P O R T S TAT E CONTROL

On course for safer shipping

w h i t e l i s t

g r e y l i s t
b l a c k l i s t

annual report
2011

annual report
2011

31

w h i t e l i s t

33

g r e y l i s t

contents
executive summary Paris MoU developments Fac t s an d f igure s 2 011 st atis tic al anne xe s annual re p o r t 2 011 explanatory note white, grey and black lists Paris MoU secretariat colophon, address and staf f 6 8 18 23 54

35
56

b l a c k l i s t

1.executive summary b Statement

y Paris MoU chairman

Paris MoU meets in Napels

This year was one of the most significant and busy years for the Paris MoU in recent times. The start of the year saw the introduction of the New Inspection Regime (NIR) which has transformed and modernised the port state control regime in our region. The introduction of the NIR was the culmination of many years hard work by very many people. All of those who took part in this work, including the various task forces and groups which developed the NIR, are to be complimented on their achievement. Alongside the NIR we also introduced our new information system called THETIS. Again I would like to thank all of those involved with this. More details of the implementation of the NIR and THETIS are contained in this annual report together with the updated statistical tables which reflect the implementation of the NIR. While the implementation of the NIR and THETIS were the dominating tasks for the Paris MoU during the year, other important activities continued. These included the 44th Session of the Paris MoU Port State Control Committee (PSCC) which was held in Naples, Italy in May 2011. The Committee reviewed the on-going implementation of the NIR and took many important decisions including the decision to grant co-operative membership status to Montenegro. Additionally the Paris MoU held a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) in the autumn of 2011 on Structural Safety and Load Lines jointly with the Tokyo MoU and details of this CIC are contained in this report. During 2011 the Paris MoU Secretariat continued to serve its members very well. The Secretariat arranged training courses and seminars for port State control officers and supported the effective achievement of the MoU work programme. I wish to thank the members of the MoU Advisory Board (MAB) who continued to serve the Paris MoU throughout the year. I would also like to thank the European Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA, for their substantial contribution to the development of the NIR and THETIS, this support and co-operation with the Paris MoU ensures the effectiveness of port state control throughout our region. I would like to welcome the new Chairman of the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) Mr Michael Michaelides from Cyprus and thank the outgoing Chairman Mr Pierre Janssen of Belgium for his chairmanship of TEG and contribution to the Paris MoU over many years and wish him well for his retirement. In conclusion, I wish to thank the PSCOs and administrators in each of our member Authorities as they are the people who ensure the success of our endeavours and they are central to the Paris MoU in achieving our goal of safer shipping.

Brian Hogan

Statement by the Secretary General

New inspection regime rewards quality shipping

The much anticipated New Inspection Regime was finally launched on 1 January 2011 after many years of preparation. It introduced a radical change compared with the old system, which was based on the agreement from 30 years ago. The change was necessary to bring the Paris MoU in line again with global maritime developments, introduction of new IMO instruments and a better balanced method of targeting and inspection of ships. The main objective during the development has been to reward quality shipping and to intensify control and sanctions on ships with poor performance. The new regime introduces a major departure from the 25% inspection commitment and 6 month inspection intervals, which overburdened the shipping industry and port State control Authorities with inspections. When the criteria are met, quality ships will be rewarded with a low risk ship status and the inspection interval may be up to 36 months. Even standard risk ships benefit from the new system extending inspection intervals up to 12 months. New to the system is that companies are now also monitored for performance, based on the inspection history of their ships. To balance the system, more resources will be directed to those ships with poor safety records, the high risk ships. These ships are subject to mandatory expanded inspections every 6 months when they call at a Paris MoU port. A complex system of risk calculations, targeting and recording of inspections is supported by the new data base THETIS, hosted and managed by EMSA in Lisbon. Results of inspections, currently detained ships and banned ships are now displayed directly from THETIS on the Paris MoU web site. It should be understood that substandard ships will no longer be tolerated in the region and with the new refusal of access measures in place, repeated offenders will be banned from our ports. This has happened to a substantial number of ships already, some of which have been recycled in the mean time. Others chose to find new areas to operate, endangering the lives of the seafarers on board and constituting a risk for the environment. The Paris MoU has taken port State control to the next level. With the dedicated help of other MoUs we may be on the right course to remove sub-standard ships from our seas once and for all.

Richard W.J. Schiferli

1.executive summary executive s

ummary

considered to be the worldwide index for flag performance, the Paris MoU white, grey and black lists indicate further improvements towards quality shipping. last year Panama was congratulated for its efforts to move up to the white list. this year Faroe islands, Vanuatu, latvia and iran moved from the grey list to the white list. a very successful achievement and an example for other flags that, through determined actions and political courage, changes can be made. saint Vincent and the grenadines moved from the black list to the grey list. kazakhstan and india moved from the white list to the grey list. Dominica and honduras moved from the grey list to the black list.
There are now 43 flags on the White List, one more compared with last year. Some flags have moved position with Germany leading the list, followed by Sweden and Denmark. DPR Korea has disappeared as leader of the Black List since not enough inspections have taken place over the last 3 years. Libya is now on the top of the Black List, followed by Bolivia and Togo. The introduction of the New Inspection Regime this year will show an impact on the 2011 figures. This will also have a consequence for some trends over previous years. Until last year the detention percentage has been decreasing gradually. The trend has not continued and in 2011 the percentage increased to 3.6%. This can be explained since the focus of targeting is on ships with a higher priority.

The number of detentions has decreased significantly from 790 in 2010 to 688 in 2011. In 2011 a total of 20 ships were banned. 13 more compared with last year. Multiple detentions was the most common reason for banning in 2011. With 1,327 inspections and 152 detentions the ships flying a black listed flag score a detention rate of 11.45%. For ships flying a grey listed flag the detention rate is 7.11% (1,181 inspections, 84 detentions) and ships flying a white listed flag 2.65% (16,829 inspections and 446 detentions). Recognized Organizations are delegated by flag States and carry out most of the statutory surveys on behalf of flags. For this very reason

it is important to monitor their performance. The best performing RO over the period 2009-2011 is the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) followed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and China Classification Society. The worst performing RO is Phoenix Register of Shipping (PHRS), located in Piraeus, in Greece.

1.executive summary d Paris MoU

evelopments

Once a year the Port state control committee, which is the executive body of the Paris MoU, meets in one of the member states. the committee considers policy matters concerning regional enforcement of port state control, reviews the work of the technical evaluation group and task forces and decides on administrative procedures.
The task forces, of which 12 were active in 2011, are each assigned a specific work programme to investigate improvement of operational, technical and administrative port State control procedures. Reports of the task forces are submitted to the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) at which all Paris MoU members and observers are represented. The evaluation of the TEG is submitted to the Committee for final consideration and decision-making. The MoU Advisory Board advises the Port State Control Committee on matters of a political and strategic nature, and provides direction to the task forces and Secretariat between meetings of the Committee. The Board meets several times a year and was in 2011 composed of participants from Croatia, Italy, Norway, Malta and the European Commission.
Port State Control Committee

reduced inspection burden and concentrate efforts on high-risk ships. The NIR makes use of company performance and the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS) for calculating the risk profile of ships together with the performance of the flag State and the Recognized Organization. The inspection history of the ship as well as the ships age and ship type will influence the targeting. The NIR is supported by a new information system THETIS which is managed and hosted by EMSA, using a new system for coding of PSC related information jointly developed and mutually agreed by the Paris and Tokyo MoUs. The Committee recognised that the International Labour Organizations Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006) may enter into force from 2012 onwards and agreed on guidelines for port State control officers. These guidelines are based on the MLC 2006 and take into account the port State control guidelines from the ILO. Guidelines on STCW (including the Manila amendments), electronic charts, lifeboat launching arrangements, asbestos, MARPOL Annex VI and LRIT were also adopted. The Committee unanimously accepted Montenegro as a co-operating member with the prospect of becoming a full member in the future.

The Port State Control Committee (PSCC) held its 44th meeting in Naples, Italy from 2-6 May 2011. The MoU has 27 member States. The Committee agreed that the introduction of the new inspection regime (NIR) on 1 January 2011 was completed successfully. The NIR is a risk based targeting mechanism, which will reward quality shipping with a

High importance was given to Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CICs). A CIC on structural safety and the Load Line Convention was scheduled from September to November 2011 and a CIC focussing on fire safety systems will be carried out during 2012. The campaigns will be carried out jointly with the Tokyo MoU. In addition the Committee considered a number of options for other joint CICs with the Tokyo MoU for 2013 and beyond. The report of the CIC on damage stability of tankers, carried out in 2010, was presented to PSCC44 and the results will be published and submitted to the IMO in 2012. The Committee also agreed to exchange PSC data with the International Maritime Organization, to be used in the Global Integrated Shipping Information System, and to publish the new coding system for deficiencies on the Paris MoU website.
Technical evaluation Group

Issues considered by the TEG included: The implementation and transition to the new inspection regime including the THETIS information system Evaluation of Paris MoU statistics Revision of the guidelines on operational controls Revision of the guidelines on STCW Development of guidelines for PSCOs for the Maritime Labour Convention. Development of an evaluation procedure for the training policy Development of CICs on Structural Safety and Load Lines (2011) and Fire Safety Systems (2012)
Port State Control Training initiatives

The Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) convened in Tallinn, Estonia in February 2011, and in December 2011 in St. Julians, Malta. Several task forces submitted reports to the TEG for evaluation before submission to the Port State Control Committee.

