Tokyo MOU 2011 PDF

ANNUAL REPORT ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 2011
This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or part subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source but not for commercial use or sale. Further information may be obtained from: The Tokyo MOU Secretariat Ascend Shimbashi 8F 6-19-19 Shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0004 Tel: +81-3-3433-0621 Fax: +81-3-3433-0624 This Report is also available at Tokyo MOU web-site (http://www.tokyo-mou.org) on the Internet.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION
FOREWORD
We are pleased to present the Annual Report on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region 2011. The Tokyo MOU maintains a good trend of development and achievement of PSC activities. In 2011, member Authorities of the Tokyo MOU carried out a total of 28,627 inspections, which is an increase of 11% over the previous year. In addition, the regional inspection rate has been also increased from 66% to 68%. In collaboration with the Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU successfully conducted the concentrated inspection campaign (CIC) on structural safety and the Load Lines. The Tokyo MOU continues its efforts to improve the internal system and to enhance the external relationship. This annual report summarizes the port State control developments and activities of the Tokyo MOU in 2011. Furthermore, the report also includes port State control statistics and analysis which provides the results of inspections carried out by member Authorities during the year. As observed in the previous Annual Report, the overall detention rate has declined gradually during the past three years. However, more attention needs to be paid to the areas of maintenance of ship and equipment, and development of plans for shipboard operations related to the ISM Code, which have been found as the two most frequent reasons for detentions. With that in mind, the Tokyo MOU will continue to strengthen and to improve measures for eradication of substandard ships so as to promote the safety, security, and protection of the marine environment, and to improve living and working conditions onboard.
Hua Siong Ong Chairman Port State Control Committee
Mitsutoyo Okada Secretary Tokyo MOU Secretariat
CONTENTS
page
OVERVIEW
General introduction .............................................................................. Review of year 2011 ............................................................................... The Port State Control Committee ........................................................ Technical Working Group (TWG) The Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS) ............ Training and seminars for port State control officers ......................... Co-operation with other regional port State control agreements ... 1 2 3 4 5 5 8
PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE TOKYO MOU, 2011

Inspections .............................................................................................. Detentions ............................................................................................... Deficiencies ............................................................................................. Overview of port State control results 2001-2011 ... 11 11 12 13
ANNEX 1 -- STATUS OF THE RELEVANT INSTRUMENTS ......................... ANNEX 2 -- PORT STATE INSPECTION STATISTICS ................................
Statistics for 2011 ..................................................................... Summary of port State inspection data 2009-2011 .......................
20
22 22 31
ANNEX 3 -- ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF THE TOKYO MOU .............. Explanatory Note on the Black-Grey-White Lists
49
50
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

page 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 37 37 39 45 47 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 30 31 33 38 40 41 43 46 48
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Table 1 Table 1a Table 2 Table 2a Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14
Inspection percentage .. Port State inspections - contribution by Authorities Type of ship inspected .. Detentions per flag Detention per ship type Deficiencies by main categories Most frequent detainable deficiencies . No. of inspections .. Inspection percentage .. No. of inspections with deficiencies . No. of deficiencies . No. of detentions .... Detention percentage .... Comparison of inspections per ship type ... Comparison of detentions per ship type . Comparison of inspections with deficiencies per ship type .. Comparison of number of deficiencies by main categories .. Comparison of most frequent detainable deficiencies Status of the relevant instruments Status of MARPOL 73/78 .. Port State inspections carried out by Authorities . Port State inspections on maritime security .. Port State inspections per flag .. Port State inspections per ship type . Port State inspections per recognized organization ... Deficiencies by categories .. Black Grey White Lists ... Inspections and detentions per flag . Inspections and detentions per ship type .. Inspections with deficiencies per ship type .. Inspections and detentions per recognized organization .. Performance of recognized organization Comparison of deficiencies by categories .. Comparison of most frequent detainable deficiencies
OVERVIEW
GENERAL INTRODUCTION The Annual Report on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region is published under the auspices of the Port State Control Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU). This annual report is the seventeenth issue and covers port State control activities and developments in the year 2011. The Memorandum was concluded in Tokyo on 1 December 1993. The following maritime Authorities in the Asia-Pacific region are the signatories to the Memorandum: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. The Memorandum came into effect on 1 April 1994. In accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum, the Authorities which have signed and formally accepted the Memorandum or which have been accepted with unanimous consent of the Port State Control Committee would become full members. Currently, the Memorandum has 18 full members, namely: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation,
Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. A maritime Authority which declared the clear intention to fully adhere to the Memorandum within a three-year period would be accepted as a co-operating member with unanimous consent of the Port State Control Committee. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is the only co-operating member Authority at the moment. The main objective of the Memorandum is to establish an effective port State control regime in the Asia-Pacific region through co-operation of its members and harmonization of their activities, to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety, to protect the marine environment and to safeguard working and living conditions on board ships. The Port State Control Committee established under the Memorandum monitors and controls the implementation and on-going operation of the Memorandum. The Committee consists of representatives of the member Authorities, co-operating member Authorities and observers. The observer status has been granted the following maritime Authorities and the inter-governmental organizations by the Committee: Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Macao (China), Solomon Islands, United States Coast Guard, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Paris MOU, the Via del Mar Agreement, the Indian Ocean MOU and the Black Sea MOU. The
Secretariat of the Memorandum is located in Tokyo, Japan. For the purpose of the Memorandum, the following instruments are the basis for port State control activities in the region: the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966; the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as amended; the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended; the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974; the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended; the International Convention on Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended; the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969;
the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO Convention No. 147); and the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. REVIEW OF YEAR 2011
For the purpose of promotion of better communication and relationship with the industry, the Tokyo MOU took an initiative to consider establishment of an appropriate scheme for exchange of views and carrying out dialogues with the industry. The scheme under consideration would improve the common understanding and mutual co-operation between the Tokyo MOU Authorities and the industry. The concentrated inspection campaign (CIC) on Structural Safety and the Load Lines Convention was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. During the campaign period, a total of 7,534 PSC inspections were conducted by the eighteen member Authorities, of which 5,901 were related to a CIC inspection. A total of 2,929 CIC related deficiencies were recorded. The most significant deficiencies found during the campaign were related to the protection of openings (Ventilators, air pipes, casings) 554 (18.91%), followed with casing (Hatchway-, tarpaulins, etc.) 273 (9.29%) and Doors 245 (8.36%). There were a total of 346 detentions during the three-month campaign period, among which 83 ships were detained as the direct results of the CIC. The detention rate for the CIC is 1.41% while the overall detention rate for the period is 4.59%. A major concern which had been raised from the CIC was that
a large number of deficiencies relating to cargo hatch openings were found onboard ships during the period. This campaign was carried out jointly with the Paris MOU and also with participation by regional PSC regimes of the Via del Mar Agreement, the Indian Ocean MOU, the Mediterranean MOU and the Black Sea MOU. The trial implementation of measures against the under-performing ships have been continued for more than one year. The measures taken on under-performing ships proves effective as it has been found that more and more people check the list of under-performing ships published by the Tokyo MOU regularly and that a number of positive feedbacks from the relevant flag State administrations and the ISM companies of the ships have been received. THE PORT STATE CONTROL COMMITTEE The twenty-first meeting of the Port State Control Committee was held in Busan,
Republic of Korea, from 18 to 21 April 2011. The meeting was hosted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the Republic of Korea. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Ong Hua Siong, Assistant Director (Ship Regulation and Development/Port State Control), Shipping Division, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. The twenty-first Committee meeting was attended by representatives of the member Authorities of Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam, and observers from Macao (China), the United States Coast Guard, the Black Sea MOU, the Indian Ocean MOU, the Paris MOU, the Via del Mar Agreement and the International Maritime Organization. The Committee reviewed the results of trial implementation of measures against the under-performing ships. In order to gain more
The twenty-first Committee meeting, Busan, April 2011.
experiences and to promote more effective implementation of the measures, the Committee agreed to continue the trial for a further inter-sessional period and to make the final decision thereon at the next meeting. The Committee considered a detailed analysis report of the CIC on lifeboat launching arrangements conducted in 2009. The Committee discussed the findings and recommendations. The Committee agreed to consider follow-up measures stemming from the CIC at the next meeting. The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on Structural Safety and the Load Lines which was planned to be conducted during period September November 2011 simultaneously with the Paris MOU. The Committee reconfirmed its decision for the joint CIC on Fire Safety System (FSS) with the Paris MOU in 2012. Furthermore, the Committee also considered the possible topics which could be selected for CICs in 2013 and onward. The Committee reviewed achievements and status of the action plan developed based on the strategic plan. The Committee updated the action plan by changing or adding further actions to the relevant items. The Committee considered the text of agreement with IMO on data exchange with GISIS. The Committee approved the agreement and authorized the Secretary to sign the agreement with IMO during the fifth IMO workshop for PSC MoU/Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers. During the meeting, the Committee also gave consideration and made decisions on the following: assessment of performance of member Authorities;
review of list of follow-up actions emanating from the second Joint Ministerial Conference; consideration of elements of Paris MOU new inspection regime (NIR); schedule for implementation of the new coding system; review and adjustment of the capped amount of financial contribution; establishment of scheme for dialogue and exchange of views with the industry; and awarding the winner of the best deficiency photo of the year.
The twenty-second meeting of the Port State Control Committee will be held in Chile in April 2012. TECHICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG) The fourth meeting of the Technical Working Group (TWG) was held in Busan, Republic of Korea, from 15 to 16 April 2011, prior to the twenty-first meeting of the Committee. The TWG04 meeting was chaired by Mr. Christopher Lindesay, Principal Systems Officer, Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The TWG meeting discussed and made recommendations to the Committee on matters relating to: cases considered by the detention review panel; periodical revision of the PSC Manual;
development guidelines;
and
review
of
PSC
preparation and arrangements on-going and upcoming CICs;
for
reports of intersessional groups: advisory group on information exchange (AG-IE), intersessional group on batch protocol (IG-BP) and intersessional group on statistics (IG-Statistics); activities and operation of the APCIS system; management and maintenance of the coding system; analysis and statistics on PSC; information exchange with other regional PSC databases; and reports and evaluations co-operation activities. of technical
searching ships for inspection and for inputting and transmitting inspection reports. The APCIS also supports on-line publication of PSC data on the Tokyo MOU web-site (http://www.tokyo-mou.org) on a real time basis. Based on data stored in the database, the APCIS produces annual and detailed PSC statistics. For inter-regional information exchange, the APCIS has established deep hyperlinks with the databases of: THETIS of the Paris MOU; BSIS of the Black Sea MOU; IOCIS of the Indian Ocean MOU; and CIALA of the Via del Mar Agreement.
TRAINING AND SEMINARS FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS As mentioned in the previous Annual Report, the technical co-operation activities have been implemented in accordance with the revised integrated strategic plan for technical co-operation programmes from 2011 to 2015. Now, the technical co-operation programmes consist of general training course for PSC officers, specialized training course, expert mission training, PSCO exchange and PSC seminars. The first general training course for PSC officers was held in Yokohama, Japan, from 30 August to 27 September 2011. This was the seventh training course jointly organized by IMO and the Tokyo MOU. A total of 20 PSC officers participated in the training course. Twelve of them were from the Tokyo MOU Authorities of Chile, China, Fiji, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Macao (China), Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. The other
ASIA-PACIFIC COMPUTERIZED INFORMATION SYSTEM (APCIS) For reporting and storing of port State inspection results and facilitating exchange of information in the region, a computerized database system, the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS), was established. The central site of the APCIS is located in Moscow, under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. The APCIS system is connected by member Authorities on-line or by batch protocol for
Tourism of Japan (MLIT), SRC and the Secretariat delivered lectures on the relevant subjects. For the onboard training, participants were divided into five groups to receive the practical training at ports of Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, Hiroshima and Hakata respectively. In addition, a technical visit to a liferaft manufacturer was also arranged. The nineteenth seminar for PSC officers was held Singapore from 25 to 28 July 2011. The seminar was hosted by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA). Participants from Authorities of Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, Macao (China), Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,
Training course for PSC officers
eight were invited by IMO, one each from Abuja MOU, the Via del Mar Agreement, Black Sea MOU, Caribbean MOU, Mediterranean MOU, Riyadh MOU and two from the Indian Ocean MOU. The course was conducted with the assistance by the Shipbuilding Research Center of Japan (SRC). The four-week general training course is composed of two-week classroom lectures, which provide trainees with a wide range of lectures and presentations relating to port State control provisions, convention requirements and regulations; PSC inspection and reporting procedures, and onboard training for practical PSC inspection experience during the latter two weeks. Experts from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Onboard training
actual cases provided by Authorities or reviewed by the detention review panel. The first specialized training course was organized in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, from 14 to 17 November 2011, by the kind invitation of Transport Canada, Marine Safety. The theme of this specialized training course was the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006. Participants from Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Macao (China), Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States Coast Guard, Viet Nam and the Via del Mar Agreement attended the training course. Two speakers were invited from the Liberian Maritime Administration, who presented the MLC2006 and the various titles giving in depth
Onboard training
the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam attended the seminar. Experts from MPA of Singapore and MLIT of Japan delivered the comprehensive and informative presentations on the outcome of relevant IMO meetings regarding PSC, the CIC on Structural Safety and the Load Lines, bulk carrier safety, assessment and evaluation of lifeboat release hooks, oily water separator and explanations on issues concerning ECDIS. Participants also received information about the recent development and activities of the Tokyo MOU, problems/issues on PSC inspection reporting, new coding system and PSC activities in Singapore. There were two case study sessions conducted during the seminar as well as discussion of the
The nineteenth seminar for PSC officers
Canada, one from Hong Kong (China) to Republic of Korea and one from Japan to Hong Kong (China). Currently, the PSC officers exchange programme is implemented among the Authorities of Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Singapore. The successful and effective implementation of technical co-operation programmes gives the Tokyo MOU the potential for the sustainable development and achievement. The above mentioned technical co-operation activities have received full support from all Authorities and the continuous financial assistance from the Nippon Foundation. CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER REGIONAL PORT STATE CONTROL AGREEMENTS Establishment and effective operation of regional co-operation regimes on port State control has formed a worldwide network for elimination of substandard shipping. Currently, there are a total of nine regional port State control agreements (MOUs) covering the major part of the world, namely: Abuja MOU Black Sea MOU Caribbean MOU Indian Ocean MOU Mediterranean MOU Paris MOU Riyadh MOU
Specialized training course
knowledge of the convention and the procedures to obtain the certification for the ship. Explanation of the guidelines for Flag States and Port State inspectors was also given during the course. In addition to the main subject, various presentations were made by representatives from Transport Canada, ITF local office, Seafarers Mission and the Secretariat. There were two expert missions organized in 2011. One mission was held in Kota Konabalu, Malaysia, from 6 to 17 June 2011. Experts from the Republic of Korea conducted the training. The other one was in Manila, the Philippines, from 17 to 28 October 2011, which was carried out by two experts dispatched from Japan. In 2011, eight PSC officer exchanges were completed, namely one PSC officer from Japan to Singapore, one from Australia to Japan, one from Canada to China, one from Australia to Singapore, one from Russian Federation to Australia, one from Singapore to
Tokyo MOU Via del Mar Agreement
As one of the inter-governmental organizations (IGO) associated with IMO, the Tokyo MOU has attended the meetings of the Flag State Implementation (FSI) Sub-Committee since 2006. The Tokyo MOU Secretariat presented at the nineteenth session of FSI in February 2011. The Fifth IMO Workshop for PSC MoU/ Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers was held from 14 to 16 June 2011 at IMO Headquarters. The major agenda discussed at the workshop were update on activities and decisions by regional PSC agreements, information network, draft Assembly Resolution on Procedures on PSC and other PSC-related matters and technical co-operation activities. During the workshop,
Tokyo MOU, as well as Riyadh MOU and the Via del Mar Agreement, signed the agreement with IMO on data exchange with GISIS. In support of inter-regional collaboration on port State control, the Tokyo MOU holds an observer status of the Paris MOU, the Caribbean MOU and the Indian Ocean MOU. In a similar manner, the Tokyo MOU has granted an observer status to the Paris MOU, the Indian Ocean MOU, the Via del Mar Agreement and the Black Sea MOU. The Tokyo MOU has established, and maintains, effective and close co-operation with the Paris MOU both at administrative and the technical levels. Representatives of the two Secretariats attend the Port State Control Committee meetings of each MOU on a regular basis. During the period of 2011,
PSC training course for Indian Ocean MOU
continuous efforts and further coordinated actions by the two Memoranda were made on the following: carrying out the joint CIC on Structural Safety and the Load Lines; preparation of joint CICs on Fire Safety System (FSS) 2012 and on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 2013; continuous submission to IMO on annual list of flags targeted by the Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and the United States Coast Guard; analysis of performance of flag and RO and submission of the outcome to IMO jointly; and liaison on management and maintenance of the coding system.
Under the project of technical co-operation with other regions, a third PSC training course was held in Mombasa, Kenya, from 31 January to 11 February 2011. The training was organized by the Tokyo and the Indian Ocean Memoranda, and IMO jointly. Experts from the Tokyo MOU Authorities of Australia, Japan and Republic of Korea and an officer from the Tokyo MOU Secretariat conducted the training. A total of 16 participants from the Indian Ocean MOU Authorities as well as other regional PSC agreements attended the training course. The training course in Kenya was carried out with the financial support by the Nippon Foundation and IMO.
10
PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE TOKYO MOU, 2011
INSPECTIONS In 2011, 28,627 inspections, involving 15,771 individual ships, were carried out on ships registered under 103 flags. Figure 2 and Table 2 show the number of inspections carried out by the member Authorities of the Tokyo MOU. Out of 28,627 inspections, there were 18,650 inspections where ships were found with deficiencies. Since the total number of individual ships operating in the region was estimated at 23,268*, the inspection rate in the region was approximately 68%** in 2011 (see Figure 1). It is notable that the trend of increase
organizations are shown in Table 5. DETENTIONS Ships are detained when the condition of the ship or its crew does not correspond substantially with the applicable conventions. Such strong action is to ensure that the ship will not sail until it can proceed to sea without presenting a danger to the ship or persons on board, or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. In 2011, 1,562 ships registered under 61 flags were detained because of serious deficiencies
of number of inspections and inspection rate has been maintained. Information on inspections according to ships flag is shown in Table 3. Figures summarizing inspections according to ship type are set out in Figure 3 and Table 4. Inspection
*
results
regarding
recognized
Number of individual ships which visited the ports of the region during the year (the figure was provided by LLI). ** The inspection rate is calculated by: number of individual ships inspected/number of individual ships visited.
11
and the white list has expanded. There are 13 flags on the black list. Belize, Turkey and Tuvalu moved from the black list into the grey list but Tonga rejoined in the black list. The grey list consists of 16 flags and the white list includes 33 flags which is the highest number since publication of the black-grey-white list. DEFICIENCIES All conditions on board found not in compliance with the requirements of the relevant instruments by the port State control officers were recorded as deficiencies and requested to be rectified.
found onboard. The detention rate of ships inspected was 5.46%. Comparing with the last year, detentions increased 151 by number or 11% by percentage. Figure 4 shows the detention rate by flag that had at least 20 port State inspections and whose detention rate was above the average regional rate. Figure 5 gives the detention rate by ship type. A newly introduced Figure 7 shows the most frequent detainable deficiencies found during inspections. Black-grey-white list (Table 7) indicates levels of performance of flags during three-year rolling period. The black-grey-white list for 2009-2011 consists of 62 flags, whose ships were involved in 30 or more inspections during the period. It is encouraging that both the black list and the grey list became smaller
A total of 103,549 deficiencies were recorded in 2011. The deficiencies found are categorized and shown in Figure 6 and Table 6. It has been noted that fire safety measures, life-saving appliances and safety of navigation remain as the three major categories of deficiencies which are frequently discovered on ships. In 2011, 18,114 fire safety measures related deficiencies, 17,435 safety of navigation related deficiencies and 12,281 life-saving appliances related deficiencies were recorded, representing nearly 50% of the total number of deficiencies.
12
The number of deficiencies relating to stability, structure and related equipment and the Load Lines increased about 19% and 32% respectively. This can be seen as the direct results of the CIC of the year in one hand and also proved the appropriateness for taking this subject for the campaign on the other hand. It is further noted that the overall MARPOL related deficiencies rose over 20%. OVERVIEW OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTS 2001 2011 Figures 8-13 show the comparison of port State inspection results for 2001 - 2011. These figures indicate the trends in port State activities and ship performance over the past eleven years.
13
Figure 1: INSPECTION PERCENTAGE

Total ships inspected: 15,771 Percentage: 68%
Total individual ship visited: 23,268
Figure 2: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS - CONTRIBUTION BY AUTHORITIES

Papua New Guinea 102; 0.36% New Zealand 479; 1.67% Malaysia 848; 2.96% Thailand 333; 1.16% Republic of Korea 2,070; 7.23% Viet Nam 1,093; 3.82% Australia 3,002; 10.49% Russian Federation 1,136; 3.97% Singapore 740; 2.58%
Philippines 1,812; 6.33%
Canada 325; 1.14%
Japan 5,076; 17.73% Chile 861; 3.01%
Indonesia 2,150; 7.51%
Fiji 33; 0.12%
China 7,821; 27.32%
Hong Kong, China 746; 2.61%
Total inspections: 28,627
14
Figure 3: TYPE OF SHIP INSPECTED

general dry cargo ship: 7,775; 27.16%
refrigerated cargo carrier: 784; 2.74%
passenger ship/ferry: 290; 1.01%
other types: 1,067; 3.73%
oil tanker/combination carrier: 2,008; 7.01% ro-ro/container/vehicle ship: 5,295; 18.50% bulk carrier: 9,018; 31.50%
gas carrier: 618; 2.16% chemical tanker: 1,772; 6.19%
Figure 4: DETENTIONS PER FLAG

Detention: 40 Percentage: 23.81% 9 23.08% 308 16.86% 52 18.37%
Detenti on percentage
24 12.44% 4 12.12% 91 12.33% 18 10.91% 16 11.76%
Percentage
20
Regi onal a verage: 5.46%

3 10.00% 38 10.61% 41 7.52% 2 8.70% 8 6.72% 21 6.03% 7 39 5.65% 28 5.52% 3 5.88% 5.60%
7 12.73%
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flags Flags: 1. Korea, Dem. Peoples Rep. 5. Saint Kitts and Nevis 9. Mongolia 13. Curacao 17. Gibraltar (UK) 2. 6. 10. 14. 18. Georgia Indonesia Kiribati Antigua and Barbuda India 3. 7. 11. 15. 19. Sierra Leone Viet Nam Thailand Tuvalu Cyprus 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. Cambodia Bangladesh Barbados Belize Malta
Note: Flags listed above are those flags the ships of which were involved in at least 20 port State inspections and detention percentage of which are above the regional average detention percentage. The complete information on detentions by flag is given in Table 3.
15
Figure 5: DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE
Detention percentage Average detention percentage: 5.46%
2.24 Oil tanker/combi nation carrier 4.21 Gas carrier Chemical tanker Bulk carrier 3.32 Ro-ro/conrainer/vehicle ship General d ry car go ship Refri ger ated cargo carrier Passenger ship/ferr y Other types 2.07 4.59 6.76 9.25 2.37 4.95
Figure 6: DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES

others 35,826; 34.60% ISM related deficiencies 3,497; 3.38% life saving appliances 12,281; 11.86%
safety of navigation 17,435; 16.84%
fire safety measures 18,114; 17.49% load lines 8,139; 7.86% stability, structure and relevant equipment 8,257; 7.97%
16
Figure 7: MOST FREQUENT DETAINABLE DEFICIENCIES
Lifeboats (Lifesaving ap pliances)
166 165 151 135
Oi l filtering equipment (MARPOL-Annex I)
Emergency Fi re Pump (Fi re safety measur es)
Fi re- damper s (Fi re safety measur es) Maintenance of the ship and equip ment (ISM r ela ted defici encies) Fire prevention (Fi re safety measur es) Devel opment of plans for shipboard operati ons (ISM related deficien cies) Means of control (Fi re safety measur es)
134 113 98 89 85 82
Ventilators, air pipes, casings (Load lin es)
Ventilation (Fi re safety measur es)
17
OVERVIEW OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTS 2001 - 2011 Figure 8: NO. OF INSPECTIONS
28,6 27 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 17,379 23,116 2 1,400 21,0 58 21,68 6 22,039 22,152 25,762 19,588 20,124
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
201 1
Figure 9: INSPECTION PERCENTAGE

80% 78% 71% 77% 69% 70% 69% 68%
66%
63%
66% 61%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
200 8
2009
2010
2011
Figure 10: NO. OF INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES

15,422 14,816 14,396 14,421 14,916 14,864 15,298 16,575 18,650
15,000
12,049
13,760
10,000
5,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
18
Figure 11: NO. OF DEFICIENCIES

103,549 10 0,000 8 0,000 6 0,000 4 0,000 2 0,000 0 69,578 75,210 89,478 84 ,119 73,163 74,668 80,556 83 ,950 86,820 90,177
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2 008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 12: NO. OF DETENTIONS

2,000 1,709 1,528 1,500 1,349 1,307 1,393 1,097 1,000 1,171 1,238 1,336 1,411 1,562
500
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2 007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 13: DETENTION PERCENTAGE

8.49% 7.76% 8.00% 6.67% 6.51% 5.21% 5.40% 5.62% 6.90% 5.7 8% 5 .48% 5.46%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
200 7
2008
2009
2010
2011
19
ANNEX 1 STATUS OF THE RELEVANT INSTRUMENTS

