713
1 INTRODUCTION
Approximately 80% to 90% of all trade is carried out by
sea transportation, which has a high carrying capacity
and low costs. This mode of transportation aided
growth and prosperity of global trade but also resulted
in serious environmental pollution issues and
maritime traffic accidents [1]. The maritime sector
plays an important role in both domestic as well as
international trade, significantly contributing to the
prosperity of the global economy. Its efficiency in
transporting goods across vast distances is essential for
the functioning of global supply chains and the overall
economic growth of nations [2]. Ensuring safety is an
essential component of sustainable maritime
transportation. As a result, the body in charge of
overseeing ship operations needs to create a stronger
monitoring system, specifically regarding safety
management [3]. Maritime shipping is the safest, most
economical, energy-efficient, and environmentally
benign forms of commercial transportation is likened
to other transportation modes. Enforcing shipping
safety regulations is the responsibility of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), which has
Analysis of PSC Inspection Trend Based on Regional
MoU Agreement Annual Report and Expert Survey
A. Junaidi
1
, H. Yudo
2
& H. Ab-Samat
1
1
University of Science Malaysia, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
2
Diponegoro University, Semarang, Java, Indonesia
ABSTRACT: Port State Control (PSC) refers to the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to ensure
compliance with international conventions and regulations. When an inspector identifies clear ground during
inspection, they are permitted to detain the ship until all deficiencies are rectified. Therefore, this study aims to
develop a comprehensive analysis framework to identify the trend of PSC detention based on the regional MoU
agreement annual report and specific expert surveys. A traditional computer analysis method was used for data
from the annual report of Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU from 2019 to 2023. A survey was carried out to get feedback
from expert with various education, experience and areas of expertise. The validity test was assessed based on
the (KMO) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and the (MSA) Measure of Sampling Adequacy for each indicator. The
number of ship inspection decreased in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic but steadily increased until 2022
across both regional MoU agreements over the last ten years. Paris MoU reported a significant drop to 385 ships
in 2020, followed by a increase to 736 ships in 2022. Similarly, Tokyo MoU recorded 493 ships in 2020 and 1334 in
2023. The ISM-related deficiencies consistently have highest percentage compared to other types of deficiency.
Poor maintenance during this period was identified as the primary factor contributing to ship detentions. PSC is
an important instrument for ensuring that the ship's and its equipment's condition complies with international
regulations. Subsequently, the ISM is the most important factors in ship operations, particularly since it is the
primary reason ships are detained during PSC inspections. The results of this study offer valuable insights into
the marine sector, particularly for ship managers and shipping companies, as well as possible avenues for future
research on issues related to port state control (PSC).
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 20
Number 3
September 2026
DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.03.18
714
made extensive international maritime safety
legislation [4].
According to the 1978 Hague Memorandum, the
PSC regime was established to prevent the use of
substandard ships globally [5]. This law was made in
order to reduce the number of substandard ships,
guarantee shipping and employee safety, prevent ship
pollution, and protect the maritime environment. The
PSC inspections based on regional schemes are carried
out in accordance with the relevant MOU or agreement
[6]. The shipowner, flag State Control Officer, and port
State Control Officer (PSCO) should be involved in this
procedure [7].
Nine regional Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) agreements on the PSC have been signed: the
Paris MoU-1982 for Europe and the North Atlantic, the
Vina Del Mar Agreement (1992) for Latin America, the
Tokyo MoU-1993 for Asia-Pacific, the Caribbean MoU-
1996) for the Caribbean region, the Abuja MoU-1999 for
West as well as Central Africa, the Black Sea MoU-2000
for the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean MoU-
1998) for the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf
(Riyadh MoU-2004). The tenth PSC regime is upheld
by the US Coast Guard. As an international
organization, the IMO has awarded observer status to
all regional PSC administrations. Their representatives
attend IMO meetings and give the Sub-Committee on
Implementation of IMO Instruments (III Sub-
Committee) a tone of information about their yearly
activities. The data provided can be used to assess the
extent to which ships adhere to the IMO regulations,
which is a viewer body for all regional PSC regimes [8].
Twenty-seven Maritime Authorities have an
administrative agreement known as the Paris MoU on
PSC. Several Western European marine authorities
developed the "Hague Memorandum" in 1978. The
primary focus was to uphold the ILO Convention No.
147's requirements for living and working situations
aboard ships. In line with this, during a ministerial
conference in Paris, France, in January 1982, fourteen
European nations signed a new Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control, which started
operations on July 1st, 1982. Since then, the IMO has
changed the Paris Memorandum multiple times to
incorporate new safety and marine climate rules as
well as standards about the living and working
conditions of seafarers. The group grew to include
twenty-seven member states [9]
The Tokyo MoU is one of the world's busiest
regional PSC organizations. There are 22 member
authorities in the Asia-Pacific area that make up this
organization. The Tokyo MoU's primary goals are to
stop substandard shipping to promote maritime safety,
save the marine environment, and preserve living and
working conditions on board ships. This MoU also
aims to establish an effective port state control power
in the Asia-Pacific region through member
collaboration and harmonization of activities [10].
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Port State Control (PSC) General Introduction
PSC is the process of inspecting foreign ships in
domestic ports to ensure the compliance of staff and
management with international standards, and that
their condition and equipment meet those
requirements [11]. Safety is a significant factor closely
related to ship management and operation in the
context of sustainable maritime transportation [12].
The appropriate authorities in nations all over the
world have implemented PSC to enhance the safety of
marine transportation. This includes ship inspection
procedures designed to assess the safety advantages of
current inspection rules and specific areas for
additional development [13].
The MoU encourages shipowners to register their
vessels under flags with low detention rates, as the flag
state has taken the necessary actions to ensure
adherence to its core responsibilities. If a ship is found
to have a deficiency due to non-compliance with the
IMO regulations, the ship may be detained until the
deficiency is rectified. Based on the PSC inspections,
there is great improvement in shipping's marine safety
[14]. Inspections conducted by PSC specifically target
vessels that do not meet the necessary criteria and do
not comply with the international maritime
regulations. Despite their high expense, many of these
inspections do not find any deficiencies and many do
not lead to any detentions [15]. Another study showed
significant elements of COVID-19’s impact on shipping
and logistics as well as on PSC inspection [16]. Other
study focused on energy efficient of inland cargo ships
based on fuel oil consumption [17]. The PSC inspection
also has to define the scope of PSC inspections for
specific items onboard ships. The International
Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International
Labour Organization (ILO) developed and ratified a
number of conventions and codes, including the
Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006, Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS), and Marine Pollution (MARPOL).
In most MOUs, the conventions and codes are among
the pertinent documents that serve as the foundation
for PSC inspections [18].
2.2 PSC focus trend
A previous study identified four key points: selecting
ships for PSC inspection, implementing the new
inspection regime (NIR), identifying any deficiencies
during PSC inspection, and ships detention under PSC
inspection. A great deal of investigation has been
carried out using PSC inspection data to define the
focus of inspections [19]. Another study assessed the
current ship selection procedures used in various ports
and proposed new ship selection strategies [20].
Considering the limited resources and inspection costs,
efficient inspection planning and selection are essential
for guaranteeing safe ship operations through PSC
inspection. However, a number of strategies have been
created to address this issue. Using the learning
libraries balanced random forest (BRF) classifier is one
such technique to set ships for inspection [21].
Similarly, another approach used a Bayesian Network
(BN) to evaluate detention risk and pinpoint associated
variables, considering shipowners and port
authorities’ information on ship selection priorities
[22].
Another area of attention for PSC inspection is the
NIR, which has been considered to be the most
important and revolutionary development in the PSC
system in recent years. A macroscopic comparison
715
analysis was carried out to determine the ways in
which the NIR enhances the PSC inspection system.
The NIR's major objective was to encourage high-
quality shipping while strengthening regulations and
detention of ships with inadequate maintenance [23].
The purpose of PSC inspections is to identify serious
deficiencies in vessels and lower the risk of shipping
casualties. Reducing or eliminating ship detentions in
the future depends on analyzing the results of PSC
inspections on shortcomings. By identifying important
types of deficiency, the BN model has also been used
to streamline the PSC inspection process and
investigate the effects of different factors on ship
accidents [24]. Since shortages are a significant factor in
ship arrests, several studies have focused on
investigating the causes and trends of ship detentions.
Specific type deficiencies have been identified to
effectively identify substandard vessels [15].
2.3 Effect on PSC detention
The maritime sector may be greatly impacted by a
ship's detention, specifically for managers or operators.
Previous studies have employed various techniques,
such as BN models, to assess ship detention and PSC
effectiveness [24]. To find regularity issues during PSC
detention, each detention factor underwent extra pre-
processing after data from the Tokyo MoU region's
PSC detention database from 2000 to 2016 was
assessed. The outcomes of the association rule-based
big data analysis offered countermeasures that ship
management might use as a guide [25]. A strategic
management strategy was the foundation of one study
that might offer direction to shipowners or managers.
The fault tree method was used to analyze data derived
from 6,374 deficiencies identified on 2,653 detained
ships in the Black Sea Region, as recorded in the
detention list between 2005 and 2006 [26]. To
comprehend detention records worldwide, it is
important to examine PSC detention statistics from
various PSC regimes. This analysis aims to pinpoint the
crucial elements that PSC officials should prioritize
when choosing which foreign vessels to check [5].
2.4 The factor of Detention
A company's reputation may suffer, and financial
losses may arise from the detention of ships.
Investigations should, however, examine the
connections between deficiencies and their effects on
detentions to identify the kye reasons for detentions of
various types of vessels. To identify serious
deficiencies that resulted in vessel detentions,
Association Rules and PSC inspection data from 2014
to 2020 was used [27]. To examine the elements
influencing and contributing to the ship's detention, a
study using a BN model was created. The flag state,
ship type, recognized organization (RO), inspection
authority, and ship age are all considered in the
analysis. These results would help shipowners and
PSC officers identify important issues for enhancing
environmental sustainability, maritime safety, and
creating a cleaner environment [28], the trend of safety
management system implementation has been
highlighted in other study [29].
Another study uses the Entropy-based Grey
Relation Analysis (GRA) method to identify the most
important deficiency types that led to ship detentions
before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Association Rule Mining (ARM) method was used to
examine the frequency of cooccurrence of deficiency
types in order to uncover hidden relationships between
them [30]. Additionally, by integrating the cloud
model, criteria interaction through the inter-criteria
correlation (CRITIC) approach, as well as prospect
theory, one study seeks to develop a thorough analysis
framework to pinpoint the crucial deficiency effecting
ship detention choices [1].
The review showed that none of these studies
identify the PSC detention based on the annual reports
from the regional MoU agreements and to obtain a
comprehensive overview of trends of PSC inspection
and important factors of ship detention. To determine
the relationship between the factors and the type of
detainable deficiencies, the total of detentions, and the
number of inspections, this study thoroughly reviewed
the annual reports of regional MoU agreements from
the Paris and Tokyo MoU from 2019 to 2023. Expert
responses to the PSC detention questionnaire were also
gathered to obtain their thoughts on trends in PSC
inspections and have been analyzed.
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
PSC inspections are carried out on nearly all seas to
ensure that foreign ships visiting ports are fit to sail on
the sea should not cause any pollution risk and secure
a healthy and safe environment. These inspections also
define that only high-standard ships are used by
authorized personnel trade and ensure that these ships
comply with the national and regulations of countries
as well as the international regulations. If any
significant deficiencies are identified, the ship will be
diverted and directed to correct the defects before
departure.
The Paris MoU consists of 28 partaking maritime
Administrations as well as covers the waters of the
European coastal States as well as the North Atlantic
basin from North America to Europe. Meanwhile,
Tokyo MoU region consists of a total of 21 maritime
authorities in the Asia-Pacific region. In this study, the
data of ship inspections based on the annual report of
Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU from 2019 to 2023 were
analyzed using a traditional analysis method to
evaluate the trend of the total of ship inspections. The
total of ship detentions and the most frequent
detainable deficiencies are analyzed, with the
methodology shown in Fig. 1. A specific survey was
carried out to obtain feedback from experts. The
weights between 1 and 9 was set to determine the level
of response. A total of 30 reports were received from
experts with different educational experience and
expertise.
In this study, the questionnaire developed identify
the current trend of PSC inspection and to obtain
feedback from experts related to port state control
inspection, the effect on ISM implementation on PSC
inspection and the influence of the COVID-19 on the
implementation of ISM audit and PSC inspection on
ships. The validity test conducted for this study is
grounded in the (KMO) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
and the (MSA) Measure of Sampling Adequacy for
716
each indicator. MSA values for individual items
provide valuable understanding of the adequacy of
each item in the analysis, where values above 0.5
generally show adequacy [31]. The detailed
breakdown of the MSA and factor loadings across
various indicators within the scope of the study will be
presented in a specific table.
Figure 1. Methodology approach
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many IMO conventions include requirements for the
administrative inspection of foreign ships calling at
ports to ensure compliance with IMO standards
outlined in devices to which the port state is a party,
while adhering to the principle of 'no more favorable
treatment. Inspectors shall perform a more detailed
examination if there are clear grounds to consider that
the condition of the ship or its gear does not
substantially connect with the details of the
certifications or that the master or crew are not
conversant with crucial onboard procedures. When
exercising control, every effort must be taken to save a
ship from being unnecessarily incarcerated. A ship’s
master as well as owner are trustworthy for repairing
as well as rectifying any detainable faults before the
ship can sail again.
A variety of summaries and descriptions related to
PSC inspections over specific time periods can be
viewed and analyzed in the Paris MoU's annual report.
Over 70,000 ships were examined yearly on average
over the last 10 years, from 2013 to 2023, while 18,447
ships were checked under the Paris MoU in 2014. Due
to the COVID-19 epidemic, ship inspections decreased
in 2020, totaling 13,168 vessels, and then increased
steadily until 2023, totaling 16,769.
Figure 2 shows the total of ships incarcerated
throughout that era. The number of ships detention
fluctuated or increased and decreased between 2013
and 2023. The biggest total of detentions occurred in
2022 with 736 ships, while the fewest occurred in 2020
with 385 ships. Because fewer ships were inspected
that year, this figure is rather constant.
Figure 2. The number of ship detention Paris MoU period
2013 until 2023.
In the meantime, there are variations in the
proportion of detention within the same period, with
the largest percentage occurring in 2022 at 4.25% and
the lowest percentage occurring in 2020 at 2.92%. Based
on the data, it can be deduced that over the last decade
(2013–2023), there was a significant decline in the total
of ship inspections and detentions in 2020, primarily
attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a
notable increase in both metrics was observed in the
subsequent years as the pandemic's impact subsided.
During a PSC inspection, deficiencies are a critical
concern. If a ship is found to have deficiencies, it may
be detained, which can have significant negative
consequences for the ship's manager or owner.
Detainable deficiencies were also noted in the Paris
MoU's yearly report; a number of these deficiencies
consistently resulted in ships being placed in
detention. According to the report, as compared to
other detainable deficiencies, ISM-related deficiencies
consistently have the highest percentage and number.
A breakdown of the proportion of defects is shown in
Figure 3, with 1781 deficiencies (4.47%) in 2019, 1298
deficiencies (4.65%) in 2020, 1777 deficiencies (4.9%) in
2021, 2248 deficiencies (4.8%) in 2022, and 2283
deficiencies (4.8%) in 2023.
Figure 3. The deficiency elated to ISM in Paris MoU period
2019 until 2023
Numerous statistics pertaining to PSC inspections
over time periods can be described and observed in the
Tokyo MoU yearly report. Over the past decade (2013–
2023), an average of 30,000 ships were inspected
annually. The number of inspections remained
relatively consistent between 2013 and 2019, with the
highest recorded figure in 2017, when 31,678 ships
were inspected. The COVID-19 caused a sharp drop in
717
2020, with only 19416 ships inspected. And then the
number of inspections continues to increase from 2021
to 2023 with the number of ships inspected at 30,887.
From 2013 to 2019, the number of ships detained
steadily reduced. In 2013, there were 1395 ships
detained; by 2019, that number had dropped to 983.
According to Figure 4, there was a significant decline
in ship detentions in 2020, with only 493 ships
detained. This was followed by an increase in
subsequent years, reaching 1,334 detentions in 2023.
However, this trend differs from the detention
percentage, which decreased from 4.5% in 2013 to
2.96% in 2018, experienced fluctuations, and then rose
to 4.32% in 2023.
Figure 4. The number of ship detention during period 2013
until 2023 (Tokyo MoU).
The most commonly detainable deficiencies are also
listed in the annual report. Ship detention is generally
caused by a number and type of deficiencies, although
ISM-related deficiencies are always higher than other
deficiencies. Figure 5 shows how the ISM-related
deficiency consistently demonstrates a high number.
There were 113 inadequacies in 2019, 85 in 2020, 76 in
2021, 140 in 2022, and 235 in 2023. With 122 problems
overall, lifeboat-related deficiencies were the most
common in 2019. These statistics highlight the critical
importance of the ISM Code in ship operations. A
detention can have substantial repercussions for
various stakeholders, including the owner, ship
manager, and charterer, underscoring the necessity of
strict compliance with ISM standards.
Figure 5. The most frequent of detainable deficiency in Tokyo
MoU period 2019-2023
4.1 Feedback review from expert on PSC Inspection and
Safety Management System
The idea behind the establishment of PSC inspection
regimes was that shipowners shouldn't use maritime
safety to their financial advantage. To ensure that
foreign ships and their tools comply with international
laws, and that they are manned and managed in
accordance with these standards, specific rules and
procedures must be consistently followed across all
jurisdictions. An expert survey on port state control
inspection, the impact of ISM implementation on PSC
inspection, and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic
on the implementation of ISM audit and PSC
inspection on ships was carried out to determine the
present trend of PSC inspection.
4.2 Respondent Characteristics
Insightful respondent features that greatly aid in
comprehending the deployment of safety management
systems on board ships to lessen PSC detention is
shown by the examination of questionnaire data from
Table 1. Most responders (43.3%) were from
Classification Societies, which highlights the
participation of experts who are highly involved in the
technical and classification facets of marine safety. This
is particularly crucial for the study's focus on safety
management systems, as adherence to these standards
ensures the effectiveness and reliability of such
systems. Additionally, with contributions from Flag
Administrations (13.3%), Ship Management
Companies (23.3%), and other organizations (20.0%),
the respondents' varied organizational connections
provide a thorough viewpoint from a range of
maritime industry players.
Table 1. Respondent Characteristics
Characteristics
f
%
Company or Recognize
Organization
Classification Society
13
43.3
Flag Administration
4
13.3
Others
6
20.0
Ship management company
7
23.3
Working Period at
Company
0-5 years
4
13.3
5-10 years
6
20.0
More than 10 years
20
66.7
Education
Bachelor’s degree
19
63.3
Master’s degree
11
36.7
The fact that 66.7% of the respondents had worked
in the field for more than ten years shows how deep the
practical insights derived from extensive experience
are. The prevalence of this group, along with the
participation of individuals with 5–10 years (20%) and
0–5 years (13.3%) of experience, guarantees that the
study covers a wide range of professional stages and
enhances the results with a combination of new and
experienced viewpoints.
The KMO measure and the MSA for each indicator
serve as the foundation for the validity test carried out
for this study. One statistic that shows the percentage
of variance among variables that may be common
variance is the KMO measure. The value is between 0
and 1, with values nearer 1 showing that the dataset
might benefit from factor analysis. The validity test
results presented in Table 2 provides useful insights
into the effectiveness of each section of the
questionnaire in addressing the study objectives.
Specifically, the results assess how well the
718
questionnaire evaluates the implementation of safety
management systems on board ships and their impact
on reducing PSC detentions.
The survey items may capture the subtleties of the
study's focus areas, according to the validity tests
conducted throughout the questionnaire's many
sections, which show a generally good level of
appropriateness for factor analysis. The variations in
factor loadings within and across sections show the
degree to which each indicator is in line with its
respective construct. This analysis not only highlights
the strengths of the indicators but also shows potential
areas for improvement.
Table 2. The Validity Test Result
Part
Indicator
MSA Loading
KMO
Part I Port State Control (PSC)
in General
p1.1.
0.666
0.720
p1.2.
0.759
(0.000)
p1.3.
0.831
p1.4.
0.783
p1.5.
0.550
Part II Port State Control (PSC)
Inspection Selection
p2.1
0.786
0.702
p2.2
0.658
(0.000)
p2.3
0.654
p2.4
0.844
p2.5
0.372
Part III Port State Control
Detention
p3.1
0.482
0.657
p3.2
0.752
(0.000)
p3.3
0.789
p3.4
0.622
p3.5
0.696
p3.6
0.591
p3.7
0.838
Part IV The effect of ISM
implementation on Port State
Control Detention
p4.1
0.640
0.638
p4.2
0.549
(0.000)
p4.3
0.688
p4.4
0.538
p4.5
0.709
Part V Effect of the Covid-19
pandemic on PSC Inspection on
board Ship
p5.1
0.646
0.718
p5.2
0.717
(0.000)
p5.3
0.845
p5.4
0.747
p5.5
0.633
Part VI Effect of the Covid-19
Pandemic on ISM audit on
board Ship
P6.1
0.564
0.543
P6.2
0.674
(0.049)
P6.3
0.521
P6.4
0.429
P6.5
0.638
Part VII Port State Control after
Covid-19 Pandemic
P7.1
0.396
0.618
P7.2
0.555
(0.000)
P7.3
0.746
P7.4
0.762
P7.5
0.679
P7.6
0.534
4.3 Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 represents Part I of the survey and provides
valuable information on how marine stakeholders
examine the importance and effectiveness of PSC.
Using a Likert scale with 1 denoting "strongly disagree"
as well as 9 denoting "strongly agree," the descriptive
statistics present the respondents' overall perspective
on several PSC-related topics.
Table 3. Part I General Port State Control Inspection
Part I General Port State Control Inspection
Mean
score
(p1.1) Port State Control is a very important instrument and
to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment
comply with the requirements of international regulations.
8.3333
(p1.2) Port State Control (PSC) inspections to ensure the
safety of ship navigation and prevent marine pollution.
7.9333
(p1.3) The results of the PSC inspection can describe the
general condition and seaworthiness of the ship.
7.7667
(p1.4) Port State Control (PSC) inspections can help ship
owners/managers to improve compliance to the
international convention and regulations.
8.1000
(p1.5) PSC is the authority of the local Maritime Port
Authority to carry out inspections on foreign ships.
8.0333
Source: Appendix
The conclusions drawn from this part show a deep
understanding and agreement regarding the important
role that PSC plays in the marine regulatory
environment. The highest mean score of 8.3333, which
reflects the verification role of Port State Control (PSC),
shows unanimous agreement on the importance of PSC
in ensuring that ships and their equipment comply
with international standards. This high valuation
emphasizes how crucial PSC is to preserving
international marine safety and legal compliance.
Furthermore, with a mean score of 7.9333, the
significance of PSC inspections in advancing
environmental preservation and navigational safety is
firmly confirmed. The PSC's crucial role in reducing
marine pollution and protecting the marine ecology is
widely acknowledged, as evidenced by this score.
Table 4. Part II PSC inspection selection
Part II PSC inspection selection
Mean
score
(p2.1) PSC inspection is carried out based on selection by
considering several factors.
7.5333
(p2.2) PSC inspection selection is based on the age of the
ship.
6.7667
(p2.3) PSC inspection selection is based on the history of
the ship's condition.
7.4000
(p2.4) PSC inspection selection is based on vessel
registration.
7.0000
(p2.5) PSC inspection selection is based on the trading
area of the ship.
6.3333
Source: Appendix
An understanding of the factors effecting the
selection of ships for PSC inspections can be derived
from the analysis of Table 4, which corresponds to Part
II of the questionnaire on PSC Inspection Selection.
First off, a mean score of 7.5333 shows that PSC
inspections are acknowledged to be based on a
complex selection process. This shows that a significant
number of respondents agreed that several variables
are considered throughout the selection process,
highlighting the intricacy and consideration that go
into PSC inspections procedures. With a mean score of
6.7667, the ship's age factor shows a relatively solid
consensus regarding its relevance in inspection
selection process. And there was a score of 6.3333 that
trading area of the vessel is considered for vessel
inspections selection. In conclusion, the results from
Part II of the survey show how complicated the PSC
inspection selection procedure is and stakeholders are
aware of the complex process used to establish
inspection priorities, which considers the ship's age,
trading area, registration, and condition history. These
opinions highlight how PSC inspections are strategic
719
and focused, with the goal of maximizing safety and
compliance results in the marine sector.
Table 5. Part III Port State Control detention
Part III Port State Control Detention
Mean
score
(p3.1) Based on PSC detention data shows that most of the
vessel was detained due to non-compliance with
international conventions and regulations.
7.9667
(p3.2) Based on PSC detention data shows that vessels with
a certain registry will have the potential for higher
detentions.
7.0333
(p3.3) Based on PSC detention data shows that older vessels
will have a higher detention potential.
7.4667
(p3.4) Based on PSC detention data shows that some types
of vessels will have a higher detention potential.
7.4000
(p3.5) Based on PSC detention data shows that the ship
manager will have some influence on the potential for
detention.
7.5333
(p3.6) Based on PSC detention data shows that the type and
number of deficiencies during inspection will affect the
potential for detention
7.7333
(p3.7) Based on PSC detention data shows that vessels with
poor safety management (ISM Code) implementation will
have higher detention potential.
8.4000
Source: Appendix
The Part III of the questionnaire focused on PSC
detention which show the detail of the result in Tabel
5. An average score of 7.9667 suggests that most
respondents believe ships in custody are detained due
to non-compliance with international conventions and
regulations. The average value of 7.0333 shows that
respondents felt that ships with specific flag registries
have a higher potential of detention, even though the
registry does not result in the ship being detained. The
average value was 7.4667 with respect to the ship's age,
showing that the detention risk increases with ship age.
Additionally, the type of ship and the company that
manages the ship are also factors that lead to detention;
both have average scores of 7.4000 and 7.7533,
respectively. The type and number of deficiencies
identified during PSC inspections also contribute to the
likelihood of detention and the average score for this
category was 7.7333. The highest average score was
8.4440 for the ISM implementation factor, which is the
primary cause of ship detention. This means that ships
with inadequate safety management system
implementation will have the highest potential for
detention.
Table 6. Part IV The effect of ISM implementation on PSC
Detention
Part IV The effect of ISM implementation on PSC Detention
Mean
score
(p4.1) Based on PSC detention data shows that the
percentage of detention due to ISM Code implementation is
still high.
7.9667
(p4.2) PSC detention due to deficiency related to ISM factor
because it is influenced by the number of finding during
PSC inspection.
7.6333
(p4.3) Several elements of the ISM code show that element
10 (maintenance of ship and equipment) is the most cause
of ship detention.
8.0000
(p4.4) In regard to element 10 in the ISM code, the most
finding (non-conformity) was identified during the ISM
external audit.
7.2667
(p5.5) From various results of the ISM audit and PSC
inspection element 10 became the cause of finding and PSC
detention.
7.7667
Source: Appendix
Results from PSC inspections regarding the
implementation of the ISM Code and the reasons for
ship detentions by Port State Control are showed
through an analysis of Table 6. This table corresponds
to Part IV of the questionnaire, which examines the
impact of ISM Code application on PSC detentions. The
respondents assigned an average score of 7.6333 to this
section, showing agreement that the ship's
imprisonment was primarily due to the numerous
deficiencies identified during inspection. This can be
interpreted as proof that the ship did not comply with
the ISM Code. With a score of 8.0000, the opinion that
the ISM Code article 10 (control of ship and equipment)
is the most frequent reason for ship detention during
PSC inspection had the highest average score. This
shows how important ISM implementation on board
ship while the ship is in operation. When ISM Code
element 10 was assessed during ISM audits and PSC
inspections, respondents generally agreed on the
results, with an average score of 7.7667. According to
the different surveys above, participants concur that a
high probability of ship detention can result from
inadequate of ISM implementation.
Table 7. Part V Effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on PSC
Inspection
Part V Effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on PSC Inspection
Mean
score
(p5.1) Due to restrictions, the percentage of PSC
inspections on board has decreased.
6.8333
(p5.2) Due to restrictions, PSC inspection was not carried
out in many ports.
6.5333
(p5.3) Due to restrictions, inspection on board can only be
done by following very strict rules.
7.2333
(p5.4) Due to restrictions, the number of ships used as
inspection targets is significantly reduced.
7.0333
(p5.5) Due to restrictions, inspection process is not optimal
compared to before the pandemic.
7.4000
Source: Appendix
Table 7 describes Part V of the questionnaire, which
shows how the COVID-19 has impacted the activity of
PSC inspections aboard ships. This discussion
provided several valuable information on how the
COVID-19 affected the perform of PSC examinations
aboard ships. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a
reduction in ship inspections, as indicated by the
average questionnaire score of 6.8333. The item stating
that PSC inspections were not conducted at some ports
because of the COVID-19 pandemic then received an
average score of 6.5333. The PSC inspection can still be
carried out with extremely stringent guidelines,
though, and responders received a respectably high
average score of 7.2333 in this portion. With an average
score of 7.4000, respondents showed that PSC
inspections were less optimal during the pandemic
compared to pre-pandemic periods. In conclusion, this
suggests that the COVID-19 especially impacted the
PSC inspection process aboard ships in numerous
ports around the world.
720
Table 8. Part VI Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on ISM
audit on board Ship
Part VI Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on ISM audit
Mean
score
(p6.1) It was very challenging to carry out the ISM audit
onboard ship during COVID-19 pandemic.
8.1667
(p6.2) Some Recognize Organizations (ROs) conduct ISM
on-board audits remotely with flag state approval during
COVID-19 pandemic.
7.7000
(p6.3) The audit process remotely is not optimal compared
to coming directly (physical) audits.
8.0667
(p6.4) The results of the remote audit do not reflect the
actual implementation conditions on board the ship.
7.1333
(p6.5) It was challenging the Implementation of the ISM
code on ships during a COVID-19 pandemic.
7.5000
Source: Appendix
In relation to Part VI of the survey, which examines
how the COVID-19 outbreak has affected the execution
of ISM audits aboard ships are shown in Table 8. The
effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
implementation of ISM audits on board ships and the
difficulties encountered in doing this on-board audit
The highest average questionnaire score of 8.1667
indicates increased difficulty in conducting ISM audits
during the pandemic. Respondents offered this
component an average score of 7.7000, showing that
several RO conducted ISM audits remotely with Flag
state approval due to limitations. Although audits can
be conducted remotely, the implementation procedure
and audit outcomes are not as good as those conducted
on board the ship.
Respondents assigned a relatively high average
score of 7.1333 to the statement that the results of
remote audits do not accurately reflect the conditions
of ISM Code implementation on board the ship. The
average questionnaire score of 7.5000 indicates that
implementing ISM onboard ships is a significant
challenge for ship management companies. The results
of the above questionnaire show that the COVID-19
has impacted various sectors, including the maritime
industry. Specifically, it has affected the performance
of the ISM Code on board ships and the audit
procedures that RO are required to conduct.
Table 9. Part VII Port State Control after COVID-19
Pandemic
Part VII Port State Control after COVID-19 Pandemic
Mean
score
(p7.1) After COVID-19 Pandemic, the percentage of PSC
inspections on board ship is significantly increased.
7.9667
(p7.2) The number of ships detention has increased
significantly after the COVID-19 pandemic.
7.5667
(p7.3) Based on the deficiency report, it shows that ship
maintenance is the cause of the ship being detained.
7.7000
(p7.4) This shows that the implementation of ISM during
the pandemic was very weak or reduced.
7.2000
(p7.5) The implementation of ship maintenance by the ship's
manager during the pandemic was decreased and resulting
in the ship not being properly maintained.
7.2000
(p7.6) Due to less of on-board ship maintenance, it resulted
in results during PSC inspections and caused the number of
detentions to increase after the pandemic ended.
7.4333
Source: Appendix
The implementation of PSC inspections on ships
after the COVID-19 pandemic ended is highlighted in
an analysis of Table 9, which corresponds to Part VII of
the questionnaire. The data reveals an increase in the
percentage of vessels imprisoned and the prevalence of
specific deficiencies identified during inspections. The
average score of 7.9667, the highest value in this
section, showed that most respondents agreed with the
assertion that the percentage of ship inspections by
PSC increased following the COVID-19 pandemic. In
this session, respondents assigned an average score of
7.5667, showing that the number of ships detained by
the PSC has also increased. Additionally, the average
score of 7.2000 shows that the ship's maintenance by
the manager was reduced, which contributed to an
increased likelihood of detention. Ship maintenance
declined after the pandemic, leading to an increase in
Port State Control (PSC) inspection findings,
particularly those related to inadequate upkeep. This
deterioration significantly contributed to a rise in the
detention of vessels. The average score for this issue
was recorded at 7.4333. Due to poor maintenance
during the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be inferred
that both the percentage of PSC inspections and the
total of ships under detention increased after the
pandemic ended.
5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STUDY
In conclusion, sea vehicles are one of the safest options
for travel and play an essential role in the world
economy. The purpose of PSC inspections is to ensure
that foreign vessels entering their ports provide
adequate living and working situations for their crews
and adhere to international safety, security, as well as
environmental regulations. This study shows that, on
average, over 70,000 ships were examined annually
from 2013 to 2023. In comparison, the Tokyo MoU
region saw an average of 30,000 ship inspections per
year during the same period. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, ship inspections decreased in 2020, and then
increased steadily until 2022 in both regional MoU
agreements. Regarding ship detentions, data from the
Paris MoU over the last ten years shows a decline in
detentions during PSC inspections, reaching a low of
385 vessels (2.92%). However, this figure dramatically
increased to 736 vessels (4.25%) in 2022. The total of
ship detentions corresponds to the number of the PSC
inspections conducted in the same year. A similar
trend was observed in the Tokyo MoU, where
detentions decreased to 493 vessels (2.54%) in 2020 but
increased significantly to 1,334 vessels (4.32%) by 2023.
According to the report, as compared to other
detainable deficiencies, ISM-related deficiencies
consistently show the highest percentage and number.
These statistics clearly demonstrate that the ISM Code
is a crucial aspect of ship operations, as it is often the
primary reason for ship detentions during PSC
inspections. Consequently, if ship management aims to
minimize or prevent detentions, the effective
performance of the ISM Code is essential for their
success. From the results of the expert questionnaire,
this shows that PSC is an important instrument for
ensuring that the ship's and its equipment's condition
complies with international regulations. Element 10 of
the ISM Code, which deals with ship and equipment
maintenance, is the leading reason for ship detention,
according to PSC detention data. Vessels with
inadequate safety management (ISM Code)
implementation will have a higher detention potential.
Due to restrictions, there were fewer PSC inspections
and ship detentions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, conducting an ISM audit on board a ship
721
during this time was extremely difficult. Following the
COVID-19 pandemic, the number of PSC inspections
on board ships and ship detentions increased
significantly. It is recommended that further
investigation be conducted to identify the primary
contributing factors and key shortcomings that led to
ship detentions during PSC inspections. Numerous
studies have shown that the maritime industry will be
greatly impacted by ship detention, especially for ship
managers or operators, because of cargo delivery
delays. To obtain more precise and reliable analysis
results, as well as potential solutions and actions that
can be implemented to avoid or at least reduce ship
detention during PSC inspection, a specific analytical
approach may be applied.
REFERENCE
[1] Zhu JH, Yang Q, Jiang J. Identifying crucial deficiency
categories influencing ship detention: A method of
combining cloud model and prospect theory. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf. 2023;230:108949. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108949
[2] Oloruntobi O, Mokhtar K, Gohari A, Asif S, Chuah LF.
Sustainable transition towards greener and cleaner
seaborne shipping industry: Challenges and
opportunities. Cleaner Eng Technol. 2023;13:100628.
doi:10.1016/j.clet.2023.100628
[3] International Maritime Organization (IMO). The
International Safety Management (ISM) Code. 2021.
Available from:
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Page
s/ISMCode.aspx
[4] Bai M, Tian Y, Yu Y, Zheng Q, Zhang X, Zheng W, Zhang
Z. Application of a hydroxyl-radical-based disinfection
system for ballast water. Chemosphere. 2018;208:541–549.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.010
[5] Şanlıer Ş. Analysis of port state control inspection data:
The Black Sea Region. Mar Policy. 2020;112:103757.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103757
[6] Emecen Kara EG, Oksas O. A comparative analysis of
regional agreements on port state control. Am Sci Res J
Eng. 2016;18(1):259–270. Available from:
http://asrjetsjournal.org/
[7] Dock A, Linders J, David M, Gollasch S, David J, Ziegler
G. Are workers on board vessels involved with chemicals
from treated ballast water sufficiently protected? – A
decadal perspective and risk assessment. Chemosphere.
2020;247:125824. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125824
[8] Xiao Y, Qi G, Jin M, Yuen KF, Chen Z, Li KX. Efficiency of
Port State Control inspection regimes: A comparative
study. Transp Policy. 2021;106:165–172.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.04.003
[9] Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU). A
short history of the Paris MoU on PSC. 2021:3–4.
[10] Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MoU).
About Tokyo MoU. 2021.
[11] Chen J, Zhang S, Xu L, Wan Z, Fei Y, Zheng T.
Identification of key factors of ship detention under Port
State Control. Mar Policy. 2019;102:21–27.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.020
[12] Oloruntobi O, Mokhtar K, Mohd Rozar N, Gohari A, Asif
S, Chuah LF. Effective technologies and practices for
reducing pollution in warehouses – A review. Cleaner
Eng Technol. 2023;13:100622.
doi:10.1016/j.clet.2023.100622
[13] Heij C, Bijwaard GE, Knapp S. Ship inspection strategies:
Effects on maritime safety and environmental protection.
Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2011;16(1):42–48.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.006
[14] Knapp S, Bijwaard G, Heij C. Estimated incident cost
savings in shipping due to inspections. Accid Anal Prev.
2011;43(4):1532–1539. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.005
[15] Cariou P, Wolff FC. Identifying substandard vessels
through Port State Control inspections: A new
methodology for concentrated inspection campaigns.
Mar Policy. 2015;60:27–39.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.013
[16] Hirata E, Matsuda T. Uncovering the impact of COVID-
19 on shipping and logistics. Marit Bus Rev.
2022;7(4):305–317. doi:10.1108/MABR-03-2021-0018
[17] Hasan SMR, Karim MM. Energy-efficient inland cargo
ship design based on fuel consumption and CO₂ emission
control using CFD. J Nav Archit Mar Eng. 2023;20(3).
doi:10.3329/jname.v20i3.63664
[18] Chuah LF, Mohd Salleh NH, Osnin NA, Alcaide JI,
Abdul Majid MH, Abdullah AA, Bokhari A, A Jalil EE,
Klemeš JJ. Profiling Malaysian ship registration and
seafarers for streamlining future Malaysian shipping
governance. Aust J Marit Ocean Aff. 2021;13(4):225–261.
doi:10.1080/18366503.2021.1878981
[19] Junaidi A, Yudo H, Ab-Samat H. Identification of data
analysis methods and focus trends in port state control
inspections: A comprehensive literature review. Int J
Technol. 2024;15(1):179. doi:10.14716/ijtech.v15i1.6492
[20] Yan R, Wang S, Peng C. Ship selection in port state
control: status and perspectives. Marit Policy Manag.
2021. doi:10.1080/03088839.2021.1889067
[21] Yan R, Wang S, Peng C. An artificial intelligence model
considering data imbalance for ship selection in port state
control based on detention probabilities. J Comput Sci.
2021;48:101257. doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2020.101257
[22] Liu K, Yu Q, Yang Z, Wan C, Yang Z. BN-based port state
control inspection for Paris MoU: New risk factors and
probability training using big data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf.
2022;224:108530. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108530
[23] Yang Z, Yang Z, Teixeira AP. Comparative analysis of
the impact of new inspection regime on port state control
inspection. Transp Policy. 2020;92:65–80.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.04.009
[24] Fan L, Zhang Z, Yin J, Wang X. The efficiency
improvement of port state control based on ship accident
Bayesian networks. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab.
2019;233(1):71–83. doi:10.1177/1748006X18811199
[25] Tsou MC. Big data analysis of port state control ship
detention database. J Mar Eng Technol. 2019;18(3):113–
121. doi:10.1080/20464177.2018.1505029
[26] Akpinar H, Sahin B. Strategic management approach for
port state control: The Black Sea Memorandum of
Understanding detention analysis. Marit Bus Rev.
2019;5(3):281–293. doi:10.1108/MABR-10-2019-0043
[27] Chen Y, Lou N, Liu G, Luan Y, Jiang H. Risk analysis of
ship detention defects based on association rules. Mar
Policy. 2022;142:105123. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105123
[28] Chuah LF, Mohd Rof’ie NR, Mohd Salleh NH, Abu
Bakar A, Oloruntobi O, Othman MR, Mohamed Fazlee
US, Mubashir M, Asif S. Analyzing the influencing factors
of Port State Control for a cleaner environment via
Bayesian network model. Cleaner Eng Technol.
2023;14:100636. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2023.100636
[29] Junaidi A, Yudo H, Ab-Samat H. Identify the trends on
maritime safety management system studies: A review.
TransNav. 2024;18(4):775–784. doi:10.12716/1001.18.04.03
[30] Çelik Maşalacı B, Çakır E. Differences in deficiency types
causing ship detentions at the Black Sea Region during
the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic. Mar Policy.
2023;151:105553. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105553
[31] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate
Data Analysis. 8th ed. Cengage Learning; 2019. Available
from: www.cengage.com/highered
