P O R T S TAT E
CONTROL
On course for safer shipping
white list

grey list
black list

annual report
2011

31

33

grey list

35

black list

2011

white list

Annual report

Contents
Executive summary

6

Paris MoU developments

8

Fac t s an d f igure s 2 011

18

S t a t i s t i c a l  A n n e x e s a n n u a l r e p o r t 2 0 1 1 

23

E x p l a n a t o r y n o t e –  W h i t e ,  G r e y a n d  B l a c k l i s t s 

54

P a r i s M o U  S e c r e t a r i a t
colophon, address and staf f

56

1.executive
S t a t e msummary
ent by

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

4

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

5

1.executive
e x e c u tsummary
ive summary

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.

6

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.

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.

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

7

1.executive
summary
Paris M
oU developments

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

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

8

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 ship’s 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 Organization’s 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.

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

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.

Issues considered by the TEG included:
• The implementation and transition to the
new inspection regime including the THETIS
information system
• E
 valuation of Paris MoU statistics
• R
 evision of the guidelines on operational
controls
• R
 evision of the guidelines on STCW
• D
 evelopment of guidelines for PSCOs for the
Maritime Labour Convention.
• D
 evelopment of an evaluation procedure for
the training policy
• D
 evelopment of CICs on Structural Safety
and Load Lines (2011) and Fire Safety Systems
(2012)
Port State Control Training initiatives

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:
• S
 eminars (twice a year)
• E
 xpert trainings (twice a year)
• S
 pecialized trainings (once a year)

9

1.executive
summary
Paris M
oU developments

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.

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

PSC Seminar 51

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

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

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 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 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

The 10 Expert Training “The Human Element”
th

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
Paris M
oU developments

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 two cases the detention review panel
concluded that the port State’s 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

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.

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
Paris M
oU developments

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 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

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,

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
Paris M
oU developments

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.

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.

CIC Campaigns 2012 and 2013

For 2012, the PSC Committee decided on a
Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Fire
Safety Systems. For 2013, the Committee agreed

16

The International Labour Organization and
the International Maritime Organization have
participated in the meetings of the Paris MoU

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.

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.

Membership of the Paris MoU

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
f a c t s summary
and figures

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).

In 56% of all inspections performed, one or
more deficiencies were recorded. In 2010 this
figure was 55%.

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.

The average number of deficiencies per
inspection also decreased from 2,7 in 2010 to
2,6 in 2011.

Def iciencies

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

2011 the number of deficiencies decreased to
50,738. Compared with 2010 this is a decrease
of deficiencies of 22%.

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.

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 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”.

“White, Grey and Black List”

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

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 year’s “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

19

1.executive
f a c t s summary
and figures

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

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

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)
• D et 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 year’s 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

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 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

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

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

The deficiencies in Safety of Navigation show a
decrease of 24.6%, from 8,654 deficiencies in
2010 to 6,528 deficiencies in 2011.

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 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 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

15
,

24
,

18
2
,0

13
56
6

22
,

75

,4

14
,

2
76
14
,

2011

3
14
,

2010

24
,6
47

23

2009

15
,

2008

12
16

21
,

13

38

2007

,3

,5

2006

2004

12

23
,8

2005

2003

11

number of individual
ships inspected

82

24

17

14,000
12,000

26

7

16,000

8

basic port state control figures 2011

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000

,0
58
24

87
7

19
,0

58

21
,

30
2

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
2002

24

20
,3

19
,7

number of inspections

20,000

6

20
,3
09

25,000

18

2002

66

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2008

2010

2011

51
,7
83

71
,9

64

,6

98

11

,7
74
66

34

,7

38

62

,4

,1
13
64

60,000

,1
42

71
,9

,0

70,000

79

28

13

80,000
69

50,000

50

number of deficiencies
observed

90,000

40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

7

2004

57

1
43

22
1,

2006

2006

5.
46

2006

2007

9
05
1,

4

1,

1,

0

25
1,

2006

4
17

7
18

1,200

44

0

1,

1,400

5.

1,600

2003

1,

1,000

99

0

800

68

8

79

number of detentions

2002

600
400
200
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2010

2011

10

5

7.
98

7

5.
84

4.
38

4.
6

7

5

3.

28

4

3.
61

6

4.
95

8

7.
0

detentions in % of
inspections

9

3
2
1
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2008

2009

2010

2011

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.

25

26

835

260

125

382

185

316

1225

1403

990

62

234

1706

246

182

230

1583

594

432

445

776

Russian
Federation
956
Russian
Federation

Slovania
Slovenia

528

240

1727 Spain

Commitment

331

819

296

273

445

179

344

1520

1424

1028

66

393

2034

225

168

204

1913

561

414

576

512

877

242

1759

Cyprus

Cyprus

France

Greece

Latvia

Latvia

Malta

356

Kingdom
1541United
United Kingdom

722

1743

Sweden Sweden

Spain

Romania
Romania

Portugal
Portugal

United Kingdom

Sweden

Spain

Slovania

Russian Federation

Romania

Portugal

Poland

1,600

Poland

Norway

Netherlands

Malta

Lithuania

Latvia

Italy

Ireland

Iceland

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Estonia

Denmark

Cyprus

Croatia

1,800

Poland

Norway Norway

Netherlands
Netherlands

Malta

Lithuania
Lithuania

Italy

Ireland

Italy

Ireland

Iceland Iceland

Greece

Germany
Germany

France

Finland Finland

Estonia Estonia

Denmark
Denmark

Croatia

Canada

Bulgaria

Belgium

2,000

Croatia

Canada Canada

BulgariaBulgaria

971

BelgiumBelgium

Inspections

1401

ib na ss pi ce cpt oi or tn setf af ot er t cs o n t r o l f i g u r e s
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
High Risk Ship Inspection

