anrep paris mou_lr internet

7/31/2019 AnRep Paris MoU_LR Internet

1/62

wh

ite

l

is

t

g

r

e

y

l

i

s

t

b

lac

kl

i

st

PORT STATECONTROLOn course for safer shipping

2 0 1 1

annual report


2/62


3/62

wh

ite

l

is

t

g

r

e

y

l

i

s

t

b

lac

kl

i

st

3 1

3 3

3 5

2 0 1 1

o n t e n t s

x e c u t i v e s u m m y 6

P i s M o U d e v e o p m e n t s 8

F c t s n d f i u e s 2 0 1 1 1 8

t t i s t i c a n n e x e s n n u e p o t 2 0 1 1 2 3

x p n t o y n o t e w i t e , g e y n d b c i s t s 5 4

P i s M o U e c e t i t

c o o p o n , d d e s s n d s t f f 5 6

a n n u e p o t


4/624

1.executivesummy

Brian Hogan

S t a t m n t b y P a r i s M o U c h a i r m a n

This year was one o the most signifcant and busy years or the Paris MoU in recent times. The start o the yearsaw the introduction o the New Inspection Regime (NIR) which has transormed and modernised the port

state control regime in our region. The introduction o the NIR was the culmination o many years hard work by

very many people. All o those who took part in this work, including the various task orces and groups which

developed the NIR, are to be complimented on their achievement. Alongside the NIR we also introduced our

new inormation system called THETIS. Again I would like to thank all o those involved with this. More details

o the implementation o the NIR and THETIS are contained in this annual report together with the updated

statistical tables which reect the implementation o the NIR.

While the implementation o the NIR and THETIS were the dominating tasks or the Paris MoU during

the year, other important activities continued. These included the 44th Session o the Paris MoU Port State

Control Committee (PSCC) which was held in Naples, Italy in May 2011. The Committee reviewed the on-goingimplementation o 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 o 2011 on Structural Saety and Load Lines jointly with the Tokyo MoU and details o 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 or port State control ofcers and supported the eective achievement o the

MoU work programme. I wish to thank the members o 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 Saety Agency, EMSA, or their substantial contribution to the development o the NIR and THETIS,

this support and co-operation with the Paris MoU ensures the eectiveness o port state control throughout our

region.

I would like to welcome the new Chairman o the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) Mr Michael Michaelides

rom Cyprus and thank the outgoing Chairman Mr Pierre Janssen o Belgium or his chairmanship o TEG and

contribution to the Paris MoU over many years and wish him well or his retirement. In conclusion, I wish to

thank the PSCOs and administrators in each o our member Authorities as they are the people who ensure the

success o our endeavours and they are central to the Paris MoU in achieving our goal o saer shipping.

PisMoUmeetsinNpes


5/625

Richard W.J. Schierli

The much anticipated New Inspection Regime was fnally launched on 1 January 2011 ater many years opreparation. It introduced a radical change compared with the old system, which was based on the agreement

rom 30 years ago. The change was necessary to bring the Paris MoU in line again with global maritime

developments, introduction o new IMO instruments and a better balanced method o targeting and inspection

o ships. The main objective during the development has been to reward quality shipping and to intensiy control

and sanctions on ships with poor perormance.

The new regime introduces a major departure rom 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 beneft rom the new system extending inspection intervals

up to 12 months. New to the system is that companies are now also monitored or perormance, based on theinspection history o their ships.

To balance the system, more resources will be directed to those ships with poor saety 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 o risk calculations, targeting and recording o inspections is supported by the new data base

THETIS, hosted and managed by EMSA in Lisbon. Results o inspections, currently detained ships and banned

ships are now displayed directly rom 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

reusal o access measures in place, repeated oenders will be banned rom our ports. This has happenedto a substantial number o ships already, some o which have been recycled in the mean time. Others chose

to fnd new areas to operate, endangering the lives o the seaarers on board and constituting a risk or the

environment.

The Paris MoU has taken port State control to the next level. With the dedicated help o other MoUs we may be

on the right course to remove sub-standard ships rom our seas once and or all.

Neinspectioneimeedsquitysippin

S t a t m n t b y t h S c r t a r y G n r a l


6/626

1.executivesummy

There are now 43 lags on the White List, onemore compared with last year. Some lags havemoved position with Germany leading the list,ollowed by Sweden and Denmark.

DPR Korea has disappeared as leader o theBlack List since not enough inspectionshave taken place over the last 3 years. Libya isnow on the top o the Black List, ollowed byBolivia and Togo.

The introduction o the New InspectionRegime this year will show an impact on the2011 igures. This will also have a consequenceor some trends over previous years.Until last year the detention percentage hasbeen decreasing gradually. The trend has notcontinued and in 2011 the percentage increasedto 3.6%. This can be explained since the ocuso targeting is on ships with a higher priority.

onsideedtoeteodideindexfofpefomnce,tePisMoU

wite,geyndbclistsindictefuteimpovementstodsquity

sippin.lstyePnmscontutedfoitseffotstomoveuptote

witelist.isyeFoesnds,Vnutu,ltvindnmovedfomte

geylisttotewitelist.aveysuccessfucievementndnexmpe

footefstt,toudeteminedctionsndpoiticcoue,cnes

cnemde.intVincentndtegendinesmovedfomtebclistto

tegeylist.kzstnndndimovedfomtewitelisttotegey

list.Dominicndhondusmovedfomtegeylisttotebclist.

e x c u t i v s u m m a r y


7/627

The number o detentions has decreasedsigniicantly rom 790 in 2010 to 688 in 2011.

In 2011 a total o 20 ships were banned. 13

more compared with last year. Multipledetentions was the most common reason orbanning in 2011.

With 1,327 inspections and 152 detentionsthe ships lying a black listed lag score adetention rate o 11.45%. For ships lying agrey listed lag the detention rate is 7.11%(1,181 inspections, 84 detentions) and shipslying a white listed lag 2.65% (16,829inspections and 446 detentions).

Recognized Organizations are delegated bylag States and carry out most o the statutorysurveys on behal o lags. For this very reason

it is important to monitor their per ormance.The best perorming RO over the period2009-2011 is the American Bureau o Shipping(ABS) ollowed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

and China Classiication Society. The worstperorming RO is Phoenix Register o Shipping(PHRS), located in Piraeus, in Greece.


8/628

1.executivesummy

The task orces, o which 12 were active in 2011,are each assigned a specifc work programmeto investigate improvement o operational,

technical and administrative port State controlprocedures. Reports o the task orces aresubmitted to the Technical Evaluation Group(TEG) at which all Paris MoU members andobservers are represented. The evaluation othe TEG is submitted to the Committee or fnalconsideration and decision-making.

The MoU Advisory Board advises the Port StateControl Committee on matters o a political andstrategic nature, and provides direction to thetask orces and Secretariat between meetings

o the Committee. The Board meets severaltimes a year and was in 2011 composed oparticipants rom Croatia, Italy, Norway, Maltaand the European Commission.

Port Stat Control Committ

The Port State Control Committee (PSCC) heldits 44th meeting in Naples, Italy rom 2-6 May2011. The MoU has 27 member States. TheCommittee agreed that the introduction o thenew inspection regime (NIR) on 1 January 2011was completed successully.

The NIR is a risk based targeting mechanism,which will reward quality shipping with a

reduced inspection burden and concentrateeorts on high-risk ships. The NIR makes useo company perormance and the Voluntary

IMO Member State Audit Scheme (VIMSAS)or calculating the risk profle o ships togetherwith the perormance o the ag State andthe Recognized Organization. The inspectionhistory o the ship as well as the ships ageand ship type will inuence the targeting. TheNIR is supported by a new inormation systemTHETIS which is managed and hosted byEMSA, using a new system or coding o PSCrelated inormation jointly developed andmutually agreed by the Paris and Tokyo MoUs.

The Committee recognised that the InternationalLabour Organizations Consolidated MaritimeLabour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006) may enterinto orce rom 2012 onwards and agreed onguidelines or port State control ofcers. Theseguidelines are based on the MLC 2006 and takeinto account the port State control guidelinesrom the ILO. Guidelines on STCW (includingthe Manila amendments), electronic charts,lieboat launching arrangements, asbestos,MARPOL Annex VI and LRIT were also adopted.

The Committee unanimously acceptedMontenegro as a co-operating member with theprospect o becoming a ull member in the uture.

OnceyetePottteontoommittee,icisteexecutiveodyof

tePisMoU,meetsinoneoftememettes.eommitteeconsides

poicymttesconcenineionenfocementofpottteconto,evies

teoofteecnicvutiongoupndtsfocesnddecideson

dministtivepocedues.

P a r i s M o U d v l o p m n t s


9/629

Issues considered by the TEG included:

The implementation and transition to the

new inspection regime including the THETISinormation system Evaluation o Paris MoU statistics Revision o the guidelines on operational

controls Revision o the guidelines on STCW Development o guidelines or PSCOs or the

Maritime Labour Convention. Development o an evaluation procedure or

the training policy Development o CICs on Structural Saety

and Load Lines (2011) and Fire Saety Systems

(2012)

Port Stat Control Training initiativs

The Paris MoU will continue to invest in thetraining and development o Port State ControlOfcers in order to establish a higher degreeo harmonisation and standardisation ininspections throughout the region.The Secretariat organises three dierenttraining programmes or Port State ControlOfcers: Seminars (twice a year) Expert trainings (twice a year) Specialized trainings (once a year)

High importance was given to ConcentratedInspection Campaigns (CICs). A CIC onstructural saety and the Load Line Convention

was scheduled rom September to November2011 and a CIC ocussing on fre saety systemswill be carried out during 2012. The campaignswill be carried out jointly with the TokyoMoU. In addition the Committee considered anumber o options or other joint CICs with theTokyo MoU or 2013 and beyond.

