Port State Control

ANCORS
 Summary
• Overview
• Nature and Origin of Port State Control
• Grounds for Port State Control
• Exercise of Port State Control
• Regional Port State Control Agreements
• Physical Inspection
• Certificates and Documentation
• Standards

ANCORS
 • Paris MOU
– Vetting Process
– Inspection
– Overriding and Unexpected factors
– Inspection Process
– Clear Grounds
– Limitations
– Identification of a Substandard Ship
– Detention
– Banning
– “No more favourable treatment”
• Problems with Port State Control
• Conclusion

ANCORS
 Overview
• Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national
ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment
comply with the requirements of international regulations and that
the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules.
• These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag
State implementation, but experience has shown that they can be
extremely effective, especially if organized on a regional basis.
• The primary responsibility for ships' standards rests with the flag
State - but port State control provides a "safety net" to catch
substandard ships.

ANCORS
 Nature and Origins of Port State Control
• once a ship voluntarily enters port it becomes fully
subject to the laws and regulations prescribed by the
laws of that State
• the practice of the majority of ports, at least until the
last decade, was to give scant inspection to calling
vessels.
• Torrey Canyon (1967)
• Amoco Cadiz (1978)

ANCORS
 Grounds for Port State Control
• Two arguments to justify the exercise of PSC:
– The right to self-protection for its own citizens and the
environment against dangers presented by substandard ships; and
– International enforcement of conventions dealing with safety at
sea, by preventing unseaworthy ships from proceeding to sea.
• Port state control is premised on the right of coastal states to
exercise power over their internal waters also archipelagic waters
• internal waters are under the complete sovereignty of the coastal
state and, as such, visiting merchant ships must comply with the laws
of the coastal state.

ANCORS
 • There exists no general right of access of foreign ships to the ports of a coastal state
– Treaties of Commerce, Friendship, and Navigation
– Geneva Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports
(1923)
• Foreign merchant ships in internal waters are under the complete civil and criminal
jurisdiction of the coastal state
– 1) an offense committed on board the foreign ship disturbs the peace and good
order of the port;
– 2) its intervention is requested by the ship's master or the flag state's consul;
– 3) a person who is not a member of the ship's crew is involved; or
– 4) the coastal state's national interests require an assertion of jurisdiction .

ANCORS
 • Now, PSC inspections are conducted to ensure that
– foreign ships are seaworthy;
– do not pose a pollution risk;
– provide a healthy and safe working environment;
– do not pose a threat to the security of a port State; and
– comply with the relevant International Conventions.

ANCORS
 Exercise of Port State Control
• Port States can only apply those provisions of the
conventions that are in force and to which they are a Party
– Exxon Valdez
– Erika
– Prestige
– Ievolo Sun
• those States that have effective Flag State administrations
usually have the most effective PSC

ANCORS
 Regional Port State Control Agreements

• Regional PSC Agreements arose in response to the public

and industry-created demand for a cooperative or
regional approach to encourage port states to enhance
enforcement of marine pollution and vessel safety laws
against visiting vessels.
• Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in
Implementing Agreements on Maritime Safety and
Protection of the Marine Environment, 1982 (Paris MOU)

ANCORS
 • Since the setting up of the Paris MOU, the value
of regional co-operation has been recognised
and a number of regional agreements have been
signed by countries with an interest in
promoting safer, cleaner and secure seas.
• nine regional PSC Memoranda of Understanding
plus the United States Coastguard.

ANCORS
 • 1982 Paris MOU (North Atlantic)
• 1992 Acuerdo de Vina del Mar (South and Central America)
• 1993 Tokyo MOU (Pacific Ocean)
• 1996 Caribbean MOU
• 1997 Mediterranean MOU
• 1998 Indian Ocean MOU
• 1999 West and Central African MOU
• 2000 Black Sea MOU
• 2004 Riyadh MOU

ANCORS
 • The Parties agree to inspect an agreed number of foreign-flag ships
visiting their ports each year.
• The MOU establishes a permanent secretariat to co-ordinate the
various national activities and provide for a regional database.
• In general, ships inspected within the previous six months are not
re-inspected unless there are clear grounds for doing so.
• Another reason for co-operating with other ports in the region is to
ensure that identified substandard ships are effectively monitored.
• Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CIC)

ANCORS
 Physical Inspection
• PSCO inspects certificates issued under a number of
conventions including – SOLAS, MARPOL etc.
• The PSCO can form an impression as to the general
condition of the ship, its equipment and crew, but cannot
take any action to delay or detain the vessel unless there
are “clear grounds” for believing that the condition of the
ship, its equipment, or the crew do not substantially
correspond with the particulars of the certificates. can look
behind documents if there are “clear grounds” for doing so

ANCORS
 Limitations of Inspection

• If the certificates are valid and the PSCO’s

general impression and visual observations on
board confirm a good standard of maintenance,
the PSCO should generally confine the inspection
to reported or observed deficiencies, if any.
• General Procedural Guidelines (IMO Res
A.787(19))

ANCORS
 Certificates and Documentation

• a number of international maritime conventions with

PSC provisions – SOLAS, Load Lines, MARPOL, STCW,
ITC.
• Over 200 IMO Assembly Resolutions
• ILO Maritime Labour Convention; Merchant Shipping
(Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976
• Guidelines authorising organisations to act on behalf
of an Administration” (Resolution A.739(18))
ANCORS
 Standards

• there is some need for consistency in

application of standards contained in
international conventions providing for PSC
• Harmonised System of Survey and
Certification (IMO Resolution A.718(17))
• IMO guidelines for the planning of surveys of
bulk carriers and tankers.
ANCORS
 Paris MOU - Background
• 27 maritime administrations and covers the waters of the
European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from
North America to Europe.
• current version is 23 May 2014
• not an international convention, but rather an administrative
agreement.
• marks the common will of its signatories to have relevant
conventions enforced strictly, while providing the means of
doing so.

ANCORS
 Paris MOU - Preambles
• Mindful that the principal responsibility for the effective application
of standards laid down in international instruments rests upon the
authorities of the State whose flag a ship is entitled to fly;
• Recognizing nevertheless that effective action by port States is
required to prevent the operation of substandard ships;
• Recognizing also the need to avoid distorting competition between
ports;
• Convinced of the necessity, for these purposes, of an improved and
harmonized system of port State control and of strengthening co-
operation and the exchange of information

ANCORS
 Paris MOU – Vetting Process
• each ship is categorised into high risk, standard risk
and low risk in accordance with the criteria set out in
Annex 7;
• flag States categorised based on the results of its
flagged ships into “white”, “grey” and “black” and
correspond roughly to the three levels of vessel.
– for 2015, a total number of 73 flags are listed: 43 on the
“White List”, 19 on the “Grey List” and 11 on the “Black List”.

ANCORS
 Paris MOU - Inspection

• For HRS – between 5-6 months after the last

inspection in the Paris MoU region.
• For SRS – between 10-12 months after the last
inspection in the Paris MoU region.
• For LRS – between 24-36 months after the last
inspection in the Paris MoU region.

ANCORS
 • two priorities:
– Priority I: ships must be inspected because either
the time window has closed or there is an
overriding factor
– Priority II: ships may be inspected because they are
within the time window or the port State considers
an unexpected factor warrants an inspection

ANCORS
 Paris MOU - Overriding and Unexpected Factors

• Overriding and Unexpected factors are set out in Annex 8

– overriding factors listed are considered sufficiently serious to
trigger an additional inspection at Priority I;
• Ships reported by another Member State or the secretariat
excluding unexpected factors,
• Ships involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their
way to port,
• Ships accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on
discharge of harmful substances or effluents,

ANCORS
 • Ships which have been manoeuvred in an erratic or
unsafe manner whereby routing measures, adopted by
the IMO, or safe navigational practices and procedures
have not been followed,
• Ships which have been suspended or withdrawn from
their Class for safety reasons after last PSC inspection,
• Ships which cannot be identified in the database.

ANCORS
 • Unexpected factors could indicate a serious threat to the safety
of the ship and the crew or to the environment but the need to
undertake an additional inspection is for the professional
judgement of the Authority.
– Unexpected factors could indicate a serious threat to the safety of the
ship and the crew or to the environment but the need to undertake an
additional inspection is for the professional judgement of the Authority.
These factors include:
• Ships reported by pilots or relevant authorities which may include information
from Vessel Traffic Services about ships’ navigation,
• Ships which did not comply with the reporting obligations,

ANCORS
 • Ships reported with outstanding deficiencies
• Previously detained ships (3 months after the detention),
• Ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the
master, a seafarer, or any person or organization with a legitimate interest
in the safe operation of the ship, ship on-board living and working
conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Member State
concerned deems the report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded,
• Ships operated in a manner to pose a danger,
• Ships reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular noxious
or dangerous cargo,
• Ships carrying certificates issued by a formerly Paris MoU recognized
organization whose recognition has been withdrawn since the last
inspection in the Paris MoU region.
ANCORS
 Commitment 1.3:
– Each Authority will carry out an inspection on
every foreign merchant ship of Priority I calling at
one of its ports or anchorages,
– Each Authority will carry out a total number of
inspections of foreign merchant ships of Priority I
and Priority II which corresponds at least to its
annual inspection commitment
ANCORS
 Clear Grounds
• Clear grounds include:
– ships with overriding and unexpected factors as set out in Annex 8;
– evidence from examination of certificates;
– evidence from the ship’s log or other record books such as an oil record book on a
tanker;
– STCW records are issued by a country that has not itself ratified the convention;
– absence of up to date muster lists or crew members;
– complaints about working conditions or other omissions under MLC or other
conventions; or
– that the master or crew are not familiar with essential shipboard operations relating
to the safety of the ship or the prevention of pollution, or that such operations have
not been carried out.

ANCORS
 Substandard Ship
• a ship is regarded as substandard if the hull, machinery, equipment or
operational safety is substantially below the standards required by the
relevant conventions or whose crew is not in conformance with the safe
manning document, as a result of:
– The absence of the principal or arrangement required by the conventions;
– Non-compliance of equipment or arrangement with relevant specifications of the
conventions;
– Substantial deterioration of the ship or its equipment as a result of, for instance,
poor maintenance;
– Insufficiency of operational proficiency, or unfamiliarity of essential operational
procedures by the crew; and
– Insufficiency of manning or insufficiency of certification of seafarers.

ANCORS
 Detention
• Paris MOU in Section 3 sets out the procedures for the
detention of ships
– Timing: ships that are unsafe to proceed to sea will be
detained upon the first inspection irrespective of the time
the ship will stay in port;
– Criterion: the ship will be detained if the deficiencies are
sufficiently serious to merit a PSCO returning to the ship to
satisfy himself that they have been rectified before the ship
sails

ANCORS
 – When deciding whether the deficiencies found on a
ship are sufficiently serious to merit detention, the
PSCO will assess whether:
• the ship has relevant, valid documentation;
• the ship has the crew required in the Minimum Safe
Manning Document.
– PSCO will further assess whether the ship and/or crew
is able to:
• navigate safely throughout the forthcoming voyage;

ANCORS
 • safely handle, carry and monitor the condition of the cargo
throughout the forthcoming voyage;
• operate the engine room safely throughout the forthcoming
voyage;
• maintain proper propulsion and steering throughout the
forthcoming voyage;
• fight fires effectively in any part of the ship, if necessary,
during the forthcoming voyage;
• abandon ship speedily and safely and effect rescue, if
necessary, during the forthcoming voyage;
ANCORS
 • prevent pollution of the environment throughout the
forthcoming voyage;
• maintain adequate stability throughout the forthcoming
voyage;
• maintain adequate watertight integrity throughout the
forthcoming voyage;
• communicate in distress situations, if necessary, during the
forthcoming voyage; and
• provide safe and healthy conditions on board throughout the
forthcoming voyage
ANCORS
 Undue Delay

• All possible efforts should be made to avoid a

ship being unduly delayed or detained. If a
ship is unduly delayed or detained, the
owners may be entitled to compensation for
any loss or damage suffered as a direct result
of such delay or detention. (Paris MOU Article
3.13)
ANCORS
 Banning
• Paris MOU – Section 4:
– Each Authority is recommended to ensure that a foreign
merchant ship is refused access to its ports and anchorages if
it:
• flies the flag of a State appearing in the grey list and has been
detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months
in a port or anchorage within the region of the Memorandum flies
the flag of a State appearing in the black list and has been detained
more than twice in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port
or anchorage within the region of the Memorandum,

ANCORS
 • Any subsequent detention in a port or anchorage shall result in
the ship being refused access to any port or anchorage. This
third refusal of access order may be lifted after a period of 24
months has passed from the issue of the order and only if:
– the ship flies the flag of a State whose detention rate falls neither into
the black list nor the grey list,
– the statutory and classification certificates of the ship are issued by a
organization or organizations which are recognized by one or more of
the Paris MoU Member States as listed in Annex 7,
– the ship is managed by a company with a high performance,
– and the conditions set in a PSCC Instruction are met.

ANCORS
 • ship can also be banned if:
– it proceeds to sea without complying with the
conditions determined by the Authority in the
port of inspection or
– refuses to comply with the applicable
requirements of the relevant instruments by not
calling into the indicated repair yard.

ANCORS
 No More Favourable Treatment
• “All Parties should as a matter of principle apply the procedures…of no-
more- favourable treatment…to ships of non-Parties and ships below
convention size in order to ensure that equivalent surveys and inspections
are conducted and an equivalent level of safety and protection of the
marine environment are ensured.”
• Article II (3) of the Protocol of 1987 to SOLAS ’74; Article 5(4) of MARPOL
73/78 and Article X (5) of STCW’78
• ships registered in non- Party States should be held to the same
international standards as ships registered in the Coastal State, if the
Coastal State is a Contracting Party to one of the conventions (Annex 1.1).
• applies to ships below convention size(Annex 1. 2)

ANCORS
 Problems with Port State Control
• No uniform application in all areas of inspection
• No uniform application between MOU countries
• Two systems – MOU and USCG
• PSC can be used as a political tool
• PSC has a large subjective element
• Compensation for undue delay can be long and
costly
ANCORS
 Conclusion
• PSC has been an active component of shipping regulation for a long time but
its use has changed.
• Shipping involves a great deal of money which is one cause of flags of
convenience
• Shipowners need to bear commercial factors in mind when risking detention:
– Main principle of MOU is name and shame
– Risk of refusal of access and banning
– Expanded inspections for some forms of ships
– Banning rules are extended
• Charterers’ risks
• Effect on flags of convenience problem

ANCORS