Standard Risk Ship Inspection

Low Risk Ship Inspection

Ship Risk Profile unknown

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Com m i t m e n t

2,500
Commitment

2,000
Inspections relevant for commitment

1,500

1,000

500

0

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

United Kingdom 8.4%

Belgium 5.1%

Sweden 2.2%
Spain 9.4%
Slovenia 1.3%

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%

Romania 4.1%
Greece 5.3%

Portugal 2.4%

Iceland 0.3%
Ireland 1.3%

Poland 2.3%
Norway 3.2%

Italy 9.0%

Netherlands 8.4%
Lithuania 1.0%

Latvia 1.3%
Malta 1.2%

27

Total nr of  Inspections

Inspections with deficiencies

Inspections with detentions

Inspections with RO related detainable deficiencies

% Inspections with
deficiencies

% Detentions

% Inspection of MoU
total

% HRS

%  SRS

%  LSR

% SRP Unknown

MoU port States’s individual contributions to the total amount of inspections

Belgium

971

578

11

0

59,5

1,13

5,09

3,69

77,77

2,15

16,39

Bulgaria

552

415

24

8

75,2

4,35

2,18

28,99

54,89

0,54

15,58

Ca n a d a 1

895

397

34

5

44,4

3,80

4,70

2,80

56,61

4,48

36,10

Cr o a t i a

269

171

12

1

63,6

4,46

1,41

25,28

60,59

1,49

12,64

Cy p r u s

127

69

10

3

54,3

7,87

0,67

8,73

71,43

1,59

18,25

Denmark

400

181

2

0

45,3

0,50

2,10

3,00

78,25

3,50

15,25

Estonia

196

53

1

0

27,0

0,51

1,03

3,08

79,49

3,59

13,85

Finland

316

100

2

0

31,6

0,63

1,66

1,50

83,78

7,51

7,21

Fr a n c e

1253

776

38

2

61,9

3,03

6,57

5,43

76,94

2,95

14,68

Germany

1411

635

37

2

45,0

2,62

7,40

2,34

83,20

3,76

10,70

Greece

1015

582

54

11

57,3

5,32

5,33

21,48

59,51

1,38

17,64

Iceland

63

14

1

1

22,2

1,59

0,33

3,17

84,13

0,00

12,70

Ireland

242

137

14

3

56,6

5,79

1,27

6,20

83,06

3,31

7,44

Italy

1707

1024

114

22

60,0

6,68

8,96

11,07

68,65

0,91

19,36

Latvia

246

57

1

0

23,2

0,41

1,29

6,94

82,86

2,86

7,35

Lithuania

185

105

1

1

56,8

0,54

0,97

7,57

78,38

1,62

12,43

Malta

237

147

10

2

62,0

4,22

1,24

3,43

61,80

1,29

33,48

Netherlands

1604

864

55

3

53,9

3,43

8,42

4,24

65,96

1,93

27,87

Norway

615

198

8

1

32,2

1,30

3,23

2,60

76,75

4,55

16,10

Poland

432

308

12

0

71,3

2,78

2,27

3,17

82,81

0,68

13,35

Portugal

448

230

8

3

51,3

1,79

2,35

7,37

75,89

1,56

15,18

Romania

776

401

17

3

51,7

2,19

4,07

30,04

57,12

0,13

12,71

Russian
Federation 2

1039

752

24

3

72,4

2,31

5,45

21,94

65,54

1,83

10,68

Slovenia

240

121

29

5

50,4

12,08

1,26

8,75

74,17

1,67

15,42

Spain

1794

1127

122

12

62,8

6,80

9,41

7,81

74,51

1,23

16,45

Sweden

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 g d o m

1604

1128

42

3

70,3

2,62

8,42

4,18

77,62

3,12

15,09

To t a l

19058

10731

688

95

56,3

3,61

100

8,96

71,82

2,40

16,83

MOU
port
State

1
2

28

Inspections in Canada west coast ports are included
Only inspections in the Russian ports of the Baltic, Azov and Barents Seas are included

29

30

white list

Flag

Inspections
2009-2011

Detentions
2009-2011

Black to
Grey
limit

Grey to
White
limit

Excess
Fa c t o r

White list
Germany

1,335

10

109

78

-1.91

Sweden

810

5

69

44

-1.90

Denmark

1,376

15

112

80

-1.78

Netherlands

3,691

49

284

232

-1.78

U n i t e d  K i n g d o m

1,905

25

152

115

-1.73

Fr a n c e

337

2

32

15

-1.70

H o n g  K o n g ,  C h i n a

1,489

20

121

88

-1.69

Singapore

1,370

19

112

80

-1.66

Italy

1,471

21

120

86

-1.66

Greece

1,334

19

109

78

-1.65

Finland

562

6

50

29

-1.64

Cr o a t i a

153

0

16

5

-1.62

M a n ,  I s l e o f , U K

828

12

71

45

-1.56

Bahamas

3,265

67

253

204

-1.50

Norway

2,023

40

161

122

-1.48

Poland

189

1

20

7

-1.47

Belgium

233

2

23

9

-1.42

Liberia

4,270

105

327

271

-1.38

270

3

26

12

-1.36

Cy p r u s

2,422

59

191

148

-1.33

Ireland

165

1

17

6

-1.33

1,208

27

100

69

-1.31

257

3

25

11

-1.31

Bermuda, UK

G i b r a l t a r, U K
Spain
M a r s h a l l  I s l a n d s

2,361

59

186

144

-1.31

China

241

3

24

10

-1.24

K o r e a ,  R e p u b l i c o f

141

1

15

4

-1.13

Estonia

89

0

11

2

-1.02

Malta

5,301

186

402

340

-1.01

Barbados

463

11

42

23

-1.01

Luxembourg

195

3

20

7

-0.96

Ca y m a n  I s l a n d s , U K

282

6

27

12

-0.91

R u s s i a n Fe d e r a t i o n

1,644

60

133

98

-0.83

A n t i g u a a n d  B a r b u d a

4,767

196

363

304

-0.79

Portugal

496

15

45

25

-0.78

Philippines

250

6

25

10

-0.73

Panama

7,611

345

570

496

-0.69

Lithuania

216

5

22

8

-0.68

Tu r k e y

2,107

96

167

128

-0.54

Fa r o e  I s l a n d s ( D K )

