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

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

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

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

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 ……………

New Zealand. Japan. Papua New Guinea. Chile. Solomon Islands. Macao (China). The Memorandum came into effect on 1 April 1994. United States Coast Guard. The observer status has been granted the following maritime Authorities and the inter-governmental organizations by the Committee: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Currently. Solomon Islands. Singapore. Indonesia. the Indian Ocean MOU and the Black Sea MOU. The 1 . Fiji. Hong Kong (China). Malaysia. Singapore. The Port State Control Committee established under the Memorandum monitors and controls the implementation and on-going operation of the Memorandum. namely: Australia. Chile. Republic of Korea. the Viña del Mar Agreement. The Committee consists of representatives of the member Authorities. the International Labour Organization (ILO). the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Thailand. Fiji. 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. Vanuatu and Viet Nam. the Memorandum has 18 full members. to protect the marine environment and to safeguard working and living conditions on board ships. the Russian Federation. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety. co-operating member Authorities and observers. Malaysia. the Philippines.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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). Japan. Republic of Korea. 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. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is the only co-operating member Authority at the moment. New Zealand. China. Canada. Hong Kong (China). The following maritime Authorities in the Asia-Pacific region are the signatories to the Memorandum: Australia. This annual report is the seventeenth issue and covers port State control activities and developments in the year 2011. the Philippines. In accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum. the Russian Federation. Vanuatu and Viet Nam. Thailand. China. The Memorandum was concluded in Tokyo on 1 December 1993. Canada. the Paris MOU. Indonesia. Papua New Guinea. 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.

as amended. air pipes. For the purpose of the Memorandum. 1969.59%.) 273 (9. followed with casing (Hatchway-. among which 83 ships were detained as the direct results of the CIC. There were a total of 346 detentions during the three-month campaign period. The concentrated inspection campaign (CIC) on Structural Safety and the Load Lines Convention was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2011. a total of 7. 1974. 1978. the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. A total of 2.91%). and the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships. the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. The detention rate for the CIC is 1. as amended. The most significant deficiencies found during the campaign were related to the protection of openings (Ventilators. as amended. 1974. 1972. the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. During the campaign period. − the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention. etc. casings) 554 (18. the International Convention on Standards for Training. the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.929 CIC related deficiencies were recorded. the following instruments are the basis for port State control activities in the region: − the International Convention on Load Lines. tarpaulins.29%) and Doors 245 (8. the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships.534 PSC inspections were conducted by the eighteen member Authorities.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Secretariat of the Memorandum is located in Tokyo. as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto.36%). of which 5. The scheme under consideration would improve the common understanding and mutual co-operation between the Tokyo MOU Authorities and the industry. A major concern which had been raised from the CIC was that − − − − − 2 . Japan. 147).41% while the overall detention rate for the period is 4. 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 Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines. Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. as amended. REVIEW OF YEAR 2011 − − − − For the purpose of promotion of better communication and relationship with the industry. 2001. 1966. the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. 1974.901 were related to a CIC inspection. 1966. 1976 (ILO Convention No.

Republic of Korea. Hong Kong (China). Chile. the Indian Ocean MOU. The meeting was hosted by the Ministry of Land. The twenty-first Committee meeting was attended by representatives of the member Authorities of Australia. the Mediterranean MOU and the Black Sea MOU. Ong Hua Siong. Transport and Maritime Affairs of the Republic of Korea. Canada. 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 Black Sea MOU. the Russian Federation. Shipping Division. THE PORT STATE CONTROL COMMITTEE The twenty-first meeting of the Port State Control Committee was held in Busan. New Zealand. Japan.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION a large number of deficiencies relating to cargo hatch openings were found onboard ships during the period. Busan. Republic of Korea. April 2011. 3 . Thailand and Viet Nam. the Indian Ocean MOU. from 18 to 21 April 2011. Malaysia. the Paris MOU. The Committee reviewed the results of trial implementation of measures against the under-performing ships. and observers from Macao (China). the United States Coast Guard. Singapore. the Viña del Mar Agreement and the International Maritime Organization. Assistant Director (Ship Regulation and Development/Port State Control). Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. The trial implementation of measures against the under-performing ships have been continued for more than one year. The meeting was chaired by Mr. In order to gain more The twenty-first Committee meeting. Papua New Guinea. China. This campaign was carried out jointly with the Paris MOU and also with participation by regional PSC regimes of the Viña del Mar Agreement. the Philippines. Indonesia.

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. The Committee reconfirmed its decision for the joint CIC on Fire Safety System (FSS) with the Paris MOU in 2012. review and adjustment of the capped amount of financial contribution. The Committee updated the action plan by changing or adding further actions to the relevant items. During the meeting. Republic of Korea. the Committee agreed to continue the trial for a further inter-sessional period and to make the final decision thereon at the next meeting. consideration of elements of Paris MOU new inspection regime (NIR). periodical revision of the PSC Manual. the Committee also gave consideration and made decisions on the following: • assessment of performance of member Authorities. The Committee agreed to consider follow-up measures stemming from the CIC at the next meeting. schedule for implementation of the new coding system. and awarding the winner of the best deficiency photo of the year. • 4 . • • • • • The twenty-second meeting of the Port State Control Committee will be held in Chile in April 2012. prior to the twenty-first meeting of the Committee. establishment of scheme for dialogue and exchange of views with the industry. Christopher Lindesay. The Committee discussed the findings and recommendations. the Committee also considered the possible topics which could be selected for CICs in 2013 and onward. Furthermore. The TWG meeting discussed and made recommendations to the Committee on matters relating to: • cases considered by the detention review panel. The TWG04 meeting was chaired by Mr. The Committee considered the text of agreement with IMO on data exchange with GISIS. The Committee considered a detailed analysis report of the CIC on lifeboat launching arrangements conducted in 2009. Principal Systems Officer. The Committee reviewed achievements and status of the action plan developed based on the strategic plan. 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. Australian Maritime Safety Authority. • review of list of follow-up actions emanating from the second Joint Ministerial Conference. TECHICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG) The fourth meeting of the Technical Working Group (TWG) was held in Busan.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION experiences and to promote more effective implementation of the measures. from 15 to 16 April 2011.

