1. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONVENTIONS Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Mou on PSC)

2. Definition of MoU A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. documentbilateralmultilateral Expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. Often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. More formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreementgentlemen's agreement

3. Definition of MoU

4. MoU In Public International Law Fall under the broad category of treaties. Should be registered in the United Nations treaty database. Sometimes kept confidential as ‘secret diplomacy’. Legally binding document

5. Advantages of MoUs MoUs can be put into effect in most countries without requiring parliamentary approval. MoUs are often used to modify and adapt existing treaties. The decision concerning ratification determined by the parties' internal law and depends to a large degree on the subject agreed upon.

6. Examples to MoUs The MoU Relating to the Treaty between the USA and the USSR on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems on May 26, 1972 signed by US President Richard Nixon and the USSR States updating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty The MoU on Labour Cooperation between The People’s Republic of China, Singapore and New Zeland on 2008, in parallel with their respective free trade agreements The MoUon Hijacking of Aircraft and Vessels and Other Offenses between the US and Cuba, meant to criminalize hijacking in both countries (February 3, 1973)

7. Historical Outlook of MoU on Port State Control The origins of port state control=8 North Sea States signed in Hague in 1978. The background of this memorandum is that in 1976 a maritime session of the International Labour Conference adopted the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, more commonly known as ILO Convention No. 147. This Convention aimed to inspect vessels that entered the ports of member states.

8. Historical Outlook of MoU on Port State Control On March 2,1978 the Hague Memorandum was signed by the maritime authorities of 8 countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany FR, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) which decided that this Convention deserved a proper follow up. The aim of the memorandum was to surveillance the seagoing ships generally in order to ensure that requirements stated under the ILO Convention No. 147, as well as in other Conventions, were met.

9. Amocco Cadiz Incident – 16.03.1978

10. Amocco Cadiz Incident Just as the Hague Memorandum was about to come into effect, in March 1978 Amoco Cadiz incident happened. Amoco Cadiz was a very large crude carrier (VLCC) owned by Amoco, that ran aground on Portsall Rocks, 3.1 nm from the coast of Britanny,France, on 16 March 1978, and ultimately split in three and sank, all together resulting in the largest oil spill of its kind in history to that date.largest oil spill 219,797 tons of light crude oil and 4,000 tons of fuel oil being spilled into the sea.

11. Historical Outlook of MoU on Port State Control This incident caused a strong political and public demand in Europe for much more stringent regulations with regard to the safety of shipping. Following these developments, the ministers responsible for maritime safety of 13 European countries, together with the representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, IMO and the International Labour Organization (ILO) met in Paris in December 1980.

12. Historical Outlook of MoU on Port State Control They agreed that the elimination of substandard shipping would be best achieved by co-ordination of port states and based on the provisions of a number of widely accepted international maritime conventions, the so called relevant instruments. 2 nd ministerial conference, again in Paris, in January 1982, the present Paris MOU on Port State Control was adopted and signed by the maritime authorities of 14 states.

13. Historical Outlook of MoU on Port State Control The Paris MOU has been in operation since July 1982 For the first time, a regular and systematic control of ships was exercised by a regional group of port states which are parties to the relevant Conventions. The Paris MOU is the model upon which other regions of the world base their agreements on port state control. Since its entry into force, the number of states in the Paris MOU has grown. This has mainly been due to the increase in the number of member states of the EU.

14. MoUs Around the World At present there are 9 regional agreements on port state control and these have a total of 135 member states ( Around % 90 of the coastal states are members of MoUs) These regional agreements are namely; 1) The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control 1982 (Paris MOU) 2) The Acuerdo De Viña del Mar Agreement on Port State Control 1992 (Latin American Agreement) 3) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region 1993 (Tokyo MOU) 4) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Caribbean Region 1996 (Caribbean MOU) 5) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Mediterranean Region 1997 (Mediterranean MOU) 6) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control For the Indian Ocean Region 1998 (Indian Ocean MOU) 7) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for the West and Central Africa Region 1999 (Abuja MOU) 8) The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Black Sea Region 2000 (Black Sea MOU) 9) The Riyadh Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Gulf Region 2004 (Riyadh MOU)

15. MoUs Around the World Signatories to the Paris MOU (blue), Tokyo MOU (red), Indian Ocean MOU (green), Mediterranean MOU (dark green), Acuerdo Latino (yellow), Caribbean MOU (olive), Abuja MOU (dark red), Black Sea MOU (cyan) and Riyadh MOU (navy).

16. Organizational structure of MoUs Port State Control Committee Secretariat  Technical Working Groups  Advisory Board Information Centre Member Countries Observers (IMO,ILO,Other MoUs)

17. The organization consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers the waters of the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. Annually more than 24.000 inspections take place on board foreign ships in the Paris MoU ports Target rate: 25% of the foreign vessels calling at this state The executive body of the Paris MOU is the Port State Control Committee. It is composed of the representatives of the 27 participating maritime authorities and the European Commission. Secretariat Paris MoU on PSC is in The Hague-The Netherlands. The Port State Control Committee meets once year, or at shorter intervals if necessary. Paris MoU

18. Organizational Structure-Paris MoU

19. Paris MoU- Member States Belgium Germany Norway Bulgaria Greece Poland Canada Iceland Portugal Croatia Ireland Romania Cyprus Italy Russian Federation Denmark Latvia Slovenia Estonia Lithuania Spain Finland Malta Sweden France Netherlands United Kingdom

20. Paris MoU-Targeting Selection of ships for inspection Every day a number of ships will be selected for a Port State Control inspection throughout the region. To facilitate such selection, the central computer database, known as ‘THETIS’ is consulted by PSCO’s This information system, hosted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), informs national PSC authorities which ships are due for an inspection. Data on ships particulars and reports of previous inspections carried out within the Paris MoU region are provided by the information system as well.

21. Paris MoU-Facts & Figures

23. Banning-Refusal of Access 1. In accordance with section 4.1 of the Paris MOU, ships are banned after multiple detentions: these ships will be refused access to any port in the region of the Memorandum for a minimum period. The refusal of access following multiple detentions will become applicable as soon as the ship leaves the port or anchorage. 2. In accordance with section 4.2 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.

24. Banning-Refusal of Access

25. Permanent Banning

26. The Acuerdo De Viña del Mar Agreement on Port State Control Held on 5 November 1992 in Viña del Mar,Chile Presently formed by 13 Maritime Authorities Member States :Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela,Cuba, Bolivia, Honduras Secretariat and database (CIALA) in Buenos Aires, Argentina Every year, Maritime Authorities inspect at least 20% of the total foreign vessels entering their ports. A vessel is not inspected again during the same 6-month term unless deficiencies are detected, it carries dangerous goods or it is a passenger ship or a bulk carrier. In order to avoid unfair competition among ports, similar treatment is conferred to all vessels disregarding flag. 2010 facts: 8584 inspections,107 detentions.Detention rate% 1,25

27. Tokyo MoU Signed: 1 December 1993,Effective Date:1 April 1994 Secretariat in Tokyo, Japan Asia Pasific Computerized Information system (APCIS) located in Vladivostok, Russian Federation Signed by 18 states : Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, The Philippines, The Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Vietnam Target rate %50 of foreign vessels calling at that state In 2010, 25,762 inspections, involving 14,536 individual ships, were carried out on ships registered under 101 flags. 1411 ships detained, detention rate %5,48 Turkey in Black list (60 inspections 6 detained ships -detention rate % 10)

28. Caribbean MoU Signed in Christ Church, Barbados on February 9, 1996 Presently formed by 15 members: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, the Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Bahamas, Belize, Cayman Islands,Cuba,St. Kitts and Nevis Secretariat in Barbados, Caribbean Information centre (CMIC) in the Netherlands Antilles In 2010 815 inspections were held, 12 ships detained detention rate %1,48

29. MedMoU Signed in Valletta-Malta on July 11 1997 Presently formed by 10 countries:Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan Secretariat in Alexandria-Egypt Information centre at Casablanca-Morocco In 2010,6784 inspections, 528 detentions.Detention rate %7.7 Since 1999, PSC inspections according to Med MoU has been carried out in Turkey ( Marmara Sea, Agegean and Mediterranean Coasts)

30. Indian Ocean MoU Signed in Goa-India on January 22 1999 Members of 19 countries:Australia, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Eritrea, France(La Reunion Island), India, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Oman, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Yemen Secretariat and information centre in Goa-India 2010 facts: 5513 inspections,471 detentions. Detention rate% 8,54

31. Abuja MoU Namely as ‘West and Central Africa MoU’ Signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on 22nd October 1999 22 member states: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote d’ Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, The Gambia, and Togo Secretariat and information centre in Lagos,Nigeria 2010 facts: 1966 inspections, 15 detentions. Detention rate % 0,78

32. Black Sea MoU Signed in İstanbul, Turkey on 1 April 2000 6 member states: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine Secretariat in İstanbul,Turkey Information centre located in Moscow,Russia 2010 facts: 4929 inspections, 286 detentions. Detention rate % 7,44 In Turkey’s Black Sea coasts PSC inspections has been conducted according to BSMoU

33. Riyadh MoU Namely as ‘MoU in the Gulf Region’ Signed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in June 2004 6 member states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE Secretariat and information centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2010 facts: 2046 inspections, 74 detentions. Detention rate % 3,6

34. PSC in the USA The USA does not take part in any of the regional agreements on PSC. It undertakes control measures on a unilateral basis. On May 1, 1994 the US Coast Guard introduced its revised port state control initiative. Primary objective :Identify high risk foreign merchant ships based on the performance records of their owners, operators, classification societies and flag states; and to systematically target ships for boarding.

35. PSC in the USA The US exercises its port state control authority through the US Coast Guard’s long standing foreign vessel boarding program In US Port State Control system the following have been considered as the primary factors in making the decision to conduct an onboard inspection:  Owners and operators’ list;  Classification societies;  Flag states;  The boarding history of the vessel;  Vessel type.

36. USCG PSC Boarding Priority Matrix The possibility of a foreign vessel being boarded is based on the number of points the vessel acquires under the boarding priority matrix. However, the points assigned to a vessel under this targeting regime do not classify the vessel as substandard. The boarding matrix is used to decide which ships port state control officers should board on any given day, in any given port.

37. Priority Matrix-USCG OwnerFlagClassHistoryShip Type 5 points Listed owner or operator 7 points Listed Flag State Priority I Ten arrivals with detention ratio more than 4 times the average OR Ten arrivals and involved with at least one detention in the previous 3 years. 5 points each Detention within the previous 12 months. 1 point Oil or chemical tanker. 5 points Ten arrivals with a detention ratio between 3&4 times the average. 1 point each Other operational control within the previous 12 months. 1 point Gas Carrier 3 points Ten arrivals with a detention ratio between 2&3 times the average. 1 point each Casualty within the previous 12 months. 2 points Bulk Freighter over 10 years old. 1 point Ten arrivals with a detention ratio between the average and twice the average. 1 point each Violation within the previous 12 months. 1 point Passenger Ship 0 points Ten arrivals with a detention ratio below the average OR Ten arrivals with no detentions in the previous three years. 1 point each Not boarded within the previous 6 months. 2 points Carrying low value commodities in bulk. Priority I Vessels: 17 or more points on the Matrix (Port entry of these vessels may be restricted until they are examined by the Coast Guard) Priority II Vessels: 7 to 16 points on the Matrix(Cargo operations of these vessels may be restricted until the vessels are examined by the Coast Guard) Priority III Vessels: 4 to 6 points on the Matrix(there are no restrictions on commencement of cargo transfer operations or passenger embarkation) Priority IV Vessels: 3 or fewer points on the Matrix (not targeted for boarding, but may be boarded and examined by USCG)

38. No more favourable treatment principle In applying a relevant instrument (convention) for the purposes of port State control, the principle of “no more favourable treatment” is applied to ships which fly the flag of a State which is not a party to that convention. In such a case ships shall be subject to a more detailed inspection and the PSCO will follow the same guidelines as those provided for ships to which the relevant instruments are applicable.

39. Appeal Process In PSC inspections of any MoU’s, all possible efforts made to avoid unduly detaining or delaying a ship. Owner or the operator has a right of appeal against a detention taken by the Port State Authority. An appeal will not cause the detention to be lifted. It is not easy to find successful cases where an owner has successfully recovered compensation following detention by a PSCO

40. Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CIC) Focus on a particular area on board Aim to gather information on the compliance with international regulations applicable to that specific area and help improve compliance Carried out over a period of 3 months Examples to CIC’s: ( Pilot Ladder, Oil Record Book, Working and Living Conditions, ISM Implementation, Structural Safety for Bulk Carriers, Safety of Navigation, Lifeboat on load release, MARPOL An-II, Damage Stability, Load line,GMDSS etc.. )

41. Turkish flag PSC performance on Paris MoU Inspection and detention ratio of Turkish flagged vessels in Paris MoU: 2011 (10 month period) 476/21(%4.4) Year 2010 781/34 (%4.3) (white list) Year 2009 738/34 (%4.6) (white list) Year 2008 774/40 (%5.1) (white list) Year 2007 670/41 (%6.1) (grey list) Year 2006 595/42 ( %7.0) (grey list) Year 2005 586/45 ( %7.7) (black list)

42. Turkish flag PSC performance on Med MoU Inspection and detention ratio of Turkish flagged vessels in Med MoU:  Year 2011 (10 month period) 246/16(%6.5)  Year 2010 291/19 (%6.5)  Year 2009 347/20 (%5.7)  Year 2008 334/17 (%5)  Year 2007 264/17 (%6.4)

43. Turkish flag PSC performance on BSMoU Inspection and detention ratio of Turkish flagged vessels in Black Sea MoU:  Year 2011 (10 month period) 550/25 (%4.5)  Year 2010 647/15 (%2.3)  Year 2009 724/19 (%2.6)  Year 2008 755/21 (%2.7)  Year 2007 711/24 (%3.3)

44. END THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION…