E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE FSI 20/INF.3

IMPLEMENTATION 23 December 2011
20th session ENGLISH ONLY
Agenda item 6

HARMONIZATION OF PORT STATE CONTROL ACTIVITIES

Paris MoU Annual Report 2010

Submitted by the Paris MoU

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document relates to the Paris MoU Annual Report 2010

Strategic direction: 1.1, 5.3 and 12.3

High-level action: 1.1.2, 5.3.1 and 12.3.1

Planned output: 1.1.2.7, 5.3.1.4, 5.3.1.5 and 12.3.1.2

Action to be taken: Paragraph 9

Related documents: FSI 18/INF.5; FSI 19/INF.3 and FSI 20/6

INTRODUCTION

1 The Paris MoU is pleased to submit the Annual Report 2010 to the Sub-Committee.
Annex 1 contains Paris MoU Port State inspection data in the format proposed during the
Fifth IMO Workshop for PSC MoU/Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers. Tables
showing the number of inspections and detentions carried out, the performance of flag
Administrations and a list of ships banned from the Paris MoU region in the period
from 1 January 2010 to 24 October 2011 and the reasons for the ban are set out in annex 2.

2 In summary:

.1 in 2010, 24,058 inspections were carried out on 14,762 individual foreign

flag ships;

.2 the overall detention rate decreased to 3.28 per cent of inspections, the
lowest rate ever;

.3 42 flag Administrations are on the "White List", including three new entries.
There are 18 flag Administrations on the "Black List", of which five are in
the category of very high risk for targeting purposes; and

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
FSI 20/INF.3
Page 2

.4 from 1 September to 30 November 2010 a Concentrated Inspection

Campaign (CIC) on tanker damage stability was carried out. This
CIC resulted in 1,065 inspections, of which four resulted in a CIC-related
detention. This means that in four cases the IMO requirements for damage
stability had deficiencies that were serious enough to detain the ship.

INSPECTION FINDINGS

Ships detained in 2010

3 The number of detentions (790) and the rate of detention decreased significantly.
3.28 per cent of ships were detained (columns 2 and 6 of table 1 in annex 2). At the same
time the number of inspections carried out (24,058) and the number of individual ships
inspected (14,753) have decreased slightly (columns 3 and 5).

Flag Administration performance

4 The detention record of flag Administrations over three years determines whether
their ships are targeted for inspection in the Paris MoU region. Since flag Administration
performance is measured against a set standard, entry to the "White List" of quality flags is
potentially open to all.

5 The number of flag Administrations on the "White List" (42) has increased and on
the "Black List" (18) has decreased.

6 The "Grey List" may be seen as an area of incentive – to flag Administrations on the
"Grey List" to improve and join the "White List", and to flag Administrations in the lower
category of the "Black List" to move from the "Black List" where their ships are targeted for
inspection and may be banned following detention.

7 The highest risk category in the "Black List" contains the following entries – the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, Togo, Sierra Leone and Montenegro.

Ships banned from the Paris MoU region

8 A list of ships banned from the Paris MoU region in the period from 1 January 2010
to 24 October 2011 is attached to this report for information (table 6). A complete and
up-to-date version may be found on the website at www.parismou.org

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

9 The Sub-Committee is invited to note the information provided.

***

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
 FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 1, page 1

ANNEX 1

SUBMISSION OF PARIS MOU PORT STATE INSPECTION DATA 2010

Name of PSC regime

PSC Regime Paris MoU Calendar year 2010

Inspection data1
Percentage
Number of
of Number
Member Number of inspections Number of Detention
inspection of
Authority inspections with deficiencies3 percentage
with detentions
deficiencies
deficiencies
Belgium 1,361 690 3,067 50.70 37 2.72
Bulgaria1 514 394 2,380 76.65 25 4.86
Canada1 976 443 1,771 45.39 19 1.95
Croatia 417 252 1,055 60.43 16 3.84
1
Cyprus 293 173 989 59.04 27 9.22
Denmark 630 287 863 45.56 8 1.27
Estonia 384 111 279 28.91 1 0.26
Finland 376 104 230 27.66 1 0.27
France 1,515 913 3,880 60.26 57 3.76
Germany 1,466 733 3,371 50.00 36 2.46
Greece 1,021 559 4,019 54.75 47 4.60
Iceland 106 37 70 34.91 3 2.83
Ireland 436 185 784 42.43 11 2.52
Italy 1,993 1,191 6,257 59.76 119 5.97
Latvia 479 121 398 25.26 1 0.21
Lithuania 507 310 1,174 61.14 5 0.99
1
Malta 241 175 804 72.61 10 4.15
Netherlands 1,698 859 3,964 50.59 34 2.00
Norway 793 262 852 33.04 18 2.27
Poland 858 474 2,395 55.24 22 2.56
Portugal 468 291 1,426 62.18 13 2.78
1
Romania 1,233 708 3,587 57.42 48 3.89

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 1, page 2

Percentage
Number of
of Number
Member Number of inspections Number of Detention
inspection of
Authority inspections with deficiencies3 percentage
with detentions
deficiencies
deficiencies
Russian
1,358 935 5,204 68.58 54 3.98
Federation1,2
Slovenia 267 163 1,175 61.05 28 10.49
Spain 2,093 1,428 8,340 68.23 95 4.54
Sweden 743 251 607 33.78 5 0.67
United
1,832 1,233 6,104 67.30 50 2.78
Kingdom
Total 24,058 13,282 65,045 55.21 790 3.28
1
Member Authorities having dual or triple membership
2
Only movements to the Russian ports of the Baltic, Azov, Caspian and Barents Seas
are included
3
The number of deficiencies per Member Authority is not recorded in the annual report
2010 and had to be extracted from the database after the closing date for the annual
report 2010. After this date data has been added to the database. Therefore there is a
difference between the total number of deficiencies in the annual report and the total
number of deficiencies in this annex.

Inspection data per ship type

Percentage
Number of
Number Number of Number
inspections Detention
Ship type of of inspections of
with percentage
inspections deficiencies4 with detentions
deficiencies
deficiencies
Bulk Carriers 3,362 1,926 9,684 57.29 93 2.77
Container
3.578 1,695 6,667 47.37 54 1.51
Ships
General Dry
9,139 5,831 31,082 63.82 500 5,47
Cargo
Passenger
1,066 617 1,116 57.88 18 1.69
Ships
Refrigerated
648 442 2,930 68.21 20 3.09
Cargo
Gas Carriers 535 238 859 44.49 6 1.12
Chemical
2,333 1,012 3,890 43.38 48 2.06
tanker
Oil Tanker 1,934 691 2,472 35.73 17 0.88
Other5 1,445 853 6,345 59.03 34 2.35
Total 24,040 13,305 65,045 53.02 1,481 2.33
4
The number of deficiencies per ship type is not recorded in the annual report 2010 and
had to be extracted from the database after the closing date for the annual report 2010.

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
 FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 1, page 3

After this date data has been added to the database. Therefore there is a difference
between the total number of deficiencies in the annual report and the total number of
deficiencies in this Annex.
5
Other ship types as used in the region.
Inspection data6 per category of deficiency

Number of Percentage of total

Category of deficiency
deficiencies deficiencies

Ship's certificates and documents 4,426 6.84

Stability, structure 5,063 7.83

SOLAS and related
equipment
Propulsion and 4,762 7.36
auxiliary machinery
Alarm signals 496 0.77
Fire safety measures 7,675 11.86
Life saving appliances 5,557 8.59
Radio 2,021 3.12
communications
Safety of navigation 8,443 13.05
Operational 2,356 3.64
deficiencies
ISM related 3,432 5.30
deficiencies
ISPS related 865 1.34
deficiencies
Other 845 1.30
Annex I 3,434 5.31
MARPOL Annex II 50 0.08
Annex III 8 0.01
Annex IV 295 0.46
Annex V 617 0.95
Annex VI 292 0.45
Operational 244 0.38
deficiencies
Certification and 2,713 4.19
STCW watchkeeping for
seafarers
2,819 4.36
Load Lines
36 0.06
AFS Convention
8,249 12.76
ILO

Other
6
Some data may have been reported to other Regional Agreements

***

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
 FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 1

ANNEX 2

PARIS MOU ANNUAL REPORT – 2010

Table 1 Vessel Detentions 1997 to 2010

Year Vessel Individual Ratio Inspections Ratio
detentions ships*
% %
1997 1,624 10,719 15.15 % 16,813 9.66 %
1998 1,598 11,168 14.31 % 17,643 9.06 %
1999 1,684 11,248 14.97 % 18,399 9.15 %
2000 1,764 11,358 15.53 % 18,559 9.50%
2001 1,699 11,658 14.57% 18,681 9.09%
2002 1,577 11,823 13.34% 19,766 7.98%
2003 1,428 12,382 11.53% 20,309 7.05%
2004 1,187 12,538 9.47% 20,316 5.84%
2005 994 13,024 7.63% 21,302 4.67%
2006 1,174 13,417 8.75% 21,566 5.44%
2007 1,250 14,182 8.81% 22,877 5.46%
2008 1,220 15,237 8.01% 24,647 4.95%
2009 1,059 14,753 7.18% 24,186 4.38%
2010 790 14,762 5.35% 24,058 3.28%

*An individual ship is a ship that has been inspected on a visit to a Paris MoU port during a
year. A vessel inspected more than once in a year is counted as 1 individual ship.

Table 2 Flag Administrations on the "White List" in 2010

(best performance first)

The "White/Grey/Black List" of flag Administrations is based on the detention rate

over 3 years taking account of sample size. The excess factor shows the excess +/- of the
detention rate compared with a yardstick of 7% plus incremental steps of 3%.

"White List" 2008–2010

Rank Flag Inspections Detentions Black to Grey to Excess

2008-2010 2008-2010 Grey Limit White Limit Factor

Bermuda,
1 UK 270 0 26 12 -1.91
2 Germany 1,388 14 113 81 -1.81
3 Sweden 984 9 83 55 -1.80
United
4 Kingdom 2,007 25 160 121 -1.76
5 Netherlands 3,860 54 297 244 -1.75
6 France 355 2 33 16 -1.73
7 Denmark 1,385 17 113 81 -1.73
8 Finland 624 6 55 33 -1.71
9 China 250 1 25 10 -1.68

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 2

Rank Flag Inspections Detentions Black to Grey to Excess

2008-2010 2008-2010 Grey Limit White Limit Factor

10 Greece 1,475 21 120 87 -1.66

Man, Isle of,
11 UK 883 11 75 49 -1.65
12 Italy 1,487 22 121 87 -1.64
Hong Kong,
13 China 1,422 22 116 83 -1.61
14 Singapore 1,375 24 112 80 -1.52
15 Bahamas 3,628 75 280 228 -1.51
16 Ireland 182 1 19 7 -1.43
Marshall
17 Islands 2,260 49 179 138 -1.42
18 Norway 2,323 51 183 142 -1.42
19 Belgium 231 2 23 9 -1.41
20 Gibraltar, UK 1,301 29 107 75 -1.33
21 Estonia 104 0 12 2 -1.25
22 Cyprus 2,694 76 211 166 -1.20
23 Liberia 4,461 132 341 284 -1.20
24 Croatia 178 2 19 6 -1.10
25 Portugal 542 13 48 28 -1.05
26 Poland 202 3 21 8 -1.00
27 Malta 5,569 200 422 358 -0.99
28 Luxembourg 196 3 20 7 -0.96
Antigua and
29 Barbuda 5,235 195 397 336 -0.94
Cayman
30 Islands, UK 286 6 28 12 -0.93
31 Barbados 527 15 47 27 -0.87
Russian
32 Federation 1,965 80 157 118 -0.70
33 Spain 278 8 27 12 -0.59
34 Lithuania 227 6 23 9 -0.57
35 Turkey 2,294 108 181 140 -0.50
36 Japan 89 1 11 2 -0.44
37 India 138 3 15 4 -0.41
Korea,
38 Republic of 201 6 21 8 -0.35
39 Panama 8,385 476 626 548 -0.30
40 Philippines 231 8 23 9 -0.24
41 Qatar 30 0 5 0 0.00
42 Kazakhstan 30 0 5 0 0.00