Japan. Malaysia.tokyo-mou. activities and operation of the APCIS system. China. A total of 20 PSC officers participated in the training course. New Zealand. This was the seventh training course jointly organized by IMO and the Tokyo MOU. BSIS of the Black Sea MOU. the Philippines. under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS). the APCIS has established deep hyperlinks with the databases of: − − − − THETIS of the Paris MOU. Twelve of them were from the Tokyo MOU Authorities of Chile. The APCIS also supports on-line publication of PSC data on the Tokyo MOU web-site (http://www. IOCIS of the Indian Ocean MOU. Indonesia. the technical co-operation programmes consist of general training course for PSC officers.org) on a real time basis. and CIALA of the Viña del Mar Agreement. expert mission training. Republic of Korea. For inter-regional information exchange. intersessional group on batch protocol (IG-BP) and intersessional group on statistics (IG-Statistics). analysis and statistics on PSC. and review of PSC • preparation and arrangements on-going and upcoming CICs. • • • • TRAINING AND SEMINARS FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS As mentioned in the previous Annual Report. the APCIS produces annual and detailed PSC statistics. management and maintenance of the coding system. 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.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION • development guidelines. Macao (China). Now. from 30 August to 27 September 2011. and reports and evaluations co-operation activities. was established. 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. information exchange with other regional PSC databases. Thailand and Viet Nam. Fiji. a computerized database system. The central site of the APCIS is located in Moscow. PSCO exchange and PSC seminars. for • reports of intersessional groups: advisory group on information exchange (AG-IE). of technical searching ships for inspection and for inputting and transmitting inspection reports. Based on data stored in the database. The first general training course for PSC officers was held in Yokohama. specialized training course. the Marshall Islands. The APCIS system is connected by member Authorities on-line or by batch protocol for 5 .

The nineteenth seminar for PSC officers was held Singapore from 25 to 28 July 2011. Fiji. one each from Abuja MOU. Participants from Authorities of Canada. SRC and the Secretariat delivered lectures on the relevant subjects. a technical visit to a liferaft manufacturer was also arranged. Macao (China). Transport and Onboard training 6 . Japan. Hong Kong (China). Experts from the Ministry of Land. Mediterranean MOU. The course was conducted with the assistance by the Shipbuilding Research Center of Japan (SRC). Riyadh MOU and two from the Indian Ocean MOU. Malaysia. the Philippines. convention requirements and regulations. Training course for PSC officers eight were invited by IMO. which provide trainees with a wide range of lectures and presentations relating to port State control provisions. Hiroshima and Hakata respectively. the Viña del Mar Agreement. Osaka. The seminar was hosted by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA). PSC inspection and reporting procedures. China. participants were divided into five groups to receive the practical training at ports of Yokohama. the Republic of Korea. Caribbean MOU. Black Sea MOU. In addition. The four-week general training course is composed of two-week classroom lectures. Indonesia. Papua New Guinea. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Tourism of Japan (MLIT). For the onboard training. Infrastructure. Chile. Kobe. and onboard training for practical PSC inspection experience during the latter two weeks.

Two speakers were invited from the Liberian Maritime Administration. The theme of this specialized training course was the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006. by the kind invitation of Transport Canada. problems/issues on PSC inspection reporting. oily water separator and explanations on issues concerning ECDIS. Singapore. Indonesia. British Columbia. the Marshall Islands. Macao (China). new coding system and PSC activities in Singapore. Experts from MPA of Singapore and MLIT of Japan delivered the comprehensive and informative presentations on the outcome of relevant IMO meetings regarding PSC. Canada. Viet Nam and the Viña del Mar Agreement attended the training course. the CIC on Structural Safety and the Load Lines. bulk carrier safety. The first specialized training course was organized in Vancouver. Thailand. Marine Safety. Fiji. Vanuatu and Viet Nam attended the seminar. Singapore. Participants also received information about the recent development and activities of the Tokyo MOU. There were two case study sessions conducted during the seminar as well as discussion of the The nineteenth seminar for PSC officers 7 . Hong Kong (China). Participants from Canada. who presented the MLC2006 and the various titles giving in depth Onboard training the Russian Federation.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION actual cases provided by Authorities or reviewed by the detention review panel. assessment and evaluation of lifeboat release hooks. Chile. from 14 to 17 November 2011. Thailand. Japan. the Philippines. the United States Coast Guard. Malaysia. China.

Currently. one from Australia to Singapore. the PSC officers exchange programme is implemented among the Authorities of Australia. one from Singapore to 8 . The above mentioned technical co-operation activities have received full support from all Authorities and the continuous financial assistance from the Nippon Foundation. there are a total of nine regional port State control agreements (MOUs) covering the major part of the world. Hong Kong (China). Canada. Explanation of the guidelines for Flag States and Port State inspectors was also given during the course. one from Canada to China. various presentations were made by representatives from Transport Canada. Japan. from 6 to 17 June 2011. China. The successful and effective implementation of technical co-operation programmes gives the Tokyo MOU the potential for the sustainable development and achievement. There were two expert missions organized in 2011. One mission was held in Kota Konabalu. the Philippines. New Zealand. which was carried out by two experts dispatched from Japan. The other one was in Manila. Republic of Korea. one from Russian Federation to Australia. 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. 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. namely one PSC officer from Japan to Singapore. Seafarers’ Mission and the Secretariat. Currently. one from Australia to Japan. one from Hong Kong (China) to Republic of Korea and one from Japan to Hong Kong (China). ITF local office.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Canada. In addition to the main subject. In 2011. Russian Federation and Singapore. eight PSC officer exchanges were completed. Malaysia. Experts from the Republic of Korea conducted the training. from 17 to 28 October 2011.

Representatives of the two Secretariats attend the Port State Control Committee meetings of each MOU on a regular basis. In a similar manner. the Caribbean MOU and the Indian Ocean MOU. signed the agreement with IMO on data exchange with GISIS. The major agenda discussed at the workshop were update on activities and decisions by regional PSC agreements. The Fifth IMO Workshop for PSC MoU/ Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers was held from 14 to 16 June 2011 at IMO Headquarters. The Tokyo MOU Secretariat presented at the nineteenth session of FSI in February 2011. effective and close co-operation with the Paris MOU both at administrative and the technical levels. the Tokyo MOU has granted an observer status to the Paris MOU. During the workshop. the Tokyo MOU has attended the meetings of the Flag State Implementation (FSI) Sub-Committee since 2006. information network. and maintains. In support of inter-regional collaboration on port State control. draft Assembly Resolution on Procedures on PSC and other PSC-related matters and technical co-operation activities. the Indian Ocean MOU. the Viña del Mar Agreement and the Black Sea MOU.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION − − Tokyo MOU Viña del Mar Agreement As one of the inter-governmental organizations (IGO) associated with IMO. During the period of 2011. the Tokyo MOU holds an observer status of the Paris MOU. The Tokyo MOU has established. Tokyo MOU. PSC training course for Indian Ocean MOU 9 . as well as Riyadh MOU and the Viña del Mar Agreement.