Table 1: STATUS OF THE RELEVANT INSTRUMENTS (Date of deposit of instruments) (As at 31 December 2011)
AFS 2001 09/01/07 08/04/10 07/03/11 08/07/03 24/07/08 31/01/92 30/07/86 28/10/91 22/02/84 03/11/83 01/11/90 14/09/92 27/05/02 16/10/95 01/05/85 20/12/99 30/06/04 25/05/80 20/12/99 01/05/81 08/08/01 24/06/05 03/02/00 02/11/07 13/04/89 29/05/91 26/04/88 26/04/88 01/05/85 20/12/99 30/06/04 02/10/83 09/10/79 01/05/88 19/06/97 22/04/91 18/12/90 25/04/89 01/05/85 18/07/05 01/06/94 28/04/84 27/09/10 31/12/09 20/08/08 09/05/08 07/03/11 17/09/08 29/02/80 07/03/75 02/08/77 07/01/80 04/03/83 15/07/77 13/11/79 21/06/77 29/07/77 23/12/80 26/11/76 18/05/76 09/11/73 29/04/77 06/08/79 28/07/82 18/12/90 26/04/88 01/05/85 20/12/99 12/03/82 15/07/77 COLREG ILO 147** 72 25/05/93 28/11/80 31/05/83 07/05/91 28/11/81 SOLAS 74 17/08/83 08/05/78 15/07/92 17/12/82 28/07/04 14/11/81 23/08/88 15/05/80 02/12/82 19/10/83 23/02/90 12/05/81 01/06/84 28/07/82 12/10/92 18/08/00 10/08/99 03/06/01 25/09/98 25/10/93 15/06/01 11/11/11 31/01/97 14/11/94 23/07/84 24/06/97 09/06/83 21/10/86 27/01/87 27/05/82 04/04/85 23/10/02 11/04/85 03/11/84 28/07/04 27/03/91 03/02/95 01/07/83 08/06/81 29/09/95 10/10/94 09/06/87 08/04/10 28/03/80 07/01/80 04/03/83 25/05/80 17/02/81 15/05/80 31/12/80 19/10/83 23/02/90 12/11/80 15/12/81 09/01/80 16/03/81 18/12/84 28/07/82 18/12/90 26/04/88 01/05/85 16/11/92 06/11/87
Authority
Australia 14/01/70 08/04/10 03/03/95 03/02/95 28/07/04 23/10/02 24/06/97 14/11/94 11/11/11 03/06/01 18/08/00 18/08/99 26/11/90 27/05/02 29/11/94 08/08/01 11/10/10 03/02/00 10/03/75 05/10/73 29/11/72 16/08/72 17/01/77 15/05/68 10/07/69 12/01/71 05/02/70 18/05/76 04/03/69 04/07/66 21/09/71 30/12/92 28/07/82 18/12/90 26/04/88 18/10/89 18/07/05 30/06/04 21/07/68
LOAD LINE TONNAGE LOAD LINE PROT 69 66 88 21/05/82 29/07/68 07/02/97
SOLAS PROT 78 17/08/83
SOLAS MARPOL STCW PROT 73/78 78 88 07/02/97 14/10/87 07/11/83
Canada
18/07/94
Chile
22/11/82
China
08/04/80
Fiji
29/11/72
Hong Kong, China*
18/07/82
Indonesia
14/03/89
Japan
17/07/80
20
Republic of Korea
18/01/80
Malaysia
24/04/84
New Zealand
06/01/78
Papua New Guinea
25/10/93
Philippines
06/09/78
Russian Federation
20/11/69
Singapore
06/06/85
Thailand
11/06/96
Vanuatu
13/01/89
Viet Nam
18/12/90
Marshall Islands
25/04/89
DPR Korea
18/10/89
Macao, China
18/07/05
Solomon Islands
30/06/04
Entry into force date
18/07/82
* **
Effective date of extension of instruments. Although some Authorities have not ratified the ILO Convention No.147, parts of the ILO conventions referred to therein are implemented under their national legislation and port State control is carried out on matters covered by the national regulations.
Table 1a: STATUS OF MARPOL 73/78 (Date of deposit of instruments) (As at 31 December 2011)
Authority Australia Canada Chile China Fiji Hong Kong, China* Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Viet Nam Annexes I & II 14/10/87 16/11/92 10/10/94 01/07/83 11/04/85 21/10/86 09/06/83 23/07/84 31/01/97 25/09/98 25/10/93 15/06/01 03/11/83 01/11/90 02/11/07 13/04/89 29/05/91 Annex III 10/10/94 08/08/02 10/10/94 13/09/94 07/03/95 09/06/83 28/02/96 27/09/10 25/09/98 25/10/93 15/06/01 14/08/87 02/03/94 22/04/91 Annex IV 27/02/04 26/03/10 10/10/94 02/11/06 02/11/06 09/06/83 28/11/03 27/09/10 25/10/93 15/06/01 14/08/87 01/05/05 15/03/04 Annex V 14/08/90 26/03/10 15/08/08 21/11/88 27/03/96 09/06/83 28/02/96 31/01/97 25/09/98 25/10/93 15/06/01 14/08/87 27/05/99 22/04/91 Annex VI 07/08/07 26/03/10 16/10/06 23/05/06 20/03/08 15/02/05 20/04/06 27/09/10 10/08/00 15/03/04 -
Marshall Islands
26/04/88
26/04/88
26/04/88
26/04/88
07/03/02
DPR Korea Macao, China Solomon Islands Entry into force date
01/05/01 20/12/99 30/06/04 02/10/1983
01/05/01 20/12/99 30/06/04 01/07/1992
01/05/01 02/11/06 30/06/04 27/09/2003
01/05/01 20/12/99 30/06/04 31/12/1988
23/05/06 19/05/2005
Effective date of extension of instruments.
21
ANNEX 2 PORT STATE INSPECTION STATISTICS
STATISTICS FOR 2011 Table 2: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY AUTHORITIES
No. of initial and follow-up inspections (b+c) Detention percentage (f/b%) No. of deficiencies 1) (e)
No. of detentions 1) (f)
No. of inspections with deficiencies (d)
No. of individual ships inspected (a)
No. of individual ships visited 2) (g)
No. of follow-up inspections (c)
Australia3) Canada Chile China Fiji Hong Kong, China Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Viet Nam
Total
4) 4)
Authority
2,660 319 780 5,916 31 739 1,907 3,515 1,781 741 406 88 1,449 761 580 289 0 926
15,771
4,250 325 1,181 9,337 52 769 2,508 6,069 3,104 1,065 729 144 2,154 2,219 1,240 402 0 1,523
37,071
3,002 325 861 7,821 33 746 2,150 5,076 2,070 848 479 102 1,812 1,136 740 333 0 1,093
28,627
1,248 0 320 1,516 19 23 358 993 1,034 217 250 42 342 1,083 500 69 0 430
8,444
1,741 187 391 6,745 2 437 627 3,343 1,595 462 242 38 499 860 659 131 0 691
18,650
8,406 676 1,035 48,222 3 1,404 2,994 17,689 7,297 1,855 829 119 1,967 4,698 2,840 319 0 3,196
103,549
275 8 28 678 0 25 77 217 126 13 12 3 4 25 29 6 0 36

1,562
4,914 1,448 1,756 13,986 160 4,812 6,199 7,507 9,280 5,845 868 346 1,992 1,339 12,163 3,540 9 2,572
Regional
54.13 22.03 44.42 42.30 19.38 15.36 30.76 46.82 19.19 12.68 46.77 25.43 72.74 56.83 4.77 8.16 0 36.00
Regional
Inspection rate (a/g%)
No. of initial inspections (b)
9.16 2.46 3.25 8.67 0 3.35 3.58 4.28 6.09 1.53 2.51 2.94 0.22 2.20 3.92 1.80 0 3.29
Regional
23,268
68%
5.46%
1) 2) 3) 4)
Numbers of deficiencies and detentions do not include those related to security. LLI data for 2011. Data for Australia is also provided to Indian Ocean MOU. Data are only for the Pacific ports.
22
Table 2a: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS ON MARITME SECURITY
No. of secuirty related deficiencies
No. of security related detentions
No. of inspections with security related deficiencies
No. of inspections
Australia Canada Chile China Fiji Hong Kong, China Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Viet Nam Total
Authority
3,002 325 861 7,821 33 746 2,150 5,076 2,070 848 479 102 1,812 1,136 740 333 0 1,093 28,627
4 3 13 1,055 0 16 28 370 300 87 6 6 33 85 305 2 0 68 2,381
5 3 13 1,327 0 17 31 446 447 97 8 6 42 106 310 2 0 73 2,933
0 0 0 29 0 1 1 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 46
Detention percentage (%) 0 0 0 0.37 0 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 Regional 0.16%
Note: Security related data showing in the above table and the tables of deficiency by category are excluded from all other statistical tables and figures in this report.
23
Table 3: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER FLAG No. of No. of No. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 3 2 11 545 347 1,490 3 2 8 7 4 5 665 351 1,366 1 0 0 33 31 229 30 23 133 39 24 93 348 333 2,244 73 39 149 1 1 3 3 3 29 5 1 9 1 1 11 1,827 1,796 15,044 95 42 137 1 0 0 707 391 1,708 12 12 87 6 5 28 28 12 56 23 16 56 500 282 1,263 128 67 249 14 11 87 2 2 7 18 10 87 3 3 23 7 6 38 3 3 11 1 0 0 47 27 88 39 37 333 278 175 754 51 28 99 333 156 593 1 1 3 2,259 1,259 5,531 No. of detentions Detention percentage % 33.33 7.52 0 0 3.61 0 12.12 10.00 5.13 6.03 1.37 0 33.33 0 0 16.86 2.11 0 0.14 16.67 0 0 8.70 5.60 2.34 14.29 50.00 11.11 0 14.29 0 0 0 23.08 2.88 5.88 3.30 0 1.59
Flag
Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Australia Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bermuda (UK) Bolivia Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Cambodia Cayman Islands (UK) Chile China Comoros Cook Islands Croatia Curacao Cyprus Denmark Dominica Ecuador Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Falkland Islands (UK) Fiji France Georgia Germany Gibraltar (UK) Greece Honduras Hong Kong, China
1 41 0 0 24 0 4 3 2 21 1 0 1 0 0 308 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 28 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 9 8 3 11 0 36
24
Flag
India Indonesia Iran Ireland Isle of Man (UK) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic Korea, Republic of Kuwait Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Lithuania Luxemburg Malaysia Maldives Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Myanmar Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Peru Philippines Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Saint Helena (UK) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
No. of No. of No. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 124 67 389 193 179 1,166 5 5 19 3 1 1 142 69 255 5 4 28 152 75 398 5 4 19 154 94 328 165 146 1,184 168 166 1,707 1,312 13 2,019 1 1 18 282 11 707 1,109 2 1 6 136 15 139 2 227 7 8,692 10 1 215 6 5 1 276 1 238 1,010 5 1,196 1 1 9 157 9 423 547 1 1 6 127 13 76 2 103 6 5,573 10 0 139 2 2 0 243 1 208 5,245 34 4,974 2 3 32 729 81 1,958 2,289 4 1 26 1,026 83 273 14 392 34 31,127 76 0 686 6 5 0 1,244 13 1,230
No. of detentions
Detention percentage % 5.65 12.44 0 0 2.11 0 3.29 0 0 10.91 23.81 1.07 7.69 4.21 0 0 5.56 4.26 0 5.52 3.61 0 0 0 11.76 6.67 2.88 0 3.08 0 4.97 20.00 0 5.12 0 0 0 3.26 0.00 3.36
7 24 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 18 40 14 1 85 0 0 1 12 0 39 40 0 0 0 16 1 4 0 7 0 432 2 0 11 0 0 0 9 0 8
25
Flag
Samoa Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands Spain Sri Lanka Saint Kitts and Nevis Sweden Switzerland Taiwan, China Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu Ukraine United Arab Emirates (UAE) United Kingdom (UK) United States Vanuatu Viet Nam Total
No. of No. of No. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 2 2 23 20 14 50 283 275 2,661 1,664 769 3,239 1 1 7 4 1 2 7 3 10 55 52 333 20 13 28 21 13 74 83 44 241 11 11 126 358 285 1,774 9 8 53 12 12 108 1 1 6 65 38 155 119 99 678 2 2 23 5 4 21 269 131 475 53 30 98 116 69 340 738 589 3,881 28,627 18,650 103,549
No. of detentions
Detention percentage % 0 0 18.37 2.64 0 0 0 12.73 0 4.76 3.61 18.18 10.61 0 41.67 0 4.62 6.72 0 0 3.72 1.89 0.86 12.33 Regional 5.46
0 0 52 44 0 0 0 7 0 1 3 2 38 0 5 0 3 8 0 0 10 1 1 91 1,562
26
Table 4: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER SHIP TYPE No. of No. of No. of No. of Detention inspections inspections deficiencies detentions percentage with % deficiencies NLS tanker 99 33 160 2 2.02 Combination carrier 73 32 118 2 2.74 Oil tanker 1,836 767 3,444 41 2.23 Gas carrier 618 298 1,380 26 4.21 Chemical tanker 1,772 919 4,565 42 2.37 Bulk carrier 9,018 5,519 28,652 446 4.95 Vehicle carrier 668 286 844 11 1.65 Container ship 4,421 2,663 10,963 151 3.42 Ro-Ro cargo ship 206 149 716 14 6.80 General cargo/multi-purpose ship 7,775 6,480 45,040 719 9.25 Refrigerated cargo carrier 784 619 3,295 53 6.76 Woodchip carrier 235 138 577 12 5.11 Livestock carrier 50 35 280 7 14.00 Ro-Ro passenger ship 92 78 650 5 5.43 Passenger ship 198 115 417 1 0.51 Factory ship 1 1 5 0 0 Heavy load carrier 79 53 247 3 3.80 Offshore service vessel 115 52 217 3 2.61 MODU & FPSO 4 4 43 1 25.00 High speed passenger craft 42 40 150 0 0 Special purpose ship 49 31 109 0 0 Tugboat 222 142 729 8 3.60 Others 270 196 948 15 5.56 Total 28,627 18,650 103,549 1,562 5.46 Type of ship
27
Table 5: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION
RO responsible detention percentage% 0 0.14 0 1.02 0 0.03 0 0 0.58 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.16 1.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.69 2.44 1.11 0.93 1.89 0 0.04 0.11 0 0 0
Recognized organization (RO)
Alfa Register of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping Belize Maritime Bureau Inc. Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia Bureau Securitas Bureau Veritas Ceskoslovensky Lodin Register China Classification Society China Corporation Register of Shipping Cosmos Marine Bureau Croatian Register of Shipping Cyprus Bureau of Shipping Det Norske Veritas Fidenavis SA Germanischer Lloyd Global Marine Bureau Hellenic Register of Shipping Honduras Bureau of Shipping Honduras International Surveying and Inspection Bureau INCLAMAR (Inspection y Classification Maritime, S. de. R.L.) Indian Register of Shipping Intermaritime Certification Services, S.A. International Naval Surveys Bureau International Register of Shipping International Ship Classification Isthmus Bureau of Shipping Korea Classification Society (former Joson Classification Society) Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority Korean Register of Shipping Lloyd's Register Marconi International Marine Company Ltd. Maritime Technical Systems and Services National Cargo Bureau Inc.
8 2,802 52 98 4 2,963 4 2,450 343 14 34 4 3,223 12 3,136 584 3 2 2 96 127 377 59 450 270 538 159 53 2,568 3,628 1 53 1
0 94 5 17 0 149 0 28 23 0 1 0 108 0 140 94 0 0 0 17 8 13 5 67 26 52 40 1 51 139 0 4 0
0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 3 5 3 0 1 4 0 0 0
0 3.35 9.62 17.35 0 5.03 0 1.14 6.71 0 2.94 0 3.35 0 4.46 16.10 0 0 0 17.71 6.30 3.45 8.47 14.89 9.63 9.67 25.16 1.89 1.99 3.83 0 7.55 0
28
Percentage of RO responsible detentions% 0 4.26 0 5.88 0 0.67 0 0 8.70 0 0 0 3.70 0 3.57 9.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.00 16.42 11.54 9.62 7.50 0 1.96 2.88 0 0 0
No. of overall inspections
No. of overall detentions
Detention percentage%
No. of RO responsible detentions
RO responsible detention percentage% 0 0.21 0.94 1.30 0.88 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.19 0 0 0 1.62 1.31 0.90 1.12 1.54
National Shipping Adjusters Inc Nippon Kaiji Kyokai Overseas Marine Certification Services Panama Bureau of Shipping Panama Maritime Documentation Services Panama Maritime Surveyors Bureau Inc Panama Register Corporation Panama Shipping Certificate Inc. Panama Shipping Registrar Inc. Phoenix Register of Shipping Polski Rejestr Statkow Registro Internacional Naval S.A. Registro Italiano Navale RINAVE Portuguesa Russian Maritime Register of Shipping Russian River Register Shipping Register of Ukraine Turkish Lloyd Union Bureau of Shipping Universal Maritime Bureau Universal Shipping Bureau Vietnam Register Other
43 8,849 319 77 452 69 67 10 191 2 14 14 701 5 514 1 4 7 1,172 382 111 801 583
2 348 45 13 45 9 7 0 14 0 0 1 33 0 38 0 0 0 210 57 10 105 57
0 19 3 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 19 5 1 9 9
4.65 3.93 14.11 16.88 9.96 13.04 10.45 0 7.33 0 0 7.14 4.71 0 7.39 0 0 0 17.92 14.92 9.01 13.11 9.78
Note: The number of overall inspections and overall detentions is calculated corresponding to each recognized organization (RO) that issued statutory certificate(s) for a ship. In case that ships certificates were issued by more than one ROs, the inspection and detention would be counted to each of them.
29
Percentage of RO responsible detentions% 0 5.46 6.67 7.69 8.89 0 0 0 7.14 0 0 0 3.03 0 2.63 0 0 0 9.05 8.77 10.00 8.57 15.79
No. of overall inspections
No. of overall detentions
Detention percentage%
No. of RO responsible detentions
Table 6: DEFICIENCIES BY CATEGORIES
Nature of deficiencies Ship's certificates and documents Stability, structure and related equipment Propulsion and auxiliary machinery Alarm signals Fire safety measures Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers Lifesaving appliances Radiocommunications Safety of navigation Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods ISM related deficiencies SOLAS related operational deficiencies Additional measures to enhance maritime safety Bulk carriers-additional safety measures Load lines MARPOL-Annex I MARPOL-Annex II MARPOL-Annex III MARPOL-Annex IV MARPOL-Annex V MARPOL-Annex VI MARPOL related operational deficiencies AFS Convention Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers Crew and accommodation (ILO 147) Food and catering (ILO 147) Working spaces (ILO 147) Accident prevention (ILO 147) Mooring arrangements (ILO 147) Other deficiencies Total Maritime security related deficiencies Grand total
No. of deficiencies 2,810 8,257 7,166 704 18,114 284 12,281 3,073 17,435 661 3,497 4,930 743 641 8,139 5,643 53 37 996 1,580 680 501 24 1,692 286 173 1,090 1,012 850 197 103,549 2,933 106,492
30
SUMMARY OF PORT STATE INSPECTION DATA 2009 2011 Table 7: BLACK GREY WHITE LISTS *
Flag
Inspections Detentions Black to Grey Grey to White 2009-2011 2009-2011 Limit Limit BLACK LIST
Excess Factor
Sierra Leone Papua New Guinea Georgia Korea, Democratic People's Republic Cambodia Mongolia Saint Kitts and Nevis Kiribati Indonesia Thailand Bangladesh Viet Nam Tonga
555 39 203 418 5,181 446 183 529 576 1,042 57 1,873 41
111 11 42 79 861 70 28 65 70 109 9 183 7 GREY LIST
49 6 21 38 393 41 19 47 51 87 8 150 6
4.42 4.34 4.06 3.95 3.93 2.99 2.40 2.01 2.00 1.65 1.59 1.56 1.55
Turkey Curacao Dominica Belize Tuvalu Barbados Egypt Gibraltar (UK) Luxemburg India Myanmar Belgium Kuwait Saudi Arabia Switzerland Croatia
179 63 64 1,054 453 72 42 151 38 310 42 83 37 44 71 84
18 7 7 83 37 7 3 10 2 20 2 4 1 1 2 2 WHITE LIST
19 8 8 88 41 9 6 16 6 30 6 10 6 6 9 10
6 1 1 60 22 1 0 5 0 14 0 1 0 0 1 2
0.95 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.74 0.51 0.45 0.39 0.39 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.05
Cook Islands Maldives Malta Italy
30 35 1,781 389
0 0 106 18
0 0 106 18
0 0 -0.01 -0.05
31
Flag Cyprus Taiwan, China Malaysia Antigua and Barbuda Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Philippines Russian Federation Panama Netherlands Sweden Cayman Islands (UK) Isle of Man (UK) United States Greece Marshall Islands Liberia Vanuatu Norway United Kingdom (UK) Bahamas Bermuda (UK) France Denmark Singapore Germany Japan Hong Kong, China Korea, Republic of China
Inspections Detentions Black to Grey Grey to White 2009-2011 2009-2011 Limit Limit 1,474 219 733 1,465 780 640 887 23,977 391 71 256 354 116 872 2,753 5,067 312 640 681 1,863 209 135 371 4,244 769 383 5,540 3,614 2,076 82 8 35 76 37 27 37 1,235 13 0 6 9 1 28 103 194 7 18 19 61 3 1 7 117 16 5 90 51 17 87 9 39 86 42 34 49 1,613 19 1 11 16 3 48 170 324 14 34 36 112 8 4 17 269 42 18 356 227 126
Excess Factor -0.11 -0.12 -0.23 -0.25 -0.26 -0.40 -0.51 -0.54 -0.57 -0.71 -0.77 -0.84 -0.86 -0.87 -0.87 -0.90 -0.91 -0.94 -0.96 -0.98 -1.05 -1.07 -1.14 -1.27 -1.29 -1.42 -1.69 -1.75 -1.92
Note: 1) 2)
Flags listed above are those of ships which were involved in 30 or more port State inspections over the 3-year period. According to the decision by the Port State Control Committee, flags involving 30-49 port State inspections with nil detentions are listed on top of the White List.
* See explanatory note on page 50.

p=7% z95%=1.645 q=3%
32
Table 8: INSPECTIONS AND DETENTIONS PER FLAG

Number of inspections Flag 2009 2010 2011 Total 2009 2010 2011 Total Number of detentions 3-year rolling average detention %
Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Australia Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bermuda (UK) Bolivia Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Cambodia Canada Cayman Islands (UK) Chile China Colombia Comoros Cook Islands Croatia Curacao Cyprus Denmark Dominica Ecuador Egypt Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Falkland Islands (UK) Fiji France
3 379 6 12 588 4 10 19 21 348 68 2 1 3 5 1,705 2 77 2 693 1 5 12 25 25 474 111 30 1 13 0 5 1 0 34
5 541 6 9 610 2 14 23 23 358 68 3 4 7 4 1,649 0 84 0 676 0 9 12 31 15 500 132 20 2 11 0 6 0 0 54
3 545 3 7 665 1 33 30 39 348 73 1 3 5 1 1,827 0 95 1 707 0 12 6 28 23 500 128 14 2 18 3 7 3 1 47
11 1,465 15 28 1,863 7 57 72 83 1,054 209 6 8 15 10 5,181 2 256 3 2,076 1 26 30 84 63 1,474 371 64 5 42 3 18 4 1 135
1 11 0 0 22 0 1 0 0 28 2 0 1 0 0 287 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 1 4 27 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 24 0 0 15 0 4 4 2 34 0 1 1 0 1 266 0 2 0 8 0 3 0 1 1 27 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1 41 0 0 24 0 4 3 2 21 1 0 1 0 0 308 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 28 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
2 76 0 0 61 0 9 7 4 83 3 1 3 0 1 861 0 6 0 17 0 5 0 2 7 82 7 7 1 3 0 2 0 0 1
18.18 5.19 0 0 3.27 0 15.79 9.72 4.82 7.87 1.44 16.67 37.50 0 10.00 16.62 0 2.34 0 0.82 0 19.23 0 2.38 11.11 5.56 1.89 10.94 20.00 7.14 0 11.11 0 0 0.74
33
Number of inspections Flag 2009 2010 2011 Total
Number of detentions 2009 2010 2011 Total
3-year rolling average detention %
Georgia Germany Gibraltar (UK) Greece Honduras Hong Kong, China India Indonesia Iran Ireland Isle of Man (UK) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic Korea, Republic of Kuwait Latvia Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Lithuania Luxemburg Malaysia Maldives Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Myanmar Netherlands New Zealand
97 212 39 248 3 1,516 85 178 12 1 105 5 100 2 122 0 171 110 1,125 13 0 1,290 2 4 11 212 14 520 721 1 2 3 160 8 111 2
67 279 61 291 1 1,765 101 205 5 0 107 5 137 2 107 1 193 140 1,179 11 1 1,758 7 5 9 239 10 554 923 0 0 2 150 19 141 2
39 278 51 333 1 2,259 124 193 5 3 142 5 152 5 154 0 165 168 1,312 13 0 2,019 1 1 18 282 11 707 1,109 2 1 6 136 15 139 2
203 769 151 872 5 5,540 310 576 22 4 354 15 389 9 383 1 529 418 3,616 37 1 5,067 10 10 38 733 35 1,781 2,753 3 3 11 446 42 391 6
19 3 2 7 0 25 11 21 0 0 4 0 6 0 3 0 19 24 14 0 0 43 0 0 0 14 0 38 31 0 1 2 26 0 1 0
14 5 5 10 0 29 2 25 0 0 2 0 7 1 2 0 28 15 23 0 0 66 0 1 1 9 0 29 32 0 0 0 28 1 8 0
9 8 3 11 0 36 7 24 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 18 40 14 1 0 85 0 0 1 12 0 39 40 0 0 0 16 1 4 0
42 16 10 28 0 90 20 70 0 0 9 0 18 1 5 0 65 79 51 1 0 194 0 1 2 35 0 106 103 0 1 2 70 2 13 0
20.69 2.08 6.62 3.21 0 1.62 6.45 12.15 0 0 2.54 0 4.63 11.11 1.31 0 12.29 18.90 1.41 2.70 0 3.83 0 10.00 5.26 4.77 0 5.95 3.74 0 33.33 18.18 15.70 4.76 3.32 0
34
Nigeria Norway Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Saint Helena (UK) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Saudi Arabia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Solomon Islands Spain Sri Lanka Saint Kitts and Nevis Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, China Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu
0 185 7 1 7,333 17 0 212 0 3 6 0 291 0 277 1 12 1 105 1,200 8 0 1 3 64 21 28 0 68 1 335 6 15 2 54 174
1 228 6 0 7,952 12 1 213 1 7 10 0 320 0 265 7 12 2 167 1,380 3 3 1 7 64 30 22 1 68 3 349 8 14 2 60 160
0 227 7 0 8,692 10 1 215 0 6 5 1 276 1 238 2 20 0 283 1,664 0 1 4 7 55 20 21 0 83 11 358 9 12 1 65 119
1 640 20 1 23,977 39 2 640 1 16 21 1 887 1 780 10 44 3 555 4,244 11 4 6 17 183 71 71 1 219 15 1,042 23 41 5 179 453
0 6 1 0 385 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 16 0 18 0 0 0 24 35 2 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 3 0 36 1 1 0 9 15
0 5 0 0 418 4 0 8 0 1 0 0 12 0 11 0 1 0 35 38 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 2 2 35 0 1 0 6 14
0 7 0 0 432 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 52 44 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 3 2 38 0 5 0 3 8
0 18 1 0 1,235 11 0 27 0 1 0 0 37 0 37 0 1 0 111 117 3 0 0 0 28 0 2 0 8 4 109 1 7 0 18 37
0 2.81 5.00 0 5.15 28.21 0 4.22 0 6.25 0 0 4.17 0 4.74 0 2.27 0 20.00 2.76 27.27 0 0 0 15.30 0 2.82 0 3.65 26.67 10.46 4.35 17.07 0 10.06 8.17
35
Ukraine United Arab Emirates (UAE) United Kingdom (UK) United States Vanuatu Viet Nam Ship's registration withdrawn
Total
4 3 176 25 92 495 0
23,116
1 6 236 38 104 640 3

25,762
2 5 269 53 116 738 0

28,627
7 14 681 116 312 1,873 3

77,505
0 0 5 0 3 37 0
1,336
0 0 4 0 3 55 1
1,411
0 0 10 1 1 91 0
1,562
0 0 19 1 7 183 1
4,309
0 0 2.79 0.86 2.24 9.77 33.33

5.56
36
Figure 14: COMPARISON OF INSPECTIONS PER SHIP TYPE
2009
Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker Bulk carrier Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Passenger ship Other types 805 839 78 4 308 307 290 1,032 1,047 1,067 3,955 2 4,94 539 618 620 1,482 1,4 83 1,705 2,027 2 ,008
2010 2011
1,772
6,458 7,142 9,018 5,295 6,8 32 7,355 7,775
Figure 15: COMPARISON OF DETENTIONS PER SHIP TYPE

8.95 9.25 9.81 8.34 10.0 0 9.0 0 5.37 8.0 0 5.56 5.65 5.64 5.56 5.56 7.0 0 6.0 0 4.08 2.74 4.21 3.66 3.08 5.0 0 2.70 2.32 2.24 2.40 4.0 0 3.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 0.0 0 3.58 3.44 6.76
2009 2010 2011 3-y ear aver age Average detent ion per cent age
9.05
9.08
5.56
8.32
5.56
5.56 3.90 1.95 2.07 2.65
2.37
Oil tanker/ Gas carrier combination carrier
2.23
Chemical tanker
Bulk carrier
Ro-ro/ container/ vehicle ship
2.33 3.32 2.67
General dry Refrigerated cargo ship cargo carrier
Passenger ship/ferry
Other types
37
5.14 4.20 4.59 4.64 5.56
4.95
5.56
5.56
Table 9: INSPECTIONS AND DETENTIONS PER SHIP TYPE

Number of inspections Type of ship 2009 2010 2011 Total 2009 2010 2011 Total Number of detentions Average detention percentage %
NLS tanker Combination carrier Oil tanker Gas carrier Chemical tanker Bulk carrier Vehicle carrier Container ship Ro-Ro cargo ship General cargo/multi-purpose ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Woodchip carrier Livestock carrier Ro-Ro Passenger ship Passenger ship Factory ship Heavy load carrier Offshore service vessel MODU & FPSO High speed passenger craft Special purpose ship High speed cargo craft Tugboat Others
Total
73 74 1,558 539 1,482 6,458 587 3,174 194 6,832 805 212 55 77 231 1 67 126 5 58 47 1 217 243
23,116
85 107 1,835 620 1,483 7,142 746 3,963 233 7,355 839 220 53 83 224 1 61 149 11 57 40 0 212 243
25,762
99 73 1,836 618 1,772 9,018 668 4,421 206 7,775 784 235 50 92 198 1 79 115 4 42 49 0 222 270
28,627
257 254 5,229 1,777 4,737 22,618 2,001 11,558 633 21,962 2,428 667 158 252 653 3 207 390 20 157 136 1 651 756
77,505
4 2 40 22 53 365 16 67 5 618 79 5 1 4 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 25 18
1,336
0 5 42 17 51 403 16 92 7 658 70 7 2 4 2 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 12 11
1,411
2 2 41 26 42 446 11 151 14 719 53 12 7 5 1 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 8 15

