Ranking Port State Control Detention Remarks: Professional Judgement and Spatial Overview

Merchant marine fleet is under inspections by several parties to ensure maritime regulation compliance. One major effect on implementation regulations of International Maritime Organization is indeed Port State Control. This article aims to analyze Paris Memoranda of Understanding vessel detention remarks for EU15 countries (except Luxemburg and Austria) through an approach based on Analytical Hierarchy Process and demonstrate results on Geographic Information System to guide industry on detainable Port State Control remarks and country risk profile of vessel detention. While Analytical Hierarchy Process assists to indicate the ranking of maritime regulations from the perspective of the Port State Control, GIS demonstrate the regional dispersion amongst EU15. Consequently, the results of the study assist Port State Officers, ship crew, owners and managers presenting the facts of inspection and able to improve themselves. The spatial analysis expected to guide ship owners and managers to focus their vessel’s deficiencies to prevent sub-standardization.


Introduction
fleet. During this enhancement, the control mechanism for compliance of the international regulations comes one step further. The history clearly demonstrates many examples of great disasters which sub-standards vessels cause. Ultimately, the Port State Control for merchant vessels is developed as a control mechanism to fight against the sub-standard vessels to prevent disasters and save human life as well.
The idea of Port State jurisdiction has emerged as a result of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Amended to 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the port state control appeared as an innovative tool to fight against marine pollution caused by ships. The need for port state control appears with a lack of international standards in the shipping industry. While International Maritime Organization regulates the industry, dynamics of shipping constantly tries to resist. Ultimately, the Memoranda of Understanding on Port State Control developed by cooperative regional agreements and does a significant effect on international maritime regulations and standards including fight against pollution [1].
The success of Port State Control to fight against sub-standardization for maritime industry depends on share of information and it is not convenient to inspect a ship at each port. Besides regional formations would come one step further since states are bonded together [2]. Therefore, Memoranda of Understanding for states was inevitable and currently ten (10) individual and geographically tied together MOUs cover majority of world coastal areas.
is an important sign that enforcement of international regulations to prevent pollution and accidents is more successful on following inspections [3]. This article aims to rank Port State Control remarks which cause vessel detention to reveal with an analysis for shipowners and/or managers to prevent their vessels to become substandard.
The Memorandum of Understanding officially set right after the massive oil spill of the VLCC 'Amoco Cadiz' on March 1978. However, the current formation signed in January 1982 by fourteen European countries at Paris, France. Currently, it is not required to be a European Union country to become a member authority for Paris MOU.
The Paris MOU aims to ensure safety of life at sea, prevention of pollution by ships, and living and working conditions on the board ships. Within these goals, the organization have developed several strategies to eliminate sub-standard vessel from member Authority coastal waters. The Paris MOU has currently twenty-seven (27) member states, as two out of twenty-seven members are not European Union member country (Table 1).

Belgium
Bulgaria Canada (1)  . Subject ships for inspection are too wide to take control and it is not feasible and practicable that inspecting 25% of the ships arriving at MoU ports, as well. Thus, a New Inspection Regime (NIR) for Port State Control has been adopted on 1 January 2011. This system assists the Paris MOU to identify the good ship-owner [5]. Not only the Inspection Regime, but the Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CIC) also targets to increase standards for vessels and raise awareness. CIC results are also subject to several researches to identify sub-standard vessels [6].
In this article, the literature review section analyzes several scholarly studies that analyze Port State Control related deficiencies based on Port State Control Report data. Since the scope of the research is limited for Paris MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) database, the data collection section briefly explains the data selection from Paris MOU website and methodology section explains how AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) approach is integrated with the data and ARCGIS software. The Port State Control Officer carries out an inspection and according to the inspection procedures, each decision step (inspection type, deficiencies noted and detention) requires professional judgement. Finally, the discussion and conclusion section explain the novelty of this research as its contribution to the existing literature together with pointing possible future researches.

Background
In the literature, the use and analysis of Geographic Information System (GIS) tool is limited to analyzing Port State Control actions. Studies on GIS have much more focused on Automatic Identification System (AIS)-navigation data and their analyzes. For example, a study has been done based on data collection of ships Automatic Identification System (AIS) in Indonesia and analysis by use of AHP and GIS. The article intersected the research by assuming that the foreign flagged vessels were probably inspected by Port State Control to determine the hazard score of the vessels [7]. The original aspect of AHP ranking approach, uses detainable deficiency remarks of Port State Control reports to demonstrate which state focus on what specific deficiency in general to encourage ship owners/ managers to rectify their possible remarks in extreme caution.
The literature review more focused on articles that use GIS, Port State Control deficiency codes and categories. The methodology conducted in these articles related to Port State Control Inspection data can be exemplified as; probability analysis [8], Bayesian Network Model [9], Possion & negative binomial model [10], bivariate Probit models [11] and, binary logic regression [12].
A successful safety analysis of ships has been carried out with using a Port State Control Inspection data with binary logic regression and concludes that, about 4.9% of PSC eligible vessels have been targeted accordingly, but they had an accident within six months after the port state control and 4.7% of ships had an accident onboard, yet was not inspected after the accident occurred [12]. It is a remarkable question that why 4.7% of the ships did not inspect by any Port State Control authority. Not only the coverage of Port States affects the inspection, but the economics plays a crucial role too. The measured inspection costs of a port state control are USD 747 per inspection [13] and the majority of world economics is not strong enough to bear this cost.
The probability analysis with 183,819 inspections carried out by categorizing the inspection codes of all MOUs, vessel types and accidents. Findings indicate that more focused inspections on the ISM code, machinery and equipment and ship and cargo operations decreases the possibility of accidents [8]. Another accident related analysis set by Bayesian Network Model on Finland & Baltic Sea accident reports. The variables for Bayesian Network Model are Port State Control deficiency categories, vessel types, vessel flag and age. The findings indicate that an inspected ship with no accidents is more likely to be a tanker or other ship and less likely a passenger ship [9].
The change of vessel flag and port state control inspection relation analyzed by a bivariate Probit model from 7500 ship inspections. The two major finding indicates that relatively vessels in bad condition are tend to change flag or classification society on following inspection. Besides, any vessel changed flag or classification society before is tend to change flag or classification society [11]. Another study carried out analyzing number of deficiencies, ISM Code compliance, ship age, flag and ship type reveals that deficiency numbers are related to vessel age. Relatively positive and negative changes in deficiency numbers occurs on Ro-Ro passenger, chemical and oil tankers, bulk carriers and general cargo carriers [10].  The AHP method-based articles, on the other hand, are available for analyzing Port State Control structure and actions. A three-stage methodology article aimed to restructure the PSC Authority of Taiwan by using AHP on the second stage. The study proposes that the PSC Authority shall be restructured under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications [14]. Not only the Port State Control but the maritime conventions also discussed under the scope of AHP. The AHP indicates that Maritime Labor Convention compliance is fundamental on the financial perspectives, such as employment agreements and crew salary payment [15].
The Port State Control Officer carries out an inspection and according to the inspection procedures, each decision step (inspection type, deficiencies noted and detention) requires professional judgement. In another perspective, the Port State Control Officer is the key person in operation who works in the field. The Officer is both initial and final determinant for the detention. This study can also be read as the continuation of Port State Control Officer effect on the industry. The Control Officer background is determined by guidelines. The main point is, the PSC Officer background have an effect on vessel detentions. For an instance, engineering background inspectors are more tend to detain the vessels compared to nautical background [16]. It is a fact that some detention items are open for dispute. Besides, engineer background inspectors are more careful about auxiliary machinery caused deficiencies [17]. Aside from the inspector's background, this article focuses on the professional judgement of the Port State Control Officers.
The port state control officer attends onboard and upon completion of the inspection delivers a report that issued under several professional judgements. According to Paris MOU Procedures on Guidance on Detention and Action Taken, the detention decision depends on professional judgement of attending Port State Control Officer indicated as below: When exercising professional judgement as to whether or not a ship should be detained the PSCO will apply the following criteria: .1 Timing: ships which are unsafe to proceed to sea will be detained upon the first inspection irrespective of the time the ship will stay in port; .2 Criterion: the ship will be detained if the deficiencies on a ship are sufficiently serious to merit a PSCO returning to the ship to be satisfied that they have been rectified before the ship sails.
On this sense, all Port State Control detention remarks are accepted as a professional judgement which is essential for ranking based Analytic Hierarchy Process. The variety of detainable remarks shall indicate the root cause of detention. The domestic procedures for Port State control includes the legal remarks for the detention [18]. Below aspects of literature review and existing assumptions takes a role on below methodology and data selection.

Methodology and Data Selection
The principal Maritime Regulations have settled by SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) Convention after Titanic accident. The SOLAS Convention and related regulations have been expanded with lessons learned and pro-active legislation and due to this enhancement, several chapters become an individual Code. This study will divide regulations as follows: • SOLAS Convention (Safety of Life at Sea), The Paris MOU list of deficiency codes are listed on public website. The deficiency codes explain each deficiency explicitly with an explanation by its nature. The majority of the eighteen (18) general defective items are divided by their sub-items. The Port State Control deficiencies which cause a detention has been collected from the public website and collected by its general defective items. The main point is, number 01 -Certificates and Documentation and 99 -Other deficiencies are omitted. The certificates and documentation items are complicated by including various sub-items related to multiple major regulation described below. The similar issue is also same for other deficiency items. The methodology is based on 4 steps as described on Figure 2. The first 3 steps are essential to demonstrate AHP and the hierarchy model and ranking table to be presented on following paragraphs. The output achievement of AHP is ranking list for International Regulations and finally the results demonstrated by ArcGIS together with percentage of detainable remark for each regulation by country. By this means the methodology aims guide policy makers, Port State Control Officers, ship managers/owners on detainable Port State Control remarks and country risk profile on ship detention considering International Regulations.  After demonstrating the percentage distribution of International Maritime Regulations by country, the AHP model for this article designed to be a linear network described by Saaty [19] to reach the goal of defining the importance of international maritime regulations for each country aspect. There are various multi-disciplinary examples that applies AHP models for Ship registry selection decision [20], decision making in transportation modes [21], and energy research using GIS/AHP approach [22]. The AHP methodology is also suitable to be combined with TOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE, DEMATEL, etc. The total Port State Control remarks have been evaluated under on a scale of below comparison matrix from 0 to 9 for each country. The consistency ratio (CR) as a measure inconsistency of each individual state found consistent. The consistency test formula is mentioned in formula 1:

CR=CI/RI
The consistency ratio is important since CR < 0.1 -the comparison has a consistency. The AHP results have been calculated for each country by considering the consistency ratio is below 0.1.

Analysis, Results and Discussion
The AHP has been carried out by summing and categorized all detainable remarks for selected           have a different aspect to detain the ships with deficiencies under professional judgement.

Conclusions
After the serious incidents, Port State Control became a volunteer to almost mandatory action to inspect ships to protect the national environment of coastal states. Inspecting a ship is not a simple target to achieve because of socio-economical varieties, and especially because of the human factor. However, the existing literature and the recent accidents clearly signify that the Port State Control has accomplished a drastic difference in overall safety and environmental pollution prevention.
The analysis on Port State Control inspection results indicate that sometimes even Port State Control is not strong enough to fight against substandard vessels [27]. The detailed spatial analysis among the Paris MOU member and EU15 countries indicates each country contains a different point of view to execute a judgement of detention. Besides, a further study may analyze the Port State Control remarks taking account into the sub-category of the deficiencies.
The critical importance of AHP for this analysis to cover zero detention remarks for some countries.
For an instance, there is no detention for Load Line Convention in Denmark. This is not mean that any vessel has a Port State Control in Denmark with major Load Line deficiency will not subject detention and each convention has own value even though there is no detention. This analysis aims to demonstrate country profile and characteristics for overall ship detentions. In this way, ship owners/ managers and policy makers may evaluate their self-awareness on Port State Controls and their country characteristics on detainable deficiencies.