# CE2004084EN.01047902.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/479 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/479

---

(2004/C 84 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1936/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Port safety

Subject:

The USA lays down requirements concerning the level of safety in European ports from which ships depart for American ports. This seems in actual fact to have meant the USA concluding agreements with, and giving priority to, selected European ports which it considers ‘safe’. At the same time, the USA refuses to have anything to do with other ports which are considered ‘unsafe’. This gives some European ports an unfair competitive advantage over others.

What action does the Commission intend to take to remedy this problem? For example, will it propose legislation making European ports acceptable to the USA? What would be the main features of such legislation? When does it expect to take an initiative in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

(24 July 2003)

The European Union has been fully informed about the US authorities' initiatives to require a strengthening of controls and anti-terrorist measures in ports exporting to the United States, and the distortions of competition between ports to which these measures could give rise.

The USA has selected 20 ‘mega ports’, mainly in Europe, not on the basis of the port security measures in place, but to cover as much container traffic as possible, in particular 98 % of containers shipped between the EU and the USA.

The second stage of the introduction of the US Container Security Initiative (CSI) is intended to cover other ports. The choice of these ports may be guided by considerations relating to port security, but the US Customs Service has also indicated that, in this second stage, ports would be chosen on the basis of strategic criteria such as the main shipping routes to the Middle East and/or Africa.

The Community's reply must therefore meet two requirements: it must be global so that it can be part of a world-wide approach, and it must meet EU internal market requirements, in particular by guaranteeing equality of treatment of all EU exporters.

In order to preserve equality of treatment throughout the customs union, the Commission at the beginning of the year sent letters of formal notice to the Member States which signed ‘declarations of intent’ relating to the introduction of the Container Security Initiative.

At the same time, it proposed to the Member States a cooperation plan with the US authorities to establish an agreement to replace the provisions of the declarations of intent which are incompatible with the customs union and the internal market.

On 18 March 2003, the Council approved negotiating directives for the Commission to negotiate, in areas covered by Community competence, a widening of the scope of the customs cooperation agreement concluded between the Community and the USA in 1997 in order to guarantee better coordination of security checks on moving goods.

Furthermore, on 2 May 2003 the Commission adopted a Communication on improving the security of shipping, and a proposal for a Regulation on enhancing ship and port facility security (1).

1

The Commission plans to adopt other legislative initiatives on port security, the security of the intermodal transport chain and a revision of the Community Customs Code.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 229 final.

1

---