The Paris MoU will continue to invest in the training and development of Port State Control Officers in order to establish a higher degree of harmonisation and standardisation in inspections throughout the region. The Secretariat organises three different training programmes for Port State Control Officers: Seminars (twice a year) Expert trainings (twice a year) Specialized trainings (once a year)

1.executive summary d Paris MoU

evelopments

The Seminars are open to members, cooperating members and observers. The agenda is more topical and deals with current issues such as inspection campaigns and new requirements. Expert and Specialized Training aims to promote a higher degree of professional knowledge and harmonisation of more complex port State control issues and procedures. These 5-day training sessions are concluded with an assessment and certification.
PSC Seminar 51

topics of discussion were developments with regard to the Maritime Labour Convention and the new Manila Amendments to the STCW Convention which came into force on the 1st of January 2012. Other topics were the new Emergency Towing Requirements and Fire Safety Systems. The Secretariat presented an overview of developments in the Paris Mou and a representative from EMSA gave a presentation on the developments within the EU and EMSA.
expert and Specialized Training

The 51st Port State Control Seminar was held from 20 22 June 2011 in Klaipeda Lithuania. Port State Control Officers from the Paris MoU attended the Seminar, as well as participants from Montenegro. The main topics of discussion were the Train the Trainer for the CIC on Structural Safety and the International Convention on Load Lines. Furthermore there where presentations on the Guidance with regard to Asbestos on board ships and the new Guidelines on the Inspection of Electronic Charts. The Secretariat presented an overview on the decisions and discussions coming from PSCC44 and a representative from EMSA gave a presentation on the developments within the EU and EMSA.
PSC Seminar 52

For the Expert Training the central themes are The Human Element and Safety and Environment. The theme of the Specialized Training will change every year. In 2011 this training dealt with the inspection of Tankers and the problems Port State Control Officers may encounter. Both training programmes are intended for experienced PSCOs. Using that experience, the participants can work together to establish a higher degree of harmonisation and standardisation of their inspection practice. Lecturers for the training programmes are recruited from the maritime Administrations of the member States, international organizations and the maritime industry. For the training programmes in 2011 the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and different ROs and service companies, among others, provided lecturers. In 2011 the IMO was able to sponsor a representative from each MoU to take part in

The 52nd Port State Control Seminar was held from 13 to 15 December 2011 in Haugesund Norway. Port State control officers from the Paris MOU attended the Seminar as well as participants from Montenegro. The main

10

the training programmes. It was agreed that one representative from each MoU can attend the Expert or Specialized Training programme. Not every MoU was able to send a PSCO to the training programme. This arrangement began with the Human Element training in October and will continue in 2012.
The 10 expert Training The Human element
th

The 7 th expert Training Safety and environment

The seventh Expert Training programme was held in The Hague in February 2011. Important issues during this training were the IMDG Code, Load Lines, Life saving appliances and oil filtering equipment.
The 5 th Specialized Training on the Inspection of Tankers

In October 2011 the tenth Expert Training programme was held in The Hague with the Human Element as the central theme. Participants from member States took part in this training. The issues discussed during the training session were the ILO and STCW conventions, the Code of Good Practice and inter-cultural communication. Three representatives from other MoUs attended the training

The fifth Specialized Training on the Inspection of Tankers was held in The Hague in April 2011. During the training tanker stability, chemical and oil tankers and gas carriers were discussed. Specific attention was given to the Expanded Inspection Procedures with regard to tankers.
Training in cooperation with eMSA

The Paris MoU is also assisting EMSA in the training delivered to PSCOs from throughout the region.

11

1.executive summary d Paris MoU

evelopments

New entrant and Refresher PSC Seminars

In 2011 the fully established Professional Development Scheme of the Paris MoU encompassed 3 seminars for New Entrant PSCOs and 3 Refresher seminars for experienced PSCOs. The year 2011 marked significant changes due to the introduction of the New Inspection Regime. The New Regime focuses on sub-standard shipping and introduces a reward in terms of the inspection frequency for good performing ships. It translates to less, but better inspections. The New Regime also forced new and enhanced procedures to be implemented, all aiming at providing more guidance for better inspections.

These changes meant that adherence to the established procedures became of paramount importance. For the seminars organised for New Entrants and Refreshers held during 2011 a complete new approach was adopted to raise the awareness concerning the procedures governing PSC inspections. While until December 2010 an inspection had been the central theme during these seminars, since January 2011 this theme has been changed to be the Paris MoU procedures. Moreover, rather than plainly lecturing on procedures, the seminars focussed on the correct application of the procedures where relevant. The main challenge for the new approach was to present the material in an attractive and interactive way. Feedback from all PSCOs who participated in one of the 6 seminars held during 2011 emphasized the success of the change. As with the seminars organised in earlier years, the main objective remained the establishment of a common understanding and harmonised approach in the area of the Paris MoU. Feedback sessions with participants during the seminars indicated that indeed a wider understanding of the procedures and the available tools such as the Paris MoU manual, RuleCheck and the Distance Learning modules was established by the seminars. This suggests that the adapted concept of the seminars is conducive in achieving the objective. All seminars were organised by EMSA and held at its premises in Lisbon. Lecturers were provided both by EMSA and the Paris MoU

12

Secretariat. The almost 300 participants attending the New Entrant and Refresher seminars during 2011 originated from all Paris MoU member States.
Detention Review Panel

Flag States or Recognized Organizations that cannot resolve a dispute concerning a detention with the port State may submit their case for review. The detention review panel is composed of representatives of four different MoU Authorities, on a rotating basis, plus the Secretariat. In 2011 the Secretariat received 10 requests for review. Five cases did not comply with the requirements for consideration. These cases were either submitted beyond the 120 days limit, were handled at National Courts or originated from ship owners instead of flag States or ROs. Five cases were recorded by the Secretariat and submitted to MoU members for review.

In two cases the detention review panel concluded that the port States decision to detain was not justified. The panel advised the port State to reconsider the detention. In three cases the panel concluded that the detaining port States would not have to reconsider the decision to detain.
Quality management

On 15 March 2011 the Paris MoU Secretariat became ISO 9001:2008 certified for the services and products of the Secretariat.
Paris MoU on the Internet

The development of the new website resulted in the launch of a more contemporary and restyled Paris MoU website on 17 th January 2011. The website enjoyed an ever increasing demand from a variety of visitors during 2011, in particular from flag and port States, government agencies, charterers, insurers and classification societies. They were able to monitor their performance and the

13

1.executive summary d Paris MoU

evelopments

performance of others on a continuous basis. The port State enters ships that are currently under detention in a listing. Validated port State control reports can be accessed and offer visitors more detailed information. To increase public awareness of unsafe ships caught by port State control, particularly serious detentions are published under the heading "Caught in the Net'. These detentions are described in detail with photographs. In 2011 details were published of the following ships: Celine-1 Anna N Abit Beser Grace S Friendship The annual award for the best contribution to Caught in the Net has been presented to Canada (Friendship). Other information of interest such as the monthly list of detentions, the Annual Report,

the statistics of the Blue Book and news items can be downloaded from the website, which is found at www.parismou.org.
Concentrated inspection campaigns

Several Concentrated Inspection Campaigns have been held in the Paris MoU Region over the past years. The campaigns focus on a particular area of compliance with international regulations with the aim of gathering information and enforcing the level of compliance. Each campaign is prepared by experts and identifies a number of specific items for inspection. Experience shows that they serve to draw attention to the chosen area of compliance.
CIC 2011 Structural Safety and Load Lines

In the period from 1 September to 30 November 2011 a Concentrated Inspection Campaign was carried out on Structural Safety and the International Convention on Load Lines. The CIC questionnaire was completed during 4,386 inspections, a total of 1,589 CIC-related deficiencies were recorded and 42 ships (1%) were detained for CIC-related deficiencies. Problem areas included stability, strength and loading information, ballast and fuel tanks and water and weather tight conditions. During the campaign most inspections concerned general cargo/multi-purpose ships with 1,563 (36%) inspections, followed by bulk carriers with 795 (18%) inspections, container ships with 495 (11%) inspections, chemical tankers with 433 (10%) inspections and oil tankers with 296 (7%) inspections.

14

15

1.executive summary d Paris MoU

evelopments

24 (60%) of the ships detained for CIC-related deficiencies were general cargo/multipurpose ships and 5 (12%) were bulk carriers. Among the other detained ships were 2 container vessels, 2 offshore supply ships, 2 passenger ships and 2 refrigerated cargo ships. 31% of the detained ships were 30 years or older. Analysis of the recorded deficiencies shows that most deficiencies relate to the freeboard marks (12%), ventilators, air pipes and casings (7%), stability/strength/loading information and instruments (7%) and ballast, fuel and other tanks (5%). Most inspections were carried out on ships under the flags of Panama with 493 (11%) inspections, Malta with 387 (9%) inspections, Antigua and Barbuda with 343 (8%) inspections and Liberia with 306 (7%) inspections. The flags with the highest number of CIC related detentions were Panama with 7 (17%) detentions, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines with 6 (14%) detentions and Turkey with 3 (7%) detentions. The background for this CIC was that, as an average for the last 8 years, deficiencies related to structural safety and load lines account for 15% of the total number of deficiencies. During the CIC 13% of the deficiencies recorded were related to structural safety and load lines.
CIC Campaigns 2012 and 2013

to organize a CIC campaign on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery.

