SuperbaKnowledge Demonstration release
Platforms
ENIT
Operational guide · Operational procedure

Indian Ocean MOU: Regional Specificities

Ended campaigns remain historical and applicable instruments depend on the IOMOU list, ratification or acceptance by each Authority and national law.

Indian Ocean MOUIOMOUPSCIndian Ocean

Operational Explanation

The 2025 Ballast Water Management CIC has ended and its results are historical. BWM compliance remains permanent, but an ended campaign does not itself prove enhanced targeting in 2026. Authorities exercise PSC under instruments in force and accepted by the port State and applicable national bases.

Regulatory Reference

The Indian Ocean MOU applies the same international instruments (SOLAS, MARPOL, MLC 2006, STCW) as the other regional regimes, with independent targeting and reporting. The region took part in the 2025 Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Ballast Water Management, conducted jointly with the Paris MoU and Tokyo MOU from September to November 2025.

Where the power to come on board comes from. Not from the Memorandum. A regional MoU is an administrative arrangement between Administrations: it harmonises how inspections are done, it does not create the right to inspect. That right sits in the control articles of the Conventions, which resolution A.1206(34)Procedures for Port State Control, 2025 — lists one by one at its paragraph 1.4. For SOLAS there are four regulations, not one: I/19, IX/6.2 (ISM), XI-1/4 and XI-2/9 (ISPS). For MARPOL, Articles 5 and 6 plus one provision per Annex: reg. 11 of Annex I, reg. 16.9 of II, reg. 9 of III, reg. 14 of IV, reg. 9 of V and reg. 10 of VI. The “reg. 9 of III” surprises anyone who opens Annex III in the text adopted by res. MEPC.193(61), where port State control on operational requirements is Regulation 8: res. MEPC.246(66), in force from 1 January 2016, inserted a new Regulation 1 “Definitions” into it and provided that “the subsequent regulations are renumbered accordingly”. Since 2016 that provision has been Regulation 9, and that is the number A.1206(34) carries. Then Article 21 of the Load Lines Convention 1966 as modified by the 1988 Protocol, Article X of STCW, Article 12 of TONNAGE 1969, Article 11 of AFS 2001 and Article 9 of BWM 2004. For the MLC, an ILO and not an IMO instrument, the basis is Regulation 5.2.1 with Standard A5.2.1.

The practical consequence is that challenging an inspection on the ground that your flag State is not party to the Memorandum leads nowhere: the inspector is not acting under the Memorandum, but under the control article of the Convention the flag State has ratified.

Scope of Application

Ships calling at ports of Indian Ocean MOU member States, a broad geographic area spanning major commercial routes between East Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent and Australia.

Procedure / How to Complete It

  1. Check the Indian Ocean MoU current calendar and circulars.
  2. Separate permanent obligation from temporary campaign.
  3. Use 2025 results as history, not a current targeting notice.
  4. Prepare for the applicable 2026 CIC from the current notice and questionnaire.

Practical Example

Example: a ship transiting between the Persian Gulf and East Africa with scheduled port calls in Oman and Kenya pre-emptively checks the Indian Ocean MOU Ship Risk Profile, consults the priorities of the latest regional Annual Report, and ensures full compliance of BWM documentation before each port call.

What Typically Goes Wrong

The geographic breadth and variety of Indian Ocean MOU member States (from Australia to Iran, from South Africa to Myanmar) makes this regime less immediately familiar to operators accustomed to the Paris or Tokyo MOU: the 11.68% rise in inspections in 2025 and the nearly 14,000 deficiencies recorded signal a regional control activity that is far from marginal.

Common Mistakes Mistake Library

MistakeConsequenceHow to avoid it
Underestimating the breadth and variety of Indian Ocean MOU member States when planning the voyagePort calls in member States of the regime not recognized as such, with inadequate PSC preparationSystematically check whether every scheduled port call falls within the Indian Ocean MOU regime
Ship Risk Profile not checked separately for the Indian Ocean MOU regimeExpected inspection frequency not matching the actual frequency in the regionCheck the specific Ship Risk Profile before planning port calls in the region
BWM documentation not verified as a priority despite the joint 2025 CICAvoidable deficiency in the category subject to reinforced regional verificationTreat ballast water management as a documentary priority for port calls in the region

What the PSCO Checks

Indian Ocean MOU inspections follow the same risk-based targeting logic as the other regimes, with a 2025 detention rate of 4.38% and a rising average number of deficiencies per inspection (2.34), indicating intensifying regional control activity.

Operational Tips

Preparation checklist

FAQ

Is the 2025 BWM CIC still a campaign priority in 2026?
No. It has ended; check the current calendar without confusing it with permanent BWM compliance.

Related Topics

Last substantive revision of this page: 31 August 2026 · page fingerprint 9cd5658ffc24