The mother of all ‘yacht codes’ was the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s Code of Practice for the Safety of Large Commercial Sailing and Motor Vessels published in 1997, commonly referred to as the ‘MCA Large Yacht Code (LY1)’. It was superseded by LY2 and LY3 before being rebranded as the Red Ensign Group (REG) Yacht Code in 2017 to better reflect the contribution made by other members of the REG (for example Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Jersey etc.). The Code is an equivalence to several International Maritime Organisation and International Labour Organisation Conventions (that is Load Line, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the Maritime Labour Convention). The development of the Code was based on the consideration that full compliance with the provisions of the above-mentioned international conventions was often incompatible with yacht designs. A fundamental tenet of the Code is to achieve an equivalent level of safety to the international conventions. The other leading yacht flags, Malta and The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), published their first national yacht codes in 2006 and 2013, respectively.

Within the last couple of years, the REG, Malta and RMI have all updated their yacht codes to include the SOLAS provisions for ‘Alternative Design and Arrangements (ADAs)’ to accommodate more innovative designs and to support the adoption of alternative fuels. There has also been a convergence in many other areas, such that for yachts >500gt the requirements are virtually aligned. For yachts <500gt the most significant difference (or anomaly) is that the REG Code has a wave height limitation for short range yachts (as these vessels are permitted to have lesser window strengths, lower heights for ventilation openings and no damage stability), whereas the Malta and RMI Codes do not currently explicitly state a wave height limitation for short range yachts. It is probably worth pointing out that the classification society of the vessel will likely have established an ‘operational envelope’ (that is significant wave height ‘v’ speed) based on structural strength, rather than weathertight integrity, and so class should be ensuring that the master is aware of these operational limitations.

The yacht industry is more innovative and dynamic than some other sectors of the maritime industry, not just in design but also operation, and so is best served by flag states with a keen interest and specialist knowledge of yachting that can readily adapt their regulations to meet the industry’s needs.

Over the years, there have been voices suggesting a harmonised international yacht code, which would necessarily be administered by an IMO committee and various working groups. From our stakeholder discussions, the overwhelming consensus is that this would not be in the interest of the yachting industry for numerous reasons. Firstly, there is sufficient convergence between the leading national yacht codes that designers, builders, and classification societies are now able to deal comfortably with the minor differences. Secondly, the success of the REG Yacht Code has been built on inclusivity with industry engagement at all levels, from crew and management companies to designers and builders. The working groups have been arranged in major yacht building hubs such as Italy and The Netherlands to ensure individuals and small companies can afford to contribute and have a real sense of ownership. Such meetings have always been well attended and resulted in positive feedback. The REG Yacht Code is agile. It can be readily amended to incorporate new safety requirements for yacht specific trends in design (such as ‘nemo’ rooms, folding platforms, beach clubs, the carriage of helicopters, submersibles and perhaps now e-VTOLs) and to include lessons learned from accidents and incidents.

Due to the size, reach and workload of the IMO it has many competing priorities. By way of example, many of the international Code and Convention amendments now being discussed at IMO working groups won’t come into force until 2032 and beyond. The yacht industry is more innovative and dynamic than some other sectors of the maritime industry, not just in design but also operation, and so is best served by flag states with a keen interest and specialist knowledge of yachting that can readily adapt their regulations to meet the industry’s needs.

None of the leading yacht flag states compromise when it comes to safety or crew welfare, so regulatory competition remains healthy. We see the same with classification societies, where being the first to market with new rules to safely deal with novel designs and arrangements helps drive their growth and investment in resources and specialist personnel.

Our goal must be to provide owners, charterers and their families, guests and crew with a safe and comfortable living and working environment, while constantly adapting to new trends.

The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has done an admirable job in promoting uniform technical standards for merchant ship construction over the past 50 years, and the recently formed Yacht Safety and Environmental Consortium (YSEC) will no doubt also have a similar impact in yachting. A certain degree of harmonisation in base rules, unified interpretations and requirements sets a level playing field without stifling an individual member’s innovation.

This brings me back to the title of this piece, ‘The Regulatory Race to the Top in Superyachts’. Our goal must be to provide owners, charterers and their families, guests and crew with a safe and comfortable living and working environment, while constantly adapting to new trends.

We often hear that crew make the experience but then see designs with an insufficient number of crew cabins for the ‘hotel’ operations or sized to the minimum requirements, which often leads to a high turnover of crew. Owner’s might express surprise after a devastating fire that their 20-million-euro, 499gt short range yacht didn’t have a sprinkler system or after a collision that it sunk as there was no requirement for damage stability. Our own experience with owners is that they support a race to the top in terms of safety and Cayman Registry will always be there to assist in this endeavour.

Hopefully, we have illustrated the importance of keeping the codes and the broad industry engagement in their current dynamic form, to ensure that changes can be identified and realised both quickly and efficiently to support the needs of the innovative yacht sector, and to provide some healthy competition. The same would not be achieved with an IMO-administered yacht code.

Click here to become part of The Superyacht Group community, and join us in our mission to make this industry accessible to all, and prosperous for the long-term. We are offering access to the superyacht industry’s most comprehensive and longstanding archive of business-critical information, as well as a comprehensive, real-time superyacht fleet database, for just £10 per month, because we are One Industry with One Mission. Sign up here.