Co-operation with other organizations

The strength of regional regimes of port State control, which are bound by geographical circumstances and interests, is widely recognised. Nine regional MoUs have been established. In order to provide co-operation to these MoUs, they may apply for associate or observer status. Regional agreements seeking observer status must demonstrate that their member Authorities have an acceptable overall flag State record and have a similar approach in terms of commitment and goals to that of the Paris MoU. Five regional agreements have obtained official observer status to the Paris MoU: the Tokyo MoU, Caribbean MoU, Mediterranean MoU, Black Sea MoU and Riyadh MoU. The United States Coast Guard is also an observer at Paris MoU meetings. The West and Central Africa MoU obtained an associate status. It will not be represented in the Committee, but there is a commitment from the Paris MoU to assist them on a technical and administrative basis, including participation in seminars and technical meetings. The International Labour Organization and the International Maritime Organization have participated in the meetings of the Paris MoU

For 2012, the PSC Committee decided on a Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Fire Safety Systems. For 2013, the Committee agreed

16

on a regular basis since 1982. In 2006 the Paris MoU obtained official status at the IMO as an Inter Governmental Organization. A delegation of the MoU participated in the 19th session of the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation in February 2011. The 2009 Annual Report including inspection data, an analysis of 2009 statistics, a combined list of flags targeted by the Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU and USCG and the results of the CIC on Lifeboat launching appliances, as well as information on Flag criteria to be regarded as low risk ship in the Paris MoU, information on the Paris & Tokyo MoU New PSC Coding System and a new Guideline for PSCOs on the ISM Code were submitted to the SubCommittee on Flag State Implementation in February 2011.
Membership of the Paris MoU

exercise, have to be made before co-operating status can be granted. In 2011 the maritime Authority of Montenegro joined the MoU as a co-operating member and was visited by a monitoring team, which issued recommendations for improvements. The Paris MoU currently has 6 members with dual or even triple membership: Canada and the Russian Federation with the Tokyo MoU, while the Russian Federation is also a member of the Black Sea MoU. With Bulgaria and Romania there are further ties with the Black Sea MoU. Malta and Cyprus are also members of the Mediterranean MoU. For all these members the Paris MoU standards will prevail.

In preparation for prospective new members of the Paris MoU, the Port State Control Committee has adopted criteria for cooperating status for non-member States and observer/associate status for other PSC regions. Specific criteria, including a self-evaluation

17

1.executive summary fa c t s a n d f

igures 2011

in the following pages the facts and figures of 2011 are listed. the New inspection regime entered into force on the 1st of January 2011. consequently the targeting of ships for inspection has changed; inspection figures from 2011 onwards should not be compared to the ones from 2010 and before. Due to the new regime the figures show a decrease in the number of inspections, deficiencies and detentions, but an increase in the number of individual inspected ships and the detention rate.
Inspections

With a total number of 19,058 inspections performed in 2011 the inspection figures showed a decrease of 21% compared with the figures of 2011. Each individual ship was inspected an average of 1.2 times per year, a rate which has dropped since 2010 (1.6). The New Inspection Regime shifts from a national commitment, where each member state of the Paris MoU inspected 25% of the individual ships calling at their ports, to a regional commitment aiming to inspect all ships visiting the ports and anchorages in the Paris MoU region. As a result since 1 January 2011 the annual inspection target for each member State is based on ship movement data rather than individual ship calls. The Fair Share commitment for each individual Paris MoU member State was therefore calculated based on historic ship movement data.
Def iciencies

2011 the number of deficiencies decreased to 50,738. Compared with 2010 this is a decrease of deficiencies of 22%. In 56% of all inspections performed, one or more deficiencies were recorded. In 2010 this figure was 55%. The average number of deficiencies per inspection also decreased from 2,7 in 2010 to 2,6 in 2011.
Detentions

Some deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment and the ship is detained until they are rectified. Detention rates are expressed as a percentage of the number of inspections, rather than the number of individual ships inspected to take account of the fact that some ships are detained more than once a year. Compared with 2010, the number of detentions has decreased from 790 to 688 detentions. The average detention rate in 2011 is 3,61%.

In 2009 the number of deficiencies recorded was 71,911. In 2010 this number was: 64,698. In

18

In 2010 the detention rate was 3,28%, the lowest detention rate ever. This is the first time in years that the average detention rate has increased.
White, Grey and Black List

White List has increased by 1 flag to a total number of 43 flags. New on the White List are the Faroe Islands (DK), Vanuatu, Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, last year still on the Grey List. Germany has been placed highest on the list in terms of performance. The next in line of the best performing flags in 2011 are Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Flags with an average performance are shown on the Grey List. Their appearance on this list may act as an incentive to improve and move to the White List. At the same time flags at the lower end of the Grey List should be careful not to neglect control over their ships and risk ending up on the Black List next year. On this years Grey List a total number of 20 flags is recorded. Last year the Grey List recorded 24 flags. New on the Grey List is Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, last year still

The White, Grey and Black (WGB) List presents the full spectrum, from quality flags to flags with a poor performance that are considered high or very high risk. It is based on the total number of inspections and detentions over a 3-year rolling period for flags with at least 30 inspections in the period. On the White, Grey and Black list for 2011 a total number of 80 flags are listed: 43 on the White List, 20 on the Grey List and 17 on the Black list. In 2010 the number of flags listed totalled 84 flags, namely 42 on the White List, 24 on the Grey List and 18 on the Black List. The White List represents quality flags with a consistently low detention record. Compared with last year, the number of flags on the

19

1.executive summary fa c t s a n d f

igures 2011

on the Black List, and Kazakhstan and India, which last year still were on the White List. The poorest performing flags are Libya, Bolivia and Togo. New on the Black List are the flags of Honduras and Dominica (medium risk). A graph of the distribution of listed and not listed flags indicates that only 0.5% of the ships inspected are from flags not listed on the WGB list.
Ship type

for flag States. To calculate the performance of the Recognized Organizations, the same formula to calculate the excess factor of the flags is used. A minimum number of 60 inspections per RO are needed before the performance is taken into account for the list. In 2011 28 ROs are recorded on the performance list. Among the best performing recognized organizations were: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Det Norske Veritas (DNV) China Classification Society (CCS) The lowest performing Recognized Organizations were: Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece) (PHRS) Register of Shipping (Albania) (RSA) International Register of Shipping (USA) (IS) Compared with last years performance level, a small shift in RO performance in 2011 can be noticed. This year fewer organizations have been placed on the high and very low performing part of the list and more organizations have been placed on the medium part of the list. Details of the responsibility of Recognized Organizations for detainable deficiencies have been published since 1999. When one or more detainable deficiencies are attributed to a Recognized Organization in accordance with the criteria, it is recorded RO responsible and the RO is informed. Out of 688 detentions recorded in 2011, 91 or 13.2% were considered RO related which is an increase compared with the 10.6% of the previous year.
Refusal of access of ships

In 2011 the detention rate of general cargo/ multipurpose ships (6.02%) was higher than the detention rate of other ship types. Ship types like passenger ships, refrigerated cargo ships and other special activities ships have a lower detention rate of 4.42%, 4.12 and 4.08% respectively. The other ship types have even lower detention rates.
Performance of Recognized Organizations

For several years the Committee has closely monitored the performance of classification societies acting as Recognized Organizations

A total of 20 ships were banned from the Paris MoU region in 2011 for reasons of multiple detentions (17) failure to call at an indicated repair yard (2) and jumping detention (1). As of 1 January 2011 not having a valid ISM code certificate is no longer a reason for banning. A number of ships remain banned from previous years.

20

Def iciencies per major category

fire safety

The number of deficiencies in areas such as certificate & documentation, fire safety, safety of navigation and working & living conditions accounted for approximately 55% of the total number of deficiencies. The trends in these areas are clarified below. In 2011 a new coding system has taken effect. More detailed information may be found in the statistical Annexes to this report. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual Reports from 2010 and before.
Certif icate & Documentation

In 2011 deficiencies in fire safety accounted for 12.9% of the total number of deficiencies. The number of deficiencies in these areas decreased with 14.3% from 7,687 in 2010 to 6,591 in 2011.
Pollution prevention

Deficiencies in MARPOL Annex I show a decrease of 16.9% in 2011 (1,318), compared with 2010 (1,586). Deficiencies in MARPOL Annex VI show an increase of 22.2% in 2011 (358), compared with 2010 (293).
Working and living conditions

Deficiencies in ships certificates, crew certificates and documents indicated a decrease of 35.5% from 11,834 in 2010 to 7,638 in 2011.
Safety of navigation

Deficiencies in working conditions decreased with 25.6% from 7,057 in 2010 to 5,252 in 2011. Deficiencies in living conditions decreased with 21.1% from 2,932 in 2010 to 2,313 in 2011.
Management

The deficiencies in Safety of Navigation show a decrease of 24.6%, from 8,654 deficiencies in 2010 to 6,528 deficiencies in 2011.

The number of ISM related deficiencies showed a decrease of 52.5%, compared with 2010.

21

1.executive summary

s tati s t i cal aNNe xes a nnua l rep ort 201 1

23

Basic port state control figures 2011

15 ,

75

24

38

82

,3

23

number of individual ships inspected

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2002 25,000

87 7 30 2

11

12,000

,8

12

2003

12

2004

,5

13

,0

2005

13

2006

,4

14,000

17

14 ,

2007

18 2

2008

14 ,

2009

14 ,

2010

76

24 ,6 47

24 ,

number of inspections

20 ,3 09

20 ,3

66

21 ,

16

21 ,

56 6

22 ,

24

,0 58

18

19 ,7

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011

24

19 ,0

20,000

58

15 ,

16,000

23

2011

26

90,000

number of deficiencies observed

13

80,000
28 ,1 42 ,1 13

83

,7

51

74

34

64

60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2002 2003

62

,4

66

64

,6

70,000

,0

71 ,9

71 ,9

79

11

,7

69

98

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

number of detentions

1,

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

57

1,

43

25

18

17

1,

1,

1,

1,

22

99

1,

05

79

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2006

2006

2006

2010

10 9

detentions in % of inspections

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

7. 98

7. 0

5. 84

5.

5. 46

44

4. 6

4. 95

4. 38

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

3.

28

2010

Note: The New Inspection Regime entered into force on the 1 st of January 2011. Consequently the targeting of ships for inspection has changed; inspection figures from 2011 onwards should not be compared to the ones from 2010 and before.

3. 61

68

2011

2011

50

2011

,7

38

25

26
2,000 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 200 400 600 800 0
2,000 2,500 1,500

inspections

1,000

500

1401

331

819

296

273

445

179

344

1520

1424

1028

393

b n ss p c cp o o t setf a o e t c o n t r o l f i g u r e s I a i e ti rn ft r s

2034

Com m i t m e n t

225

168

204

1913

561

414

576

H RS, SRS and L R S i n spe ct i on s pe r m e m b e r st a t e

512

Low Risk Ship Inspection

High Risk Ship Inspection

Ship Risk Profile unknown

Standard Risk Ship Inspection

Commitment

877

242

1759

722

Inspections relevant for commitment

1743

commitment

971

belgium Belgium

Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation Slovania Spain Sweden United Kingdom

528

bulgaria Bulgaria

835

canada

Canada

260

croatia

Croatia

125

cyprus

Cyprus

382

Denmark Denmark

185

estonia

Estonia

316

Finland

Finland

1225

France

France

1403

germany Germany

990

greece

Greece

66

62

iceland

Iceland

234

ireland

Ireland

1706

italy

Italy

246

latvia

Latvia

182

lithuania Lithuania

230

Malta

Malta

1583

Netherlands Netherlands

594

Norway Norway

432

Poland

Poland

445

Portugal Portugal

776

romania Romania

Russian Federation 956 russian Federation

240

Slovania slovenia

1727 spain

Spain

356

sweden Sweden

1541United Kingdom United kingdom

I nsp ecti o n ef f o rts o f me mb e rs a s pe r ce n t a g e of M oU t ot a l

Belgium 5.1% Bulgaria 2.9% Canada 4.7% Croatia 1.4% Cyprus 0.7% Denmark 2.1% Estonia 1.0% Finland 1.7% France 6.6% Russian Federation 5.5% Germany 7.4%

United Kingdom 8.4% Sweden 2.2% Spain 9.4% Slovenia 1.3%

Romania 4.1% Portugal 2.4% Poland 2.3% Norway 3.2% Netherlands 8.4% Lithuania 1.0% Latvia 1.3% Malta 1.2% Italy 9.0% Greece 5.3% Iceland 0.3% Ireland 1.3%

27

MoU port Statess individual contributions to the total amount of inspections

inspections with rO related detainable deficiencies inspections with detentions

total nr of inspections

% inspections with deficiencies

belgium bulgaria ca n a d a 1 cr o a t i a cy p r u s Denmark estonia Finland Fr a n c e germany greece iceland ireland italy latvia lithuania Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal romania russian Federation 2 slovenia spain sweden United kingdom to t a l
1 2

971 552 895 269 127 400 196 316 1253 1411 1015 63 242 1707 246 185 237 1604 615 432 448 776 1039 240 1794 421 1604 19058

578 415 397 171 69 181 53 100 776 635 582 14 137 1024 57 105 147 864 198 308 230 401 752 121 1127 161 1128 10731

11 24 34 12 10 2 1 2 38 37 54 1 14 114 1 1 10 55 8 12 8 17 24 29 122 5 42 688

0 8 5 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 11 1 3 22 0 1 2 3 1 0 3 3 3 5 12 1 3 95

59,5 75,2 44,4 63,6 54,3 45,3 27,0 31,6 61,9 45,0 57,3 22,2 56,6 60,0 23,2 56,8 62,0 53,9 32,2 71,3 51,3 51,7 72,4 50,4 62,8 38,2 70,3 56,3

1,13 4,35 3,80 4,46 7,87 0,50 0,51 0,63 3,03 2,62 5,32 1,59 5,79 6,68 0,41 0,54 4,22 3,43 1,30 2,78 1,79 2,19 2,31 12,08 6,80 1,19 2,62 3,61

5,09 2,18 4,70 1,41 0,67 2,10 1,03 1,66 6,57 7,40 5,33 0,33 1,27 8,96 1,29 0,97 1,24 8,42 3,23 2,27 2,35 4,07 5,45 1,26 9,41 2,21 8,42 100

3,69 28,99 2,80 25,28 8,73 3,00 3,08 1,50 5,43 2,34 21,48 3,17 6,20 11,07 6,94 7,57 3,43 4,24 2,60 3,17 7,37 30,04 21,94 8,75 7,81 1,43 4,18 8,96

77,77 54,89 56,61 60,59 71,43 78,25 79,49 83,78 76,94 83,20 59,51 84,13 83,06 68,65 82,86 78,38 61,80 65,96 76,75 82,81 75,89 57,12 65,54 74,17 74,51 84,56 77,62 71,82

2,15 0,54 4,48 1,49 1,59 3,50 3,59 7,51 2,95 3,76 1,38 0,00 3,31 0,91 2,86 1,62 1,29 1,93 4,55 0,68 1,56 0,13 1,83 1,67 1,23 5,23 3,12 2,40

16,39 15,58 36,10 12,64 18,25 15,25 13,85 7,21 14,68 10,70 17,64 12,70 7,44 19,36 7,35 12,43 33,48 27,87 16,10 13,35 15,18 12,71 10,68 15,42 16,45 8,79 15,09 16,83

28

Inspections in Canada west coast ports are included Only inspections in the Russian ports of the Baltic, Azov and Barents Seas are included

% srP Unknown

% Detentions

% srs

% lsr

% hrs

MOU port state

% inspection of MoU total

inspections with deficiencies

29

30

White list
inspections
2009-2011

Flag
white list
germany sweden Denmark Netherlands United kingdom Fr a n c e hong kong, china singapore italy greece Finland cr o a t i a Man, isle of, Uk bahamas Norway Poland belgium liberia bermuda, Uk cy p r u s ireland g i b r a l t a r, U k spain Marshall islands china korea, republic of estonia Malta barbados luxembourg ca y m a n i s l a n d s , U k r u s s i a n Fe d e r a t i o n antigua and barbuda Portugal Philippines Panama lithuania tu r k e y Fa r o e i s l a n d s ( D k ) Japan Va n u a t u latvia iran, islamic republic of

Detentions
2009-2011

b l a c k t o g r e y limit

g r e y t o w h i t e limit

e x c e s s Fa c t o r

1,335 810 1,376 3,691 1,905 337 1,489 1,370 1,471 1,334 562 153 828 3,265 2,023 189 233 4,270 270 2,422 165 1,208 257 2,361 241 141 89 5,301 463 195 282 1,644 4,767 496 250 7,611 216 2,107 193 91 203 109 134

10 5 15 49 25 2 20 19 21 19 6 0 12 67 40 1 2 105 3 59 1 27 3 59 3 1 0 186 11 3 6 60 196 15 6 345 5 96 5 1 6 2 4

109 69 112 284 152 32 121 112 120 109 50 16 71 253 161 20 23 327 26 191 17 100 25 186 24 15 11 402 42 20 27 133 363 45 25 570 22 167 20 11 21 13 15

78 44 80 232 115 15 88 80 86 78 29 5 45 204 122 7 9 271 12 148 6 69 11 144 10 4 2 340 23 7 12 98 304 25 10 496 8 128 7 2 8 3 4

-1.91 -1.90 -1.78 -1.78 -1.73 -1.70 -1.69 -1.66 -1.66 -1.65 -1.64 -1.62 -1.56 -1.50 -1.48 -1.47 -1.42 -1.38 -1.36 -1.33 -1.33 -1.31 -1.31 -1.31 -1.24 -1.13 -1.02 -1.01 -1.01 -0.96 -0.91 -0.83 -0.79 -0.78 -0.73 -0.69 -0.68 -0.54 -0.49 -0.48 -0.37 -0.33 -0.01

31

basic port state control figures

32

Grey list

Flag
grey list
kazakhstan

inspections
2009-2011

Detentions
2009-2011

b l a c k t o g r e y limit

g r e y t o w h i t e limit

e x c e s s Fa c t o r

42

0.04

U nit ed st at es of a me r i c a

174

18

0.07

saudi arabia

59

0.08

Malaysia

57

0.09

thailand

77

10

0.09

switzerland

96

11

0.10

india

129

14

0.12

bulgaria

141

15

0.24

belize

644

40

56

34

0.27

Morocco

131

14

0.30

curacao

490

32

44

25

0.38

tu v a l u

39

0.38

tu n i s i a

53

0.40

slovakia

140

15

0.43

algeria

85

10

0.51

egypt

105

12

0.67

Viet Nam

38

0.72

co o k i s l a n d s

160

14

17

0.74

Jamaica s a i n t V i n c e n t a n d the grenadines

36

0.91

1,586

126

128

94

0.94

33

34

Black list

Flag
black list
honduras

inspections
2009-2011

Detentions
2009-2011

b l a c k t o g r e y limit

g r e y t o w h i t e limit

e x c e s s Fa c t o r

59

1.06

Dominica

144

16

16

1.07

syrian arab republic

166

19

18

1.25

lebanon

74

10

medium risk

1.25

azerbaijan

34

1.46

Ukraine

372

42

35

1.59

georgia

647

72

56

1.73

ca m b o d i a

768

91

66

2.00

co m o r o s

593

76

52

saint kitts and Nevis

416

60

38

medium to high risk

2.22

2.57

Moldova, republic of

590

88

52

2.86

albania

175

32

18

3.24

ta n z a n i a U n i t e d r e p .