and liaison on management and maintenance of the coding system. a third PSC training course was held in Mombasa. preparation of joint CICs on Fire Safety System (FSS) 2012 and on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 2013. 10 . continuous submission to IMO on annual list of flags targeted by the Paris MOU. Tokyo MOU and the United States Coast Guard. and IMO jointly. Kenya. Japan and Republic of Korea and an officer from the Tokyo MOU Secretariat conducted the training. analysis of performance of flag and RO and submission of the outcome to IMO jointly. from 31 January to 11 February 2011. Experts from the Tokyo MOU Authorities of Australia. 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.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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. The training was organized by the Tokyo and the Indian Ocean Memoranda. − − − − Under the project of technical co-operation with other regions.

there were 18.268*.627 inspections. DETENTIONS Ships are detained when the condition of the ship or its crew does not correspond substantially with the applicable conventions. 2011 INSPECTIONS In 2011. Out of 28. Inspection * results regarding recognized Number of individual ships which visited the ports of the region during the year (the figure was provided by LLI). It is notable that the trend of increase organizations are shown in Table 5. the inspection rate in the region was approximately 68%** in 2011 (see Figure 1). ** The inspection rate is calculated by: number of individual ships inspected/number of individual ships visited. or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. 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. Figures summarizing inspections according to ship type are set out in Figure 3 and Table 4. Information on inspections according to ships’ flag is shown in Table 3. Since the total number of individual ships operating in the region was estimated at 23.562 ships registered under 61 flags were detained because of serious deficiencies of number of inspections and inspection rate has been maintained.627 inspections.771 individual ships. 11 . 28. involving 15. 1. Figure 2 and Table 2 show the number of inspections carried out by the member Authorities of the Tokyo MOU. were carried out on ships registered under 103 flags.650 inspections where ships were found with deficiencies. In 2011.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE TOKYO MOU.

Turkey and Tuvalu moved from the black list into the grey list but Tonga rejoined in the black list. representing nearly 50% of the total number of deficiencies.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION and the white list has expanded. 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. The deficiencies found are categorized and shown in Figure 6 and Table 6. Comparing with the last year. whose ships were involved in 30 or more inspections during the period. In 2011. There are 13 flags on the black list. 18. A newly introduced Figure 7 shows the most frequent detainable deficiencies found during inspections.114 fire safety measures related deficiencies. found onboard. It has been noted that fire safety measures. 12 .549 deficiencies were recorded in 2011. Belize. The detention rate of ships inspected was 5. 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. life-saving appliances and safety of navigation remain as the three major categories of deficiencies which are frequently discovered on ships. 17. It is encouraging that both the black list and the grey list became smaller A total of 103.435 safety of navigation related deficiencies and 12. The black-grey-white list for 2009-2011 consists of 62 flags. Figure 5 gives the detention rate by ship type.46%. 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.281 life-saving appliances related deficiencies were recorded. Black-grey-white list (Table 7) indicates levels of performance of flags during three-year rolling period. detentions increased 151 by number or 11% by percentage.

These figures indicate the trends in port State activities and ship performance over the past eleven years.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION The number of deficiencies relating to stability. It is further noted that the overall MARPOL related deficiencies rose over 20%.2011. 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. OVERVIEW OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTS 2001 – 2011 Figures 8-13 show the comparison of port State inspection results for 2001 . structure and related equipment and the Load Lines increased about 19% and 32% respectively. 13 .

1.771 Percentage: 68% Total individual ship visited: 23.82% Australia 3. 1.23% Viet Nam 1. 10.CONTRIBUTION BY AUTHORITIES Papua New Guinea 102.812.49% Russian Federation 1.67% Malaysia 848. 1.61% Total inspections: 28.14% Japan 5. 6.97% Singapore 740. 2. China 746.12% China 7. 3. 3.821.01% Indonesia 2. 7.136.32% Hong Kong. 17. 7. 2. 3.002.268 Figure 2: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS .150. 2. 0.076.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 1: INSPECTION PERCENTAGE Total ships inspected: 15.96% Thailand 333.73% Chile 861.16% Republic of Korea 2.36% New Zealand 479.33% Canada 325. 0.58% Philippines 1.627 14 .51% Fiji 33. 27.070.093.

6.772.295. 7. 1.81% 9 23.70% 8 6.52% 3 5.88% 5.91% 16 11.73% oil tanker/combination carrier: 2. 12. People’s Rep. Mongolia 13. Curacao 17. 15.46% 3 10. 18. 16.00% 38 10. 15 .65% 28 5. 19. Georgia Indonesia Kiribati Antigua and Barbuda India 3. 2. 6.16% chemical tanker: 1. Korea.44% 4 12. 2. 27. The complete information on detentions by flag is given in Table 3.01% ro-ro/container/vehicle ship: 5.067.018. 14.50% bulk carrier: 9.60% 7 12. 20.16% refrigerated cargo carrier: 784.50% gas carrier: 618. Saint Kitts and Nevis 9. 7.33% 18 10.19% Figure 4: DETENTIONS PER FLAG Detention: 40 Percentage: 23.76% Percentage 20 Regi onal a verage: 5. 10.86% 52 18.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 3: TYPE OF SHIP INSPECTED general dry cargo ship: 7.74% passenger ship/ferry: 290.37% Detenti on percentage 24 12.72% 21 6.73% 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flags Flags: 1.12% 91 12. Dem. 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.03% 7 39 5. 31.008.01% other types: 1.775. 3. Sierra Leone Viet Nam Thailand Tuvalu Cyprus 4. Gibraltar (UK) 2. 11.08% 308 16. 18.52% 2 8. 5. 8.61% 41 7.

497.826.86% stability.32 Ro-ro/conrainer/vehicle ship General d ry car go ship Refri ger ated cargo carrier Passenger ship/ferr y Other types 2. 34. structure and relevant equipment 8. 7.21 Gas carrier Chemical tanker Bulk carrier 3.84% fire safety measures 18.46% 2.86% safety of navigation 17.37 4. 11.07 4.139.435.25 2. 7.60% ISM related deficiencies 3.97% 16 . 16.281.76 9.114.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 5: DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE Detention percentage Average detention percentage: 5. 17.24 Oil tanker/combi nation carrier 4.95 Figure 6: DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES others 35.49% load lines 8. 3.59 6.38% life saving appliances 12.257.

casings (Load lin es) Ventilation (Fi re safety measur es) 17 . air pipes.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) 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.

