Port State Control
Progress and performance
Highlights of the Paris MoU 2023
Content
Summary 2023
Introduction
Chairman and Secretary-General
This year, the Paris MoU presents its Annual Report – that of 2023 – in a new and digital format. Compared to previous versions, the focus of the annual report is now more clearly aimed at the public in general and the shipping sector in particular.
One of the important developments this year was that, as of 1 July 2023, the Maritime Authority of Montenegro became a member of the Paris MoU on port State Control. A relevant consequence of this is that the safety net formed by the joint efforts of the members of the Paris MoU is further strengthened in the Adriatic Sea. Ships whose cargo is destined for mainland Europe have virtually no choice but to disembark that cargo in a port that falls under the Paris MoU regime. This means that those ships are also subject to the risk-based inspection methodology of the Paris MoU.
As this safety net becomes increasingly effective in the Paris MoU region, it is of course also important to eliminate substandard shipping regardless of the region in which it operates. This requires coordination between the various regional port state control regimes including by joining each other’s annual meetings and by simultaneously carrying out (3-month) concentrated inspection campaigns (CIC). This year this involved a CIC on Fire Safety. In addition, an important contribution to mutual coordination and co-operation was made this year by the International Maritime Organization by organising a Workshop for Memoranda on Port State Control.
In last year’s foreword, we expressed our concerns about the high average detention rate in 2022 of 4.18% and the possible link with COVID-19. For 2023 we record a minimal improvement to an average detention rate of 3.81%. Still significantly higher than the average detention rate before COVID-19 emerged (2.94% in 2019). This means that we will continue to monitor developments closely in the coming period. As in previous years we expect that the chain partners in the maritime sector, each with their own responsibilities, will take the measures necessary to guarantee safe and environment-friendly shipping, with adequate working and living conditions on board.
The Paris MoU members and bodies have continued to positively contribute to the goals and results of maritime safety. The European Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) are also thanked for their pro-active co-operation and strong working relationship with the Paris MoU.
In conclusion, the port State control officers are the ones at the heart of the Paris MoU together with their colleagues in the maritime administrations and who together continue to deliver on our common objectives. Special thanks and appreciation go to them.
Paris MoU
Mission & Vision
The mission of the Paris MoU is to accomplish the elimination of substandard shipping by inspecting the ships in the region using a risk-based methodology. This risk-based inspection method ensures that the merchant ships in the region meet the international safety, security and environmental standards, and that crew members have adequate working and living conditions in compliance with the international maritime labour standards.
To actively pursue this mission, the Paris MoU focuses on the elements below:
- The Paris MoU will further develop its risk-based inspection mechanism to more effectively eliminate substandard shipping.
- This will keep pace with developments in technology and digitisation in the maritime industry.
- Increasing attention will be paid to effective control of environmental compliance by ships operating in the region.
- In addition, the Paris MoU will continue to focus on harmonisation within the Paris MoU itself as well strengthen harmonization with other Port State Control Agreements, including by facilitating the use of each other’s data.
- Given the importance that internationally operating fishing vessels are also subject to port State control, the Paris MoU will explore the possibility and feasibility of a port State control regime for fishing vessels.
Members and observers
The Paris MoU consists of the maritime Authorities of: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Montenegro[1], Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation[2], Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Various observer organisations participate in the meetings in the context of the Paris MoU. This concerns the International Maritime Organizations (IMO), the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the following other regional Port State Control Agreements: Abuja MoU, Acuerdo de Viña del Mar, Black Sea MoU, Caribbean MoU, Indian Ocean MoU, Mediterranean MoU, Riyadh MoU, Tokyo MoU and the United States Coast Guard.
[1] From 1 July 2023
[2] Suspended until further notice with effect from 20 May 2022
Main activities of Paris MoU regarding inspections and the harmonisation
Once a year, the Port State Control Committee, which is the executive body of the Paris MoU, meets in one of the member States. The Committee considers policy issues related to the regional implementation of port State control, reviews the work of the Technical Evaluation Group and task forces, and decides on administrative procedures.
The task forces are each assigned a specific work programme aimed at improving operational, technical and administrative port State control procedures. Reports from the task forces are discussed by the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG), in which all Paris MoU members and observers are represented. The evaluation by TEG is submitted to the Committee for final consideration and decision.
The MoU Advisory Board advises the Port State Control Committee on matters of a policy nature and provides direction to the task forces and the Secretariat between meetings of the Committee. The Board meets several times a year and in 2023 consisted of participants from Canada, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and the European Commission.
To achieve its mission, the Paris MoU carries out approximately 18,000 inspections annually. The results of these inspections are published at individual ship level and in various, more general information reports. In addition, of the option is given to download inspection results in bulk.
In order to strive for harmonisation between the member Authorities, the Paris MoU provides trainings and seminars for its Port State Control Officers (PSCOs).
Training plays an important role in achieving the goals of the Paris MoU (the elimination of substandard shipping) and aims to achieve a higher degree of harmonisation and standardisation of inspections across the region. During the year, the Secretariat, in cooperation with member Authorities, organises various trainings:
- Seminars;
- Expert Training (Safety & Environment and The Human Element);
- Specialised Training (Tanker, Bulk Carrier or Passenger Ships).
Participants from all member Authorities participated in one (or more) of the trainings and seminars. Representatives from other MoU Regions participated in various trainings and seminars; sometimes also as a trainer.
The seminar in June was hosted and organised by Canada and the seminar in by the United Kingdom. Some 180 Port State Control Officers took part in one of the training courses and seminars.
Role of EMSA
EMSA supports and advises the Paris MoU in various ways. For example, EMSA manages the information system in which the inspection results are recorded and ensures updates and upgrades to the system. The inspection data recorded in the system is not only relevant as input for the risk-based inspection methodology itself, but is also shared with the IMO in order to draw conclusions about compliance with IMO requirements. In addition, this information is also interesting and relevant for the Paris MoU member Authorities themselves, for the shipping industry and for the general public.
Secondly, EMSA participates in the work of the Paris MoU by attending meetings and participating in task forces to advise the members of possible developments in the European Union with regard to port State control.
In addition, in a joint effort with the Paris MoU, EMSA also offers training for new entrant PSCOs and for experienced PSCOs (refresher trainings). This training programme has been revised during the year and will be delivered in a new format with different modules on specific topics delivered online and face-to-face.
Developments
During the 2023 meeting of the Paris MoU Port State Control Committee (PSCC), several topics were discussed and decided.
The most important decision taken was to accept the maritime authority of Montenegro as a full member of the Paris MoU.
In addition, the Committee discussed the evaluation of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on STCW, held from 1 September to 30 November 2022. A total of 4,112 inspections were carried out using the CIC-questionnaire. A good level of compliance was demonstrated. Detailed information on the CIC results has been made available on the Paris MoU website
International Cooperation
The Paris MoU is actively involved in international meetings and initiatives to enhance the harmonisation in the field of port State control inspections.
The Paris MoU participates every year in the meetings of the IMO Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III Sub-Committee) where information is shared on the inspection results achieved in the previous year. In addition, documents are usually also submitted jointly with other MoUs. An important example of this is the joint submission on “Flag Administrations targeted by the Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU and the United States Coast Guard”.
In addition, the Paris MoU strives to remain actively involved with other MoUs by participating in their Committee meetings when time and costs permit. In 2023, the Paris MoU participated in the meetings of the Abuja MoU, Black Sea MoU, Caribbean MoU, Indian Ocean MoU, Mediterranean MoU and Tokyo MoU.
The Paris MoU also actively participated in the IMO workshop for Port State Control MoU/Agreement Secretaries, Database Managers and Chairpersons. During that workshop it was announced that the IMO would accomodate an overarching webservice where the MoU’s can, in an initial phase, exchange ship particulars and, at a later stage, possibly also inspection results. This development would facilitate the PSCO’s efforts when ships enter from a different region and the PSCO can easily access the most up-to-date data and information.
Performance Lists
The Flag and RO Performance Lists have become an important tool for stakeholders within the maritime industry and beyond.
In terms of flag performance, there are no major changes compared to the previous year(s). The number of low performing flags remains stable at a lower level than beforeCOVID-19.
Additionally, although the detention rate is relatively high, the distribution of flag States across categories (White, Grey, Black) has not changed substantially.
With regard to RO performance, no deviating trends can be identified regarding the performance categories. A positive observation is that the number of ROs in the lowest performance category remains limited.
Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the number of detainable deficiencies with RO responsibility, resulting in more detainable deficiencies attributed to individual ROs.While this does not appear to have an impact on the performance categories, it does show a decline in the quality of some ROs.
White List
| Rank | Flag | NbInsp | NbDet | Limit B<>G | Limit G<>W | Excess Factor | WGB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Denmark | 1250 | 12 | 103 | 72 | -1,82 | White |
| 2 | Netherlands | 2648 | 35 | 207 | 163 | -1,76 | White |
| 3 | Norway | 1758 | 25 | 141 | 105 | -1,68 | White |
| 4 | Singapore | 1735 | 25 | 139 | 103 | -1,67 | White |
| 5 | Italy | 843 | 10 | 72 | 46 | -1,67 | White |
| 6 | Finland | 362 | 3 | 34 | 17 | -1,62 | White |
| 7 | Japan | 207 | 1 | 21 | 8 | -1,55 | White |
| 8 | United Kingdom | 705 | 10 | 61 | 38 | -1,54 | White |
| 9 | Ireland | 119 | 0 | 13 | 3 | -1,40 | White |
| 10 | Bahamas | 1802 | 39 | 144 | 108 | -1,40 | White |
| 11 | France | 273 | 3 | 27 | 12 | -1,38 | White |
| 12 | Cyprus | 2164 | 50 | 172 | 131 | -1,37 | White |
| 13 | Greece | 618 | 11 | 54 | 32 | -1,36 | White |
| 14 | Hong Kong (China) | 1596 | 39 | 129 | 94 | -1,28 | White |
| 15 | Sweden | 325 | 5 | 31 | 15 | -1,25 | White |
| 16 | China | 241 | 3 | 24 | 10 | -1,24 | White |
| 17 | Cayman Islands (UK) | 322 | 5 | 31 | 15 | -1,23 | White |
| 18 | Bermuda (UK) | 151 | 1 | 16 | 5 | -1,22 | White |
| 19 | Luxembourg | 238 | 3 | 24 | 10 | -1,22 | White |
| 20 | Malta | 3862 | 112 | 297 | 244 | -1,21 | White |
| 21 | Germany | 516 | 11 | 46 | 26 | -1,15 | White |
| 22 | Portugal | 1775 | 52 | 142 | 106 | -1,11 | White |
| 23 | Marshall Islands | 5274 | 176 | 400 | 338 | -1,08 | White |
| 24 | Belgium | 175 | 2 | 18 | 6 | -1,07 | White |
| 25 | United States | 135 | 1 | 15 | 4 | -1,07 | White |
| 26 | Gibraltar (UK) | 349 | 7 | 33 | 16 | -1,06 | White |
| 27 | Turkey | 601 | 15 | 53 | 31 | -1,05 | White |
| 28 | Estonia | 89 | 0 | 11 | 2 | -1,02 | White |
| 29 | Faroe Islands | 217 | 4 | 22 | 9 | -0,89 | White |
| 30 | Liberia | 5496 | 214 | 416 | 353 | -0,88 | White |
| 31 | Barbados | 697 | 23 | 60 | 37 | -0,77 | White |
| 32 | Isle of Man (UK) | 346 | 10 | 33 | 16 | -0,69 | White |
| 33 | Spain | 130 | 2 | 14 | 4 | -0,65 | White |
| 34 | Lithuania | 100 | 1 | 12 | 2 | -0,64 | White |
| 35 | Antigua and Barbuda | 1684 | 76 | 136 | 100 | -0,52 | White |
| 36 | Russian Federation | 606 | 26 | 53 | 32 | -0,35 | White |
| 37 | Croatia | 85 | 1 | 10 | 2 | -0,35 | White |
| 38 | Saudi Arabia | 76 | 1 | 9 | 1 | -0,11 | White |
| 39 | Thailand | 41 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0,05 | White |
| 40 | Poland | 40 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0,06 | White |
| 41 | Canada | 32 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0,11 | White |
| 42 | Jersey (UK) | 31 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0,12 | White |
Grey List
| Rank | Flag | Inspections | Detentions | Limit B<>G | Limit G<>W | Excess Factor | WGB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43 | Latvia | 152 | 6 | 16 | 5 | 0,09 | Grey |
| 44 | Korea, Republic of | 126 | 5 | 14 | 4 | 0,13 | Grey |
| 45 | Morocco | 49 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0,15 | Grey |
| 46 | Iran, Islamic Republic of | 48 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0,30 | Grey |
| 47 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 255 | 15 | 25 | 11 | 0,30 | Grey |
| 48 | India | 45 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0,33 | Grey |
| 49 | Lebanon | 40 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0,37 | Grey |
| 50 | Egypt | 45 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0,48 | Grey |
| 51 | Switzerland | 30 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0,48 | Grey |
| 52 | Philippines | 119 | 9 | 13 | 3 | 0,57 | Grey |
| 53 | Bangladesh | 34 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0,61 | Grey |
| 54 | Cook Islands | 97 | 8 | 11 | 2 | 0,63 | Grey |
| 55 | Panama | 5795 | 420 | 438 | 373 | 0,72 | Grey |
| 56 | Albania | 59 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 0,75 | Grey |
| 57 | Tunisia | 31 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0,82 | Grey |
| 58 | Sierra Leone | 175 | 17 | 18 | 6 | 0,89 | Grey |
| 59 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 192 | 19 | 20 | 7 | 0,94 | Grey |
Black List
| Rank | Flag | Inspections | Detentions | Limit B<>G | Limit G<>W | Excess Factor | WGB | RISK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | Belize | 199 | 21 | 20 | 8 | 1,09 | Black | Medium Risk |
| 61 | Palau | 334 | 33 | 32 | 15 | 1,13 | Black | Medium Risk |
| 62 | Ukraine | 54 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 1,76 | Black | Medium Risk |
| 63 | Algeria | 76 | 12 | 9 | 1 | 1,86 | Black | Medium Risk |
| 64 | Togo | 310 | 41 | 30 | 14 | 2,08 | Black | Medium to High |
| 65 | Azerbaijan | 34 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2,16 | Black | Medium to High |
| 66 | Vanuatu | 353 | 50 | 33 | 16 | 2,42 | Black | Medium to High |
| 67 | Comoros | 281 | 41 | 27 | 12 | 2,44 | Black | Medium to High |
| 68 | Viet Nam | 37 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 3,23 | Black | High Risk |
| 69 | Moldova, Republic of | 116 | 23 | 13 | 3 | 3,36 | Black | High Risk |
| 70 | Tanzania, United Republic of | 119 | 29 | 13 | 3 | 4,71 | Black | Very High Risk |
| 71 | Cameroon | 122 | 35 | 14 | 3 | 6,03 | Black | Very High Risk |
RO Performance
| Recognized Organization | RO abbrev. | Inspections | Detentions | Low/ medium limit | Medium/high limit | Excess Factor | Performance level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Bureau of Shipping | ABS | 6.334 | 1 | 146 | 108 | -1,97 | High |
| DNV AS | DNV | 23.828 | 31 | 513 | 441 | -1,85 | High |
| China Classification Society | CCS | 1.140 | 1 | 31 | 15 | -1,74 | High |
| Lloyd's Register | LR | 11.737 | 26 | 260 | 209 | -1,73 | High |
| RINA Services S.p.A. | RINA | 5.781 | 15 | 134 | 98 | -1,66 | High |
| Bureau Veritas | BV | 11.673 | 35 | 259 | 208 | -1,64 | High |
| Korean Register | KR | 1.854 | 4 | 47 | 27 | -1,61 | High |
| Nippon Kaiji Kyokai | NKK | 8.651 | 40 | 195 | 151 | -1,43 | High |
| Russian Maritime Register of Shipping | RMRS | 1.093 | 3 | 30 | 14 | -1,37 | High |
| Croatian Register of Shipping | CRS | 160 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0,03 | High |
| Qualitas Register of Shipping S.A. | QRS | 124 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0,10 | High |
| Turkish Lloyd | TL | 267 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 0,11 | Medium |
| International Naval Surveys Bureau | INSB | 541 | 7 | 17 | 5 | 0,17 | Medium |
| Phoenix Register of Shipping | PHRS | 633 | 9 | 19 | 6 | 0,21 | Medium |
| Bulgarian Register of Shipping | BRS | 332 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 0,22 | Medium |
| Polski Rejestr Statkow (Polish Register of Shipping) | PRS | 498 | 7 | 16 | 4 | 0,24 | Medium |
| Overseas Marine Certification Services | OMCS | 193 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0,25 | Medium |
| Dromon Bureau of Shipping | DBS | 605 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 0,33 | Medium |
| Veritas Register of Shipping Ltd | VRS | 87 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0,36 | Medium |
| Panama Maritime Documentation Services | PMDS | 152 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0,49 | Medium |
| Intermaritime Certification Services, ICS Class | ICS | 94 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0,52 | Medium |
| Indian Register of Shipping | IRS | 241 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 0,52 | Medium |
| Shipping Register of Ukraine | SRU | 131 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0,56 | Medium |
| Isthmus Bureau of Shipping, S.A. | IBS | 206 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 0,62 | Medium |
| Macosnar Corporation | MC | 71 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0,62 | Medium |
| Mediterranean Shipping Register | MSR | 70 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0,62 | Medium |
| International Register of Shipping | IS | 292 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 0,74 | Medium |
| United Registration and Classification of Services | URACOS | 221 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0,83 | Medium |
| National Shipping Adjuster Inc. | NASHA | 88 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0,92 | Medium |
| Panama Shipping Registrar Inc. | PSR | 62 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1,44 | Low |
| Hellas Naval Bureau of Shipping S.M.P.C | HNBS | 77 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1,78 | Low |
| Other | OTHER | 317 | 33 | 11 | 2 | 6,78 | Very Low |
Statistics
The information published by the Paris MoU in its Annual Report mainly contains general information on inspection results and is aimed at the public in general and the shipping industry in particular. Flag States and Recognized Organizations (ROs) are mainly addressed in the latter category.
Number of Deficiencies
Number of Detainable Deficiencies
Number of Inspections
Number of individual ships inspected
Number of Detentions
Major Categories of Deficiencies
| 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deficiency Main Group | Def | Def % | Def | Def % | Def | Def % | |
| Ballast Water Management | 710 | 2,0 | 898 | 1,9 | 907 | 1,9 | |
| COLREG | 354 | 1,0 | 444 | 0,9 | 441 | 0,9 | |
| Load Lines | 2.089 | 5,7 | 2.758 | 5,8 | 2.644 | 5,6 | |
| MARPOL | MARPOL Annex I | 1.246 | 3,4 | 1.530 | 3,2 | 1.528 | 3,2 |
| MARPOL Annex IV | 313 | 0,9 | 418 | 0,9 | 515 | 1,1 | |
| MARPOL Annex V | 680 | 1,9 | 821 | 1,7 | 930 | 2,0 | |
| MARPOL Annex VI | 496 | 1,4 | 618 | 1,3 | 771 | 1,6 | |
| MARPOL Other | 33 | 0,1 | 47 | 0,1 | 57 | 0,1 | |
| MLC | MLC 2006 Title 2 | 1.318 | 3,6 | 1.453 | 3,1 | 1.181 | 2,5 |
| MLC 2006 Title 3 | 2.191 | 6,0 | 3.201 | 6,7 | 3.151 | 6,6 | |
| MLC 2006 Title 4 | 3.760 | 10,3 | 4.875 | 10,2 | 4.750 | 10,0 | |
| MLC 2006 Title 5 | 232 | 0,6 | 319 | 0,7 | 289 | 0,6 | |
| MLC Other | 111 | 0,3 | 168 | 0,4 | 198 | 0,4 | |
| SOLAS | SOLAS ch.I | 330 | 0,9 | 506 | 1,1 | 501 | 1,1 |
| SOLAS ch.II-1 | 4.376 | 12,0 | 5.520 | 11,6 | 5.444 | 11,5 | |
| SOLAS ch.II-2 | 5.386 | 14,8 | 7.360 | 15,5 | 8.227 | 17,3 | |
| SOLAS ch.III | 3.166 | 8,7 | 4.541 | 9,5 | 4.391 | 9,2 | |
| SOLAS ch.IV | 699 | 1,9 | 844 | 1,8 | 793 | 1,7 | |
| SOLAS ch.V | 3.218 | 8,8 | 3.961 | 8,3 | 3.843 | 8,1 | |
| SOLAS ch.VI | 297 | 0,8 | 285 | 0,6 | 224 | 0,5 | |
| SOLAS ch.XI-1 | 385 | 1,1 | 492 | 1,0 | 404 | 0,9 | |
| SOLAS ISM Code | 1.810 | 5,0 | 2.284 | 4,8 | 2.308 | 4,9 | |
| SOLAS ISPS Code | 366 | 1,0 | 432 | 0,9 | 420 | 0,9 | |
| SOLAS LSA Code | 354 | 1,0 | 320 | 0,7 | 331 | 0,7 | |
| SOLAS Other | 828 | 2,3 | 954 | 2,0 | 869 | 1,8 | |
| STCW | STCW Code Part A ch.I | 436 | 1,2 | 753 | 1,6 | 615 | 1,3 |
| STCW Code Part A ch.VIII | 574 | 1,6 | 1.037 | 2,2 | 1.112 | 2,3 | |
| STCW Other | 174 | 0,5 | 242 | 0,5 | 245 | 0,5 | |
| OTHER | 435 | 1,2 | 488 | 1,0 | 421 | 0,9 |
Inspections and Detentions per Ship Type
| Ship Type | Nr of Inspections | Inspections with deficiencies | Percentage of inspections with deficiencies | Nr of Individual ships inspected | Inspections with detentions | Percentage of detentions to inspections 2023 | Percentage of detentions to inspections 2022 | Percentage of detentions to inspections 2021 | +/ - average detention % 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk carrier | 3.797 | 2.329 | 61,3 | 3.468 | 137 | 3,6 | 5,1 | 3,7 | -0,2 |
| Chemical tanker | 570 | 285 | 50,0 | 523 | 12 | 2,1 | 2,9 | 2,0 | -1,7 |
| Commercial yacht | 181 | 62 | 34,3 | 180 | 10 | 5,5 | 3,2 | 5,5 | 1,7 |
| Container | 1.855 | 875 | 47,2 | 1.694 | 39 | 2,1 | 2,5 | 2,1 | -1,7 |
| Dredger | 94 | 49 | 52,1 | 92 | 1 | 1,1 | 2,4 | 1,4 | -2,7 |
| Gas carrier | 570 | 212 | 37,2 | 543 | 9 | 1,6 | 1,0 | 0,3 | -2,2 |
| General cargo/multipurpose | 4.044 | 2.742 | 67,8 | 3.355 | 283 | 7,0 | 7,0 | 6,2 | 3,2 |
| Heavy load | 56 | 32 | 57,1 | 53 | 2 | 3,6 | 2,9 | 0,0 | -0,2 |
| High speed cargo | 19 | 12 | 63,2 | 18 | - | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | -3,8 |
| High speed passenger craft | 71 | 39 | 54,9 | 49 | - | 0,0 | 2,6 | 0,0 | -3,8 |
| Livestock carrier | 88 | 77 | 87,5 | 71 | 7 | 8,0 | 7,9 | 8,8 | 4,1 |
| MODU & FPSO | 28 | 17 | 60,7 | 27 | - | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | -3,8 |
| Offshore supply | 382 | 212 | 55,5 | 369 | 12 | 3,1 | 3,1 | 1,5 | -0,7 |
| Oil tanker | 1.181 | 485 | 41,1 | 1.131 | 35 | 3,0 | 2,5 | 1,6 | -0,8 |
| Oil tanker/Chemical tanker | 1.268 | 623 | 49,1 | 1.147 | 28 | 2,2 | 2,7 | 1,3 | -1,6 |
| Other | 28 | 14 | 50,0 | 23 | 1 | 3,6 | 9,1 | 3,6 | -0,2 |
| Other special activities | 472 | 259 | 54,9 | 443 | 14 | 3,0 | 4,1 | 4,1 | -0,8 |
| Passenger ship | 350 | 170 | 48,6 | 291 | 4 | 1,1 | 2,9 | 0,0 | -2,7 |
| Refrigerated cargo | 165 | 113 | 68,5 | 155 | 5 | 3,0 | 2,0 | 1,2 | -0,8 |
| Ro-Ro cargo | 687 | 316 | 46,0 | 639 | 15 | 2,2 | 1,8 | 1,8 | -1,6 |
| Ro-Ro passenger ship | 486 | 317 | 65,2 | 272 | 11 | 2,3 | 2,3 | 2,2 | -1,5 |
| Special purpose ship | 133 | 49 | 36,8 | 129 | 2 | 1,5 | 0,7 | 0,9 | -2,3 |
| Tug | 244 | 141 | 57,8 | 235 | 12 | 4,9 | 7,3 | 3,1 | 1,1 |