The report o the CIC on damage stability otankers, carried out in 2010, was presented toPSCC44 and the results will be published andsubmitted to the IMO in 2012.

The Committee also agreed to exchangePSC data with the International MaritimeOrganization, to be used in the GlobalIntegrated Shipping Inormation System, and topublish the new coding system or defciencieson the Paris MoU website.

Tchnical evaluation Group

The Technical Evaluation Group (TEG)convened in Tallinn, Estonia in February 2011,and in December 2011 in St. Julians, Malta.Several task orces submitted reports to theTEG or evaluation beore submission to thePort State Control Committee.


10/6210

1.executivesummy

The Seminars are open to members, co-operating members and observers. Theagenda is more topical and deals with currentissues such as inspection campaigns and newrequirements.

Expert and Specialized Training aims topromote a higher degree o proessionalknowledge and harmonisation o more complexport State control issues and procedures. These

5-day training sessions are concluded with anassessment and certifcation.

PSC Sminar 51

The 51st Port State Control Seminar was heldrom 20 22 June 2011 in Klaipeda Lithuania.Port State Control Ofcers rom the Paris MoUattended the Seminar, as well as participantsrom Montenegro. The main topics odiscussion were the Train the Trainer or theCIC on Structural Saety and the InternationalConvention on Load Lines. Furthermore there

where presentations on the Guidance withregard to Asbestos on board ships and thenew Guidelines on the Inspection o ElectronicCharts. The Secretariat presented an overviewon the decisions and discussions coming romPSCC44 and a representative rom EMSA gavea presentation on the developments within theEU and EMSA.

PSC Sminar 52

The 52nd Port State Control Seminar was heldrom 13 to 15 December 2011 in HaugesundNorway. Port State control oicers rom theParis MOU attended the Seminar as well asparticipants rom Montenegro. The main

topics o discussion were developments withregard to the Maritime Labour Convention andthe new Manila Amendments to the STCWConvention which came into orce on the 1sto January 2012. Other topics were the newEmergency Towing Requirements and FireSaety Systems. The Secretariat presentedan overview o developments in the ParisMou and a representative rom EMSA gave apresentation on the developments within the

EU and EMSA.

exprt and Spcializd Training

For the Expert Training the central themesare The Human Element and Saety andEnvironment. The theme o the SpecializedTraining will change every year. In 2011 thistraining dealt with the inspection o Tankersand the problems Port State Control Oicersmay encounter. Both training programmes areintended or experienced PSCOs. Using thatexperience, the participants can work together

to establish a higher degree o harmonisationand standardisation o their inspectionpractice.

Lecturers or the training programmes arerecruited rom the maritime Administrations othe member States, international organizationsand the maritime industry. For the trainingprogrammes in 2011 the United Kingdom, theNetherlands, Spain, Italy and dierent ROs andservice companies, among others, providedlecturers.

In 2011 the IMO was able to sponsor arepresentative rom each MoU to take part in



11/6211

Th 7th exprt Training Saty and environmnt

The seventh Expert Training programme washeld in The Hague in February 2011. Importantissues during this training were the IMDG

Code, Load Lines, Lie saving appliances and oilfltering equipment.

Th 5th Spcializd Training on th Inspction o Tankrs

The fth Specialized Training on the Inspectiono Tankers was held in The Hague in April 2011.During the training tanker stability, chemicaland oil tankers and gas carriers were discussed.Specifc attention was given to the ExpandedInspection Procedures with regard to tankers.

Training in coopration with eMSA

The Paris MoU is also assisting EMSA in thetraining delivered to PSCOs rom throughoutthe region.

the training programmes. It was agreed thatone representative rom each MoU can attendthe Expert or Specialized Training programme.Not every MoU was able to send a PSCO to the

training programme. This arrangement beganwith the Human Element training in Octoberand will continue in 2012.

Th 10th exprt Training Th Human elmnt

In October 2011 the tenth Expert Trainingprogramme was held in The Hague withthe Human Element as the central theme.Participants rom member States took partin this training. The issues discussed duringthe training session were the ILO and STCWconventions, the Code o Good Practiceand inter-cultural communication. Threerepresentatives rom other MoUs attended thetraining


12/6212

1.executivesummy

Nw entrant and Rrshr PSC Sminars

In 2011 the ully established ProessionalDevelopment Scheme o the Paris MoUencompassed 3 seminars or New EntrantPSCOs and 3 Reresher seminars orexperienced PSCOs. The year 2011 markedsignifcant changes due to the introductiono the New Inspection Regime. The NewRegime ocuses on sub-standard shipping andintroduces a reward in terms o the inspection

requency or good perorming ships. Ittranslates to less, but better inspections.The New Regime also orced new and enhancedprocedures to be implemented, all aiming atproviding more guidance or better inspections.

These changes meant that adherence to theestablished procedures became o paramountimportance.

For the seminars organised or New Entrantsand Rereshers held during 2011 a complete newapproach was adopted to raise the awarenessconcerning the procedures governing PSCinspections. While until December 2010 aninspection had been the central theme during

these seminars, since January 2011 this theme hasbeen changed to be the Paris MoU procedures.Moreover, rather than plainly lecturing onprocedures, the seminars ocussed on the correctapplication o the procedures where relevant.The main challenge or the new approach wasto present the material in an attractive andinteractive way. Feedback rom all PSCOs whoparticipated in one o the 6 seminars held during2011 emphasized the success o the change.

As with the seminars organised in earlier years,

the main objective remained the establishmento a common understanding and harmonisedapproach in the area o the Paris MoU.Feedback sessions with participants duringthe seminars indicated that indeed a widerunderstanding o the procedures and theavailable tools such as the Paris MoU manual,RuleCheck and the Distance Learning moduleswas established by the seminars. This suggeststhat the adapted concept o the seminars isconducive in achieving the objective.

All seminars were organised by EMSA andheld at its premises in Lisbon. Lecturers wereprovided both by EMSA and the Paris MoU



13/6213

In two cases the detention review panelconcluded that the port States decision todetain was not justifed. The panel advised theport State to reconsider the detention. In threecases the panel concluded that the detainingport States would not have to reconsider thedecision to detain.

Quality managmntOn 15 March 2011 the Paris MoU Secretariatbecame ISO 9001:2008 certifed or theservices and products o the Secretariat.

Paris MoU on th Intrnt

The development o the new website resultedin the launch o a more contemporary andrestyled Paris MoU website on 17th January2011. The website enjoyed an ever increasingdemand rom a variety o visitors during2011, in particular rom ag and port States,government agencies, charterers, insurersand classifcation societies. They wereable to monitor their perormance and the

Secretariat. The almost 300 participantsattending the New Entrant and Reresherseminars during 2011 originated rom all ParisMoU member States.

Dtntion Rviw Panl

Flag States or Recognized Organizationsthat cannot resolve a dispute concerning a

detention with the port State may submit theircase or review. The detention review panel iscomposed o representatives o our dierentMoU Authorities, on a rotating basis, plus theSecretariat.

In 2011 the Secretariat received 10 requestsor review. Five cases did not comply withthe requirements or consideration. Thesecases were either submitted beyond the 120days limit, were handled at National Courtsor originated rom ship owners instead o agStates or ROs. Five cases were recorded by theSecretariat and submitted to MoU members orreview.


14/6214

1.executivesummy

perormance o others on a continuous basis.

The port State enters ships that are currentlyunder detention in a listing. Validated portState control reports can be accessed and oervisitors more detailed inormation.

To increase public awareness o unsae shipscaught by port State control, particularly seriousdetentions are published under the heading"Caught in the Net'. These detentions aredescribed in detail with photographs. In 2011details were published o the ollowing ships:

Celine-1 Anna N Abit Beser Grace S Friendship

The annual award or the best contribution toCaught in the Net has been presented toCanada (Friendship).

Other inormation o interest such as themonthly list o detentions, the Annual Report,

the statistics o the Blue Book and news

items can be downloaded rom the website,which is ound at www.parismou.org.

Concntratd inspction campaigns

Several Concentrated Inspection Campaignshave been held in the Paris MoU Regionover the past years. The campaigns ocuson a particular area o compliance withinternational regulations with the aim ogathering inormation and enorcing the levelo compliance. Each campaign is prepared by

experts and identifes a number o specifcitems or inspection. Experience shows thatthey serve to draw attention to the chosen areao compliance.

CIC 2011 Structural Saty and Load Lins

In the period rom 1 September to 30November 2011 a Concentrated InspectionCampaign was carried out on Structural Saetyand the International Convention on LoadLines.

The CIC questionnaire was completed during4,386 inspections, a total o 1,589 CIC-relateddefciencies were recorded and 42 ships (1%)were detained or CIC-related defciencies.Problem areas included stability, strength andloading inormation, ballast and uel tanks andwater and weather tight conditions.

During the campaign most inspectionsconcerned general cargo/multi-purpose shipswith 1,563 (36%) inspections, ollowed by bulkcarriers with 795 (18%) inspections, containerships with 495 (11%) inspections, chemicaltankers with 433 (10%) inspections and oiltankers with 296 (7%) inspections.



15/6215


16/6216

1.executivesummy

24 (60%) o the ships detained or CIC-relateddefciencies were general cargo/multipurposeships and 5 (12%) were bulk carriers. Amongthe other detained ships were 2 containervessels, 2 oshore supply ships, 2 passengerships and 2 rerigerated cargo ships. 31% o thedetained ships were 30 years or older.

Analysis o the recorded defciencies shows thatmost defciencies relate to the reeboard marks

(12%), ventilators, air pipes and casings (7%),stability/strength/loading inormation andinstruments (7%) and ballast, uel and othertanks (5%).

Most inspections were carried out on shipsunder the ags o Panama with 493 (11%)inspections, Malta with 387 (9%) inspections,Antigua and Barbuda with 343 (8%) inspectionsand Liberia with 306 (7%) inspections.The ags with the highest number o CICrelated detentions were Panama with 7 (17%)

detentions, Saint Vincent and the Grenadineswith 6 (14%) detentions and Turkey with 3 (7%)detentions.

The background or this CIC was that, as anaverage or the last 8 years, defciencies relatedto structural saety and load lines account or15% o the total number o defciencies. Duringthe CIC 13% o the defciencies recorded wererelated to structural saety and load lines.

CIC Campaigns 2012 and 2013

For 2012, the PSC Committee decided on aConcentrated Inspection Campaign on FireSaety Systems. For 2013, the Committee agreed

to organize a CIC campaign on Propulsion andAuxiliary Machinery.

Co-opration with othr organizations

The strength o regional regimes o port Statecontrol, which are bound by geographicalcircumstances and interests, is widelyrecognised. Nine regional MoUs have beenestablished.

In order to provide co-operation to theseMoUs, they may apply or associate or observerstatus. Regional agreements seeking observerstatus must demonstrate that their memberAuthorities have an acceptable overall ag Staterecord and have a similar approach in termso commitment and goals to that o the ParisMoU.Five regional agreements have obtained ofcialobserver status to the Paris MoU: the TokyoMoU, Caribbean MoU, Mediterranean MoU,

Black Sea MoU and Riyadh MoU. The UnitedStates Coast Guard is also an observer at ParisMoU meetings.

The West and Central Arica MoU obtainedan associate status. It will not be representedin the Committee, but there is a commitmentrom the Paris MoU to assist them on atechnical and administrative basis, includingparticipation in seminars and technicalmeetings.

The International Labour Organization andthe International Maritime Organization haveparticipated in the meetings o the Paris MoU



17/6217

on a regular basis since 1982. In 2006 theParis MoU obtained ofcial status at the IMOas an Inter Governmental Organization. Adelegation o the MoU participated in the 19thsession o the Sub-Committee on Flag StateImplementation in February 2011.

The 2009 Annual Report including inspectiondata, an analysis o 2009 statistics, a combinedlist o ags targeted by the Paris MoU, TokyoMoU and USCG and the results o the CICon Lieboat launching appliances, as well as

inormation on Flag criteria to be regarded aslow risk ship in the Paris MoU, inormationon the Paris & Tokyo MoU New PSC CodingSystem and a new Guideline or PSCOs onthe ISM Code were submitted to the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation inFebruary 2011.

Mmbrship o th Paris MoU

In preparation or prospective new memberso the Paris MoU, the Port State ControlCommittee has adopted criteria or co-operating status or non-member States andobserver/associate status or other PSC regions.Specifc criteria, including a sel-evaluation

exercise, have to be made beore co-operatingstatus can be granted.

In 2011 the maritime Authority o Montenegrojoined the MoU as a co-operating member andwas visited by a monitoring team, which issuedrecommendations or improvements.

The Paris MoU currently has 6 members withdual or even triple membership:Canada and the Russian Federation with theTokyo MoU, while the Russian Federation is

also a member o the Black Sea MoU.With Bulgaria and Romania there are urtherties with the Black Sea MoU.Malta and Cyprus are also members o theMediterranean MoU.

For all these members the Paris MoU standardswill prevail.


18/6218

1.executivesummy

ntefooinpestefctsndfiuesof2011eisted.eNe

nspectionreimeenteedintofoceonte1stofJnuy2011.onsequenty

tetetinofsipsfoinspectionscned;inspectionfiuesfom

2011ondssoudnotecompedtoteonesfom2010ndefoe.Due

toteneeimetefiuessodeceseintenumeofinspections,

deficienciesnddetentions,utninceseintenumeofindividu

inspectedsipsndtedetentionte.

Inspctions

With a total number o 19,058 inspectionsperormed in 2011 the inspection iguresshowed a decrease o 21% compared withthe igures o 2011. Each individual ship wasinspected an average o 1.2 times per year, arate which has dropped since 2010 (1.6).

The New Inspection Regime shits rom anational commitment, where each member

state o the Paris MoU inspected 25% o theindividual ships calling at their ports, to aregional commitment aiming to inspect allships visiting the ports and anchorages in theParis MoU region. As a result since 1 January2011 the annual inspection target or eachmember State is based on ship movement datarather than individual ship calls. The Fair Sharecommitment or each individual Paris MoUmember State was thereore calculated basedon historic ship movement data.

Dicincis

In 2009 the number o de iciencies recordedwas 71,911. In 2010 this number was: 64,698. In

2011 the number o deiciencies decreased to50,738. Compared with 2010 this is a decreaseo deiciencies o 22%.

In 56% o all inspections perormed, one ormore deiciencies were recorded. In 2010 thisigure was 55%.

The average number o deiciencies perinspection also decreased rom 2,7 in 2010 to

2,6 in 2011.

Dtntions

Some deiciencies are clearly hazardous tosaety, health or the environment and the shipis detained until they are rectiied. Detentionrates are expressed as a percentage o thenumber o inspections, rather than the numbero individual ships inspected to take accounto the act that some ships are detained morethan once a year.

Compared with 2010, the number o detentionshas decreased rom 790 to 688 detentions.The average detention rate in 2011 is 3,61%.

f a c t s a n d i g u r s 2 0 1 1


19/6219

In 2010 the detention rate was 3,28%, thelowest detention rate ever. This is the irst timein years that the average detention rate hasincreased.

Whit, Gry and Black List

The White, Grey and Black (WGB) Listpresents the ull spectrum, rom quality lagsto lags with a poor perormance that areconsidered high or very high risk. It is based on

the total number o inspections and detentionsover a 3-year rolling period or lags with atleast 30 inspections in the period.

On the White, Grey and Black list or 2011a total number o 80 lags are listed: 43 onthe White List, 20 on the Grey List and17 on the Black list. In 2010 the number olags listed totalled 84 lags, namely 42 on theWhite List, 24 on the Grey List and 18 onthe Black List.

The White List represents quality lags witha consistently low detention record. Comparedwith last year, the number o lags on the

White List has increased by 1 lag to a totalnumber o 43 lags. New on the White Listare the Faroe Islands (DK), Vanuatu, Latvia andthe Islamic Republic o Iran, last year still onthe Grey List.

Germany has been placed highest on the listin terms o perormance. The next in line othe best per orming lags in 2011 are Sweden,Denmark, the Netherlands and the United

Kingdom.

Flags with an average perormance are shownon the Grey List. Their appearance on this listmay act as an incentive to improve and moveto the White List. At the same time lagsat the lower end o the Grey List should becareul not to neglect control over their shipsand risk ending up on the Black List nextyear.

On this years Grey List a total number o20 lags is recorded. Last year the Grey Listrecorded 24 lags. New on the Grey List isSaint Vincent and the Grenadines, last year still


20/6220

1.executivesummy

or lag States. To calculate the per ormanceo the Recognized Organizations, the sameormula to calculate the excess actor othe lags is used. A minimum number o60 inspections per RO are needed beorethe perormance is taken into account orthe list. In 2011 28 ROs are recorded on theperormance list.

Among the best perorming recognizedorganizations were: American Bureau o Shipping (ABS)

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) China Classiication Society (CCS)

The lowest perorming RecognizedOrganizations were: Phoenix Register o Shipping (Greece)

(PHRS) Register o Shipping (Albania) (RSA) International Register o Shipping (USA) (IS)

Compared with last years perormance level,

a small shit in RO perormance in 2011 canbe noticed. This year ewer organizationshave been placed on the high and verylow perorming part o the list and moreorganizations have been placed on the mediumpart o the list.

Details o the responsibility o RecognizedOrganizations or detainable deiciencies havebeen published since 1999. When one or moredetainable deiciencies are attributed to aRecognized Organization in accordance with

the criteria, it is recorded RO responsibleand the RO is inormed. Out o 688 detentionsrecorded in 2011, 91 or 13.2% were consideredRO related which is an increase compared withthe 10.6% o the previous year.

Rusal o accss o ships

A total o 20 ships were banned rom the ParisMoU region in 2011 or reasons o multipledetentions (17) ailure to call at an indicatedrepair yard (2) and jumping detention (1). Aso 1 January 2011 not having a valid ISM codecertiicate is no longer a reason or banning. Anumber o ships remain banned rom previousyears.

on the Black List, and Kazakhstan and India,which last year still were on the White List.

The poorest perorming lags are Libya, Boliviaand Togo. New on the Black List are the lagso Honduras and Dominica (medium risk).

A graph o the distribution o listed and notlisted lags indicates that only 0.5% o theships inspected are rom lags not listed on theWGB list.

Ship typ

In 2011 the detention rate o general cargo/multipurpose ships (6.02%) was higher thanthe detention rate o other ship types. Shiptypes like passenger ships, rerigerated cargoships and other special activities ships have alower detention rate o 4.42%, 4.12 and 4.08%respectively. The other ship types have evenlower detention rates.

Prormanc o Rcognizd Organizations

For several years the Committee has closelymonitored the per ormance o classiicationsocieties acting as Recognized Organizations

f a c t s a n d i g u r s 2 0 1 1


21/6221

fir saty

In 2011 de iciencies in ire saety accountedor 12.9% o the total number o deiciencies.The number o de iciencies in these areasdecreased with 14.3% rom 7,687 in 2010 to6,591 in 2011.

Pollution prvntion

Deiciencies in MARPOL Annex I show adecrease o 16.9% in 2011 (1,318), comparedwith 2010 (1,586). Deiciencies in MARPOL

Annex VI show an increase o 22.2% in 2011(358), compared with 2010 (293).

Working and living conditions

Deiciencies in working conditions decreasedwith 25.6% rom 7,057 in 2010 to 5,252 in 2011.Deiciencies in living conditions decreased with21.1% rom 2,932 in 2010 to 2,313 in 2011.

Managmnt

The number o ISM related deicienciesshowed a decrease o 52.5%, compared with2010.

Dicincis pr major catgory

The number o de iciencies in areas such ascertiicate & documentation, ire saety, saetyo navigation and working & living conditionsaccounted or approximately 55% o the totalnumber o deiciencies. The trends in theseareas are clariied below.

In 2011 a new coding system has taken eect.More detailed inormation may be ound in thestatistical Annexes to this report. The data o

2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordinglyand is thereore not comparable with the dataas published in the Annual Reports rom 2010and beore.

Crtiicat & Documntation

Deiciencies in ships certiicates, crewcertiicates and documents indicated adecrease o 35.5% rom 11,834 in 2010 to 7,638in 2011.

Saty o navigation

The de iciencies in Saety o Navigation show adecrease o 24.6%, rom 8,654 deiciencies in2010 to 6,528 deiciencies in 2011.


22/62

1.executive summary


23/6223

aalaNN n n u e po t 2 0 1 1


24/6224

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

14,753

14,762

2011

11,823 1

2,53

8 13,024 13

,417

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

14,182

2009

15,237

15,268

2010

12,382

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

19,766

19,058

20,309

20,316 21,3

02

21,56

6 22,877 2

4,647

24,186

24,058

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2010

numbero

findividual

shipsinspected

num

berofinspections

B a s i c p o r t s t a t c o n t r o l i g u r s 2 0 1 1


25/6225

69,079

71,928

64,113

62,434 66,1

42

74,713

83,751

71,911

64,698

50,738

0

20,000

10,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1,57

7

1,431

1,18

7

994

790

1,17

4 1,25

0

1,22

0

1,05

9

688

0

400

200

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2010

4

3

2

1

6

5

10

9

8

7

7.98

7.05

5.84

4.67

5.44

5.46

4.95

4.38

3.61

3.28

0

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

dete

ntionsin%o

f

insp

ections

numbero

fdetentions

numberofdeficie

ncies

observed

Note: The New Inspection Regime entered into orce on the 1 st o January 2011. Consequently the targeting o ships or

inspection has changed; inspection igures rom 2011 onwards should not be compared to the ones rom 2010 and beore.


26/6226

b a s i c p o r t s t a t e c o n t r o l f i g u r e s

Commitment

Inspections relevant for commitment

Italy

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

RussianFederation

Slovania

Spain

Sweden

Un

itedKingdom

0

b

eium

b

ui

n

d

oti

ypus

D

enm

ston

i

F

inn

d

F

nce

g

emny

g

eece

ce

n

d

e

n

d

ty

l

tvi

l

itun

i

M

t

N

eten

ds

N

owy

P

on

d

P

otu

r

omn

i

r

uss

inFe

detion

oven

i

p

in

we

den

U

nite

dkin

dom

nspections971

528

835

260

125

382

185

316

1225

1403

990

62

234

1706

246

182

230

1583

594

432

445

776

956

240

1727

356

1541

ommitment1401

331

819

296

273

445

179

344

1520

1424

1028

66

393

2034

225

168

204

1913

561

414

576

512

877

242

1759

722

1743

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

N

etherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian

Federation

Slovania

Spain

Sweden

UnitedKingdom

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

High Risk Ship Inspection

Standard Risk Ship InspectionLow Risk Ship Inspection

Ship Risk Profile unknown

HRS, SRS and LRS inspct ions pr mmbr stat

Commitmnt

I n s p c t i o n o r t s


27/6227

Inspct ion orts o mmbrs as prcntag o MoU total

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%

Germany 7.4%

Greece 5.3%

Iceland 0.3%Ireland 1.3%

Italy 9.0%

Latvia 1.3%

Lithuania 1.0% Malta 1.2%Netherlands 8.4%

Norway 3.2%

Poland 2.3%

Portugal 2.4%

Romania 4.1%

Russian Federation 5.5%

Slovenia 1.3%

Spain 9.4%

Sweden 2.2%

United Kingdom 8.4%


28/6228

MoU port Statss individual contributions to th total amount o inspctions

MOUpot

t t eotnofns

pections

nspectionswi

tdefi-

ciencies

nspectionswi

tdeten-

tions

nspectionswit

rOe-

teddetinedeciencies

%

nspections

wit

deficiencies

%D

etentions

%

nspectiono

fMoU

tot

%h

r

%

r

%

lr

%

rPUnnow

n

b e i u m 971 578 11 0 59,5 1,13 5,09 3,69 77,77 2,15 16,39

b u i 552 415 24 8 75,2 4,35 2,18 2 8,99 5 4,89 0,54 1 5,58

n d 1 895 397 34 5 44,4 3,80 4,70 2,80 56,61 4,48 36,10

o t i 269 171 12 1 63,6 4,46 1,41 2 5,28 6 0,59 1,49 1 2,64

y p us 127 69 10 3 54,3 7,87 0,67 8,73 71,43 1,59 18,25

D e n m 400 181 2 0 45,3 0,50 2,10 3,00 78,25 3,50 15,25

s t o n i 196 53 1 0 27,0 0,51 1,03 3,08 79,49 3,59 13,85

F i n n d 316 100 2 0 31,6 0,63 1,66 1,50 83,78 7,51 7,21

F nce 1253 776 38 2 61,9 3,03 6,57 5,43 7 6,94 2,95 1 4,68

g e m n y 1411 635 37 2 45,0 2,62 7,40 2,34 8 3,20 3,76 1 0,70

g e e c e 1015 582 54 11 57,3 5,32 5,33 21,48 59,51 1,38 17,64

c e n d 63 14 1 1 22,2 1,59 0,33 3,17 84,13 0,00 12,70

e n d 242 137 14 3 56,6 5,79 1,27 6,20 83,06 3,31 7,44

t y 1707 1024 114 22 60,0 6,68 8,96 11,07 68,65 0,91 19,36

l t v i 246 57 1 0 23,2 0,41 1,29 6,94 82,86 2,86 7,35

l i t u n i 185 105 1 1 56,8 0,54 0,97 7,57 78,38 1,62 12,43

M t 237 147 10 2 62,0 4,22 1,24 3,43 61,80 1,29 33,48

N e t e n d s 1604 864 55 3 53,9 3,43 8,42 4,24 6 5,96 1,93 2 7,87

N o y 615 198 8 1 32,2 1,30 3,23 2,60 76,75 4,55 16,10

P o n d 432 308 12 0 71,3 2,78 2,27 3,17 82,81 0,68 13,35

P o t u 448 230 8 3 51,3 1,79 2,35 7,37 75,89 1,56 15,18

r o m n i 776 401 17 3 51,7 2,19 4,07 3 0,04 5 7,12 0,13 1 2,71

russinFedetion2

1039 752 24 3 72,4 2,31 5,45 2 1,94 6 5,54 1,83 1 0,68

o v e n i 240 121 29 5 50,4 1 2,08 1,26 8,75 7 4,17 1,67 1 5,42

p i n 1794 1127 122 12 62,8 6,80 9,41 7,81 74,51 1,23 16,45

e d e n 421 161 5 1 38,2 1,19 2,21 1,43 84,56 5,23 8,79

U n i t e d k i n d o m 1604 1128 42 3 70,3 2,62 8,42 4,18 7 7,62 3,12 1 5,09

o t 19058 1 0731 688 95 56,3 3,61 100 8,96 71,82 2,40 16,83

1 Inspections in Canada west coast ports are included2 Only inspections in the Russian ports o the Baltic, Azov and Barents Seas are included


29/6229


30/6230


31/6231

F n s p e c -

t i o n s

2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

Detentions2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

b c t o g e y

i m i t

g e y t o wite

i m i t

xcessF c t o

w i t e i s tg e m n y 1,335 10 109 78 -1.91

e d e n 810 5 69 44 -1.90

D e n m 1,376 15 112 80 -1.78

N e t e n d s 3,691 49 284 232 -1.78

U n i t e d k i n d o m 1,905 25 152 115 -1.73

F nce 337 2 32 15 -1.70

h o n k o n , i n 1,489 20 121 88 -1.69

i n p o e 1,370 19 112 80 -1.66

t y 1,471 21 120 86 -1.66

g e e c e 1,334 19 109 78 -1.65

F i n n d 562 6 50 29 -1.64

o t i 153 0 16 5 -1.62

M n , s e o f , U k 828 12 71 45 -1.56

b m s 3,265 67 253 204 -1.50

N o y 2,023 40 161 122 -1.48

P o n d 189 1 20 7 -1.47

b e i u m 233 2 23 9 -1.42

l i e i 4,270 105 327 271 -1.38

b e m u d , U k 270 3 26 12 -1.36y p us 2,422 59 191 148 -1.33

e n d 165 1 17 6 -1.33

g i t , U k 1,208 27 100 69 -1.31

p i n 257 3 25 11 -1.31

M s s n d s 2,361 59 186 144 -1.31

i n 241 3 24 10 -1.24

k o e , r e p u i c o f 141 1 15 4 -1.13

s t o n i 89 0 11 2 -1.02

M t 5,301 186 402 340 -1.01

b d o s 463 11 42 23 -1.01

l u x e m o u 195 3 20 7 -0.96

y m n s n d s , U k 282 6 27 12 -0.91

r u s s i n F e d e t i o n 1,644 60 133 98 -0.83

a n t i u n d b u d 4,767 196 363 304 -0.79

P o t u 496 15 45 25 -0.78

P i i p p i n e s 250 6 25 10 -0.73

P n m 7,611 345 570 496 -0.69

l i t u n i 216 5 22 8 -0.68

u e y 2,107 96 167 128 -0.54

F o e s n d s ( D k ) 193 5 20 7 -0.49

J p n 91 1 11 2 -0.48

V nutu 203 6 21 8 -0.37

l t v i 109 2 13 3 -0.33

n , s m i c r e p u i c o f 134 4 15 4 -0.01

W h i t l i s t


32/6232

b a s i c p o r t s t a t e c o n t r o l f i g u r e s


33/6233

F n s p e c -

t i o n s2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

Detentions2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

b c t o g e y i m i t

geytowite i m i t

xcessF c t o

g e y i s t

k z s t n 42 0 6 0 0.04

Unite d tte so f a me ic 174 7 18 6 0.07

u d i a i 59 1 8 0 0.08

M y s i 57 1 8 0 0.09

i n d 77 2 10 1 0.09

i t z e n d 96 3 11 2 0.10

n d i 129 5 14 4 0.12

b u i 141 7 15 4 0.24

b e i z e 644 40 56 34 0.27

M o o cco 131 7 14 4 0.30

u c o 490 32 44 25 0.38

uv u 39 2 6 0 0.38

unisi 53 3 7 0 0.40

o v i 140 9 15 4 0.43

a e i 85 6 10 2 0.51

y p t 105 9 12 3 0.67

V i e t N m 38 4 6 0 0.72

o o s n d s 160 14 17 5 0.74

J m i c 36 5 6 0 0.91

i n t V i n c e n t n d t e g e n d i n e s

1,586 126 128 94 0.94

G r y l i s t


34/6234


35/6235

F n s p e c -

t i o n s2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

Detentions2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

b c t o g e y i m i t

geytowite i m i t

xcessF c t o

b c i s t

h o n d u s 59 8 8

medium

is

1.06

D o m i n i c 144 16 16 1.07

y i n a r e p u i c 166 19 18 1.25

l e n o n 74 10 9 1.25

a z e i j n 34 6 5 1.46

U i n e 372 42 35 1.59

g e o i 647 72 56 1.73

m o d i 768 91 66

mediumtoi

is

2.00

o m o o s 593 76 52 2.22

i n t k i t t s n d N e v i s 416 60 38 2.57

M o d o v , r e p u i c o f 590 88 52 2.86

a n i 175 32 18

iis

3.24

n z n i U n i t e d r e p . 130 25 14 3.29

i e l e o n e 476 85 43 3.69

oo 205 42 21

vey

iis

4.01

b o i v i 46 12 7 4.03

l i y 46 14 7 5.24

B l a c k l i s t


36/6236

f l a g s m t i n g c r i t r i a o r L o w R i s k S h i p s 2 0 1 1

Fsmeetinciteifolorisips(spe31Deceme2011)

bms ty

beium Jpn

bemud,Uk liei

in luxemou

ypus Mssnds

Denm Netends

stoni Noy

Finnd Pnm

Fnce Pond

gemny repuicofkoe

git,Uk russinFedetion

geece inpoe

honkon,in pin

ndi eden

end Unitedkindom

seofMn,Uk

N o t i s t e d f s v i n u n d e o n e MO V M a a u d i t

austi nd

To meet the criteria or Low Risk Ships, lags should be on the Paris MoU White l ist and have submitted

evidence o having undergone an IMO VIMSAS Audit.

Flags who's total number o inspections over a 3-years roll ing period does not meet the minimum o 30 are

not included in the Paris MoU White l ist. Consequently some lags cannot meet the criteria or their ships to

qualiy as Low Risk Ships under the Paris MoU, despite having undergone the IMO VIMSAS audit.


37/6237


38/6238

D i s t r i b u t i o n o l i s t d a n d n o t l i s t d l a g s 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

Not listed 1%

White flags

Black flags

Grey flags

United Arab Emirates

Argentina Austria

Australia

Grenada

Nigeria

Eritrea

Mexico Venezuela

Chile Guinea

Kuwait

Qatar

Mongolia

Korea,DemocraticPeople's Rep.

Seychelles

BahrainIsrael Kiribati

Taiwan, China

Sri Lanka

Canada

Montenegro

Turkmenistan

Bangladesh

Myanmar

Indonesia

Iceland

Romania

Dominican RepublicMauritius

BrazilSlovenia

PakistanMaldives

Equatorial Guinea

Falkland IslandsCape Verde

L i s t d a n d n o t l i s t d l a g s


39/6239

FNo

f

nspectio

ns

nspectio

ns

wit

detention

s

nspectio

ns

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

No

f

ndividu

s

ips

inspected

%o

f

inspections

wit

detention

s

%o

f

inspections

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

a n i 44 7 38 20 15.91 86.36

a e i 26 1 22 22 3.85 84.62

a n t i u n d b u d 1263 59 735 869 4.67 58.19

a u s t i 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00

a u s t i 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.00

a z e i j n 7 1 5 4 14.29 71.43

b m s 875 18 449 702 2.06 51.31

b i n 7 0 1 5 0.00 14.29

b n d e s 3 1 3 3 33.33 100.00

b d o s 108 2 57 85 1.85 52.78

b e i u m 81 0 44 67 0.00 54.32

b e i z e 182 13 143 125 7.14 78.57

b e m u d , U k 82 3 34 72 3.66 41.46

b o i v i 12 5 10 6 41.67 83.33

b z i 4 0 3 3 0.00 75.00

b u i 30 1 22 21 3.33 73.33 m o d i 216 18 197 123 8.33 91.20

n d 6 0 2 6 0.00 33.33

pe V e d e 2 0 2 2 0.00 100.00

y m n s n d s , U k 102 3 51 96 2.94 50.00

i e 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00

i n 62 2 29 58 3.23 46.77

o mo o s 138 10 124 88 7.25 89.86

o o s n d s 57 4 47 34 7.02 82.46

o t i 48 0 18 41 0.00 37.50

u c o 109 7 76 74 6.42 69.72

y p us 659 14 366 497 2.12 55.54

D e n m 431 3 196 347 0.70 45.48

D o m i n i c 45 8 34 28 17.78 75.56

D o m i n i c n r e p u i c 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00

y p t 29 3 19 21 10.34 65.52

s t o n i 27 0 8 18 0.00 29.63

F n d s n d s 2 0 0 1 0.00 0.00

F o e s n d s 78 2 36 54 2.56 46.15

F i n n d 152 1 66 123 0.66 43.42

F nce 103 0 57 88 0.00 55.34

g e o i 150 12 132 91 8.00 88.00

I n s p c t i o n s , d t n t i o n s a n d d i c i n c i s 2 0 1 1


40/6240

FNo

f

nspectio

ns

nspectio

ns

wit

detention

s

nspectio

ns

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

No

f

ndividu

s

ips

inspected

%o

f

inspections

wit

detention

s

%o

f

inspections

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

g e m n y 350 2 163 286 0.57 46.57

g i t , U k 313 9 172 214 2.88 54.95

g e e c e 365 7 161 327 1.92 44.11

g u i n e 1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00

h o n d u s 14 4 11 11 28.57 78.57

h o n k o n , i n 495 8 234 448 1.62 47.27

c e n d 4 0 4 4 0.00 100.00

n d i 51 3 29 43 5.88 56.86

n d o n e s i 2 0 2 1 0.00 100.00

n , s m i c r e p u i c o f 39 0 32 24 0.00 82.05

e n d 40 0 17 35 0.00 42.50

s e o f M n , U k 211 5 82 191 2.37 38.86

s e 8 0 5 8 0.00 62.50

t y 449 6 240 379 1.34 53.45

J m i c 4 0 1 4 0.00 25.00

J p n 25 0 10 24 0.00 40.00k z s t n 16 0 9 16 0.00 56.25

k i i t i 5 1 5 4 20.00 100.00

k o e , D e m o c t i c P e o p e ' s r e p u i c o f

1 0 1 1 0.00 100.00

k o e , r e p u i c o f 33 0 18 32 0.00 54.55

k u i t 12 1 4 11 8.33 33.33

l t v i 28 0 16 18 0.00 57.14

l e n o n 26 5 23 15 19.23 88.46

l i e i 1271 26 645 1108 2.05 50.75

l i y 10 3 6 8 30.00 60.00

l i t u n i 66 1 30 42 1.52 45.45

l u x e m o u 56 0 29 49 0.00 51.79

M y s i 19 1 9 16 5.26 47.37

M t 1575 62 829 1227 3.94 52.63

M s s n d s 808 28 388 702 3.47 48.02

M u i t i u s 3 1 2 2 33.33 66.67

M o d o v , r e p u i c o f 196 19 172 97 9.69 87.76

M o n o i 2 0 2 2 0.00 100.00

M o o c c o 35 1 31 21 2.86 88.57

M y n m 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00

N e t e n d s 986 18 488 775 1.83 49.49

I n s p c t i o n s , d t n t i o n s a n d d i c i n c i s 2 0 1 1


41/6241

FNo

f

nspectio

ns

nspectio

ns

wit

detention

s

nspectio

ns

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

No

f

ndividu

s

ips

inspected

%o

f

inspections

wit

detention

s

%o

f

inspections

wit

de

c

ienc

ies

N o y 508 4 275 445 0.79 54.13

P i s t n 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00

P n m 2211 97 1205 1859 4.39 54.50

P i i p p i n e s 88 2 57 74 2.27 64.77

P o n d 56 0 35 42 0.00 62.50

P o t u 128 5 82 91 3.91 64.06

Q t 8 0 3 7 0.00 37.50

r o m n i 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00

r u s s i n F e d e t i o n 465 11 296 396 2.37 63.66

i n t k i t t s n d N e v i s 101 8 86 64 7.92 85.15

intVincentndtegendines 394 37 306 258 9.39 77.66

u d i a i 16 0 3 15 0.00 18.75

e y c e e s 5 0 1 4 0.00 20.00

i e l e o n e 122 18 116 77 14.75 95.08

i n p o e 444 8 204 403 1.80 45.95

o v i 19 1 18 7 5.26 94.74 o v e n i 4 0 2 4 0.00 50.00

p i n 75 0 41 65 0.00 54.67

i l n 6 0 4 4 0.00 66.67

eden 180 1 85 132 0.56 47.22

itzend 28 0 16 26 0.00 57.14

y i n a r e p u i c 23 2 18 16 8.70 78.26

i n , i n 3 1 3 2 33.33 100.00

nzni,Unitedrepuicof 65 15 63 46 23.08 96.92

i n d 16 0 9 15 0.00 56.25

oo 72 9 66 43 12.50 91.67

unisi 17 0 15 10 0.00 88.24

u e y 587 28 357 471 4.78 60.92

u me nistn 2 0 1 2 0.00 50.00

uv u 15 1 13 10 6.67 86.67

U i n e 96 10 79 75 10.42 82.29

U n i t e d a m i t e s 10 2 8 10 20.00 80.00

U n i t e d k i n d o m 585 8 276 490 1.37 47.18

U n i t e d t t e s 95 6 62 81 6.32 65.26

V nutu 77 2 54 63 2.60 70.13

V e n e z u e 1 1 1 1 100.00 100.00

V i e t N m 11 1 8 9 9.09 72.73


42/6242

F

nspections

Detentions

Detentions

%2

011

xcesso

fve

e

2011

Detentions

%2

010

xcesso

fve

e

2010

b e m u d , U k 82 3 3,66 0,08 0,00 -3,29

a e i 26 1 3,85 0,26 8,33 5,05

P o t u 128 5 3,91 0,32 1,66 -1,63

Mt 1575 62 3,94 0,35 2,71 -0,58

P n m 2211 97 4,39 0,80 3,36 0,07

a n t i u n d b u d 1263 59 4,67 1,09 4,00 0,71

u e y 586 28 4,78 1,20 4,35 1,06

n d i 51 3 5,88 2,30 2,70 -0,58

U n i t e d t t e s 95 6 6,32 2,73 2,27 -1,01

u co 109 7 6,42 2,84 3,93 0,65

o o s n d s 57 4 7,02 3,43 9,26 5,97

beize 182 13 7,14 3,56 3,32 0,03

omoos 138 10 7,25 3,66 13,00 9,72

i n t k i t t s n d N e v i s 101 8 7,92 4,34 17,99 14,70

g e o i 150 12 8,00 4,42 10,74 7,45

m o d i 216 18 8,33 4,75 11,76 8,48

y i n a r e p u i c 23 2 8,70 5,11 12,07 8,78

i n t V i n c e n t n d t e g e n d i n e s

394 38 9,39 5,81 6,17 2,89

M o d o v , r e p u i c o f 196 19 9,69 6,11 17,08 13,80

ypt 29 3 10,34 6,76 6,06 2,77

U i n e 96 10 10,42 6,83 11,54 8,25

oo 72 9 12,50 8,92 23,08 19,79

i e l e o n e 122 18 14,75 11,17 15,63 12,34

a n i 44 8 15,91 12,33 16,44 13,15

D o m i n i c 45 8 17,78 14,19 5,08 1,80

l e n o n 26 5 19,23 15,65 14,29 11,00

nzni,

U n i t e d r e p u i c o f 65 15 23,08 19,49 9,62 6,33

D t n t i o n s p r l a g i n 2 0 1 1ECEEDING AVERAGE PERCENTAGE

Only lags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding

the average percentage o 3,61% are recorded in this graph.


43/6243

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

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 RepublicSaint Vincent

and the Grenadines

Moldova, Republic of

Egypt

Ukraine

Togo

Sierra Leone

Albania

Dominica

Lebanon

Tanzania,United Republic of

Average detention percentage 2011

Detention percentage 2010

Detention percentage 2011

D t n t i o n s p r f l a g i n 2 0 1 1ECEEDING AVERAGE PERCENTAGE

Only lags with 20 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the average

percentage o 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%).


44/6244

iptype

No

fnspections

nspectionswit

de

c

ienc

ies

%o

finspection

s

witde

c

iencie

s

No

fndividu

sips

inspected

nspectionswit

detentions

%

ofDetention

2011

%

ofDetention

2010

%

ofDetention

2009

+/-vee

detention

%

bucie 3204 1793 56 2751 104 3,25 2,77 4,60 -0,36

emictne 1701 813 48 1430 25 1,47 2,06 2,36 -2,14

omintioncie 37 19 51 33 0 0,00 0,00 1,79 -3,61

ontine 2066 985 48 1685 29 1,40 0,94 1,66 -2,21

Ote 67 49 73 54 4 5,97 2,35 3,32 2,36

gscie 448 184 41 384 5 1,12 1,12 2,22 -2,49

geneco/mutipupose 6374 4199 66 4499 384 6,02 5,47 6,78 2,41

hevyod 33 23 70 29 0 0,00 0,00 2,70 -3,61

hispeedpssenecft 76 37 49 48 1 1,32 1,12 0,00 -2,29

Nltne 92 33 36 73 2 2,17 0,68 3,91 -1,44

Offsoesuppy 462 264 57 408 10 2,16 1,74 1,30 -1,45

Oitne 1324 488 37 1194 17 1,28 0,93 1,34 -2,33

Otespecictivities 1004 581 58 906 41 4,08 2,83 4,63 0,47

Pssenesip 339 173 51 273 15 4,42 1,60 1,58 0,81

refietedco 413 275 67 353 17 4,12 3,08 5,04 0,51

ro-roco 795 404 51 666 20 2,52 3,00 3,39 -1,09

ro-ropssenesip 588 356 61 322 10 1,70 1,91 1,41 -1,91

pecipuposesip 119 64 54 104 2 1,68 3,23 1,11 -1,93

u 60 32 53 56 2 3,33 0,00 0,00 -0,28

I n s p c t i o n s a n d d t n t i o n sPER SHIP TPE

Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data o 2009 and

2010 has been regrouped accordingly and is thereore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual

Reports rom 2010 and beore.


45/6245

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00% Det 2011

% Det 2010

% Det 2009

Average detention % 2011

Heavyload

Combinationcarrier

Gascarrier

Oiltanker

Highspeedpassengercraft

Container

Chemicaltanker

Specialpurposeship

Ro-Ropassengership

Offshoresupply

NLStanker

Ro-Rocargo

Bulkcarrier

Tug

Otherspecialactivities

Refrigeratedcargo

Passengership

Other

Generalcargo/multipurpose

Note: In 2011 shiptypes are published separate and not longer grouped in categories. The data o 2009 and 2010 has been

regrouped accordingly and is thereore not comparable with the data as published in the Annual Reports rom 2010 and beore.


46/6246

2009 2010 2011

Def.Mingoup teoyofdeciencies Def Def% Def Def% Def Def%

eticte&Documenttion

eetictes 1.835 2,53 1.684 2,59 1.101 2,15

Documents 4.698 6,49 4.349 6,69 3.491 6,83

ipetictes 5.031 6,95 4.117 6,33 3.046 5,96

tuctuonditions 3.104 4,29 2.952 4,54 2.808 5,49

wte/wetetitconditions 3.213 4,44 2.851 4,38 2.597 5,08

meencyystems 2.635 3,64 2.191 3,37 1.952 3,82

rdioommunictions 2.439 3,37 2.200 3,38 1.704 3,33

oopetionsincudinequipment 330 0,46 317 0,49 332 0,65

Fiesfety 8.361 11,55 7.687 11,82 6.591 12,89

ams 602 0,83 497 0,76 464 0,91

woinndlivinonditionslivinonditions 3.418 4,72 2.932 4,51 2.313 4,52

woinonditions 7.224 9,98 7.057 10,85 5.252 10,27

fetyofNvition 9.618 13,28 8.654 13,30 6.528 12,76

lifesvinppinces 6.915 9,55 5.636 8,66 4.782 9,35

Dneousoods 197 0,27 224 0,34 125 0,24

Popusionnduxiiymciney 4.556 6,29 4.239 6,52 2.951 5,77

Poutionpevention

antiFouin 58 0,08 36 0,06 15 0,03

Mpoannex 1.720 2,38 1.586 2,44 1.318 2,58

Mpoannex 33 0,05 14 0,02 36 0,07

Mpoannex 13 0,02 8 0,01 18 0,04

MpoannexV 266 0,37 298 0,46 253 0,49

MpoannexV 459 0,63 402 0,62 347 0,68

MpoannexV 145 0,20 293 0,45 358 0,70

M 4.279 5,91 3.458 5,32 1.644 3,21

P 768 1,06 868 1,33 518 1,01

Ote 494 0,68 495 0,76 602 1,18

M a j o r c a t g o r i o d i c i n c i s 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1

Note: In 2011 a new coding system has taken eect. The data o 2009 and 2010 has been regrouped accordinglyand is thereore not comparable with the data as published in Annual Reports rom 2010 and beore.

teoyofdeciencies Deficiencies %Deficiencies

Fiesfety 6.591 12,89%

fetyofNvition 6.528 12,76%

woinndlivinonditions-woinonditions 5.252 10,27%

lifesvinppinces 4.782 9,35%

etificte&Documenttion-Documents 3.491 6,83%

Deciencies Deficiencies %Deficiencies

M 1.644 3,21%

Nuticpuictions 1.425 2,79%

ts 1.398 2,73%Oiecodoo 1.124 2,20%

Fiedoos/openinsinfie-esistindivisions 1.012 1,98%

T o p 5 c a t g o r i s o d i c i n c i s 2 0 1 1

T o p 5 o d i c i n c i s 2 0 1 1


47/6247

reconizedoniztion*otnum

eof

inspectio

ns

Nume

of

individu

sips

inspected

otnum

eof

detentions

Detention-%o

f

totnum

eof

inspectio

ns

+/-Pecen-

teofa

vee

(0,35%)

Detention-%o

f

individu

sips

+/-Pecen-

teofa

vee

(0,4

4%)

apreisteofippin 106 95 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

ameicnbueuofippin 1896 1659 1 0,05 -0,30 0,06 -0,38

aassifictionociety(n) 48 47 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

busikoenreist 103 63 3 2,91 2,56 4,76 4,33

bueuecuits(Mt) 14 13 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

bueuVeits(Fnce) 3841 3019 11 0,29 -0,07 0,36 -0,07

inssifictionociety 256 231 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

inopotionreisteofippin 15 13 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

otinreisteofippin 58 47 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

ypusbueuofippin 16 14 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

DetNoseVeits 3590 3070 3 0,08 -0,27 0,10 -0,34

Domonbueuofippin 60 49 2 3,33 2,98 4,08 3,65

gemnisceloyd 4308 3275 10 0,23 -0,12 0,31 -0,13

goMinebueu(koe,rep.Of ) 38 33 1 2,63 2,28 3,03 2,59

heenicreisteofippin 50 41 2 4,00 3,65 4,88 4,44

hondusntentionuveyinndnspectionbueu 4 4 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

ndinreisteofippin 49 39 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

NlaMar(ypus) 25 19 1 4,00 3,65 5,26 4,83

ntemitimeetictionevices(Pnm) 23 19 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

ntentionNvuveysbueu(geece) 249 156 7 2,81 2,46 4,49 4,05

ntentionreisteofippin(Ua) 198 133 6 3,03 2,68 4,51 4,08

stmusbueuofippin(Pnm) 62 50 1 1,61 1,26 2,00 1,56

koessifictionociety(koe,DPr) 3 3 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

koenreisteofippin(koe,rep. of ) 253 233 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

loyd'sreiste(Uk) 4050 3333 1 0,02 -0,33 0,03 -0,41

Mcosnopotion(Pnm) 14 11 1 7,14 6,79 9,09 8,65

Mitimebueuofippin 18 16 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Mitimeloyd(geoi) 23 22 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Ntionippinadjustes(Pnm) 12 9 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Nipponkijikyoi(Jpn) 2198 1924 4 0,18 -0,17 0,21 -0,23

OvesesMineetifictionevice(Pnm) 12 11 1 8,33 7,98 9,09 8,65

PnmMitimeDocumenttionevices 28 22 1 3,57 3,22 4,55 4,11

PnmMitimeuveyobueunc. 5 4 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Pnmreisteopotion 36 31 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Poenixreisteofippin(geece) 38 21 1 2,63 2,28 4,76 4,33

Posirejesttto(Poisreisteofippin) 198 144 1 0,51 0,15 0,69 0,26

reisteofippin(ani) 44 19 4 9,09 8,74 21,05 20,62

reistotinoNve 960 781 3 0,31 -0,04 0,38 -0,05

rinvePotuues 8 5 1 12,50 12,15 20,00 19,56

russinMitimereisteofippin 1585 1205 3 0,19 -0,16 0,25 -0,19

russinrivereiste 12 12 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

ippinreisteofUine 255 161 3 1,18 0,82 1,86 1,43

uisloyd 373 282 1 0,27 -0,08 0,35 -0,08

Univesippinbueu(Pnm) 65 49 3 4,62 4,26 6,12 5,69

Vietnmreisteofippin 9 7 0 0,00 -0,35 0,00 -0,44

Dtntions o ships with RO rlatd dtainabl dicincis pr Rcognizd Organization

(CASES IN WHICH MORE THAN 10 INSPECTIONS ARE INVOLVED)

* Where a country is shown ater a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily anyconnection with the maritime administration o that country.


48/6248

-2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

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

+/- Percentage of Average 2010 (0,27%)

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

% o dtntions o ships with RO rlatd dtainabl dicincis pr Rcognizd Organization

ECEEDING THE AVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGE

* Only ROs with 10 and more port State control inspections in 2011 and with a detention percentage exceeding the aver-age percentage o 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%).


49/6249

reconizedoniztion*nspection

s

Detention

s

low/

medium

imit

Medium/

iimit

xcessfc

to

Pefomn

ceeve

ameicnbueuofippin(Ua) ab 6035 1 139 102 -1,97

i

DetNoseVeits DNV 12725 11 281 228 -1,89

inssifictionociety 878 0 25 10 - 1,87

loyd'sreiste(Uk) lr 14112 18 310 254 -1,85

gemnisceloyd gl 15868 27 347 288 -1,80

reistotinoNverNa

3160 4 77 50 -1,80

bueuVeits(Fnce) bV 13515 28 298 243 -1,75

Nipponkijikyoi Nkk 6878 15 157 118 -1,72

uisloyd l 1437 2 38 20 -1,69

koenreisteofippin(koe,rep.of ) kr 833 1 24 10 -1,58

russinMitimereisteofippin rMr 6055 26 140 103 -1,45

Posirejesttto Pr 787 5 23 9 -0,63

heenicreisteofippin(geece) hr 418 3 14 3 -0,05

afreisteofippin ar 116 0 5 0 0,11

medium

ntentionNvuveysbueu(geece)

Nb 915 13 26 11 0,15

otinreisteofippin r 225 2 8 1 0,18

ndinreisteofippin r 137 1 6 0 0,23

stmusbueuofippin(geece) b 293 4 10 1 0,29

NlaMar(ypus) N 117 2 5 0 0,44

ippinreisteofUine rU 771 15 22 9 0,47

Pnmreisteopotion Pr 150 3 6 0 0,50

PnmMitimeDocumenttionevices PMD 125 3 6 0 0,58

Domonbueuofippin Db 60 2 3 0 0,68

Univesippinbueunc. Ub 197 6 8 0 0,78

busikoenreist bkr 406 17 13 3 1,74 o

ntentionreisteofippin(Ua) r 1051 42 29 13 2,07

veyoreisteofippin(ani) ra 175 13 7 0 3,55

Poenixreisteofippin(geece) Phr 116 10 5 0 3,90

R c o g n i z d O r g a n i z a t i on p r o r m a n c t a b l ( 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 )

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

* Where a country is shown ater a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any connec-tion with the maritime administration o that country.


50/6250

otcet i f ictes

etifictes rOdetdef %

apreisteofippin ar 122 0 0,00

ameicnbueuofippin ab 13.211 1 0,01

aassifictionociety aa 50 0 0,00

busikoenreist bkr 923 11 1,19

bueuecuits b 14 0 0,00

bueuVeits bV 24.003 33 0,14

inssifictionociety 1.845 0 0,00

inopotionreisteofippin r 59 0 0,00

otinreisteofippin r 489 0 0,00

ypusbueuofippin b 17 0 0,00

DetNoseVeits DNV 23.294 4 0,02

Domonbueuofippin Db 507 10 1,97

gemnisceloyd gl 33.355 23 0,07

goMinebueu gMb 290 8 2,76

heenicreisteofippin hr 193 8 4,15

ndinreisteofippin r 157 0 0,00

NlaMarNla-Mar

163 1 0,61

ntemitimeetictionevices 95 0 0,00

ntentionNvuveysbueu Nb 1.651 21 1,27

ntentionreisteofippin 1.256 19 1,51

stmusbueuofippin b 258 4 1,55

koenreisteofippin kr 2.119 0 0,00

loyd'sreiste lr 23.600 5 0,02

Mcosnopotion M 106 4 3,77

Mitimebueuofippin Mb 164 0 0,00

Mitimeloyd-geoi Mlg 186 0 0,00

Ntionippinadjuste Na 52 0 0,00

Nipponkijikyoi Nkk 17.812 8 0,04

OvesesMineetifictioneviceOM

54 3 5,56

PnmMitimeDocumenttionevices PMD 124 6 4,84

Pnmreisteopotion Pr 96 0 0,00

Poenixreisteofippin Phr 259 3 1,16

Posirejesttto(Poisreisteofippin) Pr 1.179 1 0,08

reisteofippin(ani) ra 436 13 2,98

reistotinoNve rNa 5.417 8 0,15

russinMitimereisteofippin rMr 12.597 5 0,04

russinrivereiste rr 52 0 0,00

ippinreisteofUine rU 1.979 12 0,61

uisloyd l 1.700 2 0,12

Univesippinbueu Ub 368 7 1,90

ot 174.185 308 0,18

Numbr o crtiicats covring RO rsponsibl dtainabl dicincis


51/6251

reco

nized

on

iztion

buies

emicnes

gsies

geneDyo

Oteypes

PsseneipsFeies

refieted

o

ro-ro/on-

tineVeice

nes/

om.ies

ot

0-5

6-11

12-17

18

18

6-11

0-5

6-11

12-17

18

0-5

18

12-17

18

12-17

18

6-11

ameicnbu

euofippin

ab

1

1

busikoenreist

bkr

3

8

11

bueuVeits

bV

2

2

9

4

1

3

12

33

DetNoseV

eits

DNV

2

1

1

4

Domonbueuofippin

Db

10

10

gemnisce

loyd

gl

6

1

1

7

7

1

23

goMin

ebueu

gMb

8

8

heenicreisteofippin

hr

2

6

8

NlaMar

N

1

1

ntentionNvuveysbueu

Nb

3

15

3

21

ntentionreisteofippin

19

19

stmusbueuofippin

b

4

4

loyd'sreis

te

lr

5

5

Mcosno

potion

M

4

4

Nipponkiji

kyoi

Nkk

3

2

2

1

8

OvesesM

ineetifictionevice

OM

3

3

PnmMitimeDocumenttionevices

PMD

6

6

Poenixreisteofippin

Phr

3

3

Posirejestttow(Poisreisteofippin)

Pr

1

1

reisteof

ippin(ani)

ra

12

1

13

reistotinoNve

rNa

4

3

1

8

rinvePotu

ues

rP

5

5

russinMitimereisteofippin

rMr

5

5

ippinre

isteofUine

rU

12

12

uisloyd

l

2

2

Unives

ippinbueu

Ub

1

6

7

ot

2

3

4

14

4

2

6

4

3

136

7

4

1

14

3

17

1

225

Numbr o crtiicats dlivrd or RO rlatd dtainabl dicincis pr ship typ and ag


52/62


53/6253

FFiedtoc

t

indictedepi

yd

Jumpeddetention

NovidMc

ode

cetificte Mutipedetentions

otnne

dsips

1stn 2ndn 3dn

ntiu&bud 1 1

ize 1 1

oivi 1 1

modi 1 2 3

omoos 3 3

pus 1 1

ominic 1 1

y 1 1

xemou 1 1odov,repuicof 4 4

nm 3 1 3 7

ussinFedetion 1 1

intkittsndNevis 2 2

intVincentndtegendines 1 1 2

eleone 2 1 3

nzni,Unitedrepuicof 1 1 1 3

o 1 1 2

ey 1 1

ine 1 1

t 9 5 1 24 39

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 2

011

Failedtocal

l

atindicated

repairyard

Jumped

detention

Novalid

ISMcode

certificate

Multiple

detentions

1stban

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Multiple detentions

Failed to call at indicated repair yard

Jumped detention

No valid ISM code certificate

R u s a l o a c c s s ( b a n n i n g ) p r l a g 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1

R u s a l o a c c s s 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1


54/6254

CIC 2011 on Structural Saty and th Intrnational Convntion on Load Lins statistics

Numeofindividusipsinspectedduin

Numeof

individ

u

MOnumes

Numeof

inspections

pefom

ed

wit

Numeof

inspections

witou

t

questio

nnie

nspections 4,250 4,386 594

Detentions 150 150 22

Detentionsit-topiceteddeficiencies 42 42 8

Numeofnspectionsduincmpin

Numeof

sips

%o

ftot

1xinspected 4,123 97,0

2xinspected 118 2,8

3xinspected 9 0,2

ot 4,250 100.00

iptype

Numeof

individu

sips

nspections

Detentions

Detentions

s%

of

inspections

Detentions

-topic

eted

Detentions

-topic

eteds%

ofinspections

bucie 781 795 25 3,1% 5 0,6%

emictne 421 433 4 0,9% 1 0,2%

ontine 479 493 6 1,2% 2 0,4%

gscie 88 89 3 3,4% 0 0,0%

geneco/mutipupose 1,490 1,563 83 5,3% 24 1,5%

Nltne 25 26 1 3,8% 0 0,0%

Offsoesuppy 70 71 4 5,6% 2 2,8%

Oitne 290 296 5 1,7% 1 0,3%

Otespecictivities 170 171 4 2,3% 1 0,6%

Pssenesip 47 48 4 8,3% 2 4,2%

refietedco 109 114 6 5,3% 2 1,8%

ro-roco 163 166 2 1,2% 1 0,6%

ro-ropssenesip 35 35 1 2,9% 0 0,0%

u 25 25 1 4,0% 0 0,0%

Ote 57 59 1 1,7% 1 1,7%

ot 4,250 4,386 150 3,4% 42 1,0%


55/6255

C I C I n s p c t i o n s p r S h i p t y p

Number of individual shipsInspections

Bulkcarrier

Chemicaltanker

Container

Gascarrier

Generalcargo/multipurpose

NLStanker

Offshoresupply

Oiltanker

Otherspecialactivities

Passengership

Refrigeratedcargo

Ro-Rocargo

Ro-

Ropassengership

Tug

Other

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0


56/6256

10

100

1000

30 50 100 250 500 1000 2000

Number of Inspections

NumberofDetentions

EF = 4 and above very high riskEF = 3 to 4 high riskEF = 2 to 3 medium to high riskEF = 1 to 2 medium risk

EF = 4EF = 3EF = 2EF = 1 BlackEF = 0 White

EF = -1

EF = -2

1

enomtiveistinofFspovidesnindependentcteoiztiontt

seenpepedontesisofPisMoUpottteinspectionesuts

ove3-yepeiod,sedoninomiccuus.

The perormance o each Flag is calculatedusing a standard ormula or statisticalcalculations in which cer tain values have beenixed in accordance with agreed Paris MoUpolicy. Two limits have been included in thesystem, the black to grey and the grey towhite limit, each with its own speciic ormula

In the ormula N is the number oinspections, p is the allowable detentionlimit (yardstick), set to 7% by the Paris MoUPort State Control Committee, and z isthe signiicance requested (z=1.645 or astatistically acceptable certainty level o95%). The result u is the allowed number odetentions or either the black or white list.The u results can be ound in the table. Anumber o detentions above this black to grey

limit means signiicantly worse than average,where a number o detentions below the greyto white limit means signiicantly bet ter thanaverage. When the amount o detentions or aparticular Flag is positioned between the two,the Flag will ind itsel on the grey list. Theormula is applicable or sample sizes o 30 ormore inspections over a 3-year period.To sort results on the black or white list, simplyalter the target and repeat the calculation.

Flags which are still signiicantly above thissecond target, are worse than the lags whichare not. This process can be repeated to createas many reinements as desired. (O coursethe maximum detention rate remains 100%!)To make the lags per ormance comparable,the excess actor (EF) is introduced. Eachincremental or decremental step correspondswith one whole EF-point o dierence. Thus theEF is an indication or the number o times the

e x p l a n a t o r y n o t W h i t , G r y a n d B l a c k l i s t


57/6257

yardstick has to be altered and recalculated.

Once the excess actor is determined or alllags, the lags can be ordered by EF. Theexcess actor can be ound in the last columno the White, Grey or Black list. The target(yardstick) has been set on 7% and the sizeo the increment and decrement on 3%. TheWhite/Grey/Black lists have been calculated inaccordance with the principles above.The graphical representation o the systembelow is showing the direct relations betweenthe number o inspected ships and the numbero detentions. Both axes have a logarithmic

character as the black to grey or the grey towhite limit.

exampl lag on Black list:

Ships o Flag A were subject to 108 inspectionso which 25 resulted in a detention . The blackto grey limit is 12 detentions. The excessactor is 4,26

N= total inspectionsP = 7%

Q =3%Z = 1.645

How to determine the black to grey limit:

The excess actor is 4,26. This means thatp has to be adjusted in the ormula. Theblack to grey limit has an excess actor o 1,

so to determine the new value or p, q hasto be multiplied with 3,26 and the outcomehas to be added to the normal value or p:

exampl lag on Gry list:

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

How to determine the grey to white limit:

To determine the excess actor the ollowingormula is used:

= Detentions grey to white limit / grey toblack limit grey to white limit

exampl lag on Whit list:

Ships o Flag C were subject to 297 inspectionso which 11 resulted in detention. The grey to

white limit is 13 detentions. The excess actoris 0,28.How to determine the grey to white limit:

The excess actor is - 0,28 This means thatp has to be adjusted in the ormula. The greyto white limit has an excess actor o 0, so todetermine the new value or p, q has to be

multiplied with 0,28, and the outcome has tobe added to the normal value or p:


58/6258

1.executivesummy

Sta

Mr. Richard W.J. SchierliSecretary General

Telephone: +31 70 456 1509

E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs. Carien DroppersDeputy Secretary General

Telephone: +31 70 456 1507E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Ivo SnijdersSecretary

Telephone: +31 70 456 1849


Mr. Peter AarsenSecretary

Telephone: +31 70 456 1510

E-mail: pe [email protected]

Mrs. Linda KorpershoekSecretary

Telephone: +31 70 456 1627


Mr. Lourens van t WoutICT Advisor

Telephone: +31 70 456 1375E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs. Melany Cadogan - EskiciOice Manager

Telephone: +31 70 456 1436


Mrs. Ingrid de VreeManagement Assistant

Telephone: +31 70 456 1508


Scrtariat Paris Mmorandum o Undrstanding on Port Stat Control

Addrss Scrtariat:

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

www.parismou.org, [email protected]

Layout and dsign

Rooduijn communicatie & design, Den Haag

Photographs

Cover photo: Italian Coast Guard

Paris MoU Authorities

Deniz Hammudoglu

Evert van der Spek

Secretariat

Wbsit

The Paris MoU maintains a website which can be

ound at www.parismou.org. The site contains

inormation on operation o the Paris MoU and a

database o inspection results.


59/6259

P i s M o U f c t s e e t o n i z t i o n s t u c t u e

MaritimeAuthorities

Co-operatingMaritime

Authorities

EuropeanCommission

Port State Control Committee

MoU Advisory Board (MAB)

Paris MoU Secretariat

THETISInformation System

Technical WorkingGroups

Owners, Flags andclassification societies

Ship inspectionservices of

Paris MoU port States

Observers:IMO, ILO,

other MoUs


60/6260

1.executive summarye x e c u t i v e s u m m a r yn o t sn o t s


61/62


62/62