000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 18 .762 19.039 22.575 18.2011 Figure 8: NO.396 14.816 14.116 2 1.000 0 17.400 21.000 5.864 15.379 23.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION OVERVIEW OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTS 2001 .049 13.650 15.000 15.760 10.124 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.152 25.298 16.000 5.6 27 30.000 12.000 20.422 14.421 14.68 6 22.588 20.0 58 21.000 10. OF INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES 15. OF INSPECTIONS 28.000 25.916 14.

393 1.51% 5.40% 5.000 4 0.000 8 0.528 1.210 89.000 1.177 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 12: NO.950 86.21% 5.46% 6.238 1.336 1.549 10 0.163 74.000 1.7 8% 5 .00% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200 7 2008 2009 2010 2011 19 .76% 8.411 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 11: NO.307 1.000 6 0.48% 5.820 90.556 83 .00% 0.000 0 69.500 1.478 84 .49% 7.349 1.00% 6.62% 6.171 1.709 1. OF DEFICIENCIES 103.668 80.00% 2.119 73.097 1.000 2 0.67% 6. OF DETENTIONS 2.562 500 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 13: DETENTION PERCENTAGE 8.578 75.00% 4.90% 5.

147.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. . 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. Although some Authorities have not ratified the ILO Convention No. China* 18/07/82 Indonesia 14/03/89 Japan 17/07/80 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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.

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

986 160 4.181 9.51 2.20 3.812 6.46% 1) 2) 3) 4) Numbers of deficiencies and detentions do not include those related to security.28 6.781 741 406 88 1.268 68% 5.74 56.29 Regional 23.35 3.53 2.070 848 479 102 1.46 3.16 2.449 761 580 289 0 926 15.448 1.00 Regional Inspection rate (a/g%) No.650 8.840 319 0 3.523 37.914 1.907 3.444 1.627 1.154 2.09 1.163 3.515 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION ANNEX 2 PORT STATE INSPECTION STATISTICS STATISTICS FOR 2011 Table 2: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY AUTHORITIES No.337 52 769 2.219 1.855 829 119 1.16 0 36.540 9 2. of initial inspections (b) 9.92 1.756 13.77 8.034 217 250 42 342 1.67 0 3.76 46.222 3 1.508 6.994 17.25 8. of follow-up inspections (c) Australia3) Canada Chile China Fiji Hong Kong.83 4.507 9.745 2 437 627 3.572 Regional 54.19 12.035 48.339 12.30 19.80 0 3.36 30.104 1.94 0. of inspections with deficiencies (d) No.406 676 1.240 402 0 1.297 1.741 187 391 6.196 103.076 2. of initial and follow-up inspections (b+c) Detention percentage (f/b%) No.03 44.136 740 333 0 1.150 5. China Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Viet Nam Total 4) 4) Authority 2.812 1. LLI data for 2011. of detentions 1) (f) No.38 15. 22 .698 2. of individual ships visited 2) (g) No.002 325 861 7.42 42.083 500 69 0 430 8.516 19 23 358 993 1.343 1.248 0 320 1.250 325 1.68 46. Data for Australia is also provided to Indian Ocean MOU.660 319 780 5. of deficiencies 1) (e) No.43 72.549 275 8 28 678 0 25 77 217 126 13 12 3 4 25 29 6 0 36 1.595 462 242 38 499 860 659 131 0 691 18. of individual ships inspected (a) No.58 4.071 3.82 19.967 4.069 3.821 33 746 2.845 868 346 1.404 2.13 22.916 31 739 1.065 729 144 2. Data are only for the Pacific ports.280 5.22 2.992 1.093 28.689 7.771 4.199 7.562 4.77 25.

093 28. of inspections Australia Canada Chile China Fiji Hong Kong. of security related detentions No.002 325 861 7.05 0. 23 .812 1.381 5 3 13 1.055 0 16 28 370 300 87 6 6 33 85 305 2 0 68 2.37 0 0.13 0.136 740 333 0 1.933 0 0 0 29 0 1 1 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 Detention percentage (%) 0 0 0 0.327 0 17 31 446 447 97 8 6 42 106 310 2 0 73 2.076 2.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.627 4 3 13 1.070 848 479 102 1.16% 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.150 5. of secuirty related deficiencies No. China Indonesia Japan Republic of Korea Malaysia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Philippines Russian Federation Singapore Thailand Vanuatu Viet Nam Total Authority 3.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 2a: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS ON MARITME SECURITY No.09 Regional 0.821 33 746 2.06 0. of inspections with security related deficiencies No.

11 0 14.263 128 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 2.29 50.30 0 1.29 0 0 0 23.14 16.52 0 0 3.827 1.88 3.70 5. of detentions Detention percentage % 33.61 0 12.88 5.34 14.00 11.33 0 0 16.86 2. 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 .60 2.08 2.259 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.12 10.13 6.37 0 33.708 12 12 87 6 5 28 28 12 56 23 16 56 500 282 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 3: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER FLAG No.11 0 0.244 73 39 149 1 1 3 3 3 29 5 1 9 1 1 11 1.259 5.00 5. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 3 2 11 545 347 1.044 95 42 137 1 0 0 707 391 1.796 15.531 No.366 1 0 0 33 31 229 30 23 133 39 24 93 348 333 2.67 0 0 8. of No.490 3 2 8 7 4 5 665 351 1. of No.33 7.03 1.

707 1.184 168 166 1.61 0 0 0 11.958 2.244 13 1. of No.12 0 0 0 3.26 0 5.019 1 1 18 282 11 707 1. Democratic People's Republic Korea. of No.56 4.91 23.127 76 0 686 6 5 0 1.44 0 0 2.230 No.08 0 4.289 4 1 26 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 1.974 2 3 32 729 81 1.65 12.26 0.29 0 0 10.69 4.109 2 1 6 136 15 139 2 227 7 8.245 34 4. 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.11 0 3.196 1 1 9 157 9 423 547 1 1 6 127 13 76 2 103 6 5.52 3.00 3. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 124 67 389 193 179 1.67 2.312 13 2.97 20.00 0 5.36 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 .07 7.026 83 273 14 392 34 31.573 10 0 139 2 2 0 243 1 208 5.81 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Flag India Indonesia Iran Ireland Isle of Man (UK) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kiribati Korea.21 0 0 5.692 10 1 215 6 5 1 276 1 238 1.010 5 1.88 0 3.76 6. of detentions Detention percentage % 5.

62 6.661 1.881 28.549 No.61 18.89 0. of No.64 0 0 0 12.46 0 0 52 44 0 0 0 7 0 1 3 2 38 0 5 0 3 8 0 0 10 1 1 91 1.650 103.562 26 . China Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu Ukraine United Arab Emirates (UAE) United Kingdom (UK) United States Vanuatu Viet Nam Total No.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 1.664 769 3.61 0 41.627 18. of No.18 10.37 2.774 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. of detentions Detention percentage % 0 0 18.86 12.72 0 0 3.72 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Flag Samoa Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands Spain Sri Lanka Saint Kitts and Nevis Sweden Switzerland Taiwan. of inspections inspections deficiencies with deficiencies 2 2 23 20 14 50 283 275 2.33 Regional 5.67 0 4.73 0 4.76 3.

25 Refrigerated cargo carrier 784 619 3.80 Offshore service vessel 115 52 217 3 2.46 Type of ship 27 .51 Factory ship 1 1 5 0 0 Heavy load carrier 79 53 247 3 3.61 MODU & FPSO 4 4 43 1 25.380 26 4.56 Total 28. of No.562 5.00 Ro-Ro passenger ship 92 78 650 5 5.663 10.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 4: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER SHIP TYPE No.018 5.295 53 6.775 6.76 Woodchip carrier 235 138 577 12 5.421 2.80 General cargo/multi-purpose ship 7.21 Chemical tanker 1.23 Gas carrier 618 298 1.836 767 3. of No.519 28.652 446 4.42 Ro-Ro cargo ship 206 149 716 14 6.37 Bulk carrier 9.650 103.65 Container ship 4.74 Oil tanker 1.43 Passenger ship 198 115 417 1 0.549 1.00 High speed passenger craft 42 40 150 0 0 Special purpose ship 49 31 109 0 0 Tugboat 222 142 729 8 3.95 Vehicle carrier 668 286 844 11 1.627 18. of Detention inspections inspections deficiencies detentions percentage with % deficiencies NLS tanker 99 33 160 2 2. of No.772 919 4.02 Combination carrier 73 32 118 2 2.963 151 3.565 42 2.11 Livestock carrier 50 35 280 7 14.040 719 9.480 45.444 41 2.60 Others 270 196 948 15 5.

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 3.12 0 0.89 1.62 7.99 3.223 12 3.63 9.69 2.11 0 0 0 Recognized organization (RO) Alfa Register of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping Belize Maritime Bureau Inc.136 584 3 2 2 96 127 377 59 450 270 538 159 53 2.16 1.70 0 0 0 3.62 17. of overall inspections No.70 0 3.57 9. R.) Indian Register of Shipping Intermaritime Certification Services. S.89 0 0.02 0 0.00 16.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 5: PORT STATE INSPECTIONS PER RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION RO responsible detention percentage% 0 0.16 1.58 0 0 0 0.03 0 1. 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. 8 2. Maritime Technical Systems and Services National Cargo Bureau Inc.47 14.54 9.35 0 4.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.35 9. de. of overall detentions Detention percentage% No.30 3.44 1.04 0.71 6.L.35 0 5.83 0 7.42 11.67 25.88 0 0.96 2.11 0. of RO responsible detentions .54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.93 1.46 16. 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.94 0 3.71 0 2.67 0 0 8. S.14 0 1.450 343 14 34 4 3.802 52 98 4 2.45 8.A.88 0 0 0 No.14 6.03 0 0 0.89 9.10 0 0 0 17.55 0 28 Percentage of RO responsible detentions% 0 4.50 0 1.963 4 2.26 0 5.568 3.

In case that ship’s certificates were issued by more than one ROs.849 319 77 452 69 67 10 191 2 14 14 701 5 514 1 4 7 1.71 0 7.67 7.39 0 0 0 17. Panama Shipping Registrar Inc.88 9.63 0 0 0 9.00 8.92 9.11 9.30 0.90 1. the inspection and detention would be counted to each of them.A.89 0 0 0 7. Phoenix Register of Shipping Polski Rejestr Statkow Registro Internacional Naval S.04 10.33 0 0 7. of overall detentions Detention percentage% No. 29 Percentage of RO responsible detentions% 0 5.54 Recognized organization (RO) 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.69 8.45 0 7.62 1.14 4.79 No.14 0 0 0 3.14 0 0.88 0 0 0 0.65 3.01 13.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION RO responsible detention percentage% 0 0.05 8.31 0.57 15.21 0.94 1.46 6.03 0 2.172 382 111 801 583 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. of overall inspections No.11 16. of RO responsible detentions .12 1.92 14.19 0 0 0 1.96 13. 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 8.93 14.78 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.52 0 0 0 0.77 10.

497 4.492 30 .073 17.257 7. of deficiencies 2.549 2.281 3.643 53 37 996 1. 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. structure and related equipment Propulsion and auxiliary machinery Alarm signals Fire safety measures Oil.810 8.139 5.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 6: DEFICIENCIES BY CATEGORIES Nature of deficiencies Ship's certificates and documents Stability.435 661 3.930 743 641 8.012 850 197 103.580 680 501 24 1.166 704 18.692 286 173 1.114 284 12.933 106.090 1.

781 389 0 0 106 18 0 0 106 18 0 0 -0.40 2.18 0.65 1.99 2.59 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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.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 4.45 0.34 4.05 Cook Islands Maldives Malta Italy 30 35 1.39 0.05 31 .51 0. Democratic People's Republic Cambodia Mongolia Saint Kitts and Nevis Kiribati Indonesia Thailand Bangladesh Viet Nam Tonga 555 39 203 418 5.84 0.56 1.39 0.181 446 183 529 576 1.95 3.01 2.24 0.29 0.74 0.95 0.054 453 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 0.42 4.01 -0.06 3.35 0.83 0.78 0.042 57 1.13 0.83 0.55 Turkey Curacao Dominica Belize Tuvalu Barbados Egypt Gibraltar (UK) Luxemburg India Myanmar Belgium Kuwait Saudi Arabia Switzerland Croatia 179 63 64 1.93 2.00 1.

