nuaI

po t

2010

o
:::0

m

-<

Contents

....

Executive summary

6

Paris MoU developments

8

Facts and figures

18

Statistical Annexes annual report 2010

23

VI

-4

Explanatory note - Black, Greyand White Iists

~
J:

Pàris MoU Secretariat
col op ho n, a dd ress a nd staff

54

­

-f
ITI

r-

Paris MoU 4 1

t;,d,

on Port State Control

Paris MoU meets in Dublin
This year the Paris MoU held the 43'd Session ofthe Port State Control Committee (PSCC) in Dublin, Ireland
in May 2010. The meeting formally adopted the New Inspection Regime (NIR). This saw the culmination of a
significant amount of work over many years and will see the introduction of the New Inspection Regime from the
l't of January 2011. All ofthose who took part in the various task forces and groups, which developed the NI Rand
THETIS, are to be complimented on their work. The Committee meeting also adopted several other significant
matters including a new instruction on the ISM Code and agreed to carrying out a concentrated inspection
campaign on the damage stability of tankers.
Again in 2010 the port State control officers of our member Authorities continued their work to promote quality
shipping and to reward responsible shipowners and operators. During 2010 the "White List" continued to be
a key industry benchmark for quality shipping and this is pleasing to see as it testifies to the success of the
partnership between the Paris MoU and the industry. However, there still continues to be a number of flags on
the black list.
The Paris MoU relationship with the other PSC MoUs and the United States Coast Guard is growing and the
Paris MoU is very proud of th is and I would like to thank them for their co-operation and friendship. The Paris
MoU is also very appreciative ofthe role, which the Member States ofthe International Maritime Organization
allow the regional MoUs to play in the IMO especially at the Flag State Implementation (FSI) sub-committee.
Many important decisions were taken at FSI during 2010 and we are pleased to actively participate in this sub­
committee.
The PMoU Secretariat again continued to serve its members weil and the Secretariat continued with the
implementation of a quality management system based on the ISO 9001 standard. This is very important for
the Paris MoU. The Secretariat arranged training courses and seminars for PSCOs and supported the effective
achievement ofthe MOU work programme. I also wish to thank the members of the MoU Advisory Board (MAB)
who continued to serve the PMoU throughout the year. Iwould especially like to thank the French Maritime
Administration for the work carried out by SDSI in supporting SIReNac during the year. This is much appreciated as
the SIReNaC information system is being replaced by the new information system THETIS from the 1'1 ofJanuary
2011. I would also like to thank the European Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) for
their substantial contribution to the development ofthe NIR and THETIS, this support and co-operation with the
PMoU ensures the effectiveness of port State control throughout our region. In conclusion, the port State control
officers and administrators in each of our member Authorities are the people who ensure the success of our
endeavours and they are the ones who are the core ofthe PMoU in achieving our goal ofsafer shipping.

Brian Hogan

4

The Times They Are a Changin': a new inspection regime
The year under review has been focussed on the introduction of a new inspection regime. All members of the
Memorandum have been actively involved, together with the European Commission and the European Maritime
Safety Agency to develop procedures, guidelines and the THETIS information system.
In May the Port State Control Committee adopted the revised text of the Memorandum and gave a green light to
go ahead. Introduction of the inspection regime could now start on 1 January 2011. Of course these changes will
have a major impact, not only on the Paris MoU members, but on the shipping community.
Port States need to have resources available not only on weekdays, but also on weekends. Inspections are not
limited to ports but also include anchorages. Refusal of access after multiple detentions has been extended
to general cargo ships. Every ship has a risk profile. Ships marked as "high risk" are subject to expanded
inspections every 6 months. Ships with a "Iow risk" profile are rewarded with substantially longer inspection
intervals. Just a few elements to indicate that inspection schemes had to be modified and Port State Control
Officers have received additional training. Reporting arrangements also had to be implemented for ship arrival
notices in order to feed the THETIS information system.
Equally important was to provide timely information to the maritime industry on the changes to come and
the possible impact this would have. The Secretariat has actively sought a dialogue with various organizations
to provide information and c1arification. Presentations were held at meetings ofthe IMO (FSI), International
Chamber of Shipping, Intermanager, Intertanko, IU MI and various other parties. Detailed information was also
provided through the Paris MoU web site and various press releases. Many questions from the industry and f1ag
States were answered and made available on the web site.
In the middle of December 2010 data was transferred from the SIReNaC information system to the THETIS
system, and access to the system was provided for entering inspections.
After a long development period we are now ready to embark on a new voyage in the history of the Paris
Memorandum on Port State Control. Of course these changes will take some time to get used to and to settle.
The system will be c10sely monitored and adjusted where necessary. But I am confident that with the support
from our members and the industry we can substantially reduce the operation of sub-standard ships and their
operators in our region. At the same time it should be possible to prevent them from seeking em ployment
elsewhere in the world. If other regional port State control agreements adopt a similar regime, this could be
realised and the maritime safety on a global basis could benefit.

Richard W.J. Schiferli

Considered to be the worldwide index for flag performance, the Paris MoU
"Black, Grey and White Lists" indicate further improvements towards quality
shipping. Last year Panama was congratulated for its efforts to move up to
the Grey List. This year Panama can be congratulated once more: the flag has
managed to enter the White List. A very slJccessful achievement and an example
for other flags that through determined actions and political courage changes
can be made.
There are now 42 flags on the "White List",
3 more compared with last year. Some flags
have moved position with Bermuda (U K) still
leading the list, followed by Germany and
Sweden.
DPR Korea has earned a much more
questionable reputation for leading the Black
List several years in a row.
Since 2007 the detention percentage has been
decreasing gradually. The trend has continued
and in 2010 the percentage reached 3.3%, an
all-time low over the past decade. The efforts
by the Paris MoU members are paying off.
The number of detentions has dropped
significantly from 1,059 in 2009 to 790 in
2010. It is Iikely that some ships with the
introduction of the new inspection regime in
mind, have already moved to other trading
areas.

6

In 2010 a total of 6 ships were banned. 7 less
compared with last year. Failing to call at an
indicated repair yard was the most common
reason for banning in 2010.

The worst performing RO is Phoenix Register
of Shipping (PH.R.S), located in Piraeus, in
Greece. Several flags that have delegated to
PH.R.S appear on the Paris MoU Black List.

With 7,219 inspections and 1,018 detentions
the ships flying a "black listed flag" score a
detention rate of 14.1 %. For ships f1ying a
"grey listed flag" the detention rate is 6.4%
(3,799 inspections, 242 detentions) and
ships flying a "white listed flag" 2.9% (61,552
inspections and 1,776 detentions).

The 2010 figures wil I be the close of reporting
on the "traditional" PSC regime under the Paris
MoU since its inception in 1982. Although
the system has been modified on a number
of occasions some elements, like the 25%
inspection commitment for the MoU members
has remained the same.

Recognized Organizations are responsible
for carrying out most of the statutory surveys
on behalf of flags. Flags have delegated this
responsibility to them. For th is very reason it is
important to monitor their performance. The
best performing RO over the period 2008-2010
is Registro Italiano Navale (RINA); followed by
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det
Norske Veritas (DNV).

Since the new inspection regime will bring
many changes in targeting ships for priority,
inspections and possible sanctions, this will
have an effect on the future statistics.
Some statistical tables and graphs will no
longer appear in next year's report. And new
tables will be added to report on the new
features starting in 2011.

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 ofthe Technical Evaluation Group and task forces and decides on
administrative procedures.
lhe task forces, ofwhich 10 were active in 2010,
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.
lhe MoU Advisory Board advises the Port State
Control Committee on matters of a political
and strategie 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 2010 composed
of participants from leeland, the Netherlands,
Croatia, Malta and the European Commission.
Port State Control Committee

The Port State Control Committee held its 43'd
meeting in Dublin, Ireland from 10-14 May
2010. The MoU has 27 member States. The
Committee adopted the proposed amendments
of the Memorandum and the Annexes to
reflect the incorporation ofthe New Inspection
Regime (NIR), which will enter into force on 1
January 2011, replacing the existing Port State
Control system.

8

lhe NIR is a significant departure as it is
a risk based targeting mechanism, which
will reward quality shipping with a smaller
inspection burden and concentrate on high­
risk ships, which will be subject to more
in-depth and more frequent inspections.
Full implementation ofthe NIR will rely on
collection of port call information. The NI R
will be supported bya new information system
THETIS that will replace the current SIReNaC
system located in St. Malo, France. A jointly
developed and mutually agreed common
system for coding PSC related information
will be used by the Paris and Tokyo MoUs as
a basis for PSC data collecting and recording.
lhe new coding system will also take effect
on 1 January 2011 with the information system
THETIS.
The Committee recognised that the
International Labour Organization's
Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention
2006 may become a relevant instrument
from 2011 onwards and decided to develop
guidelines for Port State Control Officers in
respect of the implementation of the port State
control requirements of the Convention. These
guidelines will be based on the MLC 2006 and
should become a practical tooi for inspections
on working and living conditions.

The Committee also adopted new guidance
on control of ISM requirements, taking into
account experience gained since the entry into
force of the ISM Code.
The Committee continued to take actions
in response to the 2nd Joint Ministerial
Conference of the Paris and Tokyo MoUs
held in Vancouver in 2004 and agreed that
all actions have been completed or will be
monitored on a continuous basis. It gave
high importance to Concentrated Inspection
Campaigns and scheduled a CIC on tanker
damage stability from September to
November 2010.
In addition the Committee considered a
number of options for further joint (ICs with
the Tokyo MoU in 2011 and beyond. A CIC on
Structural Safety and Load Lines will be carried
out during 2011.

The report of the CIC on Lifeboat Launching
Appliances carried out in 2009 was presented
to PSCC43. The results will be presented to the
IMO in 2011.
Technica/ E"a/uation Group

The Technical Evaluation Group (TEG)
convened in March 2010 in Funchal Madeira,
Portugal and in November 2010 in Antwerp,
Belgium. 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 TH ETIS
information system
• Evaluation of Paris MoU statistics
• Revision of the guidelines on ISM
• Revision of the guidelines on ECDIS
• Development of guidelines for PSCOs for the
Maritime Labour Convention.

• Development of an evaluation procedure for
the training policy
• Development of CICs on tanker damage
stability (2010) and Structural Safety and
Load Lines (2011).

from the Black Sea MoU. The main topics of
discussion were developments with regard
to the new inspection regime, the guidelines
for LRIT and the CIC on lifeboat launching
arrangements.

Port State Control Training initiatilles

Expert and Specia/ized Training

The Paris MoU will continue to invest in the
training and development of Port State Control
Officers in order to establish a higher degree
of harmonisation and standardisation in
inspections throughout the region.
The Secretariat organises three different
training programmes for Port State Control
Officers:
• Seminars (twice a year)
• Expert training (twice a year)
• Specialized training (once a year)

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 2010 this
training dealt with Bulk Cargoes and the
problems Port State Control Officers may
encounter. Both training program mes 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.

The Seminars are open to members,
co-operating 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 s-day training sessions
are concluded with an assessment and
certification.
PSC Seminar 50

The soth Port State Control Seminar was held
from 8 to 10 June 2010 in Riga, Latvia. Port
State Control Officers from the Paris MoU
attended the Seminar, as weil as participants

10

Lecturers for the training program mes are
recruited from the maritime Administrations of
the member States, international organizations
and the maritime industry. For the training
programmes in 2010 the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands, Spain and different ROs and
service companies, among others, provided
lecturers.
The 9'~ Expert Training "The Human Element n

In October 2010 the ninth Expert Training
programme was held in The Hague with
the Human Element as the central theme.
Participants from member States took part
in th is training. The issues discussed during
the training session were the ILO and STCW
conventions, the Code of Good Practice and
inter-cultural communication.

The G'h Expert Training "Safety and Environment"

The sixth Expert Training programme was held
in The Hague in February 2010. Important
issues during this training were the IMDG
Code, Load Lines, Iife saving appliances and oil
filtering equipment.

the training delivered to PSCOs, including
the delivery of New Entrant and Refresher
program mes for PSCOs from throughout
the region or contributing in development of
Distance Learning Programmes.
New Entrant PSC Seminar

Train the trainer programmefor the CIC on Tanker
Damage Stability

In June 2010 a special one day train the trainer
programme was conducted for the CIC on
tanker damage stability. The programme
focussed on the questionnaire and the
guidelines.
Training in cooperation with EMSA

The Paris MoU is also assisting EMSA in

Following the practice established in 2008
and 20°9, two more New Entrant seminars
were held during the first half of 2010. The
New Entrant (NE) seminar is amandatory
element in the quaJification process for
any Port State Control Officer. The fifth NE
seminar was held from 01 to 05 February in
Lisbon and was attended by 43 participants
from 18 Paris MoU member States. The sixth
NE seminar was held from 26 to 30 April and

attended by 45 participants from 14 member
States. Both seminars followed an inspection
scenario from selection to possible final
actions, aimed at familiarisation of the
participants with the agreed procedures for
port State control inspections. Logistical
arrangements for the sixth seminar were
particularly difficult due to the eruption of
the Icelandic volcano, but the attendance was
not affected.

Refresher PSC Seminars

Separate from and in addition to the New
Entrant seminars, the ninth Refresher PSC
seminars was organised in Lisbon from 22 to
26 March. This seminar was attended by 43
participants from 17 Paris MoU member States.
Again during these seminars a ship inspection
scenario was used. However, the aim ofthe
Refresher seminars is not to familiarise PSCOs
with inspection procedures but to harmonise
their application and to share best practises.
During the seminar PSCO tools such as PSC
Instructions, the manual for PSCOs and
RuleCheck were used in order to enhance
knowledge and common understanding. Due
to the preparations for the transition to a new
Regime, the organisation of further Refresher
seminars was suspended until 2011.
THETIS and New Inspection Regime Training

Following agreement on the text of the
New Inspection Regime during the annual
meeting of the Paris MoU in May 2010, a
dedicated set of trainings was organised to
ensure that all member States were prepared
with the knowledge necessary for both the
New Inspection Regime and the supporting
information system THETIS. The objective
of these training sessions was to ensure a
smooth transition from the old regime to the
new regime. The introduction consisted of four
separate sessions of one week each during
which a total of79 participants drawn from
all Paris MoU member States were trained.
A combination ofprovisions ofthe NIR with
practical exercises on the system was offered.
The 79 participants were trained to a suitable

12

level to allow them to deliver training to
their col leagues and to become the first line
helpdesk once the new regime is in place.
Detention Rel/iew 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 2010 the Secretariat received 18 requests for
review.
Eight 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. Ten cases were recorded by the
Secretariat and submitted to MoU members
for review.

In three 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 seven cases the panel concluded that
the detaining port States would not have to
reconsider the decision to detain.
Quality management

In 2008 the Paris MoU Secretariat started
the process to develop and implement the
IS02001:2008 quality management system for
the services and products of the Secretariat. It
is expected that certification will be completed
in March 2011.
Paris MoU on the Internet

The Paris MoU website continued in 2010,
to enjoy an ever increasing demand from a
variety of visitors. 1n particular from flag and
port States, government agencies, charterers,
insurers and c1assification societies. They were
able to monitor their performance and the

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 could be accessed and
offered visitors more detailed information.
The development of the new website started
at the beginning of 2010. The website retains
icons for the most used items and regular
publication of statistics derived from the
BI tooI. The feature "detained ships in the
spotlights" again focused on ships that were

detained 5 or more times during 24 months in
the PMoU region.
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 2010 details were published of the following
ships:
• M/V Gorgonilla registered in Panama and
detained in Germany
• M/V Almarwa registered in Libya and
detained in Italy
• M/V Lady Lina registered in Republic of Togo
and detained in Italy
The annual award for the best contribution to
the "Caught in the Net" has been presented to
Germany.
Other information of interest such as the
monthly list of detentions, the Annual Report
and news items can be downloaded from the
website, which is found at www.parismou.org.
Concentrated ;nspect;on campa;gns

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 drawattention to the chosen area
of compliance.

14

CIC 2010 Tanker Damage Stabi/;ty

In the period from 1 September to 30
November 2010 a total of 1,065 inspections
with CIC questionnaires were completed. The
majority of ships were only inspected once,
14 ships were inspected twice.
During this campaign the 27 member
Authorities focussed on compliance of oil,
gas and chemical tankers with the IMO
requirements for damage stability from the
respective conventions and codes. In total 94
CIC related deficiencies were recorded during
the inspections.
During the 3-month period 14 ships were
detained. 29% of these detentions were
CIC related. This means that in 4 cases the
IMO requirements for damage stability had
deficiencies that were serious enough to detain
the ship.
A matter of serious concern is that a total
of 173 tankers, 16.2% (77 oil tankers, 84
chemical tankers and 12 gas tankers) could not
demonstrate that they were normally loaded
in accordance with the Stability Information
Booklet (SIB).
Flags with 1 CIC related detention were
Gibraltar (UK) and Greece. Flag State Malta
had 2 CIC related detentions.
4 ships (2 oil tankers; 2 chemical tankers),
(0.35%) were detained as a direct result of
the CIC.

16

The objective ofthe CIC was to establish to
what extent oil, gas and chemical tankers
were complying with the IMO requirements
for damage stability from the respective
conventions and codes. It may seem that only 4
detentions is a very sm all number, considering
the number of ships that could not show that
they were loaded in compliance with their
Stability Information Booklet. It was agreed
however, during the CIC, that detention was a
last resort. Only for cases where the ship was
loaded for the forthcoming voyage and could
not show damage stability compliance prior
to departure, a detention order was issued.
Therefore tanker damage stability should
remain an area of attention in the future.
CIC Campaigns 2011 and 2012

For 2011, the PSC Committee decided on
a Concentrated Inspection Campaign on
Structural Safety and International Convention
on Load Lines.
For 2012, the Committee agreed that there will
be a CIC campaign on Fire Safety Systems.
Co-operat;on w;th other organ;zat;ons

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. The Committee has expressed
concern that members who have not made
efforts to exercise effective control over their
own fleet dominate some of these MoUs.
Several flag States belonging to regional MoUs

appear on the "Black List" ofthe Paris MoU.
In order to provide technical co-operation to
these new MoUs, they may apply for associate
or observer status.
Five regional agreements have officialobserver
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 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 18th session ofthe Sub­
Committee on Flag State Implementation in
July 2010.

The 2008 Annual Report including inspection
data, an analysis of 2008 statistics, a combined
list of flags targeted by the Paris MoU, Tokyo
MoU and USCG and the results of the CIC on
SOLAS Chapter V - Safety of Navigation, were
submitted to the Sub-Committee on Flag State
Implementation in July 2010.
Membership ofthe Paris MoU
The Paris MoU currently has 6 members with
dual or even triple membership:
Canada and the Russian Federation with the
Tokyo MoU, while the Russian Federation is
also a member of the Black Sea MoU.
With Bulgaria and Romania there are further
ties with the Black Sea MoU.
Malta and Cyprus are also members of the
Mediterranean MoU.

For all these members the Paris MoU
standards will prevail.

In the following pages the facts and figures of 2010 are listed. The figures show
a decrease in the number of inspections, inspected ships, deficiencies and the
number of detentions.

Inspections

Detentions

With a total number of 24,°58 inspections
performed in 2010 the inspection figures
showed a decrease of 0.5% compared with
the figures of 200g. Each individual ship was
inspected an average of 1.6 times per year, a
rate which has changed little since 1999.

Some deficiencies are c1early 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.

The overall inspection effort, which is the ratio
of the number of inspections to the number
of individual ship calls in members' ports,
was 30.03%. With the exception of Latvia
and Portugal all member States reached the
25% inspection effort commitment of the
Memorandum.

Compared with 200g, the number of
detentions has decreased from 1,059 to 7go
detentions. The average detention rate in 2010
is 3.28%, the lowest rate ever. Overall, the last
decade shows a trend towards a decrease in
detentions.

Deficiencies

In 2008 the number of deficiencies recorded
was 83,751; in 200g, 71,9" deficiencies were
recorded. In 2010 this number decreased to a
total of 64,6g8 deficiencies. Compared with
200g this is a decrease of deficiencies of 10%.
In 55% of all inspections performed, one or
more defjciencies were recorded. In 200g this
figure was 57%.
The average number of deficiencies per
inspection also decreased from 3 in 200g to
2,7 in 2010. The Concentrated Inspections
Campaign on tanker damage stability
does have an influence on the number of
deficiencies recorded.

18

"Black, Crey and White List"

The "Black, Grey and White (BGW) 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 "Black, Grey and White list" for 2010
a total number of 84 flags are Iisted: 18 on
the "Black list", 24 on the "Grey list", and 42
on the "White list". In 200g the number of
flags listed totalled 82 flags, namely 24 on the
"Black List", 19 on the "Grey List" and 39 on
the "White List".

Most flags that were categorised as very high
risk in previous years remain so in 2010. The
poorest performing flags are DPR Korea,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Togo, Sierra Leone
and Montenegro. l\Jew on the "Black List"
are the flags of Tanzania United Republic and
Azerbaijan (both medium risk).
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 f1ags 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
24 flags is recorded. Last year the "Grey List"
recorded '9 flags. New on the "Grey List" are
Egypt, Viet Nam, Dominica, Slovakia, Jamaica,

Honduras, Belize and Mongolia, last year still
on the "Black List".
The "White List" represents quality flags with
a consistently low detention record. Compared
with last year, the number offlags on the
"White List" has increased by 3 f1ags to a total
number of 42 flags.
Bermuda (United Kingdom) has been placed
highest on the list in terms of performance.
The next in line of the best performing flags
in 2010 are Germany, Sweden, the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands.
A new graph of the distribution of Iisted and
not listed flags it is indicating that only 0.4%
of the ships inspected are from flags not listed
on the BGW list.

Ship type

In 2010 the detention rate of general dry cargo
ships (5.47%) is higher than the detention rate
of other ship types. Ship types like refrigerated
cargo vessels and bulk carriers have a lower
detention rate of 3.09% and 2.77% respectively.
The other ship types have even lower detention
rates.
Performance of Recognized Organizations

For several years the Committee has c10sely
monitored the performance of c1assification
societies acting as recognized organizations
for flag States. To calculate the performance
of the recognized organizations (RO), the
same formula to calculate the excess factor
ofthe flags is used. A minimum number of
60 inspections per RO are needed before
the performance is taken into account for
the list. In 2010 28 ROs are recorded on the
performance list.
Among the best performing recognized
organizations were:
• Registro Italiano Navale (Italy) (RINA)
• American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
• Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

The lowest performing organizations were:
• Phoenix Register of Shipping (Greece) (PHRS)
• Register of Shipping (Albania) (RSA)
• International Register of Shipping (USA) (IS)
• Bulgarski Koraben Registar (BKR)
Compared with last year's performance level,
a small shift in RO performance in 2010 can
be noticed. This year more organizations have
been placed on the high and low performing
part of the list and fewer organizations have
been placed on the medium part ofthe 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 and the RO is informed.
Out of 790 detentions recorded in 2010, 84
or 10.6% were considered RO related which
is a decrease compared with the 11.2% of the
previous year.
Refusa[ of access ofships

A total of 6 ships were banned from the
Paris MoU region in 2010 for reasons of
failure to call at an agreed repair yard (4),
jumping detention (1) or no valid ISM code
certificate (1). A number of ships remain
banned from previous years.
Deficiencies per major category

The number of deficiencies in areas such as
equipment and machinery and safety and fire
appliances accounted for about 46% of the
total number of deficiencies.
Other areas where deficiencies are found are in
the areas of ship and cargo operations (12.4%),
working and living conditions (11.1%), stability
and structure (12.5%) and certificates (11.0%)
The trends in these areas are c1arified below.
More detailed information may be found in the
statistical Annexes to this report.
Certijication ofship

Deficiencies in ships' certificates and
documents indicated a decrease of 16% from
5,269 in 2009 to 4,426 in 2010.

20

Equipment and machinery

Working and living conditions

The deficiencies in Safety of Navigation show a
decrease of 10%, from 9,389 in 2009 to 8,443
deficiencies in 2010.

Major categories of deficiencies related to
working and living conditions are 'crew and
accommodation', 'food and catering', 'working
spaces' and 'accident prevention' under the
ILO 147 Conventions. Deficiencies in these
areas decreased by 7.9% from 7,846 in 2009
to 7,223 in 2010. In 2009 a new item in the
Working and Living conditions was the IL0180
convention with 62 deficiencies in 2009. In
2010 the number of deficiencies for this item is
1,275·

Safety andfire applianees

In 2010 deficiencies in safetyareas such as
life saving appliances, fire fighting equipment,
alarm signa Is, structural safety, accounted
for 21.2% of the total number of deficiencies.
The number of deficiencies in these areas
decreased almast 13.1% from 15,800 in 2009 to
13,728 in 2010.

Management
Ship and cargo operations

Deficiencies in MARPOL Annex V show a
decrease of 19.2% in 2010 (617), compared with
2009 (764). Deficiencies in MARPOL Annex
VI show an increase of 100% in 2010 (292),
compared with 2009 (146).

Deficiencies in this area with ISM related
deficiencies showed a decrease of 19.4%,
compared with 2009.

Bas iep 0 r t sta tee 0 n t rol Ii g ure s

16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
:h~

"'tS
'""'
..,;

~

....

8,000

!,.,)

%)

"-'I ti.,.

o

6,000

V'l

....

l:::

'Ii,J

-,­

..0

IA

E ti.,.

4,000
2,000

o
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

,..t:J

5,000

o

80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
"t$

""

... ::;. 30,000
""
..J:::j

""

E ~ 20,000

:::\..J:::j

&::

0

10,000

o
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200

o

10
9

8
7
6

5
4
3
2

o

25

, n spe ct; 0 n effo r t s
inspection efforts of members compared to target
60

o target (25%)

50

E
::l

'Do
(ij

a:J

.~

'"
'" '"c::
~
::l
U'"
a:J
-u

.~

e'"
U

lil

::l

Î5.~

11IIII

inspection effort 2009 (%-IN)

lEI

inspection effort 2010 (%-IN)

.~

-u

E

.8

-!!!

QJ

LU

ü:

~
ro
C

c::

111

c::

c::

Cl)

u

c::

et'"

0

>-

c::

'"
E

V

Cl)

u
Cl)
~

l)

-u

c::

-u

c::

.b-

'" ~'" :ê
(ij
~

'"

~

.~

c::

'"

'" .::;

..J

::l

2

Cü
~

c::

'"

-;::
Cl)

.::;

::i

l)

lil

-u

>-

-u

Cü

::l

0

'"
-0

'"~
Z

c::

Cl.

Dl)

t

0

Cl.

.~

c::

'"
E

0
Cl::

c::

~

'"
V

-U
Cl)

QJ

I..L.

Z

c::

.~

c::

'0"

>

Vi

'"
'Vi
lil

::l

c::

c::
Cl)

Cl.
lil

-U

'n;

Cl)

~

lil

E

0

-U

Dl)

c::

~
-U

~

'e:

:::>

Cl::

Belgium 5.66% 11II

Bulgaria 2.14% 11II
Canada 4.06% lIII
Croatia 1.73% iiiII
Cyprus 1.22% D
Denmark 2.62% iiiII
Estonia 1.60% lIllI
Finland 1.56% iiiII
France 6.30% 11II

D Russian Federation 5.65%
Germany 6.09% 11II

D Romania 5.13%

IJ] Poland 3.57%
IJ] Norway 3.30%
IJ] Netherlands 7.06%
IJ] Malta 1.00",6

26

Italy 8.29% 11II
Latvia 1.99% 11II
Lithuan ia 2.11 % 11II

1,315

514

394

25

7

76.65

4.86

39.09

2.14

2,581

976

443

19

3

45.39

1.95

37.81

4.06

1,366

417

252

16

2

60.43

3.84

30.53

1,062

293

173

27

3

59.04

9.22

27.59

1.22

2,511

630

287

8

0

45.56

1.27

25.09

2.62

1,393

384

111

28.91

0.26

27.57

1.60

1,369

376

104

0

27.66

0.27

27.47

1.56

5,882

1,515

913

57

6

60.26

3.76

25.76

6.30

5,496

1,466

733

36

8

50.00

2.46

26.67

6.0.9.

3,369

1,021

559

47

12

54.75

4.60

30.31

4.25

351

106

37

3

0

34.91

2.83

1,302

436

185

11

4

42.43

2.52

33.49

1.81

6,399

1,993

1,191

119

21

59.76

5.97

31.15

2,002

479

121

0

25.26

0.21

23.93

1.99

1,506

507

310

5

0

61.14

0.99

804

241

175

10

0

72.61

4.15

29.98

1.00

6,817

1,698

859

34

0

50.59

2.00

24.91

7.06

2,534

793

262

18

0

33.04

2.27

31.29

3.30

2,223

858

474

22

55.24

2.56

38.60

3057

2,698

468

291

13

2

62.18

2.78

17.35

1.95

1,952

1,233

708

48

10

57.42

3.89

2,474

1,358

935

54

8

68.85

3.98

54.89

5.65

898

267

163

28

8

61.05

10.49

29.73

1.11

6,844

2,093

1,428

95

11

68.23

4.54

30.58

8.71

2,728

743

251

5

0

33.78

0.67

27.24

3.09

, Only movemonts to lhe Russi"n ports ofthe Baltie, Azov, Caspian and Barents Seas are ineluded

27

Korea, Democratie
People's Rep.

45

17

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

47

14

Togo

150

37

5.02

Sierra Leone

570

114

4.44

Montenegro

34

10

4.43

Albania

222

44

3.86

Moldova, Republic of

461

77

Cambodia

863

135

St Kitts and Nevis

488

76

Comoros

644

98

2.99

Georgia

776

106

2.57

Bolivia

40

8

Lebanon

72

12

2.04

Syrian Arab Republic

246

33

2.02

Tanzania United Rep.

65

10

8

Ukraine

471

50

43

St Vincent
and the Grenadines

Azerbaijan

5.09

7

73

2.24

6

1.62

1.47

medium
risk
1,957

168

156

69

9

9

1.19

29

3°

Egypt

112

12

3

0.92

Cook Islands

150

15

16

5

0.90

Viet Nam

37

5

6

0

0.89

Dominica

167

16

18

6

0.86

Algeria

98

10

12

2

Slovakia

234

21

23

9

Honduras

65

7

8

Tunisia

57

6

8

0

Jamaica

4&

5

7

0

0.74

Mongolia

43

4

6

0

0.65

Tuvalu

36

3

6

0

0.58

Morocco

153

11

16

5

0.53

Saudi Arabia

62

3

8

Bulgaria

230

13

23

9

0.27

Belize

660

40

57

35

0.23

Curacao

599

35

53

31

0.18

Malaysia

74

2

9

Switzerland

94

3

11

2

0.11

Faroe Islands

157

6

17

5

0.07

Vanuatu

177

7

1&

6

0.06

Latvia

144

5

16

5

Iran, Islam ic Republic of

146

5

16

5

Thailand

12&

4

14

4

0.03

United States of America

12&

4

14

4

0.03

0.32

0.11

I

31

32

Kazakhstan

2008-2010

Black to
Grey
limit

Grey to
White
limit

Excess
Factor

0

5

0

0.00

Inspec­
tions

Deten­
tions

2008-2010

30

Qatar

30

0

5

0

0.00

Philippines

231

8

23

9

·0.24

Panama

8,385

476

626

548

-0.30

Korea, Republic of

201

6

21

8

·0.35

3

15

4

-0.41

11

2

-0.44

India

138

Japan

89

Turkey

2,294

108

181

140

·0.50

227

6

23

9

-0.57

Lithuania
Spain
Russian federation

278

8

27

12

-0.59

1,965

80

157

118

-0.70

Barbados

527

15

47

27

Cayman Is lands, UK

286

6

28

12

Antigua and Barbuda

5,235

195

397

336

196

3

20

7

Malta

5,569

200

422

358

Poland

202

3

21

8

Portugal

542

13

48

28

Croalia

178

2

19

6

Luxembourg

Liberia

4,461

132

341

284

Cyprus

2,694

76

211

166

Estonia

104

0

12

2

1,301

29

107

75

·1.33

231

2

23

9

-1.41

Gibraltar, UK
Belgium
Norway

2,323

51

183

142

·1.42

Marshall Islands

2,260

49

179

138

·1.42

Ireland

182

19

7

-1.43

Bahamas

3,628

75

280

228

·1.51

Singapore

1,375

24

112

80

-1.52

Hong Kong, China

1,422

22

116

83

-1.61

Italy

1,487

22

121

87

-1.64

883

11

75

49

-1.65
-1.68

Man, Isle of, UK
China

250

25

10

Greece

1,475

21

120

87

-1.66

finland

624

6

55

33

·1.71

Denmark

1,385

17

113

81

-1.73

fra n ce

355

2

33

16

-1.73

Netherlands

3,860

54

297

244

United Kingdom

2,007

25

160

121

Sweden

UK

984

9

83

55

1,388

14

113

81

270

0

26

12

33

Distribution of listed and not listed flags

L ; s t e dan d not /i s t e d fl a g s

Wh ite .flags

Not listed 1%

!IIII Mauritius

Nigeria rnJ
Slovenia 0
Eritrea 0
Venezuela 0
Bangladesh []

o Seychelles

Romania 0
Austria

[]

Kiribati

!IIII

o Taiwan,
China

o Dominican
Republic

34

12

60

23

82.19

16.44

24

2

21

14

87.50

8.33

1,800

72

1,080

845

60.00

4.00

2

0

2

50.00

0.00

1,190

17

756

48.74

1.43

6

0

4

50.00

0.00

4

0

4

3

100.00

0.00

167

3

86

87

51.50

1.80

31

59

38.75

1.25

80

580

243

8

188

127

77.37

3.29

106

0

38

69

35.85

0.00

18

4

16

13

88.89

22.22

2

0

2

50.00

0.00

53

6

41

28

77.36

11.32

238

28

217

135

91.18

11.76

3

75.00

25.00

100.00

100.00

35.11

1.06

0.00

0.00

4

94

33

0
107
223

29

54

64

0
45

91

42.06

0.93

208

98

93.27

13.00

43

29

79.63

9.26

54

0

27

34

50.00

0.00

178

7

108

85

60.67

3.93

866

23

437

514

50.46

2.66

471

6

205

309

43.52

1.27

51

23

86.44

5.08

2

50.00

0.00

22

81.82

6.06

19

35.71

59
2

0

33

2

27

28

0

10

_ _, _ _ _

v'_'·NN_"~==~

,,.·n_NNN_VN~N'

0.00
'"

35

Inspections, detentions and deficiencies

2010

0.00
69

32

38

46.38

1.45

203

4

lal

111

49.75

1.97

110

0

67

72

60.91

0.00

270

29

234

115

86.67

10.74

469

3

216

299

46.06

0.64

469

7

202

221

43.07

1.49

478

4

208

362

43.51

0.84

0

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

100.00

23
532

4

18

11

78.26

13.04

227

430

42.67

0.75

100.00

0.00

0
22

30

57.89

2.63

2

2

100.00

0.00

45

23

32

51.11

2.22

68

34

34

50.00

1.47

4

60.00

0.00

38
2

0

5

0

514

la

276

353

53.70

1.95

12

2

9

9

75.00

16.67

30

0

11

26

36.67

0.00

13

0

2

13

15.38

0.00

5

4

3

80.00

20.00

8

8

4

100.00

12.50

51

0

29

45

56.86

0.00

8

0

0

6

0.00

0.00

39

0

26

19

66.67

0.00

28

4

24

14

85.71

14.29

1,523

33

759

1,113

49.84

2.17

20

4

12

11

60.00

20.00

._ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H_ _H_H. __ ~.·. __

36

2
81

2

47

51

58.02

2.47

17

0

3

14

17.65

0.00

100.00

0.00

0
1,900

51

1,029

1,164

54.16

2.68

297

2

108

188

36.36

0.67

786

14

342

621

43.51

1.78

0

0

241

39

214

96

88.80

16.18

6

0

6

6

100.00

0.00

49

4

41

23

83.67

8.16

0

2

66.67

0.00

1,418

15

653

760

46.05

1.06

682

13

361

441

52.93

1.91

2,659

86

1,493

1,889

56.15

3.23

85

2

61

64

71.76

2.35

35

43

55.56

1.59

63

0.00

182

2

89

97

48.90

1.10

9

0

2

6

22.22

0.00

100.00

0.00

0
332

368

61.25

3.51

15

18

65.22

4.35

4

42.86

0.00

16H~

148

77

92.50

15.63

88

542

19

23
0

7
t

477

6

213

358

44.65

1.26

51

4

42

21

82.35

7.84

45

52

51.14

1.14

4

50.00

0.00

402

270

71.66

6.24

122

72

87.14

16.43

6

0

561

35

140

37

286

124

43.36

30

19

22

63.33

3.33

58

7

51

32

87.93

12.07

3

0

2

3

66.67

0.00

50

29

96.15

9.62

52
24

0

14

22

58.33

0.00

78

18

70

40

89.74

23.08

23

3

20

11

86.96

13.04

782

34

451

479

57.67

4.35

4

0

3

25.00

0.00

13

9

8

69.23

7.69

44

25

35

56.82

2.27

130

15

114

73

87.69

11.54

10

0

6

7

60.00

0.00

618

8

338

481

54.69

1.29

57

2

33

41

57.89

3.51

15

0

12

13

80.00

0.00

detent/ofj rJf~rCCl'ittt1riXe e:xceec;lin'g
'" rite gre}'

represent the

Switzerland

0 Average detention percentage 2010
11 Detention percentage 2009

Russian Federation

IEl

Detention percentage 2010

Vanuatu ~
Antilies, Netherlands
Antigua and Barbuda
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Dominica

1111111'5

.

Egypt _ _
St Vincent & Grenadines
Slovakia
Morocco

5f

Algeria
Cook Islands
Tanzania United Rep.

I'

tIf

I'

1'.'I·;ll'II

..

Georgia
Bulgaria
Ukraine

Cambodia .,

IIIIIIIII

Syrian Arab Republic
Comoros
Tunisia
Honduras
Lebanon
Sierra Leone

!I!,'

Moldova, Rep.of
St.Kitts and Nevis
Albania
Libyan Arab )amahiriya

IIII'IS•••••••I'I'1ll·'·I"I'llilWIBfl'111i1i;I'.I*10'0'liI'1liW~i• • •11II

Togo ••

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

39

542

19

3.51

0.22

4.71

0.33

57

2

3.51

0.22

2.90

·1.48

178

7

3.93

0.64

8.87

4.49

1800

72

4.00

0.71

3.81

·0.57

4.35

1.06

0.00

-4.38

23
782

34

4.35

1.06

4.61

0.23

59

3

5.08

1.80

12.50

8.12

33

2

6.06

2.77

9.30

4.92

561

35

6.24

2.95

8.56

4.18

51

4

7.84

4.55

5.71

1.33

49

4

8.16

4.87

4.26

-0.12

24

2

8.33

5.04

8.57

4.19

54

5

9.26

5.97

10.20

5.82

52

5

9.62

6.33

38.46

34.08

270

29

10.74

7.45

13.66

9.28

53

6

11.32

8.03

0.00

-4.38

130

15

11.54

8.25

11.64

7.26

238

28

11.76

8.47

14.33

9.95

58

7

12.07

8.78

11.76

7.38

223

29

13.00

9.71

15.95

11.57

23

3

13.04

9.75

0.00

-4.38

13.04

9.75

4.55

0.17

23

4°

28

4

14.29

11.00

5.00

0.62

160

25

15.63

12.34

21.65

17.27

241

39

16.18

12.89

19.61

15.23

140

23

16.43

13.14

16.57

12.19

73

12

16.44

13.15

22.41

18.03

20

4

20.00

16.71

43.75

39.37

78

18

23.08

19.79

27.27

22.89

1,926

57.29

2,528

93

2,333

1,012

43.38

1,507

48

2.06

2.36

3.19

-1.22

535

238

44.49

359

6

1.12

2.22

2.38

-2.16

9,139

5,831

63.82

4,548

500

5.47

6.78

7.29

2.17

1,445

853

59.03

1,134

34

2.35

3.32

5.44

-0.93

1,066

617

57.88

588

18

1.69

1.24

1.68

-1.59

648

442

68.21

417

20

3.09

5.05

5.93

-0.19

3,578

1,695

47.37

2,383

54

1.51

2.17

2.23

-1.77

1,934

691

35.73

1,503

17

0.88

1.40

2.26

-2.40

9.00
[2] % Det 2008
11III % Det 2009

8.00

I@] % Det 201 0
I@] Average detention % 201 0

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
0.00
~

Q)

~

Q)

'E

~

U

~

co

~

:i
ca

c

co
u

'Ë
Q)

..<:

U

~

'Ëco

U

lil

co
lJ

o

'"(L<IJ'"
:..c 'E

~
co

U

è

o

::"
<IJ
C
<IJ

lJ

V1<IJ

U

<IJ

"D

~LL

<IJ

o

~
co

s:

bJl

o

<IJ

c

'"

'"
co

CL

~
co
<IJ

bJl

__ <IJ

o u

o;:::.c
~~

<IJ
C

2
c

o

U

. '"

L:J~

E .~

o ~

Uco

"'u
<IJ

-""
C

~

42

Oef

Def%

Oef

Def%

Oef

Def%

3,341

3.99

2,704

3.76

2,713

4.19

5,485

6.55

5,269

7.33

4,426

6.84

8,826

10.54

7,973

11.09

7,139

11.03

1,343

1.60

956

1.33

1,026

1.59

6,283

7.50

5,076

7.06

4,762

7.36

3,009

3.59

2,243

3.12

2,021

3.12

10,174

12.14

9,389

13.06

8,443

13.05

24.83

17,664

24.56

16,252

25.12

4,641

5.54

4,260

5.92

3,432

5.30

4,641

5.54

4,260

5.92

3,432

5.30

608

0.73

600

0.83

496

0.77

10,039

11.98

8,407

11.69

7,675

11.86

6,465

7.71

6,793

9.45

5,557

8.59

17,112

20.42

15,800

21.97

13,728

21.22

951

1.13

764

1.06

865

1.34

951

1.13

764

1.06

865

1.34

58

0.08

36

0,06

689

0.82

505

0.70

469

0.72

291

0.35

208

0.29

196

0.30

5,034

6.01

3,764

5.23

3,434

5.31

98

0.12

85

0.12

50

0.08

0

0.00

13

0.02

8

0.01

149

0.18

265

0.37

295

0.46

790

0.94

764

1.06

617

0.95

176

0.21

146

0.20

292

0.45

192

0.23

213

0.30

244

0.38

2,756

3.29

2,689

3.74

2,356

3.64

10,175

12.15

8,710

12.11

7,997

12.36

328

0.39

282

0.39

180

0.28

4,204

5.02

3,209

4.46

2,819

4.36

6,882

8.21

5,403

7.51

5,063

7.83

11,414

13.62

8,894

12.37

8,062

12.46

1,829

2.18

1,401

1.95

154

0.24

62

0,09

1,275

1.97

2,366

2.82

1823

2.54

1,550

2.40

1,989

2.37

1567

2.18

1,359

2.10

3,639

4.34

2,993

4.16

2,885

4.46

148

65

7

4.73

4.46

10.77

10.35

20

15

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

·0.42

4,946

2,885

7

0.14

-0.12

0.24

-0.18

325

257

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

13

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

1.22

0.95

2.17

1.75

17
82

i
I

-i

46

4,508

3,060

2

0.04

-0.22

0.07

-0.36

5,803

3,200

9

0.16

-0.11

0.28

-0.14

141

82

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

12

7

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

38

17

2.63

2.37

5.88

5.46

36

30

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

18

13

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

·0.42

313

162

2

0.64

0.37

1.23

0.81

406

202

11

2.71

2.44

5.45

5.02

108

64

0.93

0.66

1.56

1.14

13

8

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

289

245

0

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

4,925

3,241

6

0.12

-0.14

0.19

-0.24

2,353

1,838

0.13

-0.14

0.16

-0.26

48

35

2.08

1.82

2.86

2.44

11

8

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

47

31

2.13

1.86

3.23

2.80

46

17

15.22

14.95

41.18

40.76

267

154

0.37

0.11

0.65

0.23

73

24

6.85

6.58

20.83

20.41

1123

734

0.09

-0.18

0.14

-0.28

21

9

0.00

-0.27

0.00

·0.42

2,162

1,206

0.32

0.06

0.58

0.16

274

147

3.28

3.02

6.12

5.70

531

305

0.19

-0.08

0.33

-0.09

63

38

1.59

1.32

2.63

2.21

14

14

0.00

-0.27

0.00

-0.42

0

7

5

0

9

0

*Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization this indicates its location and not necessarily any
connection with the maritime administration ofthat country.

% of detentions of ships with RO related detainable deficiencies per Recognized Organization

D Average detentien percentage (0,2]%)
D % RO related detentiens(j./-)

Viet Nam Register ofShipping
RINAVE Portuguesa
Panama Maritime Surveyors Bureau Inc
Korean Register ofShipping
Korea Classification Society (KCS)
Intermaritime Certification Service
Indian Register ofShipping
Honduras Int. Surveying Inspection Bureau (HINSIB)

@

Hellenic Register of Shipping (Greece)
China Corporation Register ofShipping
China Classification Society
Bureau Securitas
American Bureau of Shipping (USA)
Det Norske Veritas
Registro Italiano Navale
L1oyd's Register (U K)
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
Bureau Veritas (France)
Germanischer Lloyd
Turkish Lloyd
Russian Maritime Register ofShipping
Polski Rejestr Statkow
International Naval Surveys Bureau (Greece)
Isthmus Bureau of Shipping (Panama)
Croatian Register ofShipping
Universal Shipping Bureau (USB)

:2:

Panama Maritime Documentation Services
Panama Register Corporation
INCLAMAR (INC)
International Register ofShipping (USA)
Shipping Register of Ukraine
Bulgarski Koraben Registar
Register of Shipping (RSA)
Ph oenix Register of Shipping

-2.00

44

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

10

---153

6

0

161
I' ~

1,052
66

4

688

20

0
·0.04

6

26

11

-0.70

38

161

122

·1.32

976

2

27

12

-1.46

1,654

4

43

23

,1.54

7,007

21

160

120

-1.62

880

1I

25

10

-1.62

14,172

28

311

256

·1.77

1 5,364

29

336

278

·1.78

17 ,086

27

372

311

·1.82

13 ,838

21

304

249

-1.82

6,111

4

Hl

104

·1.91

80

53

-1,94

933
7,072

- - - _ ..

high

3,329

t
"

In this table only Recognized Organizations th at had more thon 60 inspectiolls are taken into account. The formula
used is identical to the one used for the Blaek Grey and White l,st. However, the values for Pand Q are adjusted to
P-o,oz and Q-O,01
... Where a country is shown after a Recognized Organization lh is indicates Îts location and nol necessarily any

connection with the maritime administration of that country

45

Number of certificates co vering RO responsible detainable deficiencies
Total certificates
Certificates

RO detdef

%

11 ,166

0

0.00

1.057

27

2.55

23,605

12

0.05

1,783

0

0.00

51

0

0.00

540

INSB

0.19

22,920

2

0.01

33,676

12

0.04

488

0

0.00

67

0

0.00

177

5

2.82

88

0

0.00

1,856

4

0.22

2,237

23

1.03

405

7

1,73

60

0

0.00

2,032

0

0.00

22,745

16

0.07

14,899

RINA

0.03

218

0

0,00

51

2

3.92

136

4

2.94

293

15

5,12

1.234

2

0,16

601

17

2.83

4,977

0.02

62

0

0.00

RMRS

13,626

14

0.10

SfW

1,732

18

1.04

TL

1,900

3

0.16

USB

273

RP

---­

1,10

7 I

I

I

I

I

I

3

I
I

I
5 I

20

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
1 I

27
12

3

1

2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

1

I

1

I

I

I

2

I
6

2

I

12

5

5

4

4
3

18

23

2

7
6

7
5

1

1

16

3

4

5
2

I

2

4
12

I
I

17

4
15

3
2

2

I

17
1

7

4

16

1

3

~

14

1
1

18

3

~

00

0,52
5

I

I

I

5
2

8

I

I

I

I3 I

I

I

3

1
2

5
7

I

1

2

3

3

4

5
1

2

1
2

2

~Il

,

8

10

5,18

2

1,04

15

7,77

3

1,55

5

2,59

13

6,74

3

1,55

10

5,18

5

2,59

2

1,04

22

11,40
0,52

4
3

7

5

1

2

3
2

I

1

I

I

I

I

1

4

4

2,07

28

14,51

15

7,77

6

10

5,18

1

14

7,25

6

3,11

6

3,11

1

3

12

I
13
2

I

3
6

2
2

2

7

11

2
3

4

3

Refusal Of access 2008-2010
12
BI Failed ta call at indicated repair yard
I!EJ Jumped delentian
BI Multiple detentian

10

o No val,d ISM code certifica!e
8

6

4

2

o

• I
'"
'0

.8

E

'"

U

lil

e
o

E

o

U

I
lil

2

Q.

~

I
'"
'§
o
v

o

I

I

• Q.

<:

va:::

<:

::>

Oei.

.0

.D

'" 0

--'

Ev
~~

~

o

'V"

t:D

o

E
v
x

::>

--'

'"
E
'"

C

'"
"-

c

QJ

'" ~
'"::> '"

QJ

C
'" 0

~

cc {i
QJ

lJ..

C

o

--'

~

QJ

lil

0.'"
~ ~

0'"
QJ
~

C

C,­

·~z

QJ"D

V;

>~
...;0

'"

u
C '"
C

.~

c

'"<:
N

~

lil

49

5°

Oil tankers 39% 0
Gas carriers 10% liCtJ
Chemical tankers 51% •

The new normative Iisting of Flags provides an independent categorization
that has been prepared on the basis of Paris MoU port State inspection
results. Compared to the calculation method of previous year.this system has
the advantage of providing an excess percentage that is significant and also
reviewing the number of inspections and detentions over a 3-year period at
the same time. based on binomial calculus.

The performance of each Flag is calculated
using a standard formula for statistica I
calculations in which certain values have been
fixed in accordance with agreed Paris MoU
policy. Two limits have been included in the
new system. the 'black to grey' and the 'grey to
white' limit. each with its own specific formula:
Ub/ack_'o_grey

~ N' p + 0.5 + z.J(N· p' (l- p)

uwhite_'o_grey -

N' P - 0.5 - z.J(N· p' (l- p)

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 Uz" 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 'blacl< to grey'

limit means significantly worse than ave rage.
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 of30 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 ra te 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 excess factor EF is an indication for the

1000
EF -4
EF =3
EF '" 2

EF ... , Black
EF .. 0 White

Ef ""-1

100

H .. -2

10

30

100

50

__

---_.-,----_.

250
Number of Inspections

.•.•...

500

1000

2000

number of times the 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 the black. grey or white
list. The target (yardstick) has been set on 7%
and the size of the increment and decrement
on 3%. The BlackJGreyJWhite lists have been
calculated in accordance with the above
principles.
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.
Exampleflag on Black list:

Ships of Flag A were subject to 108 inspections
ofwhich 25 resulted in a detention . The "black
to grey limit" is 12 detentions. The excess
factor is 4,26
N= total inspections
P=7%

Q=3%
Z = 1.645
How to determine the black to grey limit:
f.l-*m.,., = N' p + 0.5 + z~ N' P '(1- p)
f.l-*m"", = lOS, 0.07 + 0.5 + 1.645,J'10-'S-·-0.-07-·-0-.9-3
~,=12

The excess factor is 4,26. This means that
'p' has to be adjusted in the formula. lhe
black to grey limit has an excess factor of"
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 norm al value for 'p':
p + 3,26q = 0,07 + (3,26' 0,03) = 0,1678
/-l--f-- = lOS, 0.167S + 0.5 + 1.645.JlOS . 0-.1-67-8-'-0.-83-2-2
/l--t""", = 25

Example flag on Grey list:

Ships of Flag B were subject to 14' inspections,
ofwhich 10 resulted in a detention. The ' black
to grey limit" is '5 and the " grey to white limit"
is 4. The excess factor is 0.51.
How to determine the black to grey limit:
flblaokro"", = 141,0.07 + 0.5 + 1.645,J141· 0.07 '0.93
/i"«'''''''' = 15

How to determine the~ey to white limit:
/i-••"" = N' P -0.5 - z.J N' P '(1- p)
JJ--••"" = 141· 0.07 - 0.5 -1.645"""14=----:1-·0-.0-7-·0-.9-3
~1.. =4

To determine the exccss factor the following
formula is used:
el = Detentions - grcy to white limit J grey to
black limit - grcy to white limit
el =(10-4)/(15-4)

el = 0,51
Exampleflag on White list:

Ships of Flag C were subject to 297 inspections
ofwhich 11 resulted in detention. The "grey to
white limit" is '3 detentions. lhe excess factor
is -0,28.
How to deterrnine the grey to white limit:
/i-••"" = N' P - 0,5 p(l- p)
fJ-r....".. = 297 '0.07 - 0.5 -1.645""'29-7-'-0-.0-7-'0-.9-3

zIv·

jl..-.yro."" = 13

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 ofo, so to
determine the new value for 'p', Iq' has to be
multiplied with -0,28, and the outcome has to
be added to the norrnal value for 'p':
p + (-0.28q) = (). 07 + ( -0.28' 0.03) = 0.084
/l-==fao'., = 297· CJ.U84 - 0.5 -1.645..)'-2-9-7-'0-.-0-84-'-0-.9-9-\-6

Staff
Mr. Richard W.). Schiferli
General Secretary
Telephont:

Mrs. Iris van Markenstein
ICT Advisor
Telephone:

Mrs. Carien Droppers

Mrs. Melany Cadogan . Esckici

Deputy General Se("'etary
Telephone:

Office Manager
Telephone:

Mr. Ivo Snijders

Mrs. Ingrid de Vree

Secretary
Telephone: .

Management Assistant
Telephone:

Mr. Peter Aarsen
Secretary
Telephone:

Lal'0ut and design

Rooduijn communicatie & design, Den Haag
Photogfaphs

Cover photo: Brian McCarthy
Paris MoU Authorities
Evert van der Spek

Website
The Paris MoU m?intains a website which can be

found at
. The site contains
information on operation of the Paris MoU and a
database of inspection results.

Secretariat
Addfess Secretafiat:

Nieuwe uitleg 1, P.O.Box 9°653, 2509 LR The Hague, Telephone

54

Fax:

Paris MoU fact sheet -

organizationa! strl'c:ure

orking

ps

•

f

,
I
'(

•
I

,