International Flag-State Association seeks IMO consultative status

Updated: December 24, 2025

The world’s three largest ship registries—Liberia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Panama—are moving to elevate their joint platform, the International Flag-State Association (IFA), by preparing an application for consultative status at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The step, first reported in trade coverage published between December 19 and December 23, is being framed by the registries as a shift from information-sharing toward a more direct role in shaping global maritime policymaking. ^[1]

At the center of the story is a simple reality: when a small group of flag administrations oversees such a large share of global tonnage, even incremental coordination can ripple across safety, environmental compliance, security, and seafarer welfare—especially as regulators and industry wrestle with sanctions evasion, fleet transparency, and the enforcement of international rules at sea. ^[2]

What is the International Flag-State Association?

IFA is described by its founders as the first alliance of its kind among flag registries—created to give flag States a more formal platform to align on global challenges, engage with stakeholders, and support the development and implementation of international maritime instruments. Multiple outlets report that the association has been meeting since 2021 and was formed in response to what it calls a long-standing gap: the lack of a dedicated, structured global forum for flag-State cooperation. ^[3]

Trade coverage identifies the founding representatives as:

Alfonso Castillero, CEO, Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry (LISCR)
Bill Gallagher, Senior Deputy Commissioner of Maritime Affairs, Republic of the Marshall Islands Maritime Administrator
Alexander De Gracia, Deputy Administrator, Panama Maritime Authority ^[4]

Collectively, the founding members say they represent more than 40% of the world’s gross tonnage, a figure repeated across multiple reports. ^[5]

From coordination to influence: why consultative status matters

IFA’s next move—seeking consultative status—is about gaining a more formalized channel into IMO’s policy process. Consultative status is the standing the IMO grants to certain international non-governmental organizations so they can participate as observers and contribute expertise. The IMO says it currently has 176 Member States and three Associate Members, and 88 international NGOs in consultative status. ^[6]

Under the IMO’s rules and guidelines, the Council may grant consultative status (including on a provisional basis), subject to Assembly approval. The document also spells out key privileges, including the right to receive agendas and meeting documents, submit documents on agenda items, and be represented by an observer at relevant IMO meetings and committees (including the Maritime Safety Committee, MEPC, Legal Committee, and others). ^[7]

That distinction is important for how the alliance could operate at the IMO. Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands are already IMO Member States in their own right; the consultative-status track would allow the IFA to participate as a coordinated organization—potentially submitting joint technical input, sharing consolidated compliance insights, and presenting unified positions where appropriate. (This is an interpretation of how the consultative-status privileges work, combined with IFA’s stated objective of contributing more actively to policymaking.) ^[8]

A line repeated in coverage captures the message the founders want to send: “Shipping is a worldwide industry and maritime regulations must remain global.” ^[9]

The compliance backbone: RISC and registry information-sharing

Long before the consultative-status push, IFA’s reported priority has been information sharing—and that’s where the alliance points to concrete progress.

Coverage says that in 2024, IFA enhanced the Registry Information Sharing Compact (RISC), upgrading information exchange via an integrated online database. The database is described as a tool used by subscribed flag States to access details on problem vessels—including vessels that may be evading regulations or engaged in suspicious activities—and to better identify risk patterns. ^[10]

In practical terms, this type of system matters because flag-State enforcement often depends on timely, cross-border signals: repeat offenders, opaque ownership changes, questionable inspection histories, AIS/transponder irregularities, or patterns that suggest intentional rule-avoidance. While IFA members have not publicly positioned RISC as a single solution to every maritime compliance problem, the direction is clear: consolidate intelligence, reduce blind spots, and improve the speed at which registries can spot—and respond to—risk. ^[11]

Why flag-State enforcement is back in the spotlight

IFA’s timing also lands amid heightened scrutiny of flag integrity, fraudulent registration, and the broader enforcement ecosystem.

The IMO has emphasized that there is no binding international framework regulating the ship registration process itself, and it distinguishes between “closed registries” (limited to ships with national ties) and “open registries” (allowing foreign-owned vessels to register). It also highlights the need for flag States to adequately exercise jurisdiction and control over ships flying their flags—referencing obligations under UNCLOS Article 94—and describes ongoing IMO measures to strengthen both flag-State and port-State oversight. ^[12]

That policy backdrop isn’t theoretical. In a closely watched enforcement-related development earlier this week, Panama’s foreign minister said a Panamanian-flagged tanker intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard had not followed Panama’s maritime rules and had reportedly disconnected its transponder while leaving Venezuelan waters—adding that flag States can revoke registration when vessels violate rules. ^[13]

This broader climate—sanctions enforcement pressure, vessel identity scrutiny, and the reputational risk around “false flags” and opaque shipping—helps explain why the largest registries may see value in presenting a more coordinated, standards-focused stance in international policymaking forums. (Again, this is contextual analysis; the IFA coverage itself focuses on cooperation, information sharing, and harmonized rules.) ^[14]

Who can join IFA—and what the alliance is signaling

Another detail repeated across coverage: IFA says it remains open to additional flag States that share its objectives and commitment to higher standards. ^[15]

That invitation is notable because it positions IFA not simply as a “big three registries” coordination club, but as a potential nucleus for wider flag-State alignment—at a moment when maritime policy is being pulled simultaneously by safety imperatives, environmental rules, trade disruptions, and enforcement challenges.

What happens next

So far, reports describe the consultative-status move as the next planned step, rather than a status already granted. ^[16]

If IFA proceeds with an application, the IMO’s consultative-status rules indicate the process is tied to whether an applicant organization can be expected to make a substantial contribution to IMO’s work, with the Council playing a central role and Assembly approval required. Consultative status—if approved—would give the alliance additional pathways to submit papers, receive official documentation, and participate as an observer where its expertise is relevant. ^[17]

For the shipping industry, the watchpoints are straightforward:

Whether the application is filed and how the IMO handles an alliance built around flag administrations and registries
How IFA uses its expanding platform—especially whether it brings RISC-style compliance insights into broader policy discussions
Whether more flag States join, shifting IFA from a three-registry alliance into a wider coordination bloc ^[18]

For now, the headline remains the same on December 24: the world’s biggest registries are betting that structured cooperation + shared intelligence + a formal route into IMO deliberations can strengthen the global framework that shipping depends on—because when ships trade globally, the rules, enforcement, and oversight ultimately have to work globally too. ^[19]