* See explanatory note on page 50.614 2.87 -0. flags involving 30-49 port State inspections with nil detentions are listed on top of the White List.23 -0.87 -0.645 q=3% 32 . 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.91 -0.540 3.69 -1. China Korea.25 -0.14 -1.40 -0.863 209 135 371 4.75 -1.51 -0.05 -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. According to the decision by the Port State Control Committee.067 312 640 681 1.29 -1.57 -0.753 5.54 -0.12 -0.613 19 1 11 16 3 48 170 324 14 34 36 112 8 4 17 269 42 18 356 227 126 Excess Factor -0.71 -0.465 780 640 887 23.94 -0.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Flag Cyprus Taiwan.96 -0.42 -1.84 -0. p=7% z95%=1.77 -0.977 391 71 256 354 116 872 2.27 -1.26 -0.86 -0.11 -0.474 219 733 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.07 -1.076 82 8 35 76 37 27 37 1.244 769 383 5.90 -0. Republic of China Inspections Detentions Black to Grey Grey to White 2009-2011 2009-2011 Limit Limit 1.98 -1.

827 0 95 1 707 0 12 6 28 23 500 128 14 2 18 3 7 3 1 47 11 1.79 9.74 33 .00 16.89 10.863 7 57 72 83 1.34 0 0.94 20.82 0 19.00 7.14 0 11.11 5.62 0 2.474 371 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 18.054 209 6 8 15 10 5.181 2 256 3 2.076 1 26 30 84 63 1.50 0 10.27 0 15.465 15 28 1.18 5.44 16.705 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 1.87 1.67 37.23 0 2.82 7.11 0 0 0.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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 1.649 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 1.19 0 0 3.72 4.38 11.56 1.

63 11.95 3.019 1 1 18 282 11 707 1.616 37 1 5.540 310 576 22 4 354 15 389 9 383 1 529 418 3.753 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 20.179 11 1 1.26 4.83 0 10.41 2.32 0 34 .259 124 193 5 3 142 5 152 5 154 0 165 168 1.76 3.765 101 205 5 0 107 5 137 2 107 1 193 140 1.18 15.516 85 178 12 1 105 5 100 2 122 0 171 110 1.62 6.109 2 1 6 136 15 139 2 203 769 151 872 5 5.54 0 4.62 3.125 13 0 1.781 2.90 1.067 10 10 38 733 35 1.45 12.29 18.70 0 3.33 18. 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 1.70 4.312 13 0 2.31 0 12. Democratic People's Republic Korea.21 0 1.00 5.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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.77 0 5.08 6.11 1.758 7 5 9 239 10 554 923 0 0 2 150 19 141 2 39 278 51 333 1 2. China India Indonesia Iran Ireland Isle of Man (UK) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kiribati Korea.290 2 4 11 212 14 520 721 1 2 3 160 8 111 2 67 279 61 291 1 1.15 0 0 2.69 2.74 0 33.

27 0 0 0 15.042 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 1.46 4.35 17.692 10 1 215 0 6 5 1 276 1 238 2 20 0 283 1.76 27.30 0 2.244 11 4 6 17 183 71 71 1 219 15 1.00 2.977 39 2 640 1 16 21 1 887 1 780 10 44 3 555 4.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Number of inspections Flag 2009 2010 2011 Total Number of detentions 2009 2010 2011 Total 3-year rolling average detention % 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.17 0 4.952 12 1 213 1 7 10 0 320 0 265 7 12 2 167 1.74 0 2. China Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu 0 185 7 1 7.00 0 5.17 35 .21 0 4.07 0 10.25 0 0 4.81 5.235 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 2.65 26.67 10.22 0 6.82 0 3.15 28.06 8.333 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 7.664 0 1 4 7 55 20 21 0 83 11 358 9 12 1 65 119 1 640 20 1 23.380 3 3 1 7 64 30 22 1 68 3 349 8 14 2 60 160 0 227 7 0 8.27 0 20.

56 36 .411 0 0 10 1 1 91 0 1.79 0.24 9.116 1 6 236 38 104 640 3 25.77 33.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Number of inspections Flag 2009 2010 2011 Total Number of detentions 2009 2010 2011 Total 3-year rolling average detention % 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 23.505 0 0 5 0 3 37 0 1.627 7 14 681 116 312 1.309 0 0 2.873 3 77.86 2.336 0 0 4 0 3 55 1 1.562 0 0 19 1 7 183 1 4.33 5.762 2 5 269 53 116 738 0 28.

95 2.08 2.32 2.008 2010 2011 1.56 4.705 2.44 6.0 0 1.018 5.0 0 3.08 5.08 5.34 10.0 0 2.23 Chemical tanker Bulk carrier Ro-ro/ container/ vehicle ship 2.21 3.775 Figure 15: COMPARISON OF DETENTIONS PER SHIP TYPE 8.56 5.67 General dry Refrigerated cargo ship cargo carrier Passenger ship/ferry Other types 37 5.65 5.047 1.0 0 5.355 7.032 1.56 3.20 4.56 .56 5.64 5.0 0 6.56 5.07 2.65 2.70 2.95 9.64 5.0 0 4.142 9.482 1.772 6.05 9.027 2 .295 6.37 8.66 3.4 83 1.40 4.37 Oil tanker/ Gas carrier combination carrier 2.56 5.458 7.32 2.067 3.14 4.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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 1.74 4.94 539 618 620 1.33 3.955 2 4.8 32 7.76 2009 2010 2011 3-y ear aver age Average detent ion per cent age 9.58 3.0 0 9.90 1.0 0 3.25 9.59 4.56 7.0 0 2.0 0 0.81 8.56 8.0 0 5.95 5.24 2.32 5.

018 668 4.336 0 5 42 17 51 403 16 92 7 658 70 7 2 4 2 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 12 11 1.558 633 21.832 805 212 55 77 231 1 67 126 5 58 47 1 217 243 23.142 746 3.214 43 310 26 1.762 99 73 1.001 11.60 6.91 5.458 587 3.82 5.37 2.962 2.558 539 1.174 194 6.54 2.16 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 1.08 8.777 4.35 3.32 3.33 5.33 3.737 22.229 1.618 2.56 38 .627 257 254 5.11 9.505 4 2 40 22 53 365 16 67 5 618 79 5 1 4 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 25 18 1.116 85 107 1.963 233 7.309 2.562 6 9 123 65 146 1.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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 1.836 618 1.482 6.66 3.835 620 1.15 2.995 202 24 10 13 11 0 8 14 1 0 0 0 45 44 4.483 7.772 9.355 839 220 53 83 224 1 61 149 11 57 40 0 212 243 25.86 3.68 0 3.08 5.68 4.421 206 7.775 784 235 50 92 198 1 79 115 4 42 49 0 222 270 28.00 0 0 0 6.59 5.428 667 158 252 653 3 207 390 20 157 136 1 651 756 77.

