1. PSC developments Dr. Vitaly Klyuev

2. PSC regional organizations  Paris MOU (Europe and North Atlantic)  Vina del Mar PSC Agreement (Latin America)  Tokyo MOU (Asia-Pacific)  Caribbean MOU  Mediterranean MOU  Indian Ocean MOU  Abuja (west and central Africa) MOU  Black Sea MOU  Riyadh (Gulf) MOU

3. Russia  Member State for: – Paris MOU –Tokyo MOU –Black Sea MOU  Member of the Paris MOU Advisory Board  Chair of the Tokyo MOU Committee

4.  Paris MOU has 27 member States

5. Tokyo MOU has 18 member States Canada China Hong Kong, China Japan Australia Chile Fiji Indonesia Korea, Rep. of New Zealand Philippines Singapore Vanuatu Brunei Solomon Islands ILO, IMOParis MOU, I-O MOU, Auerdo Viňa del Mar, Black Sea MOU Malaysia Papua New Guinea Russian Federation Thailand Vietnam USAMacao, China Korea, DPR

12. Initiatives of by the MOUs  New Inspection Regime (NIR)  New Information System (THESIS)  Distance Learning Program (DLP)  Code of Conduct for PSC officers  Recognized Organization (Calcification Societies) performance  Concentrated Inspection Campaigns  “Observer” status to IMO

13. New Inspection Regime  100% vessels to be inspected;  Focusing on vessels with “bad” profile  Preferences to vessels with “good” profile  “Fair sharing” of inspections among member States  Wider criteria for selection procedure  More strict obligations of MOU member States  Implementation (target) - 2011

14. Training efforts  Basic training of PSC officers  Seminars  Expert training  Specialized training  Expert missions  Advanced training  Distance training course (DLP)  Unified training model and requirements

21. Concentrated Inspection Campaigns  2007 – ISM Code  2008 – SOLAS Chapter V (Navigation)  2009 – Life Saving Appliances  2010 – Ship loading and Stability

22. Review Panel  Paris and Tokyo MoUs – similar procedures  Paris MOU 2007: –5 requests –1 case – lack of information by Flag –3 cases – detentions were unreasonable (Port States reconsidered decisions in all 3 cases) –1 case – detention order was reasonable