130

25

14

high risk

3.29

sierra leone

476

85

43

3.69

to g o

205

42

21

4.01

bolivia

46

12

very high risk

4.03

libya

46

14

5.24

35

flags meeting criteria for Low Risk Ships 2011

Flags meeting criteria for low risk ships (as per 31 December 2011)
bahamas belgium bermuda, Uk china cyprus Denmark estonia Finland France germany gibraltar, Uk greece hong kong, china india ireland isle of Man, Uk
To meet the criteria for Low Risk Ships, flags should be on the Paris MoU White list and have submitted evidence of having undergone an IMO VIMSAS Audit.

italy Japan liberia luxembourg Marshall islands Netherlands Norway Panama Poland republic of korea russian Federation singapore spain sweden United kingdom

Not listed flags having undergone iMO ViMsas audit

australia canada
Flags who's total number of inspections over a 3-years rolling period does not meet the minimum of 30 are not included in the Paris MoU White list. Consequently some flags cannot meet the criteria for their ships to qualify as Low Risk Ships under the Paris MoU, despite having undergone the IMO VIMSAS audit.

36

37

Distribution of listed and not listed flags 2009-2011

Listed and not listed flags

Black flags Grey flags White flags

Not listed 1%

Chile Mexico Grenada Australia Argentina United Arab Emirates Kuwait Qatar

Equatorial Guinea Guinea Venezuela Eritrea Nigeria Austria Cape Verde Falkland Islands Maldives Pakistan Slovenia Brazil Dominican Republic Mauritius Romania Iceland Indonesia Myanmar Bangladesh

Mongolia

Korea, Democratic People's Rep. Seychelles Bahrain Israel Kiribati

Turkmenistan Montenegro Canada Sri Lanka Taiwan, China

38

Inspections, detentions and deficiencies 2011

Nr of individual ships inspected

inspections with detentions

inspections with deficiencies

% of inspections with detentions

15.91 3.85 4.67 0.00 0.00 14.29 2.06 0.00 33.33 1.85 0.00 7.14 3.66 41.67 0.00 3.33 8.33 0.00 0.00 2.94 0.00 3.23 7.25 7.02 0.00 6.42 2.12 0.70 17.78 0.00 10.34 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.66 0.00 8.00

Flag
albania algeria antigua and barbuda australia austria azerbaijan bahamas bahrain bangladesh barbados belgium belize bermuda, Uk bolivia brazil bulgaria ca m b o d i a ca n a d a ca p e Ve r d e ca y m a n i s l a n d s , U k chile china co m o r o s co o k i s l a n d s cr o a t i a curacao cy p r u s Denmark Dominica Dominican republic egypt estonia Fa l k l a n d i s l a n d s Fa r o e i s l a n d s Finland Fr a n c e georgia

44 26 1263 1 1 7 875 7 3 108 81 182 82 12 4 30 216 6 2 102 1 62 138 57 48 109 659 431 45 1 29 27 2 78 152 103 150

7 1 59 0 0 1 18 0 1 2 0 13 3 5 0 1 18 0 0 3 0 2 10 4 0 7 14 3 8 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 12

38 22 735 1 0 5 449 1 3 57 44 143 34 10 3 22 197 2 2 51 1 29 124 47 18 76 366 196 34 1 19 8 0 36 66 57 132

20 22 869 1 1 4 702 5 3 85 67 125 72 6 3 21 123 6 2 96 1 58 88 34 41 74 497 347 28 1 21 18 1 54 123 88 91

% of inspections with deficiencies

86.36 84.62 58.19 100.00 0.00 71.43 51.31 14.29 100.00 52.78 54.32 78.57 41.46 83.33 75.00 73.33 91.20 33.33 100.00 50.00 100.00 46.77 89.86 82.46 37.50 69.72 55.54 45.48 75.56 100.00 65.52 29.63 0.00 46.15 43.42 55.34 88.00

Nr of inspections

39

Inspections, detentions and deficiencies 2011

Nr of individual ships inspected

inspections with detentions

inspections with deficiencies

% of inspections with detentions

0.57 2.88 1.92 0.00 28.57 1.62 0.00 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 19.23 2.05 30.00 1.52 0.00 5.26 3.94 3.47 33.33 9.69 0.00 2.86 0.00 1.83

Flag
germany g i b r a l t a r, U k greece guinea honduras hong kong, china iceland india indonesia iran, islamic republic of ireland isle of Man, Uk israel italy Jamaica Japan kazakhstan kiribati k o r e a , D e m o c r a t i c P e o p l e ' s republic of korea, republic of kuwait latvia lebanon liberia libya lithuania luxembourg Malaysia Malta Marshall islands Mauritius Moldova, republic of Mongolia Morocco Myanmar Netherlands

350 313 365 1 14 495 4 51 2 39 40 211 8 449 4 25 16 5 1 33 12 28 26 1271 10 66 56 19 1575 808 3 196 2 35 2 986

2 9 7 0 4 8 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 26 3 1 0 1 62 28 1 19 0 1 0 18

163 172 161 1 11 234 4 29 2 32 17 82 5 240 1 10 9 5 1 18 4 16 23 645 6 30 29 9 829 388 2 172 2 31 1 488

286 214 327 1 11 448 4 43 1 24 35 191 8 379 4 24 16 4 1 32 11 18 15 1108 8 42 49 16 1227 702 2 97 2 21 2 775

40

% of inspections with deficiencies

46.57 54.95 44.11 100.00 78.57 47.27 100.00 56.86 100.00 82.05 42.50 38.86 62.50 53.45 25.00 40.00 56.25 100.00 100.00 54.55 33.33 57.14 88.46 50.75 60.00 45.45 51.79 47.37 52.63 48.02 66.67 87.76 100.00 88.57 50.00 49.49

Nr of inspections

Nr of individual ships inspected

inspections with detentions

inspections with deficiencies

% of inspections with detentions

0.79 0.00 4.39 2.27 0.00 3.91 0.00 0.00 2.37 7.92 9.39 0.00 0.00 14.75 1.80 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 8.70 33.33 23.08 0.00 12.50 0.00 4.78 0.00 6.67 10.42 20.00 1.37 6.32 2.60 100.00 9.09

Flag
Norway Pakistan Panama Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar romania r u s s i a n Fe d e r a t i o n saint kitts and Nevis saint Vincent and the grenadines saudi arabia seychelles sierra leone singapore slovakia slovenia spain sri lanka sweden switzerland syrian arab republic ta i w a n , c h i n a tanzania, United republic of thailand to g o tu n i s i a tu r k e y tu r k m e n i s t a n tu v a l u Ukraine United arab emirates United kingdom United states Va n u a t u Ve n e z u e l a Viet Nam

508 2 2211 88 56 128 8 2 465 101 394 16 5 122 444 19 4 75 6 180 28 23 3 65 16 72 17 587 2 15 96 10 585 95 77 1 11

4 0 97 2 0 5 0 0 11 8 37 0 0 18 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 15 0 9 0 28 0 1 10 2 8 6 2 1 1

275 1 1205 57 35 82 3 1 296 86 306 3 1 116 204 18 2 41 4 85 16 18 3 63 9 66 15 357 1 13 79 8 276 62 54 1 8

445 2 1859 74 42 91 7 2 396 64 258 15 4 77 403 7 4 65 4 132 26 16 2 46 15 43 10 471 2 10 75 10 490 81 63 1 9

% of inspections with deficiencies

54.13 50.00 54.50 64.77 62.50 64.06 37.50 50.00 63.66 85.15 77.66 18.75 20.00 95.08 45.95 94.74 50.00 54.67 66.67 47.22 57.14 78.26 100.00 96.92 56.25 91.67 88.24 60.92 50.00 86.67 82.29 80.00 47.18 65.26 70.13 100.00 72.73

Nr of inspections

41

Detentions per flag in 2011

ExCEEDING AVERAGE PERCENTAGE

Detentions % 2010

Detentions % 2011

excess of average 2011

inspections

bermuda, Uk algeria Portugal Malta Panama antigua and barbuda tu r k e y india United states curacao co o k i s l a n d s belize comoros saint kitts and Nevis georgia ca m b o d i a syrian arab republic s a i n t V i n c e n t a n d t h e grenadines Moldova, republic of egypt Ukraine togo sierra leone albania Dominica lebanon ta n z a n i a , United republic of

82 26 128 1575 2211 1263 586 51 95 109 57 182 138 101 150 216 23 394 196 29 96 72 122 44 45 26 65

Detentions

Flag

3 1 5 62 97 59 28 3 6 7 4 13 10 8 12 18 2 38 19 3 10 9 18 8 8 5 15

3,66 3,85 3,91 3,94 4,39 4,67 4,78 5,88 6,32 6,42 7,02 7,14 7,25 7,92 8,00 8,33 8,70 9,39 9,69 10,34 10,42 12,50 14,75 15,91 17,78 19,23 23,08

0,08 0,26 0,32 0,35 0,80 1,09 1,20 2,30 2,73 2,84 3,43 3,56 3,66 4,34 4,42 4,75 5,11 5,81 6,11 6,76 6,83 8,92 11,17 12,33 14,19 15,65 19,49

0,00 8,33 1,66 2,71 3,36 4,00 4,35 2,70 2,27 3,93 9,26 3,32 13,00 17,99 10,74 11,76 12,07 6,17 17,08 6,06 11,54 23,08 15,63 16,44 5,08 14,29 9,62

Only flags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the average percentage of 3,61% are recorded in this graph.

42

excess of average 2010

-3,29 5,05 -1,63 -0,58 0,07 0,71 1,06 -0,58 -1,01 0,65 5,97 0,03 9,72 14,70 7,45 8,48 8,78 2,89 13,80 2,77 8,25 19,79 12,34 13,15 1,80 11,00 6,33

Detentions per flag in 2011

ExCEEDING AVERAGE PERCENTAGE

Bermuda, UK Algeria Portugal Malta Panama Antigua and Barbuda Turkey India United States Curacao Cook Islands Belize Comoros Saint Kitts and Nevis Georgia Cambodia Syrian Arab Republic Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Moldova, Republic of Egypt Ukraine Togo Sierra Leone Albania Dominica Lebanon Tanzania, United Republic of

Detention percentage 2011 Detention percentage 2010 Average detention percentage 2011

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Only flags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the average percentage of 3,61% are recorded in this graph. In 2010 the average detentions percentage was 3,29%. The grey column represents the 2011 average detention percentage (3,61%).

43

Inspections and detentions

PER SHIP TyPE

inspections with deficiencies

Nr of inspections

% of inspections with deficiencies

inspections with detentions

% of Detention 2011

% of Detention 2010

bulk carrier chemical tanker combination carrier container Other gas carrier general cargo/multipurpose heavy load high speed passenger craft Nls tanker Offshore supply Oil tanker Other special activities Passenger ship refrigerated cargo ro-ro cargo ro-ro passenger ship special purpose ship tug

3204 1701 37 2066 67 448 6374 33 76 92 462 1324 1004 339 413 795 588 119 60

1793 813 19 985 49 184 4199 23 37 33 264 488 581 173 275 404 356 64 32

56 48 51 48 73 41 66 70 49 36 57 37 58 51 67 51 61 54 53

2751 1430 33 1685 54 384 4499 29 48 73 408 1194 906 273 353 666 322 104 56

104 25 0 29 4 5 384 0 1 2 10 17 41 15 17 20 10 2 2

3,25 1,47 0,00 1,40 5,97 1,12 6,02 0,00 1,32 2,17 2,16 1,28 4,08 4,42 4,12 2,52 1,70 1,68 3,33

2,77 2,06 0,00 0,94 2,35 1,12 5,47 0,00 1,12 0,68 1,74 0,93 2,83 1,60 3,08 3,00 1,91 3,23 0,00

4,60 2,36 1,79 1,66 3,32 2,22 6,78 2,70 0,00 3,91 1,30 1,34 4,63 1,58 5,04 3,39 1,41 1,11 0,00

Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual Reports from 2010 and before.

44

+/- average detention %

-0,36 -2,14 -3,61 -2,21 2,36 -2,49 2,41 -3,61 -2,29 -1,44 -1,45 -2,33 0,47 0,81 0,51 -1,09 -1,91 -1,93 -0,28

ship type

% of Detention 2009

Nr of individual ships inspected

9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 General cargo/multipurpose Other special activities Ro-Ro passenger ship Other Passenger ship Refrigerated cargo Tug Bulk carrier Ro-Ro cargo NLS tanker Offshore supply Special purpose ship Chemical tanker Container High speed passenger craft Oil tanker Gas carrier Combination carrier Heavy load

% Det 2011 % Det 2010 % Det 2009 Average detention % 2011

Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual Reports from 2010 and before.

45

Major categorie of deficiencies 2009 - 2011

2009
Def. Main group certificate & Documentation structural conditions water/weathertight conditions emergency systems radio communications cargo operations including equipment Fire safety alarms working and living conditions safety of Navigation life saving appliances Dangerous goods Propulsion and auxiliary machinery anti Fouling Marpol annex i Marpol annex ii Pollution prevention Marpol annex iii Marpol annex iV Marpol annex V Marpol annex Vi isM isPs Other living conditions working conditions category of deficiencies crew certificates Documents ship certificates Def 1.835 4.698 5.031 3.104 3.213 2.635 2.439 330 8.361 602 3.418 7.224 9.618 6.915 197 4.556 58 1.720 33 13 266 459 145 4.279 768 494 Def % 2,53 6,49 6,95 4,29 4,44 3,64 3,37 0,46 11,55 0,83 4,72 9,98 13,28 9,55 0,27 6,29 0,08 2,38 0,05 0,02 0,37 0,63 0,20 5,91 1,06 0,68 Def 1.684 4.349 4.117 2.952 2.851 2.191 2.200 317 7.687 497 2.932 7.057 8.654 5.636 224 4.239 36 1.586 14 8 298 402 293 3.458 868 495

2010
Def % 2,59 6,69 6,33 4,54 4,38 3,37 3,38 0,49 11,82 0,76 4,51 10,85 13,30 8,66 0,34 6,52 0,06 2,44 0,02 0,01 0,46 0,62 0,45 5,32 1,33 0,76 Def

2011
Def % 2,15 6,83 5,96 5,49 5,08 3,82 3,33 0,65 12,89 0,91 4,52 10,27 12,76 9,35 0,24 5,77 0,03 2,58 0,07 0,04 0,49 0,68 0,70 3,21 1,01 1,18 1.101 3.491 3.046 2.808 2.597 1.952 1.704 332 6.591 464 2.313 5.252 6.528 4.782 125 2.951 15 1.318 36 18 253 347 358 1.644 518 602

To p 5 c a t e g o r i e s o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1

category of deficiencies
Fire safety safety of Navigation working and living conditions - working conditions life saving appliances certificate & Documentation - Documents

Deficiencies 6.591 6.528 5.252 4.782 3.491

% Deficiencies 12,89% 12,76% 10,27% 9,35% 6,83%

To p 5 o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1

Deficiencies
isM Nautical publications charts Oil record book Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions

Deficiencies 1.644 1.425 1.398 1.124 1.012

% Deficiencies 3,21% 2,79% 2,73% 2,20% 1,98%

46

Note: In 2011 a new coding system has taken effect. The data of 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is therefore not comparable with the data as published in Annual Reports from 2010 and before.

Detentions of ships with RO related detainable deficiencies per Recognized Organization

(CASES IN WHICH MORE THAN 10 INSPECTIONS ARE INVOLVED)

Number of individual ships inspected

total number of inspections

total number of detentions

Detention-% of total number of inspections

+/- Percentage of average (0,35%)

recognized organization*
alpha register of shipping american bureau of shipping asia classification society (iran) bulgarski koraben registar bureau securitas (Malta) bureau Veritas (France) china classification society china corporation register of shipping croatian register of shipping cyprus bureau of shipping Det Norske Veritas Dromon bureau of shipping germanischer lloyd global Marine bureau (korea, rep. Of ) hellenic register of shipping honduras international surveying and inspection bureau indian register of shipping iNclaMar (cyprus) intermaritime certification services (Panama) international Naval surveys bureau (greece) international register of shipping (Usa) isthmus bureau of shipping (Panama) korea classification society (korea, DPr) korean register of shipping (korea, rep. of ) lloyd's register (Uk) Macosnar corporation (Panama) Maritime bureau of shipping Maritime lloyd (georgia) National shipping adjusters (Panama) Nippon kaiji kyokai (Japan) Overseas Marine certification service (Panama) Panama Maritime Documentation services Panama Maritime surveyor bureau inc. Panama register corporation Phoenix register of shipping (greece) Polski rejestr statkow (Polish register of shipping) register of shipping (albania) registro italiano Navale rinave Portuguesa russian Maritime register of shipping russian river register shipping register of Ukraine turkish lloyd Universal shipping bureau (Panama) Vietnam register of shipping

106 1896 48 103 14 3841 256 15 58 16 3590 60 4308 38 50 4 49 25 23 249 198 62 3 253 4050 14 18 23 12 2198 12 28 5 36 38 198 44 960 8 1585 12 255 373 65 9

95 1659 47 63 13 3019 231 13 47 14 3070 49 3275 33 41 4 39 19 19 156 133 50 3 233 3333 11 16 22 9 1924 11 22 4 31 21 144 19 781 5 1205 12 161 282 49 7

0 1 0 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 2 10 1 2 0 0 1 0 7 6 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 3 1 3 0 3 1 3 0

0,00 0,05 0,00 2,91 0,00 0,29 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08 3,33 0,23 2,63 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,81 3,03 1,61 0,00 0,00 0,02 7,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,18 8,33 3,57 0,00 0,00 2,63 0,51 9,09 0,31 12,50 0,19 0,00 1,18 0,27 4,62 0,00

-0,35 -0,30 -0,35 2,56 -0,35 -0,07 -0,35 -0,35 -0,35 -0,35 -0,27 2,98 -0,12 2,28 3,65 -0,35 -0,35 3,65 -0,35 2,46 2,68 1,26 -0,35 -0,35 -0,33 6,79 -0,35 -0,35 -0,35 -0,17 7,98 3,22 -0,35 -0,35 2,28 0,15 8,74 -0,04 12,15 -0,16 -0,35 0,82 -0,08 4,26 -0,35

0,00 0,06 0,00 4,76 0,00 0,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10 4,08 0,31 3,03 4,88 0,00 0,00 5,26 0,00 4,49 4,51 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 9,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,21 9,09 4,55 0,00 0,00 4,76 0,69 21,05 0,38 20,00 0,25 0,00 1,86 0,35 6,12 0,00

* Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any connection with the maritime administration of that country.

+/- Percentage of average (0,44%) -0,44 -0,38 -0,44 4,33 -0,44 -0,07 -0,44 -0,44 -0,44 -0,44 -0,34 3,65 -0,13 2,59 4,44 -0,44 -0,44 4,83 -0,44 4,05 4,08 1,56 -0,44 -0,44 -0,41 8,65 -0,44 -0,44 -0,44 -0,23 8,65 4,11 -0,44 -0,44 4,33 0,26 20,62 -0,05 19,56 -0,19 -0,44 1,43 -0,08 5,69 -0,44

Detention-% of individual ships

47

% of detentions of ships with RO related detainable deficiencies per Recognized Organization

ExCEEDING THE AVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGE

Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) Shipping Register of Ukraine Isthmus Bureau of Shipping Phoenix Register of Shipping Global Marine Bureau Inc. International Naval Surveys Bureau Bulgarski Koraben Registar International Register of Shipping Dromon Bureau of Shipping Panama Maritime Documentation Services INCLAMAR Hellenic Register of Shipping Universal Shipping Bureau Macosnar Corporation Overseas Marine Certification Service Register of Shipping Rinave Portuguesa -2.00
*

Average detention percentage 2011 (0,35%) +/- Percentage of Average 2011 (0,35%) +/- Percentage of Average 2010 (0,27%)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Only ROs with 10 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the average percentage of 0,35% are recorded in this graph. In 2010 the average detentions percentage was 0,27%. The grey column represents the 2011 average detention percentage (0,35%).

48

Recognized Organization performance table (2009 2011)

Performance level

low / medium limit

american bureau of shipping (Usa) Det Norske Veritas china classification society lloyd's register (Uk) germanischer lloyd registro italiano Navale bureau Veritas (France) Nippon kaiji kyokai turkish lloyd korean register of shipping (korea, rep. of ) russian Maritime register of shipping Polski rejestr statkow hellenic register of shipping (greece) alfa register of shipping international Naval surveys bureau (greece) croatian register of shipping indian register of shipping isthmus bureau of shipping (greece) iNclaMar (cyprus) shipping register of Ukraine Panama register corporation Panama Maritime Documentation services Dromon bureau of shipping Universal shipping bureau inc. bulgarski koraben registar international register of shipping (Usa) register of shipping (albania) Phoenix register of shipping (greece)

abs DNV ccs lr gl riNa bV Nkk tl krs rMrs Prs hrs ars iNsb crs irs ibs iNc srU Prc PMDs Dbs Usb bkr irs rsa Phrs

6035 12725 878 14112 15868 3160 13515 6878 1437 833 6055 787 418 116 915 225 137 293 117 771 150 125 60 197 406 1051 175 116

1 11 0 18 27 4 28 15 2 1 26 5 3 0 13 2 1 4 2 15 3 3 2 6 17 42 13 10

139 281 25 310 347 77 298 157 38 24 140 23 14 5 26 8 6 10 5 22 6 6 3 8 13 29 7 5

102 228 10 254 288 50 243 118 20 10 103 9 3 0 11 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0

excess factor -1,97 -1,89 -1,87 -1,85 -1,80 -1,80 -1,75 -1,72 -1,69 -1,58 -1,45 -0,63 -0,05 0,11 0,15 0,18 0,23 0,29 0,44 0,47 0,50 0,58 0,68 0,78 1,74 2,07 3,55 3,90

inspections

Detentions

Medium / high limit

recognized organization*

high

medium

low very low

In this table only Recognized Organizations that had 60 or more inspections in a 3-year period are taken into account. The formula used is identical to the one used for the White Grey and Black list. However, the values for P and Q are adjusted to P=0.02 and Q=0.01
*

Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any connection with the maritime administration of that country.

49

Number of certificates covering RO responsible detainable deficiencies

total certificates
certificates alpha register of shipping american bureau of shipping asia classification society bulgarski koraben registar bureau securitas bureau Veritas china classification society china corporation register of shipping croatian register of shipping cyprus bureau of shipping Det Norske Veritas Dromon bureau of shipping germanischer lloyd global Marine bureau hellenic register of shipping indian register of shipping iNclaMar intermaritime certification services international Naval surveys bureau international register of shipping isthmus bureau of shipping korean register of shipping lloyd's register Macosnar corporation Maritime bureau of shipping Maritime lloyd -georgia National shipping adjuster Nippon kaiji kyokai Overseas Marine certification service Panama Maritime Documentation services Panama register corporation Phoenix register of shipping
ar abs asia bkr bs bV ccs ccrs crs cbs DNV Dbs gl gMb hrs irs iNclaMar ics iNsb is ibs krs lr Mc Mbs Mlg Nsa Nkk OMcs PMDs Prc Phrs

rO detdef 0 1 0 11 0 33 0 0 0 0 4 10 23 8 8 0 1 0 21 19 4 0 5 4 0 0 0 8 3 6 0 3 1 13 8 5 0 12 2 7 308

% 0,00 0,01 0,00 1,19 0,00 0,14 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 1,97 0,07 2,76 4,15 0,00 0,61 0,00 1,27 1,51 1,55 0,00 0,02 3,77 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 5,56 4,84 0,00 1,16 0,08 2,98 0,15 0,04 0,00 0,61 0,12 1,90 0,18

122 13.211 50 923 14 24.003 1.845 59 489 17 23.294 507 33.355 290 193 157 163 95 1.651 1.256 258 2.119 23.600 106 164 186 52 17.812 54 124 96 259 1.179 436 5.417 12.597 52 1.979 1.700 368 174.185

Polski rejestr statkow (Polish register of shipping) Prs register of shipping (albania) registro italiano Navale russian Maritime register of shipping russian river register shipping register of Ukraine turkish lloyd Universal shipping bureau total
rsa riNa rMrs rr srU tl Usb

50

bulk carriers

chemical tankers

gas carriers

general Dry cargo

Other types

Passenger ships Ferries refrigerated cargo

ro - ro / container Vehicle

tankers / comb. carriers 6-11 1 11 1 1 225 total 33 4 10 23 8 8 1 21 19 4 5 4 8 3 6 3 1 13 8 5 5 12 2 7

recognized organization
0-5 1 3 2 2 10 6 8 2 1 3 19 4 5 4 3 3 6 3 1 12 4 3 5 5 12 2 1 2 3 4 14 4 2 6 4 3 6 136 7 4 1 14 3 17 1 1 2 2 1 15 3 6 1 1 7 7 1 1 2 9 4 1 3 12 8 6-11 12-17 18 18 6-11 0-5 6-11 12-17 18 0-5 18 12-17 18 12-17 18

american bureau of shipping

abs

bulgarski koraben registar

bkr

bureau Veritas

bV

Det Norske Veritas

DNV

Dromon bureau of shipping

Dbs

germanischer lloyd

gl

global Marine bureau

gMb

hellenic register of shipping

hrs

iNclaMar

iNc

international Naval surveys bureau

iNsb

international register of shipping

is

isthmus bureau of shipping

ibs

lloyd's register

lr

Macosnar corporation

Mc

Nippon kaiji kyokai

Nkk

Overseas Marine certification service

OMcs

Panama Maritime Documentation services

PMDs

Phoenix register of shipping

Phrs

Polski rejestr statkow (Polish register of shipping)

Prs

register of shipping (albania)

rsa

registro italiano Navale

riNa

rinave Portuguesa

rP

russian Maritime register of shipping

rMrs

shipping register of Ukraine

srU

turkish lloyd

tl

Universal shipping bureau

Usb

Number of certificates delivered for RO related detainable deficiencies per ship type and age

total

51

abs

bkr

bV

Dbs

DNV gl

gMb hrs ibs

iNc

iNsb is

lr

Mc

Nkk

OMcs Phrs

PMDs Prs

riNa

rMrs rP

rsa

srU tl

Usb

total

albania 13 2 1 10 8 6 5 1 1 4 2 2 13 2 1 4 3 4 6 3 6 4 5 6 2 10 5 2 3 1 5 6 7 6 1 1 11 9 13 5 1 9 4 2 2 19 2 18 45 5 6 6 18 5 3 9 1 3 4 23 8 8 4 1 21 19 5 4 8 3 3 6 1 8 5 5 13 12 2 7 1 3 225 8 5 8 3,56 3,56 4,89 4,00 5,78 2,22 0,44 4,00 1,78 0,89 0,89 8,44 0,89 8,00 20,00 2,22 2,67 2,67 8,00 2,22 1,33 4,00 0,44 1,33 100,00 13 5,78

antigua and barbuda

bahamas

belize

cambodia

comoros

cyprus

georgia

greece

italy

kiribati

libya

Malta

Marshall islands

Moldova, republic of

Panama

Portugal

saint kitts and Nevis

saint Vincent and the grenadines

sierra leone

singapore

togo

turkey

Ukraine

Vanuatu

Number of certificates covering RO related detainable deficiencies per flag

total

11

33

10

52

Flag / rO

Refusal of access (banning) per flag 2009 2011

No valid isM code certificate total banned ships 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 24 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 7 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 39

Jumped detention

Failed to call at indicated repair yard

Flag
antigua & barbuda belize bolivia cambodia comoros cyprus Dominica libya luxembourg Moldova, republic of Panama russian Federation saint kitts and Nevis saint Vincent and the grenadines sierra leone tanzania, United republic of togo turkey Ukraine total

Multiple detentions

1st ban

2nd ban

3rd ban

Refusal of access 2004-2011

40
Multiple detentions

2009-2011
40

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2004 2007

Failed to call at indicated repair yard Jumped detention No valid ISM code certificate

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Failed to call at indicated repair yard No valid ISM code certificate Jumped detention Multiple detentions 1st ban

2010

2006

2008

2009

2005

2011

53

CIC 2011 on Structural Safety and the International Convention on Load Lines statistics

inspections Detentions Detentions with cic-topic related deficiencies

4,250 150 42

Number of inspections performed with cic

Number of individual ships inspected during cic

4,386 150 42

Number of inspections during cic campaign

1 x inspected 2 x inspected 3 x inspected total

Number of ships

4,123 118 9 4,250

97,0 2,8 0,2 100.00

% of total 3,1% 0,9% 1,2% 3,4% 5,3% 3,8% 5,6% 1,7% 2,3% 8,3% 5,3% 1,2% 2,9% 4,0% 1,7% 3,4% 5 1 2 0 24 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 42 Detentions cic-topic related as % of inspections 0,6% 0,2% 0,4% 0,0% 1,5% 0,0% 2,8% 0,3% 0,6% 4,2% 1,8% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 1,0% 4 6 3 1 4 5 4 4 6 2 1 1 1 Detentions cic-topic related Detentions as % of inspections

inspections

Number of individual ships

ship type
bulk carrier chemical tanker container gas carrier general cargo/multipurpose Nls tanker Offshore supply Oil tanker Other special activities Passenger ship refrigerated cargo ro-ro cargo ro-ro passenger ship tug Other total

781 421 479 88 1,490 25 70 290 170 47 109 163 35 25 57 4,250

795 433 493 89 1,563 26 71 296 171 48 114 166 35 25 59 4,386

25

83

150

54

Detentions

Number of inspections without a cic questionnaire 594 22 8

Number of individual iMO numbers

1000

1200

1400

1600

200

400

600

800

0 Bulk carrier Chemical tanker Container Gas carrier General cargo/multipurpose NLS tanker Offshore supply Oil tanker Other special activities Passenger ship Refrigerated cargo Ro-Ro cargo
Inspections

CIC Inspections per Ship type

Ro-Ro passenger ship Tug Other

Number of individual ships

55

explanatory note White, Grey and Black list

the normative listing of Flags provides an independent categorization that has been prepared on the basis of Paris MoU port state inspection results over a 3-year period, based on binomial calculus.
The performance of each Flag is calculated using a standard formula for statistical calculations in which certain values have been fixed in accordance with agreed Paris MoU policy. Two limits have been included in the system, the black to grey and the grey to white limit, each with its own specific formula limit means significantly worse than average, where a number of detentions below the grey to white limit means significantly better than average. When the amount of detentions for a particular Flag is positioned between the two, the Flag will find itself on the grey list. The formula is applicable for sample sizes of 30 or more inspections over a 3-year period. To sort results on the black or white list, simply alter the target and repeat the calculation. Flags which are still significantly above this second target, are worse than the flags which are not. This process can be repeated to create as many refinements as desired. (Of course the maximum detention rate remains 100%!) To make the flags performance comparable, the excess factor (EF) is introduced. Each incremental or decremental step corresponds with one whole EF-point of difference. Thus the EF is an indication for the number of times the

In the formula N is the number of inspections, p is the allowable detention limit (yardstick), set to 7% by the Paris MoU Port State Control Committee, and z is the significance requested (z=1.645 for a statistically acceptable certainty level of 95%). The result u is the allowed number of detentions for either the black or white list. The u results can be found in the table. A number of detentions above this black to grey

1000
EF = 4 and above EF = 3 to 4 EF = 2 to 3 EF = 1 to 2 very high risk high risk medium to high risk medium risk EF = 4 EF = 3 EF = 2 EF = 1 Black EF = 0 White EF = -1

Number of Detentions

100

EF = -2

10

1 30 50 100 250
Number of Inspections

500

1000

2000

56

yardstick has to be altered and recalculated. Once the excess factor is determined for all flags, the flags can be ordered by EF. The excess factor can be found in the last column of the White, Grey or Black list. The target (yardstick) has been set on 7% and the size of the increment and decrement on 3%. The White/Grey/Black lists have been calculated in accordance with the principles above. The graphical representation of the system below is showing the direct relations between the number of inspected ships and the number of detentions. Both axes have a logarithmic character as the black to grey or the grey to white limit.
example f lag on Black list:

example f lag on Grey list:

Ships of Flag B were subject to 141 inspections, of which 10 resulted in a detention. The black to grey limit is 15 and the grey to white limit is 4. The excess factor is 0.51. How to determine the black to grey limit:

How to determine the grey to white limit:

Ships of Flag A were subject to 108 inspections of which 25 resulted in a detention . The black to grey limit is 12 detentions. The excess factor is 4,26 N= total inspections P = 7% Q =3% Z = 1.645 How to determine the black to grey limit:

To determine the excess factor the following formula is used: = Detentions grey to white limit / grey to black limit grey to white limit

example f lag on White list:

Ships of Flag C were subject to 297 inspections of which 11 resulted in detention. The grey to white limit is 13 detentions. The excess factor is 0,28. How to determine the grey to white limit:

The excess factor is 4,26. This means that p has to be adjusted in the formula. The black to grey limit has an excess factor of 1, so to determine the new value for p, q has to be multiplied with 3,26 and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for p:

The excess factor is - 0,28 This means that p has to be adjusted in the formula. The grey to white limit has an excess factor of 0, so to determine the new value for p, q has to be multiplied with 0,28, and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for p:

57

1.executive summary Secretariat Paris

Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control

Staff

Mr. Richard W.J. Schiferli

Secretary General Telephone: +31 70 456 1509 E-mail: richard.schiferli@parismou.org

Mrs. Linda Korpershoek

Secretary Telephone: +31 70 456 1627 E-mail: linda.korpershoek@parismou.org

Mrs. Carien Droppers

Deputy Secretary General Telephone: +31 70 456 1507 E-mail: carien.droppers@parismou.org

Mr. Lourens van t Wout

ICT Advisor Telephone: +31 70 456 1375 E-mail: Lourens.vant.wout@parismou.org

Mr. Ivo Snijders

Secretary Telephone: +31 70 456 1849 E-mail: ivo.snijders@parismou.org

Mrs. Melany Cadogan - Eskici

Office Manager Telephone: +31 70 456 1436 E-mail: melany.cadogan@parismou.org

Mr. Peter Aarsen

Secretary Telephone: +31 70 456 1510 E-mail: peter.aarsen@parismou.org

Mrs. Ingrid de Vree

Management Assistant Telephone: +31 70 456 1508 E-mail: Ingrid.de.vree@parismou.org

Layout and design

Website

Rooduijn communicatie & design, Den Haag

Photographs

Cover photo: Italian Coast Guard Paris MoU Authorities Deniz Hammudog lu Evert van der Spek Secretariat
Address Secretariat:

The Paris MoU maintains a website which can be found at www.parismou.org. The site contains information on operation of the Paris MoU and a database of inspection results.

Nieuwe uitleg 1, P.O.Box 90653, 2509 LR The Hague, Telephone: +31 70 456 1508, Fax: +31 70 456 1599 www.parismou.org, secretariat@parismou.org

58

Paris MoU fact sheet organizational structure

Co-operating Maritime Authorities Observers: IMO, ILO, other MoUs

Maritime Authorities

European Commission

Port State Control Committee

MoU Advisory Board (MAB)

Paris MoU Secretariat

THETIS Information System

Technical Working Groups

Ship inspection services of Paris MoU port States

Owners, Flags and classification societies

59

1.executivetsummary u notes execu ive s

mmary

60