PORT STATE CONTROL (PSC)
INSPECTIONS: THE ROLE OF
THE FLAG STATE
1
Ship2Shore and IRI/The Marshall Islands Registry Seminar
Genoa, 22 April 2016
Presented by:
Captain Theodore Lalas
Fleet Operations Manager
PSC originates from the 1978 “Hague Memorandum” when
“Amoco Cadiz” ran aground in Brittany, France. An indication was
that the shipowners, Recognized Organizations, and the flag State
administrations had failed to comply with the requirements of the
international maritime conventions.
In 1982, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was
founded, combining inspection efforts of vessels calling in 14
Western European countries. Today, there are 27 participating
Member Authorities.
The Tokyo MoU was formed in Tokyo on 1 December 1993 and
came into effect on 1 April 1994. Currently, the MoU has 20 full
Members.
The MoU’s main objective is to establish an effective PSC regime
through cooperation of its members, harmonization of the
members’ activities, to eliminate substandard shipping, to promote
maritime safety, to protect the marine environment, and to
safeguard seafarers working and living conditions onboard ships.
PSC HISTORY
2
To reach the main objectives, the MoUs, apart from PSC
inspections, conduct Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CICs)
to identify compliance, interpretation, understanding, and
effectiveness of old and new requirements.
Paris and Tokyo MoUs reaching out to joint CICs for certain topics
/periods as agreed upon while other MoUs consequently follow this
process too.
PSC HISTORY (continued)
3
International Maritime Organization Procedures for Port State
Control, 2011 (Resolution A.1052(27)), adopted on 30 November
2011.
1.7 Definitions:
1.7.3 Deficiency: A condition found not to be in compliance
with the requirements of the relevant convention.
1.7.4 Detention: Intervention action taken by the port State
when the condition of the ship or its crew does not correspond
substantially with the applicable conventions to ensure that the
ship will not sail until it can proceed to sea without presenting a
danger to the ship or persons on board, or without presenting
an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment,
whether or not such action will affect the normal schedule of
the departure of the ship.
PSC HISTORY (continued)
4
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Eliminate the operation of
substandard ships
Uniformity
Interpretation by different
members / inspectors
Monitoring tool
Performance indicator
Inspection efforts in the
past against risk based
inspection
Public information
Costs
5
FRIEND OR FOE
FRIEND:
Uniform approach / unified
interpretation
Monitoring tool and
performance indicator
Risk based
FOE (enemy):
Individual approach
Public information
Costs
6
Flag’s mission (high
standards, quality ships)
Take responsibility
Exchange information
Communicate at different
levels
Challenge / reason
Brief ship crew /
familiarization
WHAT DOES THE FLAG STATE DO?
7
Professional approach
Similar goals
Information
Communication
Supporting evidence
Workable
“Wild cards”
Owners and flag can work with PSC
Are the majority of PSC inspections carried out beneficial?
CONCLUSION
8
PARIS MoU DETENTIONS 2015
11
Source: Paris MoU’s online Inspections Results, Key Performance Indicators as of 20 April 2016
Disclaimer: “Paris MoU and EMSA assume no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions resulting from (or pursuant to) errors or omissions in data
submitted to or retrieved from the system. No part of the information contained in this website may be stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or
by any means without prior authorisation in writing from the owners of the data.”
MEDITERRANEAN MoU DETENTIONS 2015
12
Source: Mediterranean MoU’s Inspection Database as of 20 April 2016
TOP DEFICIENCIES CAUSING DETENTIONS
13
Indian Ocean MoU
2012 2013 2014
Safety of
Navigation 15.79% 15.78% 15.58%
Fire Safety 15.08% 14.87% 14.68%
Life-saving
Appliances 10.43% 10.54% 10.14%
Work Conditions 7.97% 8.26% 5.43%
Paris MoU
2012 2013 2014
Fire Safety 15.20% 13.57% 13.43%
Safety of
Navigation 13.84% 13.98%
13.
47%
Working Conditions
(International
Labour
Organization 147)
10.29% 9.33% 4.77%
Life-saving
Appliances 8.92% 9.22% 8.73%
Tokyo MoU
2012 2013 2014
Safety of
Navigation
17.
07% 17.08% 15.89%
Fire Safety 20.45% 18.41% 18.60%
Life-saving
Appliances 12.03% 12.08% 11.74%
Load Lines 6.73% 6.19% 6.49% United States Coast Guard (USCG)
2012 2013 2014
Firefighting
Appliances 17% 31% 17%
Marine Pollution 23% 18% 17%
International Safety
Management (ISM) 13% 10% 21%
Propulsion and
Auxiliary Machinery 7% 7% 6%
Mediterranean MoU*
2011 2012 2013
Safety of
Navigation 23.10% 21.66% 20.9%
Stability, Structure,
and Related
Equipment
10.46% - -
Working and Living
Conditions - 15.51% 16.53%
Propulsion and
Auxiliary Machinery 9.72% 8.22% 8.11%
Life-saving
Appliances 7.65% 8.88% 8.43% *2014 Annual Report Not Published
Source: Annual Reports
DETENTIONS BY VESSEL TYPE
14
Indian Ocean MoU
2012 2013 2014
Bulk Carrier 190 185 191
General Cargo /
Multipurpose 94 61 61
Container 38 38 38
Oil Tanker 31 19 13
Chemical Tanker 32 13 10 Tokyo MoU
2012 2013 2014
Bulk Carrier 395 409 370
General Cargo /
Multipurpose 624 574 483
Container 154 135 136
Oil Tanker 41 40 39
Chemical Tanker 53 45 28 USCG
2012 2013 2014
Bulk Carrier 39 53 61
General Dry Cargo 16 12 16
Container 14 19 22
Ro/Ro 13 10 15
Chemical Tanker 7 6 5
Paris MoU
2012 2013 2014
Bulk Carrier 83 115 113
General Cargo /
Multipurpose 368 361 305
Container 47 47 29
Oil Tanker 16 18 19
Ro/Ro 29 22 24 Mediterranean MoU*
2011 2012 2013
Bulk Carrier 41 35 24
General Cargo /
Multipurpose 311 310 183
Container 11 17 12
Oil Tanker 5 0 5
Ro/Ro 6 11 9
Source: Annual Reports
*2014 Annual Report Not Published