-standard ships from continuing to operate by utilizing flag-hopping and class-hopping. I believe that in the long-term we should look into the development of a White List of flag states. Why shouldn’t this be an IMO target in the near future?

Finally, I wish again to remind you that a significant focus has been placed on maritime security, due to the tragic events that took place in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Numerous issues have emerged which call for swift resolution. I wish to emphasize that shipping companies, ship builders, harbors and classification societies as well as other shipping related industries, must contribute to finding cost-efficient solutions to the challenges we must confront ahead. I strongly believe that the supplier industries to the shipping industry can make a significant difference in how new security requirements will influence the cost, the procedures and consequently the effectiveness of world trade in this new maritime security environment.

Low quality shipping is not the wave of the future. The problems associated with this issue cannot be solved at one level. Administrations and their industry must walk hand-in-hand. Let us continue to compete, yet cooperate on these important issues. I therefore call on a strengthened dialogue, one that will make a difference.

Let us stand together as allies in the fight for quality shipping.

Thank you for your attention!