PSC Detentions 2025: Paris, Tokyo, USCG and AMSA Compared

Four port State control regimes have published their 2025 results: the Paris MoU, the Tokyo MoU, the United States Coast Guard and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). Read together, the PSC detentions 2025 figures show a consistent picture of what inspectors detain ships for, and a less consistent one of how likely a bulk carrier is to be detained. This article sets the headline figures side by side, taken from each regime’s own report or announcement.

PSC Detentions 2025: The Numbers Side by Side

Regime	Inspections	Detentions	Detention rate	Bulk carriers
Paris MoU	16,474	688	4.18% (4.03% in 2024)	3,659 inspections, 197 detentions, 5.38% (4.71% in 2024)
Tokyo MoU	35,546	1,255	3.53%	14,677 inspections, 468 detentions, 3.19%
AMSA (Australia)	2,768 initial and 1,848 follow-up, on 2,507 ships	133	4.8% (5.9% in 2024)	1,604 inspections, 85 detentions, 5.3% (6.8% in 2024)
US Coast Guard	8,999 SOLAS safety exams	77	0.85% (0.94% in 2024)	Not given in the announcement

The PSC detentions 2025 trend was mixed: the rate rose in the Paris MoU region and fell in the Tokyo MoU region, Australia and the United States. The Paris MoU also recorded 19 bannings in 2025. The Coast Guard’s three-year rolling detention ratio was 1.00%, and the number of recognised organisations associated with detentions fell from eight to seven.

What Inspectors Found: The Same Areas Keep Coming Up

The Paris MoU reports no significant shift towards non-compliance in any one convention area. By share of deficiencies, fire safety under SOLAS chapter II-2 leads at 16.8%, followed by structural and electrical items under SOLAS chapter II-1 at 11.6% and health protection, medical care and welfare under MLC Title IV at 10.0%. At the single-item level, fire doors (3.1%) and seafarers’ employment agreements (1.3%) stand out, and ISM-related deficiencies make up 4.5% of the total.

The Tokyo MoU recorded 90,168 deficiencies. Fire safety measures (18,020, 19.98%), life-saving appliances (11,818, 13.11%), working and living conditions (9,108, 10.10%) and safety of navigation (8,936, 9.91%) together account for about 53% of them. Its most frequent detainable deficiencies in 2025 were fixed fire extinguishing installations (215), ISM (200), lifeboats (152), ventilators, air pipes and casings (138), fire pumps and their pipes (118), and fire detection and alarm systems (114).

AMSA classes structural and equipment deficiencies as the most common type, and its report names general cargo and multi-purpose ships as the poorest performing type at a 7.0% detention rate, ahead of container ships at 5.9% and oil and chemical tankers at 5.8%. The Coast Guard says detentions related to fire safety and life-saving systems fell again in 2025.

Bulk Carriers: Three Regimes, Three Different Pictures

For bulk carriers the PSC detentions 2025 results disagree. In the Paris MoU region bulk carriers were detained at 5.38%, above the 4.18% overall rate and up from 4.71% the year before. In Australia they were detained at 5.3%, above the 4.8% overall rate, though down from 6.8% in 2024; AMSA also found a deficiency rate of 2.84 per inspection for bulk carriers against an average of 2.73, and says bulk carriers were among the four highest deficiency rates in seven deficiency categories. Bulk carriers made up 51.8% of arrivals in Australia and 1,604 inspections.

In the Tokyo MoU region the picture is reversed: bulk carriers were detained at 3.19%, below the 3.53% regional average, on 14,677 inspections, 41% of all the region’s inspections. The three rates should not be read as a ranking of regions, since each regime selects ships differently, but a bulk carrier manager trading between them faces different odds in each.

ISM: Counted Separately, but Present Behind Many Detentions

Inspectors record ISM as a deficiency in its own right when they find the safety management system itself is not working. The Tokyo MoU counts 1,334 ISM-related deficiencies, 1.48% of the total, yet ISM is the second most frequent detainable deficiency (200), and the report repeats its concern about the constant high number and percentage of ISM-related detentions over the years. AMSA reports that ISM deficiencies remain the largest single category of detainable deficiencies, at 26.7% (50 cases) in 2025 against 27.6% (51 cases) in 2024. The Paris MoU’s broader ISM-related figure is 4.5% of deficiencies. The three regimes define the category differently, so the percentages are not comparable, but they point the same way.

These counts show how inspectors record deficiencies, not what caused each detention. A ship is detained for a condition found under the relevant convention, applying the port State control procedures, and ISM is one of those conditions. It is also the system meant to keep the others in check: the ISM Code requires the Company to ensure the ship is maintained in conformity with the relevant rules and regulations, with inspections held at appropriate intervals (ISM 10.1 and 10.2.1). A detainable fire pump, lifeboat or weathertight closure can therefore raise a question about how the safety management system controlled that condition, even when the deficiency is recorded under another code. The ISM count is the part inspectors record as an ISM deficiency, and it may understate how often the system is involved.

Why the Rates Differ

The PSC detentions 2025 rates cannot be set against each other directly. The Coast Guard’s 0.85% counts SOLAS safety examinations of a fleet it targets by flag, ship and company risk, while AMSA says it has concentrated its inspectors on higher-risk ships, where its report finds detention rates and deficiencies per inspection are higher. The Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU operate shared risk-based systems across many authorities with different fleets and ports. A rate measures what a regime found in the ships it chose to inspect, not how safe a regime’s visiting fleet is.

What It Means for a Ship Manager

The items behind the PSC detentions 2025 are mostly maintenance and readiness items: fixed fire extinguishing systems, lifeboats, fire pumps, detection and alarms, weathertight closures. They sit on the planned maintenance system, which is also a vetting criterion (see How the Vetting System Actually Works).
Behind many individual detainable items sits the same question of how the safety management system controlled the condition, which makes the quality of corrective action and root cause analysis part of the picture whichever code the inspector used.
Deficiency codes differ by regime but the same condition can appear under several, as the article PSC Code 10112. SIRE 4.1.1. RISQ 2.14. Same ECDIS Problem, Three Different Names. describes for ECDIS.

Sources

All figures are taken from the reports and announcement below. Each regime counts inspections and detentions in its own way, so check the report before quoting a rate.