72 -16.64 General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker -3.35 Other types -11.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 16: COMPARISON OF INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES PER SHIP TYPE -21.69 13.93 -13.77 Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker -9.16 Passenger ship/ferry 0.42 16.37 Bulk carrier -3.72 14.74 1.63 -10.54 Average 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 (b) Year 2010 -23.95 General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Other types 18.56 -18.59 Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier -5.64 -11.22 Average -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 (d) 3-year summary * % over [+] or under [-] average 39 .05 Average 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 (a) Year 2009 -22.80 Passenger ship/ferry -0.67 Bulk carrier -3.44 -18.95 -0.95 Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship 1.47 Passenger ship/ferry 8.19 13.90 Bulk carrier Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker -2.55 Passenger ship/ferry -0.31 -20.29 -9.17 General dry cargo ship Refrigerated cargo carrier Other types 17.51 Ro-ro/container/vehicle ship Oil tanker/combination carrier Gas carrier Chemical tanker -9.29 Bulk carrier -6.20 16.40 Other types 18.30 Average -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 (c) Year 2011 -22.

962 2.192 21.032 23.295 7.705 539 1.740 1.973 18.098 6.027 620 1.777 4.737 22.986 7.942 7.049 50.618 14.688 6.575 832 298 919 5.142 4.428 905 3.249 1.480 619 193 692 18.047 25.505 772 261 842 4.071 678 225 668 16.116 2.146 77.187 5.647 42.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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 1.84 56.326 2.940 607 2.35 40 .483 7.71 53.772 9.650 2.067 28.762 2.557 13.018 5.13 65.519 3.008 618 1.627 5.141 2.18 83.422 852 271 796 4.98 61.698 643 189 689 15.832 805 308 1.458 3.90 67.79 46.955 6.07 65.456 830 2.09 79.355 839 307 1.482 6.775 784 290 1.

851 9.00 16.83 0 0.17 0.485 5 179 5 78 24.51 3.44 1. de. of RO responsible detentions 2009-2011 0 3.29 0 0 14. S. of overall inspections 2009-2011 No.97 0 17.34 25.14 2.43 17.69 3.83 25.85 0 0 0.72 0 0 0 8.A.50 0 3.679 1.57 0 20.45 41 .78 0 0 0 1.17 0 7. Maritime Technical Systems and Services National Cargo Bureau Inc.93 19.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 11: INSPECTIONS AND DETENTIONS PER RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION 3-year average percentage of RO responsible detentions% 3-year average RO responsible detention percentage% Recognized organization (RO) Alfa Register of Shipping American Bureau of Shipping Belize Maritime Bureau Inc.38 14.70 3.456 7 6.43 15.26 6.24 0 3.83 10.00 0 5.54 0 5.32 2.129 138 1 271 4 15 7.78 0 11.10 12.51 1.27 10.29 0 1.30 0 0 1.57 1.007 1 39 109 11 8.06 5.50 0 5.15 1.00 0 0 7.49 5.31 0.279 1.23 0 0 0.92 11.39 2.49 0 0 33.64 0 0 3.52 2.14 0 0.) Indian Register of Shipping Intermaritime Certification Services.61 0 9.02 7.27 2.29 9.91 0 3.65 0 0 10.21 0 2. 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.L.20 0 0. 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 7.521 37 7.54 0 0.44 8.22 14. of overall detentions 2009-2011 No.96 0 0.509 406 144 6.19 0 3.32 14.52 3.33 0 4.001 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.92 8.04 0.23 7.17 0.46 1. R.09 0.849 1.94 15.95 13.15 28.72 11. 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.038 1.90 15.13 5. S.02 1.49 5.905 28 3 4 428 321 973 175 1.13 3.02 14.18 0 0 1.52 1.41 15.

27 2.50 5.613 4 9 1 1 29 3.44 . of overall inspections 2009-2011 No.61 17.30 See also the note in page 29. of RO responsible detentions 2009-2011 0 0 4.71 12.42 14.32 1.96 9.37 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 7. 42 3-year average percentage of RO responsible detentions% 3-year average RO responsible detention percentage% 3-year avergae detention percentage% No.70 8. Panama Shipping Registrar Inc.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Recognized organization (RO) Panama Register Corporation Panama Shipping Certificate Inc.A.06 0 0. of overall detentions 2009-2011 No.00 1.43 3.03 2.92 13.31 0.88 11.03 10.53 0 0 3.168 1.39 15.48 0 0 25.083 310 2.69 17.00 5.306 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 11.597 12 1.57 11.17 0 0 0.22 0 0 20.81 0 22. 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 1.94 0 5.052 1.76 0 0 0 0 0 17.13 0.10 0 4. Phoenix Register of Shipping Polski Rejestr Statkow Registro Internacional Naval S.

001 9.77 -1. of overall inspections 2009-2011 Medium/high Limit Recognized organization (RO) 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. of RO responsible detentions 2009-2011 Excess factor .70 0.613 24.24 0.01 -0.89 -1.56 -0. R.56 0.849 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 1.67 -1. de.23 -0.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 12: PERFORMANCE OF RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION No.32 -1.905 175 725 428 1.47 0.16 0.80 Low Medium High 43 Performance level Low/medium Limit No.485 7.23 -0.29 0.74 -1.71 0.74 -1.L.45 0.083 1.456 7.038 109 271 208 1.052 399 310 321 561 973 1. S.31 0.56 0.12 0.35 0.007 1. S.129 7.) 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.33 -0.168 406 1. Intermaritime Certification Services.509 852 200 2.52 0. China Corporation Register of Shipping Russian Maritime Register of Shipping Nippon Kaiji Kyokai Lloyd's Register Bureau Veritas American Bureau of Shipping Germanischer Lloyd 3.279 179 1.39 -0.88 0.A.28 -1.33 -0.

679 12 1 6 3 192 42 157 153 149 22 117 114 -1.82 -1. only recognized organizations (RO) that had more than 60 inspections are taken into account. ROs involving 60-179 inspections with zero detention are not included in this table. of overall inspections 2009-2011 Medium/high Limit Recognized organization (RO) Det Norske Veritas Registro Italiano Navale Korean Register of Shipping China Classification Society 8.93 Note: 1) 2) In this table.851 6.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION No. the values for P and Q are adjusted to P=2% and Q=1%. 44 Performance level Low/medium Limit No.521 1.84 -1.597 6. of RO responsible detentions 2009-2011 Excess factor . The formula used is identical to the one used for the Black-Grey-White List.88 -1. However.

191 3.207 15.648 17.435 ISM related defici encies Others 29.967 31.497 14.619 15.281 14.160 35.048 6.182 8. str ucture an d related equipment Load lines 6.386 3.9 98 18.13 1 11.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Figure 17: COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES Li fesaving appli ances Fire safety measures Stabil ity.2 57 6.077 12.921 8.13 9 12.826 45 .462 6 .114 2009 2010 2011 Safety o f navi gatio n 3.

386 4. structure and related equipment Propulsion and auxiliary machinery Alarm signals Fire safety measures Oil.166 704 18.810 8.131 3.723 533 14.643 53 37 996 1.927 2011 2.595 326 172 899 800 793 153 90.182 4.403 47 92 879 1.114 284 12.281 3.336 508 477 12 1.930 743 641 8.479 6.354 14.619 258 12.462 5.998 236 11.207 496 3.177 2.132 822 379 6.549 2.399 6.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION Table 13: COMPARISON OF DEFICIENCIES BY CATEGORIES Number of deficiencies Nature of deficiency 2009 2.090 1.238 664 15.048 4. 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 .921 6.191 4.497 4.073 17.831 2010 2.750 92.648 589 3.341 312 440 21 1.011 88.139 5.435 661 3.398 305 151 866 712 863 207 86.692 286 173 1.073 888 486 6.820 2.492 Ship's certificates and documents Stability.452 64 12 727 1.012 850 197 103.015 15.580 680 501 24 1.077 3.257 7.933 106.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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. casings (Load lines) 89 82 101 Ventilation (Fire saf ety measures) 78 99 47 . air pipes.

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

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

the flags can be ordered by EF. When the amount of detentions for a particular flag State is positioned between the two. (Of course the maximum detention rate remains 100%!) To make the flags’ performance comparable. Once the excess factor is determined for all flags. grey or white list. and "z" is the significance requested (z=1. Thus the excess factor EF is an indication for the number of times the yardstick has to be altered and recalculated. The excess factor can be found in the last column the black. The formula is applicable for sample sizes of 30 or more inspections over a 3-year period. Compared to the calculation method of previous year. Each incremental or decremental step corresponds with one whole EF-point of difference. the flag State will find itself on the grey list. The result "u" is the allowed number of detentions for either the black or white list. The target (yardstick) has been set on 7% and the size of the increment and decrement on 3%. below. The Black – Grey – White lists have been calculated in accordance with the above principles. A number of detentions above this ‘black to grey’ limit means significantly worse than average. is showing the direct relations between the number of inspected ships and the number of detentions. The graphical representation of the system. This process can be repeated. each with its own specific formula: ‘grey to white’ limit means significantly better than average. 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. the ‘black to grey’ and the ‘grey to white’ limit.5 − z ⋅ N ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p ) In the formula "N" is the number of inspections. 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 . 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. the excess factor (EF) is introduced. The "u" results can be found in the table as the ‘black to grey’ or the ‘grey to white’ limit. to create as many refinements as desired. To sort results on the black or white list. ublack − to − grey = N ⋅ p + 0.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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. Both axis have a logarithmic character. 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. "p" is the allowable detention limit (yardstick). based on binomial calculus. set to 7% by the Tokyo MOU Port State Control Committee. Two limits have been included in the new system.645 for a statistically acceptable certainty level of 95%).5 + z ⋅ N ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p ) uwhite − to − grey = N ⋅ p − 0.

1726 ⋅ 0.07 ⋅ 0. This means that ‘p’ has to be adjusted in the formula.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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.93 ublack-to-grey = 19 How to determine the grey to white limit: uwhite − to − grey = N ⋅ p − 0.07 + 0.645 ⋅ 179 ⋅ 0.5 + 1. so to determine the new value for ‘p’.5 − 1. The "black to grey limit" is 19 and the "grey to white limit" is 6. N = total inspections P = 7% Q= 3% Z = 1. and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for ‘p’: p + 3. The black to grey limit has an excess factor of 1. How to determine the black to grey limit: ublack − to − grey = 179 ⋅ 0.5 + 1.5 + 1.93 uwhite-to-grey = 6 51 .93 u = 49 The excess factor is 4.07 ⋅ 0.07 + 0.42q = 0.07 − 0.8274 uexcessfactor = 111 Example flag on Grey list: Ships of Turkey were subject to 179 inspections. ‘q’ has to be multiplied with 3.03) = 0.42.07 + (3.95.42 ⋅ 0.5 + z ⋅ N ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p ) ublack − to − grey = 555 ⋅ 0.1726 + 0.645 ⋅ 555 ⋅ 0.645 How to determine the black to grey limit: ublack − to − grey = N ⋅ p + 0.42. of which 18 resulted in a detention.645 ⋅ 555 ⋅ 0.5 − z ⋅ N ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p ) uwhite − to − grey = 179 ⋅ 0.42. The excess factor is 0. The excess factor is 4.645 ⋅ 179 ⋅ 0.07 ⋅ 0.1726 uexcessfactor = 555 ⋅ 0.

753 ⋅ 0.645 ⋅ 2. How to determine the grey to white limit: uwhite − to − grey = N ⋅ p − 0. This means that ‘p’ has to be adjusted in the formula.0439 uexcessfactor = 2.07 ⋅ 0.87) = 0. 52 .87.03) = 0.753 inspections of which 103 resulted in detention.65-6.87.9561 uexcessfactor = 103 According to the decision by the Port State Control Committee.87 ⋅ 0. ‘q’ has to be multiplied with -0.753 ⋅ 0.5 − z ⋅ N ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p ) uwhite − to − grey = 2.93 uwhite-to-grey = 170 The excess factor is -0. so to determine the new value for ’p’.0439 − 0.95 Example flag on White list: Ships of the Marshall Islands were subject to 2. flags involving 30-49 port State inspections with nil detentions are listed on top of the White List. The "grey to white limit" is 170 detentions.753 ⋅ 0.07 + (-0.5 − 1.0439 ⋅ 0.5 − 1.41)/(18.07 − 0.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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. and the outcome has to be added to the normal value for ‘p’: p + (-0.645 ⋅ 2. The grey to white limit has an excess factor of 0. The excess factor is -0.41) ef = 0.753 ⋅ 0.87.

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. Japan.org Secretary Ikuo Nakazaki Deputy Secretary Ning Zheng Technical Officer Fumiko Akimoto Projects Officer 53 . The Secretariat may be approached for further information or inquiries on the operation of the Memorandum.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful