Paris MoU: Shipping needs to use the SMS much more effectively

In an exclusive interview, Luc Smulders, Secretary General of the Paris MoU, stressed that “quality shipping pays off.” In this regard, he highlighted the importance of investing in thorough, continuous maintenance and genuinely embedding safety into daily operations through the Safety Management System (SMS).

The SMS is an excellent tool designed to manage risks and balance operational workload with safety. However, to reverse current trends, the shipping industry needs to use it much more effectively, he highlighted. It should not be treated merely as a paper compliance exercise, but as a proactive management instrument that enables companies to maintain continuous oversight of both their human resources and the actual technical condition of their fleet.

SAFETY4SEA: Following the publication of the Paris MoU PSC Annual Report 2025, what key message should the industry take from this year’s findings?

Luc Smulders: Looking at the findings of the recent Paris MoU Annual Report and the key challenges facing the industry today, a defining trend has emerged: since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been confronted with structurally higher detention percentages compared to the pre-pandemic era. While establishing a direct, statistically absolute correlation between specific deficiencies and an overall lack of maintenance can be complex, there is a strong and persistent indication within Port State Control that the quality and consistency of shipboard maintenance is a key driver behind these elevated numbers.

S4S: From a Port State Control perspective, what are the key challenges facing shipowners and operators today?

L.Sm.: As regulatory requirements continue to evolve, maintaining a strong PSC performance requires the industry to look closely at how it monitors and executes this maintenance. Crucial in this regard is ensuring that the crew composition is genuinely appropriate for the ship’s specific operational profile. This often requires more personnel than the absolute minimum required by the Minimum Safe Manning Document issued by the flag State. Only when the crew size and composition truly align with the actual operational reality and workload of the vessel can routine shipboard maintenance be properly sustained without being pushed aside by daily operational pressures. Ultimately, the Safety Management System (SMS) – both on board and within the shipping company – is an excellent tool designed to manage these risks and balance workload with safety. However, to reverse the current trend, the shipping industry needs to utilise the SMS much more effectively. It must be treated not merely as a paper compliance exercise, but as a proactive management instrument that gives companies a continuous grip on both their human resources and the actual technical status of their fleet.

S4S: Fire safety remains a leading deficiency area. What practical steps should shipowners and operators take to strengthen performance in this area?

L.Sm.: Deficiencies in the area of fire safety are often highly conspicuous to a PSCO, which may explain why they are so frequently observed and recorded. However, this also means that these same deficiencies should be easily noticeable to the crew itself, and can – and must – be addressed beforehand. For instance, fire doors are frequently tied or propped open to facilitate daily tasks, making this seem like a persistent, almost ineradicable problem. Yet, in most cases technical solutions are readily available that allow these doors to remain open for convenience while ensuring they close automatically in the event of a fire. Implementing such solutions enhances both compliance and, more importantly, actual safety. It is relevant to note that we conducted a Focused Inspection Campaign (FIC) specifically targeting fire doors, after an earlier CIC on Fire Safety revealed that compliance in this area left much to be desired. Regrettably, the FIC demonstrated that the industry had largely failed to act on the clear signal previously sent by the Paris MoU, as compliance regarding fire doors remains a significant concern.

S4S: MLC-related findings, including welfare and social security protection, remain part of the PSC picture. What should the industry prioritize to better support compliance and seafarer wellbeing onboard?

L.Sm.: A considerable amount of ship owners does provide decent working and living conditions on board, even though the maritime industry has its challenges other industries might not need to face. Our focus is and will be on those ship owners that believe that seafarers do not need decent working and living conditions since they are literally below the horizon, out of sight of the general public. But these seafarers are human beings as well and not simply disposable workers. For years the shipping industry is facing shortages in an educated and qualified workforce. With the continued high demand for both officers and seafarers, it is in the interest of all decent shipping companies, and not only those at the very top, to invest in the workforce. Non-compliance, from non-payment of salaries to a lack of internet, cannot simply be ignored by the industry, and it should be realized that the MLC sets out minimum standards only. As we continue to see that seafarers are not being given the rights from their employment contract, we have decided that during all inspections, even those without clear grounds, we will now make a random check of the Seafarer’s Employment Agreements and not await whether a complaint is being received.

S4S: How can shipowners and managers move from last-minute PSC preparation to a more continuous compliance culture?

L.Sm.: There is a continuous need to explain that PSC is only a second, or even third, line of defence, though the success of PSC often seems to put it in the first place. Passing a PSC inspection is just a snapshot of the ship on that day; it should not be viewed as an exam that you cram for at the last moment, but simply as a verification of a ship’s daily operational reality. The role of flag States and ROs, but in particular the shipping companies, is far more important. They have the full oversight of compliance, and thus the safety standards of the ship. The ISM Code cannot be ignored in this context. Unfortunately, too often it is used merely as a control mechanism – a matter of ‘who forgot to tick the box’ – rather than what it is intended for: a support system to continuously improve safety standards on board. In the end, each shipping company will benefit from such a system, unless it insists on cutting corners and taking irresponsible risks. Last-minute PSC preparations may occasionally save you from a detention, but this kind of management is highly visible and will not last in the long run. Furthermore, while a ship’s risk profile determines a calculated inspection interval, PSC may always board a ship for an inspection if there are grounds to do so.

S4S: What should be at the top of the industry’s wish list for strengthening safety culture and preventing recurring deficiencies?

L.Sm.: At the top of the industry’s wish list for preventing recurring deficiencies should be ‘ownership’ of this safety culture. Recurring deficiencies happen when symptoms are fixed instead of the root cause. When a shipping company genuinely empowers its crew to report defects early, and when management ashore responds by addressing those issues promptly without commercial pressure, a robust safety culture is born that addresses the root cause immediately.

S4S: What is one misconception people outside the industry still have about Port State Control, and how can we help change this perception?

L.Sm.: The biggest misconception is that PSC is the answer to everything. The Paris MoU has proven to be very successful in combating substandard shipping, particularly if you compare today’s standards to the situation years ago. However, this success often leads national and international policymakers and politicians to believe that PSC can help solve other problems too. These tasks are not always that much related to the core business of PSC and inevitably lead to more and more paperwork, regardless of how efficiently or effectively these programmes are being presented. Having sufficient time for actually inspecting the ship itself and assessing crew performance is crucial to obtaining a good picture of the ship, but this may be put at risk due to these additional tasks.

S4S: What is your key message to maritime stakeholders on building a quality-focused, resilient and sustainable shipping industry?

L.Sm.: My key message to maritime stakeholders on building a quality-focused, resilient, and sustainable industry is therefore simple: quality shipping pays off. Investing in thorough, continuous maintenance and genuinely embedding safety into daily operations via the SMS might require dedication, but it is the only sustainable way forward. A truly resilient industry is one where compliance is a natural byproduct of operational excellence, and where port State control officers are given the time to focus on what matters most – the actual safety of the ship and its crew.

source : safety4sea