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
 FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 3

Table 3 Flag Administrations that have moved from the "Black List" to the "Grey List"
in 2010

Inspections Detentions Black to Excess

Flag State 2008-2010 2008-2010 Grey List Factor
Limit
Belize 660 40 57 0.23
Mongolia 43 4 6 0.65
Jamaica 48 5 7 0.74
Honduras 65 7 8 0.82
Slovakia 234 21 23 0.83
Dominica 167 16 18 0.86
Viet Nam 37 5 6 0.89
Egypt 112 12 13 0.92

Table 4 Flag Administrations on the "Grey List" in 2010

(in order of improving performance)

"Grey List" 2008-2010

Rank Flag Inspections Detentions Black to Grey to Excess

2008-2010 2008-2010 Grey Limit White Limit Factor

United
43 States 128 4 14 4 0.03
44 Thailand 128 4 14 4 0.03
Iran, Islamic
45 Republic of 146 5 16 5 0.03
46 Latvia 144 5 16 5 0.04
47 Vanuatu 177 7 18 6 0.06
48 Faroes 157 6 17 5 0.07
49 Switzerland 94 3 11 2 0.11
50 Malaysia 74 2 9 1 0.11
51 Curaçao, NL 599 35 53 31 0.18
52 Belize 660 40 57 35 0.23
53 Bulgaria 230 13 23 9 0.27
54 Saudi Arabia 62 3 8 1 0.32
55 Morocco 153 11 16 5 0.53
56 Tuvalu 36 3 6 0 0.58
57 Mongolia 43 4 6 0 0.65
58 Jamaica 48 5 7 0 0.74
59 Tunisia 57 6 8 0 0.77
60 Honduras 65 7 8 1 0.82
61 Slovakia 234 21 23 9 0.83
62 Algeria 98 10 12 2 0.84
63 Dominica 167 16 18 6 0.86
64 Viet Nam 37 5 6 0 0.89
65 Cook Islands 150 15 16 5 0.90
66 Egypt 112 12 13 3 0.92

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 4

Table 5 Targeted flag Administrations on "Black List"

(poorest performance first)

"Black List" 2008-2010

Rank Flag Inspections Detentions Black to Grey to Excess Factor

2006-2008 2006-2008 Grey Limit White Limit

Korea, DPR 45 17 6 7.31

Libya 47 14 7 Very 5.09
Togo 150 37 16 High 5.02
Sierra Leone 570 114 50 Risk 4.44
Montenegro 34 10 5 4.43
Albania 222 44 22 3.86
Moldova, Republic
High risk
of 461 77 42 3.31
Cambodia 863 135 73 3.22
St Kitts and Nevis 488 76 44 2.99
Comoros 644 98 56 2.99
Georgia 776 106 67 2.57
Medium
Bolivia 40 8 6 2.24
to high
Lebanon 72 12 9 risk 2.04
Syrian Arab
Republic 246 33 24 2.02
Tanzania United
Rep. 65 10 8 1.62
Medium
Ukraine 471 50 43 1.47
Risk
St Vincent and the
Grenadines 1,957 168 156 1.19
Azerbaijan 69 9 9 1.07

Table 6 Banned ships

Banned ships
In accordance with section 3.10.5 of the 31st amendment to the Paris MoU
(valid till 31 December 2010), a ship without ISM certificates on board had to be detained.
However, if no other deficiencies warranting detention were found, the detention might have
been lifted to avoid port congestion. Ships leaving port under these circumstances were
banned until valid ISM certificates had been issued.

On 1 January 2011 the New Inspection Regime came into force. As a result the ban reason
"no valid ISM Certification" no longer exists as of 2011.

In accordance with section 3.10.5 of the 31st amendment to the Paris MoU
(valid till 31 December 2010), ships are banned after multiple detentions: these ships will be
refused access to any port in the region of the Memorandum.

As a result of the New Inspection Regime the banning criteria for multiple detentions have
been changed. As of 2011 all ships (instead of certain ship types only) under grey and black
listed flags (instead of black listed flags only) can be refused access after multiple detentions.
This is in accordance with section 4.1 of the 32nd and 33rd amendment to the Paris MoU.

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
 FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 5

In accordance with section 3.12 of the 31st amendment to the Paris MoU
(valid till 31 December 2010) and section 4.2 of the 32nd and 33rd amendment of the Paris
MoU, ships which jump detention or fail to call at an indicated repair yard are banned: these
ships will be refused access to any port in the region of the Memorandum.

The following ships were banned in the period from 1 January 2010 to 24 October 2011:

Banning Date of Date of

IMO Name Flag Ban reason
authority ban lift
Saint Kitts 28-05- No valid ISM
7716531 BRUIN Latvia
and Nevis 2010 Certification

STAR 29-05- 31-5- No valid ISM

8915445 Luxembourg Greece
CLIPPER 2010 2010 Certification

30-05- Failed to call at

7206756 THERESE Panama Italy
2010 indicated repair yard
30-08- Failed to call at
7119525 LADY LINA Togo Italy
2010 indicated repair yard
Saint Kitts 19-01-
8826254 ARES II Romania Multiple detentions
and Nevis 2011
Tanzania,
GULF 18-02- Failed to call at
7214557 United Croatia
FOREST 2011 indicated repair yard
Republic of
22-02-
8016665 MEROPA Dominica France Multiple detentions
2011
01-03-
7035482 CONSTANTZA Comoros Bulgaria Multiple detentions
2011
Moldova, 30-04-
7600586 MANSOUR M Greece Multiple detentions
Republic of 2011
12-05-
8223098 CHLOE Panama Slovenia Multiple detentions
2011
07-06-
7920364 TUZLA Belize Slovenia Multiple detentions
2011
24-6- 24-9-
8903040 VECTIS ISLE Comoros Greece Multiple detentions
2011 2011
13-07-
7633193 FARWA Libya Slovenia Multiple detentions
2011
Moldova, 15-07-
7005683 ORION-1 Greece Multiple detentions
Republic of 2011
Tanzania,
15-07-
7368061 ELA United Bulgaria Multiple detentions
2011
Republic of
Saint Kitts 16-07-
8817813 NAVAGA Italy Multiple detentions
and Nevis 2011
03-08-
8110021 NASEM Bolivia Greece Multiple detentions
2011
03-08-
8015568 ERSEL Togo Bulgaria Multiple detentions
2011
19-08- Failed to call at
7809390 MING FA Sierra Leone Latvia
2011 indicated repair yard

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc
FSI 20/INF.3
Annex 2, page 6

Banning Date of Date of

IMO Name Flag Ban reason
authority ban lift
Moldova, 31-08-
7901693 ZIAD JUNIOR Croatia Multiple detentions
Republic of 2011
Moldova, 06-09-
7310973 DANA-1 Germany Multiple detentions
Republic of 2011
Saint Vincent
09-09-
7833119 VILGA and the Greece Multiple detentions
2011
Grenadines

* Please note that the particulars of the ships on this list are only updated on request of the
banning authority. The main identifier of a banned ship is the IMO number.

** The full list of banned ships is available on the Paris MoU-website at www.parismou.org.

___________

I:\FSI\20\INF-3.doc