193

5

20

7

-0.49

Japan

91

1

11

2

-0.48

Va n u a t u

203

6

21

8

-0.37

Latvia

109

2

13

3

-0.33

I r a n ,  I s l a m i c  R e p u b l i c o f

134

4

15

4

-0.01

31

basic port state control figures

32

grey list

Flag

Inspections
2009-2011

Detentions
2009-2011

Black to
Grey
limit

Grey to
White
limit

Excess
Fa c t o r

Grey list
Kazakhstan

42

0

6

0

0.04

U nit ed St at es of  A me r i c a

174

7

18

6

0.07

S a u d i  A r a b i a

59

1

8

0

0.08

Malaysia

57

1

8

0

0.09

Thailand

77

2

10

1

0.09

Switzerland

96

3

11

2

0.10

India

129

5

14

4

0.12

Bulgaria

141

7

15

4

0.24

Belize

644

40

56

34

0.27

Morocco

131

7

14

4

0.30

Curacao

490

32

44

25

0.38

Tu v a l u

39

2

6

0

0.38

Tu n i s i a

53

3

7

0

0.40

Slovakia

140

9

15

4

0.43

Algeria

85

6

10

2

0.51

Egypt

105

9

12

3

0.67

Viet Nam

38

4

6

0

0.72

Co o k  I s l a n d s

160

14

17

5

0.74

Jamaica

36

5

6

0

0.91

1,586

126

128

94

0.94

Saint Vincent and
t h e  G r e n a d i n e s

33

34

black list

Flag

Inspections
2009-2011

Detentions
2009-2011

Black to
Grey
limit

Grey to
White
limit

Excess
Fa c t o r

Black list
Honduras

59

8

8

1.06

Dominica

144

16

16

1.07

S y r i a n  A r a b  R e p u b l i c

166

19

18

1.25

medium
risk

Lebanon

74

10

9

Azerbaijan

34

6

5

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

S a i n t  K i t t s a n d N e v i s

416

60

38

M o l d o v a ,  R e p u b l i c o f

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

S i e r r a  L e o n e

476

85

43

3.69

To g o

205

42

21

4.01

Bolivia

46

12

7

Libya

46

14

7

medium
to high
risk

high
risk

very
high
risk

1.25

2.22

2.57

3.29

4.03

5.24

35

Flags meeting criteria for Low Risk Ships 2011

Flags meeting criteria for Low Risk Ships (as per 31 December 2011)
Bahamas

Italy

Belgium

Japan

Bermuda, UK

Liberia

China

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Marshall Islands

Denmark

Netherlands

Estonia

Norway

Finland

Panama

France

Poland

Germany

Republic of Korea

Gibraltar, UK

Russian Federation

Greece

Singapore

Hong Kong, China

Spain

India

Sweden

Ireland

United Kingdom

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.

N o t l i s t e d f l a g s h a v i n g u n d e r g o n e  I M O V I M SAS A u d i t
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

Equatorial Guinea
Guinea
Venezuela

Grenada
Australia
Argentina
United Arab Emirates

Eritrea
Nigeria
Austria

Kuwait
Qatar

Cape Verde
Falkland Islands
Maldives
Pakistan
Slovenia
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Mauritius
Romania
Iceland
Indonesia
Myanmar

Mongolia

Bangladesh
Turkmenistan

Korea,
Democratic
People's Rep.

Montenegro

Seychelles
Bahrain

38

Israel

Kiribati

Canada
Sri Lanka
Taiwan, China

Inspections
with
deficiencies

Nr of
Individual ships
inspected

44

7

38

20

15.91

86.36

Algeria

26

1

22

22

3.85

84.62

1263

59

735

869

4.67

58.19

Australia

1

0

1

1

0.00

100.00

Austria

1

0

0

1

0.00

0.00

Azerbaijan

7

1

5

4

14.29

71.43

Bahamas

875

18

449

702

2.06

51.31

Bahrain

7

0

1

5

0.00

14.29

Bangladesh

3

1

3

3

33.33

100.00

Barbados

108

2

57

85

1.85

52.78

Belgium

81

0

44

67

0.00

54.32

Belize

182

13

143

125

7.14

78.57

Bermuda, UK

82

3

34

72

3.66

41.46

Bolivia

12

5

10

6

41.67

83.33

Brazil

4

0

3

3

0.00

75.00

Bulgaria

30

1

22

21

3.33

73.33

Ca m b o d i a

216

18

197

123

8.33

91.20

Ca n a d a

6

0

2

6

0.00

33.33

Ca p e Ve r d e

2

0

2

2

0.00

100.00

102

3

51

96

2.94

50.00

Chile

1

0

1

1

0.00

100.00

China

62

2

29

58

3.23

46.77

Co m o r o s

138

10

124

88

7.25

89.86

Co o k  I s l a n d s

57

4

47

34

7.02

82.46

Cr o a t i a

48

0

18

41

0.00

37.50

Curacao

109

7

76

74

6.42

69.72

Cy p r u s

659

14

366

497

2.12

55.54

Denmark

431

3

196

347

0.70

45.48

Dominica

45

8

34

28

17.78

75.56

D o m i n i c a n  R e p u b l i c

1

0

1

1

0.00

100.00

Egypt

29

3

19

21

10.34

65.52

Estonia

27

0

8

18

0.00

29.63

Fa l k l a n d  I s l a n d s

2

0

0

1

0.00

0.00

Fa r o e  I s l a n d s

78

2

36

54

2.56

46.15

Finland

152

1

66

123

0.66

43.42

Fr a n c e

103

0

57

88

0.00

55.34

Georgia

150

12

132

91

8.00

88.00

A n t i g u a a n d  B a r b u d a

Ca y m a n  I s l a n d s , U K

% of
inspections
with
deficiencies

Inspections
with
detentions

Albania

Flag

% of
inspections
with
detentions

Nr of
Inspections

inspections, detentions and deficiencies 2011

39

Inspections
with
deficiencies

Nr of
Individual ships
inspected

350

2

163

286

0.57

46.57

G i b r a l t a r, U K

313

9

172

214

2.88

54.95

Greece

365

7

161

327

1.92

44.11

Guinea

1

0

1

1

0.00

100.00

Honduras

14

4

11

11

28.57

78.57

H o n g  K o n g ,  C h i n a

495

8

234

448

1.62

47.27

Iceland

4

0

4

4

0.00

100.00

India

51

3

29

43

5.88

56.86

Indonesia

2

0

2

1

0.00

100.00

I r a n ,  I s l a m i c  R e p u b l i c o f

39

0

32

24

0.00

82.05

Ireland

40

0

17

35

0.00

42.50

Isle of Man, UK

211

5

82

191

2.37

38.86

Israel

8

0

5

8

0.00

62.50

Italy

449

6

240

379

1.34

53.45

Jamaica

4

0

1

4

0.00

25.00

Japan

25

0

10

24

0.00

40.00

Kazakhstan

16

0

9

16

0.00

56.25

Kiribati

5

1

5

4

20.00

100.00

Korea, Democratic People's
Republic of

1

0

1

1

0.00

100.00

K o r e a ,  R e p u b l i c o f

33

0

18

32

0.00

54.55

Kuwait

12

1

4

11

8.33

33.33

Latvia

28

0

16

18

0.00

57.14

Lebanon

26

5

23

15

19.23

88.46

Liberia

1271

26

645

1108

2.05

50.75

Libya

10

3

6

8

30.00

60.00

Lithuania

66

1

30

42

1.52

45.45

Luxembourg

56

0

29

49

0.00

51.79

Malaysia

19

1

9

16

5.26

47.37

Malta

1575

62

829

1227

3.94

52.63

M a r s h a l l  I s l a n d s

808

28

388

702

3.47

48.02

3

1

2

2

33.33

66.67

196

19

172

97

9.69

87.76

Mongolia

2

0

2

2

0.00

100.00

Morocco

35

1

31

21

2.86

88.57

Myanmar

2

0

1

2

0.00

50.00

986

18

488

775

1.83

49.49

Mauritius
M o l d o v a ,  R e p u b l i c o f

Netherlands

40

% of
inspections
with
deficiencies

Inspections
with
detentions

Germany

Flag

% of
inspections
with
detentions

Nr of
Inspections

inspections, detentions and deficiencies 2011

Inspections
with
deficiencies

Nr of
Individual ships
inspected

4

275

445

0.79

54.13

Pakistan

2

0

1

2

0.00

50.00

Panama

2211

97

1205

1859

4.39

54.50

Philippines

88

2

57

74

2.27

64.77

Poland

56

0

35

42

0.00

62.50

Portugal

128

5

82

91

3.91

64.06

Qatar

8

0

3

7

0.00

37.50

Romania

2

0

1

2

0.00

50.00

R u s s i a n Fe d e r a t i o n

465

11

296

396

2.37

63.66

S a i n t  K i t t s a n d N e v i s

101

8

86

64

7.92

85.15

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

394

37

306

258

9.39

77.66

S a u d i  A r a b i a

16

0

3

15

0.00

18.75

Seychelles

5

0

1

4

0.00

20.00

S i e r r a  L e o n e

122

18

116

77

14.75

95.08

Singapore

444

8

204

403

1.80

45.95

Slovakia

19

1

18

7

5.26

94.74

Slovenia

4

0

2

4

0.00

50.00

Spain

75

0

41

65

0.00

54.67

S r i  L a n k a

6

0

4

4

0.00

66.67

Sweden

180

1

85

132

0.56

47.22

Switzerland

28

0

16

26

0.00

57.14

S y r i a n  A r a b  R e p u b l i c

23

2

18

16

8.70

78.26

Ta i w a n ,  C h i n a

3

1

3

2

33.33

100.00

Tanzania, United Republic of

65

15

63

46

23.08

96.92

Thailand

16

0

9

15

0.00

56.25

To g o

72

9

66

43

12.50

91.67

Tu n i s i a

17

0

15

10

0.00

88.24

Tu r k e y

587

28

357

471

4.78

60.92

Tu r k m e n i s t a n

2

0

1

2

0.00

50.00

Tu v a l u

15

1

13

10

6.67

86.67

Ukraine

96

10

79

75

10.42

82.29

U n i t e d  A r a b  E m i r a t e s

10

2

8

10

20.00

80.00

U n i t e d  K i n g d o m

585

8

276

490

1.37

47.18

U n i t e d  S t a t e s

95

6

62

81

6.32

65.26

Va n u a t u

77

2

54

63

2.60

70.13

Ve n e z u e l a

1

1

1

1

100.00

100.00

Viet Nam

11

1

8

9

9.09

72.73

% of
inspections
with
deficiencies

Inspections
with
detentions

508

% of
inspections
with
detentions

Nr of
Inspections

Norway

Flag

41

Detentions per flag in 2011

Excess of average
2010

Detentions % 2010

Excess of average
2011

Detentions

Inspections

Flag

Detentions % 2011

	exceeding average percentage

Bermuda, UK

82

3

3,66

0,08

0,00

-3,29

Algeria

26

1

3,85

0,26

8,33

5,05

Portugal

128

5

3,91

0,32

1,66

-1,63

Malta

1575

62

3,94

0,35

2,71

-0,58

Panama

2211

97

4,39

0,80

3,36

0,07

A n t i g u a a n d  B a r b u d a

1263

59

4,67

1,09

4,00

0,71

Tu r k e y

586

28

4,78

1,20

4,35

1,06

India

51

3

5,88

2,30

2,70

-0,58

U n i t e d  S t a t e s

95

6

6,32

2,73

2,27

-1,01

Curacao

109

7

6,42

2,84

3,93

0,65

Co o k  I s l a n d s

57

4

7,02

3,43

9,26

5,97

Belize

182

13

7,14

3,56

3,32

0,03

Comoros

138

10

7,25

3,66

13,00

9,72

S a i n t  K i t t s a n d N e v i s

101

8

7,92

4,34

17,99

14,70

Georgia

150

12

8,00

4,42

10,74

7,45

Ca m b o d i a

216

18

8,33

4,75

11,76

8,48

S y r i a n  A r a b  R e p u b l i c

23

2

8,70

5,11

12,07

8,78

Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines

394

38

9,39

5,81

6,17

2,89

M o l d o v a ,  R e p u b l i c o f

196

19

9,69

6,11

17,08

13,80

Egypt

29

3

10,34

6,76

6,06

2,77

Ukraine

96

10

10,42

6,83

11,54

8,25

Togo

72

9

12,50

8,92

23,08

19,79

S i e r r a  L e o n e

122

18

14,75

11,17

15,63

12,34

Albania

44

8

15,91

12,33

16,44

13,15

Dominica

45

8

17,78

14,19

5,08

1,80

Lebanon

26

5

19,23

15,65

14,29

11,00

Ta n z a n i a ,
U n i t e d  R e p u b l i c o f

65

15

23,08

19,49

9,62

6,33

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

Detentions per Flag in 2011
exceeding average percentage

Detention percentage 2011

Bermuda, UK

Detention percentage 2010

Algeria

Average detention percentage 2011

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

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

•	O nly 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

Nr of Inspections

Inspections with
deficiencies

% of inspections
with deficiencies

Nr of Individual
ships inspected

Inspections with
detentions

%  of  Detention
2011

%  of  Detention
2010

%  of  Detention
2009

+/- average
detention %

per ship type

Bulk carrier

3204

1793

56

2751

104

3,25

2,77

4,60

-0,36

Chemical tanker

1701

813

48

1430

25

1,47

2,06

2,36

-2,14

37

19

51

33

0

0,00

0,00

1,79

-3,61

2066

985

48

1685

29

1,40

0,94

1,66

-2,21

Other

67

49

73

54

4

5,97

2,35

3,32

2,36

Gas carrier

448

184

41

384

5

1,12

1,12

2,22

-2,49

General cargo/multipurpose

6374

4199

66

4499

384

6,02

5,47

6,78

2,41

Heavy load

33

23

70

29

0

0,00

0,00

2,70

-3,61

High speed passenger craft

76

37

49

48

1

1,32

1,12

0,00

-2,29

NLS tanker

92

33

36

73

2

2,17

0,68

3,91

-1,44

Offshore supply

462

264

57

408

10

2,16

1,74

1,30

-1,45

Oil tanker

1324

488

37

1194

17

1,28

0,93

1,34

-2,33

Other special activities

1004

581

58

906

41

4,08

2,83

4,63

0,47

Passenger ship

339

173

51

273

15

4,42

1,60

1,58

0,81

Refrigerated cargo

413

275

67

353

17

4,12

3,08

5,04

0,51

Ro-Ro cargo

795

404

51

666

20

2,52

3,00

3,39

-1,09

Ro-Ro passenger ship

588

356

61

322

10

1,70

1,91

1,41

-1,91

Special purpose ship

119

64

54

104

2

1,68

3,23

1,11

-1,93

Tug

60

32

53

56

2

3,33

0,00

0,00

-0,28

Ship type

Combination carrier
Container

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

9.00
8.00

% Det 2011
% Det 2010
% Det 2009

7.00

Average detention % 2011

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00

Heavy load

Combination carrier

Gas carrier

Oil tanker

High speed passenger craft

Container

Chemical tanker

Special purpose ship

Ro-Ro passenger ship

Offshore supply

NLS tanker

Ro-Ro cargo

Bulk carrier

Tug

Other special activities

Refrigerated cargo

Passenger ship

Other

General cargo/multipurpose

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.

45

major categorie of deficiencies 2009 - 2011
2010

2009
Def. Main Group

2011

Category of deficiencies

Def

Def %

Def

Def %

Def

Def %

Crew Certificates

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

Ship Certificates

5.031

6,95

4.117

6,33

3.046

5,96

Structural Conditions

3.104

4,29

2.952

4,54

2.808

5,49

Water/Weathertight conditions

3.213

4,44

2.851

4,38

2.597

5,08

Emergency Systems

2.635

3,64

2.191

3,37

1.952

3,82

Radio Communications

2.439

3,37

2.200

3,38

1.704

3,33

330

0,46

317

0,49

332

0,65

8.361

11,55

7.687

11,82

6.591

12,89

Certificate & Documentation

Cargo operations including equipment
Fire safety
Alarms

602

0,83

497

0,76

464

0,91

Living Conditions

3.418

4,72

2.932

4,51

2.313

4,52

Working Conditions

7.224

9,98

7.057

10,85

5.252

10,27

Safety of Navigation

9.618

13,28

8.654

13,30

6.528

12,76

Life saving appliances

6.915

9,55

5.636

8,66

4.782

9,35

Working and Living Conditions

Dangerous goods

197

0,27

224

0,34

125

0,24

4.556

6,29

4.239

6,52

2.951

5,77

Anti Fouling

58

0,08

36

0,06

15

0,03

Marpol Annex I

1.720

2,38

1.586

2,44

1.318

2,58

Marpol Annex II

33

0,05

14

0,02

36

0,07

Marpol Annex III

13

0,02

8

0,01

18

0,04

Marpol Annex IV

266

0,37

298

0,46

253

0,49

Marpol Annex V

459

0,63

402

0,62

347

0,68

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

Pollution prevention

Marpol Annex VI

145

0,20

293

0,45

358

0,70

ISM

4.279

5,91

3.458

5,32

1.644

3,21

ISPS

768

1,06

868

1,33

518

1,01

Other

494

0,68

495

0,76

602

1,18

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

Deficiencies

% Deficiencies

Fire safety

6.591

12,89%

Safety of Navigation

6.528

12,76%

Working and Living Conditions - Working Conditions

5.252

10,27%

Life saving appliances

4.782

9,35%

Certificate & Documentation - Documents

3.491

6,83%

To p 5 o f d e f i c i e n c i e s 2 0 1 1

Deficiencies

46

Deficiencies

% Deficiencies

ISM

1.644

3,21%

Nautical publications

1.425

2,79%

Charts

1.398

2,73%

Oil record book

1.124

2,20%

Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions

1.012

1,98%

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

Total number of
detentions

Detention-% of
total number of
inspections

+/- Percentage of Average
(0,35%)

Detention-% of
individual ships

+/- Percentage of Average
(0,44%)

Alpha Register of Shipping

106

95

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

American Bureau of Shipping

1896

1659

1

0,05

-0,30

0,06

-0,38

ASIA Classification Society (Iran)

48

47

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Bulgarski Koraben Registar

103

63

3

2,91

2,56

4,76

4,33

Bureau Securitas (Malta)

14

13

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Bureau Veritas (France)

3841

3019

11

0,29

-0,07

0,36

-0,07

China Classification Society

256

231

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

China Corporation Register of Shipping

15

13

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Croatian Register of Shipping

58

47

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Cyprus Bureau of Shipping

16

14

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

3590

3070

3

0,08

-0,27

0,10

-0,34

60

49

2

3,33

2,98

4,08

3,65

4308

3275

10

0,23

-0,12

0,31

-0,13

Global Marine Bureau (Korea, Rep. Of )

38

33

1

2,63

2,28

3,03

2,59

Hellenic Register of Shipping

50

41

2

4,00

3,65

4,88

4,44

Honduras International Surveying and Inspection Bureau

4

4

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Indian Register of Shipping

49

39

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

INCLAMAR (Cyprus)

25

19

1

4,00

3,65

5,26

4,83

Recognized
organization*

Det Norske Veritas
Dromon Bureau of Shipping
Germanischer Lloyd

Total number of
inspections

Number of
individual ships
inspected

(Cases in which more than 10 inspections are involved)

Intermaritime Certification Services (Panama)

23

19

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

International Naval Surveys Bureau (Greece)

249

156

7

2,81

2,46

4,49

4,05

International Register of Shipping (USA)

198

133

6

3,03

2,68

4,51

4,08

Isthmus Bureau of Shipping (Panama)

62

50

1

1,61

1,26

2,00

1,56

Korea Classification Society (Korea, DPR)

3

3

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Korean Register of Shipping (Korea, Rep. of )

253

233

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Lloyd's Register (UK)

4050

3333

1

0,02

-0,33

0,03

-0,41

Macosnar Corporation (Panama)

14

11

1

7,14

6,79

9,09

8,65

Maritime Bureau of Shipping

18

16

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Maritime Lloyd (Georgia)

23

22

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

National Shipping Adjusters (Panama)

12

9

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Japan)

2198

1924

4

0,18

-0,17

0,21

-0,23

Overseas Marine Certification Service (Panama)

12

11

1

8,33

7,98

9,09

8,65

Panama Maritime Documentation Services

28

22

1

3,57

3,22

4,55

4,11

Panama Maritime Surveyor Bureau Inc.

5

4

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Panama Register Corporation

36

31

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece)

38

21

1

2,63

2,28

4,76

4,33

Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping)

198

144

1

0,51

0,15

0,69

0,26
20,62

Register of Shipping (Albania)

44

19

4

9,09

8,74

21,05

Registro Italiano Navale

960

781

3

0,31

-0,04

0,38

-0,05

8

5

1

12,50

12,15

20,00

19,56

Rinave Portuguesa
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

1585

1205

3

0,19

-0,16

0,25

-0,19

Russian River Register

12

12

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

Shipping Register of Ukraine

255

161

3

1,18

0,82

1,86

1,43

Turkish Lloyd

373

282

1

0,27

-0,08

0,35

-0,08

Universal Shipping Bureau (Panama)

65

49

3

4,62

4,26

6,12

5,69

Vietnam Register of Shipping

9

7

0

0,00

-0,35

0,00

-0,44

*	W here a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any
connection with the maritime administration of that country.

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)

Average detention percentage 2011 (0,35%)
+/- Percentage of Average 2011 (0,35%)

Shipping Register of Ukraine

+/- Percentage of Average 2010 (0,27%)

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

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

ABS

6035

1

139

102

-1,97

Det Norske Veritas

DNV

12725

11

281

228

-1,89

China Classification Society

CCS

878

0

25

10

-1,87

Lloyd's Register (UK)

LR

14112

18

310

254

-1,85

Germanischer Lloyd

GL

15868

27

347

288

-1,80

Registro Italiano Navale

RINA

3160

4

77

50

-1,80

Bureau Veritas (France)

BV

13515

28

298

243

-1,75

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

NKK

6878

15

157

118

-1,72

Turkish Lloyd

TL

1437

2

38

20

-1,69

Korean Register of Shipping (Korea, Rep. of )

KRS

833

1

24

10

-1,58

Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

RMRS

6055

26

140

103

-1,45

Polski Rejestr Statkow

PRS

787

5

23

9

-0,63

Hellenic Register of Shipping (Greece)

HRS

418

3

14

3

-0,05

Alfa Register of Shipping

ARS

116

0

5

0

0,11

International Naval Surveys Bureau
(Greece)

INSB

915

13

26

11

0,15

Croatian Register of Shipping

CRS

225

2

8

1

0,18

Indian Register of Shipping

IRS

137

1

6

0

0,23

Isthmus Bureau of Shipping (Greece)

IBS

293

4

10

1

0,29

INCLAMAR (Cyprus)

INC

117

2

5

0

0,44

Shipping Register of Ukraine

SRU

771

15

22

9

0,47

Panama Register Corporation

PRC

150

3

6

0

0,50

Panama Maritime Documentation Services

PMDS

125

3

6

0

0,58

Dromon Bureau of Shipping

DBS

60

2

3

0

0,68

Universal Shipping Bureau Inc.

USB

197

6

8

0

0,78

Bulgarski Koraben Registar

BKR

406

17

13

3

1,74

International Register of Shipping (USA)

IRS

1051

42

29

13

2,07

Register of Shipping (Albania)

RSA

175

13

7

0

3,55

Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece)

PHRS

116

10

5

0

3,90

detentions

excess factor

Medium /
high limit

American Bureau of Shipping (USA)

Inspections

Low /
medium limit

Recognized
organization*

Performance level

Recognized Organization performance table (2009 – 2011)

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

AR

122

0

0,00

American Bureau of Shipping

ABS

13.211

1

0,01

ASIA Classification Society

ASIA

50

0

0,00

Bulgarski Koraben Registar

BKR

923

11

1,19

Bureau Securitas

BS

14

0

0,00

Bureau Veritas

BV

24.003

33

0,14

China Classification Society

CCS

1.845

0

0,00

China Corporation Register of Shipping

CCRS

59

0

0,00

Croatian Register of Shipping

CRS

489

0

0,00

Cyprus Bureau of Shipping

CBS

17

0

0,00

Det Norske Veritas

DNV

23.294

4

0,02

Dromon Bureau of Shipping

DBS

507

10

1,97

Germanischer Lloyd

GL

33.355

23

0,07

Global Marine Bureau

GMB

290

8

2,76

Hellenic Register of Shipping

HRS

193

8

4,15

Indian Register of Shipping

IRS

157

0

0,00

INCLAMAR

INCLAMAR

163

1

0,61

Intermaritime Certification Services

ICS

95

0

0,00

International Naval Surveys Bureau

INSB

1.651

21

1,27

International Register of Shipping

IS

1.256

19

1,51

Isthmus Bureau of Shipping

IBS

258

4

1,55

Korean Register of Shipping

KRS

2.119

0

0,00

Lloyd's Register

LR

23.600

5

0,02

Macosnar Corporation

MC

106

4

3,77

Maritime Bureau of Shipping

MBS

164

0

0,00

Maritime Lloyd -Georgia

MLG

186

0

0,00

National Shipping Adjuster

NSA

52

0

0,00

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

NKK

17.812

8

0,04

Overseas Marine Certification Service

OMCS

54

3

5,56

Panama Maritime Documentation Services

PMDS

124

6

4,84

Panama Register Corporation

PRC

96

0

0,00

Phoenix Register of Shipping

PHRS

259

3

1,16

1.179

1

0,08

Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) PRS
Register of Shipping (Albania)

RSA

436

13

2,98

Registro Italiano Navale

RINA

5.417

8

0,15

Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

RMRS

12.597

5

0,04

Russian River Register

RR

52

0

0,00

Shipping Register of Ukraine

SRU

1.979

12

0,61

Turkish Lloyd

TL

1.700

2

0,12

Universal Shipping Bureau

USB

368

7

1,90

174.185

308

0,18

Total

50

RO detdef

14

2

6

4

3

6

Total

Universal Shipping Bureau

136

12

5

5

3

12

3

6

3

4

19

15

1

2

8

7

10

4

8

1

≤18

USB

4

1

2

12-17

2
1

1

3

6-11

TL

4

6

0-5

SRU

4

2

6-11

Turkish Lloyd

3

1

3

9

≤18

Shipping Register of Ukraine

2

2

2

≤18

RMRS

RINA

Bulk Carriers
12-17

Chemical
Tankers

RP

RSA

Register of Shipping (Albania)

Registro Italiano Navale

3

6-11

Gas Carriers

Rinave Portuguesa

PRS

2

0-5

General Dry
Cargo

Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

PHRS

NKK

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping)

MC

Macosnar Corporation

Phoenix Register of Shipping

LR

Lloyd's Register

PMDS

IBS

Isthmus Bureau of Shipping

OMCS

IS

International Register of Shipping

Overseas Marine Certification Service

INSB

International Naval Surveys Bureau

Panama Maritime Documentation Services

INC

GL

INCLAMAR

DBS

Dromon Bureau of Shipping

Germanischer Lloyd

HRS

DNV

Det Norske Veritas

Global Marine Bureau

BV

Bureau Veritas

Hellenic Register of Shipping

BKR

Bulgarski Koraben Registar

GMB

ABS

American Bureau of Shipping

Recognized
organization

7

6

1

0-5

4

4

≤18

1

1

14

1

5

7

1

≤18

Passenger
Ships Ferries
12-17

Refrigerated
Cargo
3

3

12-17

Ro - Ro / Container Vehicle
17

1

3

1

12

≤18

Tankers /
Comb. Carriers
1

1

6-11
1

Total
225

7

2

12

5

5

8

13

1

3

6

3

8

4

5

4

19

21

1

8

8

23

10

4

33

11

Number of certificates delivered for RO related detainable deficiencies per ship type and age

51

Other Types

52

11

23

8

HRS
8

2

6

IBS
4

4

INC
1

1

21

2

3

6

IS
19

10

6

2

1

LR
5

5

MC
4

4

NKK
8

6

2

OMCS
3

3

PHRS
3

3

6

6

PMDS
1

1

8

4

4

1

1

5

4

13

5

GMB
8

INSB
10

PRS

Total

10

2

1

1

GL
5

RINA
3

33

DBS

8

DNV
2

RMRS

Vanuatu

Ukraine

9

Turkey

8

1

1

1

3

6

1

Togo

Singapore

Sierra Leone

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Portugal

Panama

Moldova, Republic of

Marshall Islands

Malta

Libya

Kiribati

Italy

Greece

Georgia

Cyprus

Comoros

Cambodia

Belize

7

1

ABS

Bahamas

7

BKR

1

BV

Antigua and Barbuda

Albania

Flag / RO
RP
5

5

RSA
13

13

SRU
12

1

5

6

TL
2

2

USB
7

7

Total
225

3

1

9

3

5

18

6

6

5

45

18

2

19

2

2

4

9

1

5

13

9

11

8

8

13

%
100,00

1,33

0,44

4,00

1,33

2,22

8,00

2,67

2,67

2,22

20,00

8,00

0,89

8,44

0,89

0,89

1,78

4,00

0,44

2,22

5,78

4,00

4,89

3,56

3,56

5,78

Number of certificates covering RO related detainable deficiencies per flag

Antigua & Barbuda

Total banned ships

No valid ISM code
certificate

Flag

Jumped detention

Failed to call at
indicated repair
yard

Refusal of access (banning) per flag 2009 – 2011

Multiple detentions

1st ban

2nd ban

3rd ban

1

1

Belize

1

1

Bolivia

1

1

2

3

3

3

Cambodia

1

Comoros
Cyprus

1

1

Dominica

1

1

Libya

1

1

Luxembourg

1

1

Moldova, Republic of

4

Panama

3

1

Russian Federation

4

3

7

1

1

Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

1

Sierra Leone

2

Tanzania, United Republic of

1

Togo

1

Turkey

1

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

3

1

2
1

Ukraine
Total

2

9

5

1

1

1

24

39

Refusal of access 2004-2011

2009-2011
40

40
Multiple detentions
Failed to call at indicated repair yard
Jumped detention
No valid ISM code certificate

5

0

0
Multiple
detentions
1st ban

5

2011

10

2010

10

2009

15

2008

15

2007

20

2006

20

2005

25

2004

25

No valid
ISM code
certificate

30

Jumped
detention

30

35

Failed to call
at indicated
repair yard

35

53

Number of
inspections
without a CIC 
questionnaire

4,250

4,386

594

Detentions

150

150

22

Detentions with CIC-topic related deficiencies

42

42

8

Number of Inspections
during CIC campaign

% of total

Number of
inspections
performed
with CIC

Inspections

Number of
ships

Number of individual ships
inspected during CIC

Number of
individual
IMO numbers

CIC 2011 on Structural Safety and the International Convention on Load Lines statistics

1 x inspected

4,123

97,0

2 x inspected

118

2,8

3 x inspected

9

0,2

4,250

100.00

Number of
individual
ships

Inspections

Detentions

Detentions
as % of
inspections

Detentions
CIC-topic
related

Detentions
CIC-topic
related as %
of inspections

Total

Bulk carrier

781

795

25

3,1%

5

0,6%

Chemical tanker

421

433

4

0,9%

1

0,2%

Container

479

493

6

1,2%

2

0,4%

Gas carrier

88

89

3

3,4%

0

0,0%

General cargo/multipurpose

1,490

1,563

83

5,3%

24

1,5%

NLS tanker

25

26

1

3,8%

0

0,0%

Offshore supply

70

71

4

5,6%

2

2,8%

Oil tanker

290

296

5

1,7%

1

0,3%

Other special activities

170

171

4

2,3%

1

0,6%

Ship type

54

Passenger ship

47

48

4

8,3%

2

4,2%

Refrigerated cargo

109

114

6

5,3%

2

1,8%

Ro-Ro cargo

163

166

2

1,2%

1

0,6%

Ro-Ro passenger ship

35

35

1

2,9%

0

0,0%

Tug

25

25

1

4,0%

0

0,0%

Other

57

59

1

1,7%

1

1,7%

Total

4,250

4,386

150

3,4%

42

1,0%

Other

Tug

1400

Ro-Ro passenger ship

Ro-Ro cargo

Refrigerated cargo

Passenger ship

Other special activities

Oil tanker

Offshore supply

NLS tanker

General cargo/multipurpose

Gas carrier

Container

Chemical tanker

Bulk carrier

CIC Inspections per Ship type

1600
Number of individual ships

Inspections

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

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

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’

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

1000

Number of Detentions

EF = 4 and above
EF = 3 to 4
EF = 2 to 3
EF = 1 to 2

EF = 4
EF = 3
EF = 2
EF = 1 Black
EF = 0 White

very high risk
high risk
medium to high risk
medium risk

EF = -1

100

EF = -2

10

1
30

50

100

250
Number of Inspections

56

500

1000

2000

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:

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

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:

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:

N= total inspections
P = 7%
Q =3%
Z = 1.645

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:

How to determine the black to grey 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

Mrs. Linda Korpershoek

Secretary General
Telephone: +31 70 456 1509
E-mail: richard.schiferli@parismou.org

Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1627
E-mail: linda.korpershoek@parismou.org

Mrs. Carien Droppers

Mr. Lourens van ‘t Wout

Deputy Secretary General
Telephone: +31 70 456 1507
E-mail: carien.droppers@parismou.org

ICT Advisor
Telephone: +31 70 456 1375
E-mail: Lourens.vant.wout@parismou.org

Mr. Ivo Snijders

Mrs. Melany Cadogan - Eskici

Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1849
E-mail: ivo.snijders@parismou.org

Office Manager
Telephone: +31 70 456 1436
E-mail: melany.cadogan@parismou.org

Mr. Peter Aarsen

Mrs. Ingrid de Vree

Secretary
Telephone: +31 70 456 1510
E-mail: peter.aarsen@parismou.org

Management Assistant
Telephone: +31 70 456 1508
E-mail: Ingrid.de.vree@parismou.org

Layout and design

Website

Rooduijn communicatie & design, Den Haag

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.

Photographs

Cover photo: Italian Coast Guard
Paris MoU Authorities
Deniz Hammudoḡlu
Evert van der Spek
Secretariat
Address Secretariat:

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

Maritime
Authorities

European
Commission

Co-operating
Maritime
Authorities

Observers:
IMO, ILO,
other MoU’s

Port State Control Committee

MoU Advisory Board (MAB)

Paris MoU Secretariat

THETIS
Information System

Ship inspection
services of
Paris MoU port States

Technical Working
Groups

Owners, Flags and
classification societies

59

1.executive
e xo et ce us tsummary
n
ive summary

60