1,562
6 9 123 65 146 1,214 43 310 26 1,995 202 24 10 13 11 0 8 14 1 0 0 0 45 44

4,309
2.33 3.54 2.35 3.66 3.08 5.37 2.15 2.68 4.11 9.08 8.32 3.60 6.33 5.16 1.68 0 3.86 3.59 5.00 0 0 0 6.91 5.82
5.56
38
Figure 16: COMPARISON OF INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES PER SHIP TYPE
-21.44 -18.29 -9.90

Bulk carrier
Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker
-2.59
Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier -5.35 Other types
-11.42
16.69 13.16
Passenger ship/ferry
0.05 Average 0 5 10 15 20 25
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
(a) Year 2009

-22.31 -20.63 -10.67 Bulk carrier -3.77
Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker
-9.95 General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier

Other types
18.20 16.47
Passenger ship/ferry 8.95
-0.54 Average 0 5 10 15 20 25
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
(b) Year 2010

-23.72 -16.93 -13.29 Bulk carrier -6.64
General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier
-3.95
Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship
1.40
Other types
18.19 13.80 Passenger ship/ferry
-0.30 Average
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
(c) Year 2011

-22.56 -18.64 -11.37 Bulk carrier -3.51
Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship
-9.17 General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier

Other types
17.74 1.72 14.55 Passenger ship/ferry
-0.22 Average
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
(d) 3-year summary
* % over [+] or under [-] average
39
Table 10: INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES PER SHIP TYPE

Number of inspections with deficiencies 2009 2010 2011 Total
Number of inspections Type of ship 2009 2010 2011 Total
3-year average percentage %
Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker Bulk carrier Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Passenger ship Other types
Total
1,705 539 1,482 6,458 3,955 6,832 805 308 1,032

23,116
2,027 620 1,483 7,142 4,942 7,355 839 307 1,047

25,762
2,008 618 1,772 9,018 5,295 7,775 784 290 1,067

28,627
5,740 1,777 4,737 22,618 14,192 21,962 2,428 905 3,146

77,505
772 261 842 4,141 2,187 5,698 643 189 689

15,422
852 271 796 4,326 2,688 6,071 678 225 668

16,575
832 298 919 5,519 3,098 6,480 619 193 692

18,650
2,456 830 2,557 13,986 7,973 18,249 1,940 607 2,049

50,647
42.79 46.71 53.98 61.84 56.18 83.09 79.90 67.07 65.13

65.35
40
Table 11: INSPECTIONS AND DETENTIONS PER RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION

3-year average percentage of RO responsible detentions% 3-year average RO responsible detention percentage%
Alfa Register of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping Belize Maritime Bureau Inc. Belize Register Corporation Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia Bulgarski Koraben Registar Bureau Securitas Bureau Veritas Ceskoslovensky Lodin Register China Classification Society China Corporation Register of Shipping Compania Nacional de Registro e Inspeccion de Naves Cosmos Marine Bureau Croatian Register of Shipping Cyprus Bureau of Shipping Det Norske Veritas Fidenavis SA Germanischer Lloyd Global Marine Bureau Hellenic Register of Shipping Honduras Bureau of Shipping Honduras International Surveying and Inspection Bureau INCLAMAR (Inspection y Classification Maritime, S. de. R.L.) Indian Register of Shipping Intermaritime Certification Services, S.A. International Naval Surveys Bureau International Register of Shipping International Ship Classification Isthmus Bureau of Shipping Korea Classification Society (former Joson Classification Society) Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority Korean Register of Shipping Lloyd's Register Marconi International Marine Company Ltd. Maritime Technical Systems and Services National Cargo Bureau Inc. National Shipping Adjusters Inc Nippon Kaiji Kyokai NV Unitas Overseas Marine Certification Services Panama Bureau of Shipping Panama Maritime Documentation Services Panama Maritime Surveyors Bureau Inc
28 7,129 138 1 271 4 15 7,456 7 6,679 1,007 1 39 109 11 8,521 37 7,849 1,905 28 3 4 428 321 973 175 1,279 1,038 1,509 406 144 6,851 9,485 5 179 5 78 24,001 4 725 208 852 399
0 230 11 0 47 1 0 384 2 96 86 0 2 6 0 283 1 306 290 4 0 0 62 19 78 13 201 117 165 79 2 172 359 0 20 0 6 920 1 122 21 105 58
0 13 0 0 5 0 0 15 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 12 0 12 34 0 0 0 5 1 5 2 29 21 23 12 0 6 20 0 4 0 0 70 0 11 3 10 2
3-year avergae detention percentage%
No. of overall inspections 2009-2011
No. of overall detentions 2009-2011
No. of RO responsible detentions 2009-2011
0 3.23 7.97 0 17.34 25.00 0 5.15 28.57 1.44 8.54 0 5.13 5.50 0 3.32 2.70 3.90 15.22 14.29 0 0 14.49 5.92 8.02 7.43 15.72 11.27 10.93 19.46 1.39 2.51 3.78 0 11.17 0 7.69 3.83 25.00 16.83 10.10 12.32 14.54
0 0.18 0 0 1.85 0 0 0.20 0 0.04 0.30 0 0 1.83 0 0.14 0 0.15 1.78 0 0 0 1.17 0.31 0.51 1.14 2.27 2.02 1.52 2.96 0 0.09 0.21 0 2.23 0 0 0.29 0 1.52 1.44 1.17 0.50
0 5.65 0 0 10.64 0 0 3.91 0 3.13 3.49 0 0 33.33 0 4.24 0 3.92 11.72 0 0 0 8.06 5.26 6.41 15.38 14.43 17.95 13.94 15.19 0 3.49 5.57 0 20.00 0 0 7.61 0 9.02 14.29 9.52 3.45
41
Panama Register Corporation Panama Shipping Certificate Inc. Panama Shipping Registrar Inc. Phoenix Register of Shipping Polski Rejestr Statkow Registro Internacional Naval S.A. Registro Italiano Navale RINAVE Portuguesa Russian Maritime Register of Shipping Russian River Register Shipping Register of Ukraine Sociedad Classificadora de Colombia Societe Generale de Surveillance Turkish Lloyd Union Bureau of Shipping Universal Maritime Bureau Universal Shipping Bureau Vietnam Register Other
200 17 561 2 70 32 1,597 12 1,613 4 9 1 1 29 3,168 1,083 310 2,052 1,306
22 1 67 0 4 4 91 1 126 0 2 0 0 6 552 162 28 224 172
0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 96 25 1 26 30
11.00 5.88 11.94 0 5.71 12.50 5.70 8.33 7.81 0 22.22 0 0 20.69 17.42 14.96 9.03 10.92 13.17
0 0 0.53 0 0 3.13 0.06 0 0.37 0 0 0 0 0 3.03 2.31 0.32 1.27 2.30
See also the note in page 29.
42
3-year average percentage of RO responsible detentions%
3-year average RO responsible detention percentage%
3-year avergae detention percentage%
No. of overall detentions 2009-2011
0 0 4.48 0 0 25.00 1.10 0 4.76 0 0 0 0 0 17.39 15.43 3.57 11.61 17.44
Table 12: PERFORMANCE OF RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION
Medium/high Limit
Union Bureau of Shipping Korea Classification Society (former Joson Classification Society) Universal Maritime Bureau International Register of Shipping Maritime Technical Systems and Services International Ship Classification Croatian Register of Shipping Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia Panama Bureau of Shipping Global Marine Bureau International Naval Surveys Bureau Overseas Marine Certification Services INCLAMAR (Inspection y Classification Maritime, S. de. R.L.) Isthmus Bureau of Shipping Panama Maritime Documentation Services Panama Register Corporation Vietnam Register Panama Maritime Surveyors Bureau Inc Universal Shipping Bureau Indian Register of Shipping Panama Shipping Registrar Inc. Intermaritime Certification Services, S.A. China Corporation Register of Shipping Russian Maritime Register of Shipping Nippon Kaiji Kyokai Lloyd's Register Bureau Veritas American Bureau of Shipping Germanischer Lloyd
3,168 406 1,083 1,279 179 1,038 109 271 208 1,905 175 725 428 1,509 852 200 2,052 399 310 321 561 973 1,007 1,613 24,001 9,485 7,456 7,129 7,849
96 12 25 29 4 21 2 5 3 34 2 11 5 23 10 0 26 2 1 1 3 5 3 6 70 20 15 13 12
77 13 30 34 7 29 5 10 8 49 7 21 14 40 24 8 52 13 11 11 17 27 28 42 516 213 170 163 178
50 3 14 17 0 13 0 1 0 28 0 8 3 21 10 0 30 3 2 2 5 12 12 23 444 167 129 123 136
1.56 0.88 0.71 0.70 0.56 0.52 0.47 0.45 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.24 0.16 0.12 0.01 -0.23 -0.23 -0.33 -0.33 -0.39 -0.56 -0.89 -1.28 -1.32 -1.67 -1.74 -1.74 -1.77 -1.80
Low
Medium
High
43
Performance level
Low/medium Limit
Excess factor
Medium/high Limit
Det Norske Veritas Registro Italiano Navale Korean Register of Shipping China Classification Society
8,521 1,597 6,851 6,679
12 1 6 3
192 42 157 153
149 22 117 114
-1.82 -1.84 -1.88 -1.93
Note: 1)
2)
In this table, only recognized organizations (RO) that had more than 60 inspections are taken into account. The formula used is identical to the one used for the Black-Grey-White List. However, the values for P and Q are adjusted to P=2% and Q=1%. ROs involving 60-179 inspections with zero detention are not included in this table.
44
Performance level
Low/medium Limit
Excess factor
Figure 17: COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES
Li fesaving appli ances
Fire safety measures Stabil ity, str ucture an d related equipment Load lines 6,462 6 ,921 8,2 57 6,048 6,182 8,13 9
12,13 1 11,077 12,281 14,619 15,9 98 18,114
2009 2010 2011
Safety o f navi gatio n 3,386 3,191 3,497
14,207 15,648 17,435
ISM related defici encies
Others
29,967 31,160 35,826
45
Table 13: COMPARISON OF DEFICIENCIES BY CATEGORIES
Number of deficiencies Nature of deficiency 2009 2,399 6,462 5,723 533 14,619 258 12,131 3,354 14,207 496 3,386 4,132 822 379 6,048 4,452 64 12 727 1,341 312 440 21 1,398 305 151 866 712 863 207 86,820 2,011 88,831 2010 2,479 6,921 6,238 664 15,998 236 11,077 3,015 15,648 589 3,191 4,073 888 486 6,182 4,403 47 92 879 1,336 508 477 12 1,595 326 172 899 800 793 153 90,177 2,750 92,927 2011 2,810 8,257 7,166 704 18,114 284 12,281 3,073 17,435 661 3,497 4,930 743 641 8,139 5,643 53 37 996 1,580 680 501 24 1,692 286 173 1,090 1,012 850 197 103,549 2,933 106,492
Ship's certificates and documents Stability, structure and related equipment Propulsion and auxiliary machinery Alarm signals Fire safety measures Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers Lifesaving appliances Radiocommunications Safety of navigation Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods ISM related deficiencies SOLAS related operational deficiencies Additional measures to enhance maritime safety Bulk carriers-additional safety measures Load lines MARPOL-Annex I MARPOL-Annex II MARPOL-Annex III MARPOL-Annex IV MARPOL-Annex V MARPOL-Annex VI MARPOL related operational deficiencies AFS Convention Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers Crew and accommodation (ILO 147) Food and catering (ILO 147) Working spaces (ILO 147) Accident prevention (ILO 147) Mooring arrangements (ILO 147) Other deficiencies Total Maritime security related deficiencies Grand total
46
Figure 18: COMPARISON OF MOST FREQUENT DETAINABLE DEFICIENCIES
166
Lifeboats (Lifesaving appliances)

174 165
198
Oil filtering equipment (MARPOL-Annex I)

1 17 151
173
2011 2010 2009
Emergency Fire Pump (Fire saf ety measures)

130 135
163
Fire-dampers (Fire saf ety measures)
12 8 139
Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM related deficiencies)

113
134 133 143
Fire prevention (Fire saf ety measures)
80 90
Development of plans for shipboard operations (ISM related deficiencies)
98 60 10 89
Means of control (Fire saf ety measures)

61
91
85
Ventilators, air pipes, casings (Load lines)

89 82
101
Ventilation (Fire saf ety measures)
78 99
47
Table 14: COMPARISON OF MOST FREQUENT DETAINABLE DEFICIENCIES
Year No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Most frequent deficiencies 2009 2010 Lifeboats (Lifesaving appliances) Oil filtering equipment (MARPOL-Annex I) Emergency Fire Pump (Fire safety measures) Fire-dampers (Fire safety measures) Maintenance of the ship and equipment (ISM related deficiencies) Fire prevention (Fire safety measures) Development of plans for shipboard operations (ISM related deficiencies) Means of control (Fire safety measures) Ventilators, air pipes, casings (Load lines) Ventilation (Fire safety measures) 174 117 130 139 143 90 10 61 89 99 198 173 163 128 133 80 60 91 101 78 2011 166 165 151 135 134 113 98 89 85 82
48
ANNEX 3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE TOKYO MOU
Member Authorities
Co-operating Member Authorities
Observer Authorities
Port State Control Committee
Tokyo MOU Secretariat
National Port State Control Services
Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS)
Observer Organizations: IMO, ILO, other MOUs
49
EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE BLACK GREY WHITE LISTS

The Port State Control Committee adopted the same method as used by the Paris MOU for assessment of performance of flags. 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 State is calculated using a standard formula for statistical calculations in which certain values have been fixed in accordance with the agreement of the Port State Control Committee. 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: grey to white limit means significantly better than average. When the amount of detentions for a particular flag State is positioned between the two, the flag State 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 excess factor EF is an indication for the 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 Black Grey White 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 axis have a logarithmic character.
ublack to grey = N p + 0.5 + z N p (1 p ) uwhite to grey = N p 0.5 z N p (1 p )

In the formula "N" is the number of inspections, "p" is the allowable detention limit (yardstick), set to 7% by the Tokyo 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 as the black to grey or the grey to white limit. A number of detentions above this black to grey limit means significantly worse than average, where a number of detentions below the
1000
Number of detentions
100
EF=4 EF=3 EF=2 EF=1 Black EF=0 White EF=-1
EF=-2
10
0 30 50 100 250 500 Num ber of inspections 1000 2000
50
Example flag on Black list: Ships of Sierra Leone were subject to 555 inspections of which 111 resulted in a detention. The "black to grey limit" is 49 detentions. The excess factor is 4.42. N = total inspections P = 7% Q= 3% Z = 1.645 How to determine the black to grey limit:
ublack to grey = N p + 0.5 + z N p (1 p )
ublack to grey = 555 0.07 + 0.5 + 1.645 555 0.07 0.93 u = 49

The excess factor is 4.42. 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 3.42, and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for p:
p + 3.42q = 0.07 + (3.42 0.03) = 0.1726 uexcessfactor = 555 0.1726 + 0.5 + 1.645 555 0.1726 0.8274 uexcessfactor = 111
Example flag on Grey list: Ships of Turkey were subject to 179 inspections, of which 18 resulted in a detention. The "black to grey limit" is 19 and the "grey to white limit" is 6. The excess factor is 0.95. How to determine the black to grey limit:
ublack to grey = 179 0.07 + 0.5 + 1.645 179 0.07 0.93 ublack-to-grey = 19
How to determine the grey to white limit:
uwhite to grey = N p 0.5 z N p (1 p )
uwhite to grey = 179 0.07 0.5 1.645 179 0.07 0.93 uwhite-to-grey = 6
51
To determine the excess factor the following formula is used:
ef = (Detentions white to grey limit)/(grey to black limit white to grey limit) ef = (18-6.41)/(18.65-6.41) ef = 0.95
Example flag on White list: Ships of the Marshall Islands were subject to 2,753 inspections of which 103 resulted in detention. The "grey to white limit" is 170 detentions. The excess factor is -0.87. How to determine the grey to white limit:
uwhite to grey = N p 0.5 z N p (1 p ) uwhite to grey = 2,753 0.07 0.5 1.645 2,753 0.07 0.93
uwhite-to-grey = 170
The excess factor is -0.87. 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 -0.87, and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for p:
p + (-0.87) = 0.07 + (-0.87 0.03) = 0.0439

uexcessfactor = 2,753 0.0439 0.5 1.645 2,753 0.0439 0.9561
uexcessfactor = 103
According to the decision by the Port State Control Committee, flags involving 30-49 port State inspections with nil detentions are listed on top of the White List.
52
TOKYO MOU SECRETARIAT
The Secretariat (Tokyo MOU Secretariat) of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region is located in Tokyo, Japan. The Secretariat may be approached for further information or inquiries on the operation of the Memorandum.
ADDRESS OF THE SECRETARIAT
STAFF OF THE SECRETARIAT
The address of the Tokyo MOU Secretariat reads:
The staff of the Secretariat consist of: Mitsutoyo Okada
Tokyo MOU Secretariat Ascend Shimbashi 8F 6-19-19 Shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0004 Tel: +81-3-3433-0621 Fax: +81-3-3433-0624 E-mail: secretariat@tokyo-mou.org
Secretary Ikuo Nakazaki Deputy Secretary Ning Zheng Technical Officer Fumiko Akimoto Projects Officer
53

Tokyo MOU 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tokyo MOU 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL REPORT ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 2011

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Hua Siong Ong Chairman Port State Control Committee

Mitsutoyo Okada Secretary Tokyo MOU Secretariat

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE TOKYO MOU, 2011

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

The twenty-first Committee meeting, Busan, April 2011.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

preparation and arrangements on-going and upcoming CICs;

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Training course for PSC officers

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

The nineteenth seminar for PSC officers

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Specialized training course

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Tokyo MOU Via del Mar Agreement

PSC training course for Indian Ocean MOU

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE TOKYO MOU, 2011

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Figure 1: INSPECTION PERCENTAGE

Total individual ship visited: 23,268

Figure 2: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS - CONTRIBUTION BY AUTHORITIES

Philippines 1,812; 6.33%

Canada 325; 1.14%

Japan 5,076; 17.73% Chile 861; 3.01%

Indonesia 2,150; 7.51%

Fiji 33; 0.12%

China 7,821; 27.32%

Hong Kong, China 746; 2.61%

Total inspections: 28,627

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Figure 3: TYPE OF SHIP INSPECTED

refrigerated cargo carrier: 784; 2.74%

passenger ship/ferry: 290; 1.01%

other types: 1,067; 3.73%

gas carrier: 618; 2.16% chemical tanker: 1,772; 6.19%

Figure 4: DETENTIONS PER FLAG

Regi onal a verage: 5.46%

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Figure 5: DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE

Detention percentage Average detention percentage: 5.46%

Figure 6: DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES

safety of navigation 17,435; 16.84%

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Figure 7: MOST FREQUENT DETAINABLE DEFICIENCIES

Lifeboats (Lifesaving ap pliances)

166 165 151 135

Oi l filtering equipment (MARPOL-Annex I)

Emergency Fi re Pump (Fi re safety measur es)

Ventilators, air pipes, casings (Load lin es)

Ventilation (Fi re safety measur es)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION