COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93)66 final 
Brussels, 24 February 1993 
QQMMUNICAT!ON FROM THE COMMISSION 
·A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PART I 
~CESSITY AND MAIN FEATURES OF A COMMON POUCY ON SAFE SEAS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
l.THE IMPORTANCE OF SHIPPING TO THE COMMUNITY par 1-4 
2.THE NEED FOR ACTION ON SAFETY par 5-19 
General trend in casualties par 6 
Casualties by type of ship par 7 
Age: a direct correlation to casualties? par 8-9 
Flag States' performance par 10-11 
Main causes of casualties par 12-16 
Public expectations par 17-19 
3. THE GLOBAL CHARACTER OF SHIPPING par 20-23 
4. THE COMMUNITY'S APPROACH par 24-65 
Introductory Remarks par 24-33 
i) c6nvergent implementation of international rules par 34-43 
ii) uniform enforcement of international rules par 44-50 
iii) development of maritime infrastructure par 51-58 
iv) international rule making par 59-65 
PARTll 
THE ACTION PROGRAMME 
INTRODUCTION par 1-4 
CHAPTER 1. CONVERGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL RULES par 5-56 
i) Convergent application of generally defined rules of IMO Conventions par 7-13 
a) new construction 
b) surveys during ship's life 
ii) Harmonisation of safety requirements for shipbome equipment par 14-18 
iii) Convergent implementation of IMO Resolutions par 19-35 
a) vanishing bulk carriers par 24-26 
b) international codes and related resolutions par 27-28 
c) port dues on segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers par 29-35 
iv) Adoption of common standards for non-Convention vessels par 36-42 
v). The human element, the STCW Convention, and Management Code par 43-56 
CHAPTER 2. UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RULES par 57-75 
Analysis of the present situation par 57-70 
i) establishment of a common set of criteria for the infrastructure par 71 
of inspection of certain ships 
ii) harmonisation of inspection and detention criteria par 72-73 
iii) establishment of adequate national inspection structures and a 
training programme for inspectors par 74 
iv) monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the PSC measures par 75 
CHAPTER 3. DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURES par 76-120 
The legal International framework par 77-82 
i) traffic restrictions in environmentally sensitive areas par 83-92 
ii) reporting systems par 93-100 
iii) aids to navigation par 101-108 
a) harmonisation measures for VTS par 109-112 
b) aids to navigation and traffic surveillance infrastructure par 113 
and recovery of its costs 
iv) pollution prevention facilities and monitoring of compliance par 114-120 
CHAPTER 4. INTERNATIONAL RULE MAKING par 121-157 
Introductory remarks par 121-123 
Performance standards for flag States par 124-127 
Human element par 128-137 
Introduction of new technologies par 138-143 
The Torremolinos Convention par 144-145 
The Community's role in support of the IMO par 146-151 
Committee on Safe Seas par 152-157 
ANNEX I. The action programme 
ANNEX ll. List of abbreviations and explanations 
-. 1 ~ -
"A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS" 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
I. The Community is to a large extent dependent on reliable, cost effective and safe 
shipping services. Its maritime transport policy must therefore ensure that such services 
are undertaken at a minimum level of risk for all directly or indirectly concerned and for 
the marine environment. 
ll. This Communication looks at the main factors which continue to determine accidents at 
sea with a view to identifying crucial areas which call for specific urgent measures at the 
international, Community, national, regional or local level, as appropriate. 
The main lines of the proposed action programme for enhancing safety in maritime 
transport have already been included in the Commission's White Paper on "The future 
development of the Common Transport Policy" adopted by the Commission on 8 
December 1992. 
The detailed action programme proposed here is fully in accord with the subsidiarity 
principle. It is clear, as is shown by the data and facts in this Communication, that in the 
absence of this programme, adequate common standards will not be developed in full or 
on time, and will not be observed in practice. Moreover, required traffic rules and 
infrastructure will either continue to be lacking in certain areas of the Community or 
have low effectiveness. . 
The different initiatives will be based on the same principle and will therefore respect the 
role of other authorities: international, national, regional and local. 
m. Calls for intensified and urgent action have come on several occasions from the European 
Parliament, which has complained about a lack of Community initiatives in this field, and 
more recently from the Council. In particular, the extraordinary Council on Environment 
and Transport, at its meeting of 25 January 1993, urged the Community and Member 
States to take a number of steps to improve maritime safety and prevention of pollution 
of the sea. Also the European industries, gathered in the Maritime Forum, have 
recognised the need and have proposed measures to enhance safety. 
All these bodies have invited the Commission to present its Communication without 
delay. The Council in particular indicated its intention to h~ve a preliminary exchange 
of views at its meetings in March 1993 and to have a full debate in June. 
2 
N. The approach proposed in the present Communication seeks the enhancement of safety 
and prevention of pollution at sea through the elimination of substandard operators, 
vessels and crews from Community waters, irrespective of the flag of the ships. The 
main problem -given the universal regulatory approach in shipping stems from the 
striking variation in the level of safety performance between fleets, including Member 
States' fleets. This is, to a large extent, due to the different levels at which States, 
including Member States, are implementing --and enforcing the internationally agreed 
standards. Individual action by Member States has not produced adequate results in the 
past and is unlikely to do so in the future. The Community, thanks to its political and 
legislative machinery, is uniquely placed both to ensure that Member States apply 
standards to ships flying their flags in a more uniform and rigorous manner and to 
enforce, with common ·methods and rigor, respect of the same standards on vessels of 
all flags when operating in EC waters. 
The action programme is based upon a coherent package of measures including: 
i) measures to establish a convergent implementation of existing international rules 
in the Community; 
ii) measures to ensure a tighter and more effective control of ships by the State of 
the ports. They include uniform enforcement by coastal States of the international 
rules to vessels of all flags when they are operating in Community waters; 
iii) measures to promote coherent and harmonised development of navigational aids 
and traffic surveillance infrastructure, bringing maritime safety into the electronic 
age, with specific attention being given to traffic measures in environmentally 
sensitive areas; 
iv) measures to support international organisations enabling them to stengthen their 
primary role in international standard-setting. 
Equally important are measures to improve training and qualification of crew so as to 
address the problem of human error, which remains the main cause of accidents. An 
intensive and re-orientated research programme could also contribute to the overall goal 
of enhancing maritime safety. 
Part I of this Communication demonstrates the necessity and main features of a Common 
Policy on Safe Seas. The action programme in Part n describes those specific measures 
required to achieve the above mentioned objectives. A list of the single initi~tives is 
given in the Annex 1. 
In conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, all actions proposed will respect the 
criteria recently defined by the Commission, in particular the criteria of necessity and the 
criteria of proportionality. 
PART I 
NECESSITY AND MAIN FEATURES 
OF A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS 
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF SlllPPING TO THE COMMUNITY 
1. For centuries maritime shipping has been of great economic and political 
importance for Europe. Today this is more true than ever. The Community is to a large 
extent dependent on reliable, cost effective and safe shipping services. They carry 90% 
of its total external trade with the rest of the world, whereas within the Community 
maritime transport takes care of 35% of total goods transport between Member States. 
2. In the global approach to the construction of a Community framework for 
sustainable mobility, maritime transport will play a more and more important role. In 
order to permit the internal market to produce the expected effects of economic growth 
and integration and at the same time to contribute to reducing bottle-necks and congestion 
in the land transport system, short sea shipping will have to be further developed. The 
liberalisation of the maritime cabotage is already one important step in this direction. 
Further initiatives will be taken by the Commission. 
3. The development of the Community's economy on the basis of the single market, 
now becoming a reality, will also operate as a stimulus to its external trade which will 
necessarily be re~ected by an increase in maritime transport and shipping activities. 
4. The maritime transport policy of the European Community must therefore secure 
competitive transport services and ensure that such services take place at a minimal level 
of risk for crews, passengers, cargo and vessels, for the marine environment and coastal 
activities. As far as the latter is concerned, this policy must also take into account the 
Community's environment policy, in particular as articulated by the 5th Action 
Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable 
Development. 1 
1 COM(92) 23 final. 
2 
2. THE NEED FOR ACTION ON SAFETY 
5. As the internal market in transport services is being completed, shipping disasters 
in European waters or involving European vessels, deficiencies and ship detention reports 
by port States and a rise in the number of work-related accidents on board ships show 
that the level of risk in shipping activities is still very high. 
General trend in casualties 
6. The statistics speak for themselves (figures 1, 1 bis and 2). The decade of 1975-
1991 shows a world wide average of total losses of 380 ships per annum (1.6 million 
gross tonnes). Since 1986 the rate has fluctuated at around an average of 230 ships per 
annum (1.1 million gross tonnes), with a peak of 258 total losses and an accompanying 
high level of loss of life (1204) in 1991. Figure 1 bis shows the distribution of casualties 
per zone in European waters for the period 1987-1991. 
Figure 1 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
0 Number of Ships Total world losses 
Years 1975 -1991 
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19811982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 
Year 
Souzce: Llord'a Casualtr RetuzD, l99l 
Figure Ibis 
N-B ATLANTXC COAST 
BAST MBDXTBP.AAHBAH 
BALTXC SEA. 
GBRMAN NORTH SEA. 
0,01 3 
Distribution of Casualties number 
per zone in European water 
Years 1987 -1991 
"' 21,11 
19,11 
7,31 
0,41 
10,01 20,01 30,01 
Sow:ca: Lloyd's Casudty .ReturD 
Figure 2 
N.lnm c1 rl\aloll 
4000 
T 
h 3500 • 
3000 •• 
2500 
0 2000 ~ 
u • a 
n 1500 • 
d • 
1000 ... 
500 619 ......... ......... ......... ········· ......... 
1985 1067 
1986 Live Lost 
Trend Years 1985 -1991 
38 .. 1 
.. ....... . ········· 
. ....... . 
......... 
......... 
......... 
.......... ......... 
......... 
.. ....... . ......... ......... ......... 
......... 
......... 
1987 
Van 763 688 
1988 1989 : 1:· 
52,01 
/ 
40,01 50,01 60,01 
120 .. 
1990 1991 
4 
Casualties by type or ship 
7. Analysis of figure 3 below reveals that the highest percentage of total losses 
worldwide involve general cargo (45%), fishing vessels (27%), bulk carriers (over 7%), 
ferries and passengers (6%) and tankers (5%). These figures are made more alarming 
by the fact that 35% of all bulk carriers which ,. sunk in the last 15 years were lost in the 
last 24 months alone, and that 74% of all vessels lost in 1991 were more than 15 years 
old (see figure 4). 
Figure 3 
Ship Type Total Losses: Analysis by type or ship 
Years 1990 -1991 
GEN. CARGO < 50 0 0 GT j~jjj~jjjjj~~ll~jjj)~jj~jjjjjj~llM!jjj)jjj)~j)j~\~j)j)j\j~j~l~jjj~~ll~@j~l~li~iiM!l~j~~lil*~l~lf~lllf!Ml!jj~j~f:jjjjj)jj~jjjjjjjjjjjjj~I~~jj~~!ilj!ill!1 3 9 ' 0' 
FIsHING < 50 0 GT !MI!!i!!!!!l~!I~i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i!!i!i!!!i!i!~I!!!!!!!!!!~i!!~!~)~!i!!i!~~~I!!!!f:~i!ili~!iil!!! 21 ' 7' 
BULK CARRIERS ~jjjj)~I!l@jjj!m)!)jj 6, 7\ 
GEN. CARGO > 50 0 0 GT )jjjj!~!)j)i\lljjjjjjj)Jjj 6, 5\ 
TANKERS 
RO/ro 
OIL/BULK/ORE 
CHEMICAL 
LNG 0, 4\ 
CONTAINER SHIPS 0,2% 
0,0% 
Soru:ce: l.Loyd'.s Cau<Llty Retru:D 10,0% 
Age: a direct correlation to casualties? 20,0% 30,0% 
Percentage(\) 40,0% 50,0% 
8. Figures 4 and 5 below concerning the age of ships when lost (4), and specifically 
vanishing bulk carriers (5), suggest a direct correlation between the age of a vessel and a reduced 
level of safety. This would then be a further reason of concern in itself given that the world fleet 
is generally ageing (figure 6), owing to a decline in the rate of investment in new vessels over 
a prolonged period. In 1991 36% of the world fleet was over 20 years old (figure 7). However, 
age itself need not be a major problem if a vessel is built, operated and maintained in accordance 
with international standards. 
Figure 4 
Jo,o• 
25,0' 
20,0' 
1s,o• 
10,0~ 
s,o, 
0,0, 
0-4 S-9 5 
Age of total losses 
Year 1991 
10-U 15-19 
Age of ship (Years) 
Sow:ce: I.l())V'.s Stat.i.stical !'able.s, 1991 
Figure 5 
Percentage(\) 
50,00\ Dry bulk cargo vessels 
Totally lost with cargo 
From January 1988 to 1991 26,7% 
20-24 25-29 
40,00\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1\ 1\1\0 
7, 69% 1mmm::1r:m:m:::m1mm 
=== ======::==== ==== = ===========::== - - - - 1:;·=.·==.1 ;.·==·i:=· •. :l==.,:.==; i==:.:: 1::.· r:=.i:l;:.::=.; ;:~·:.:~::.::::·.:l::.}.:::.=.i~:::==.~l::.:==.:r::~.-.i==l:::=.=.~==::::.:·==·· !==.::'==.!==.~ ==;:.;: ;==.,!==.~ !·== .. ~==:!:==. - - -
"''''"''m~lmm~"'"""'' 0-10 
Souzce: Svedi.sll Sedazez '.s ODio.a 11-15 16-20 
Age of Vessels when Lost [Years] 
estr.Fail/Heavy Weat~other Causes 30+ 
5,13% 
21-25 
Figure 6 6 
WORLD AGEING FLEET 
Percentage of Ships Above 10 Years Old 
80% / 73% 
60% 
42% 
36% • 
~ 40% 
20% 
0% 
1975 1980 
Sow:c:e: Bouse ~ I.ord.s Report, 1992 
Figure 7 
AGE OF ALL SHIPS 
Year 1991 
0' ~--n---~--~--~---n--~~-~ 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ 
30, 
25, 
20, 
15, 
10' 
5' Age [Years) 
AGE OF OIL TANKERS 
Year 1991 
23, 
0' L-~n---D---~--~--JL--~---' 
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ 
Age [Years) 
Source: Llord'a Statiatic:&l Tablea, 
l99l ... 
Year 631 • 55% • 
1S 
1985 1990 
AGE OF BULK ~ERS 
Year 1991 • 
1 
35, r---------------------------~ 
30, 
25, 
20, 
15, 
10, 28' 
5' 
o,L--A--~~~----~~~~ 
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ 
Age [Years) 
AGE OF ORE/BULK/ORE CARRlERS 
Year 1991 
50' 
40, 
20, 20, 
0' 0' 
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ 
Age [Years) 7 
7 
9. The low safety record of ageing vessels calls therefore into question the 
performance of the companies operating them, the loading/unloading techniques used and 
the performance of flag States in their task of ensuring compliance of their vessels with 
the international construction, operation and maintenance standards. 
Flag States' performances 
10. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), and in particular the 17th 
Assembly have drawn the attention of the shipping world to the fact that many flag 
States are unable to secure and maintain a proper control of the safety and environment 
protection standards of vessels on their respective registers or operating under their flags, 
thus leading to varying levels of safety performance. This fact has been further confirmed 
by the European Maritime Industries Forum1• This is striking, given the universal 
regulatory approach largely followed for the adoption of safety rules in the shipping 
sector, which should lead to a similar level of safety performance in all fleets adhering 
to international Conventions. However, statistics support the conclusions reached by 
IMO. They show a wide variation in the loss ratios of fleets, the worst being 100 times 
the best in fleets of 2 million tonnes or more, (see figures 8 and 9). Such astounding 
variations exist also among the fleets of the Member States where the worst level is 
50 times the best. The charts show also that fleets with the worst losses are almost all 
expanding, one of the reasons being the flagging out. 
Figure 8 
Flaq Stat.e 
SOUTH ltOP.BA 
CYPRUS 
PAHAMA. PJaLI:PPI:NB8 
GI:!IP..\LTAR. 
BAHAMAS 
YUG08LA.v::tA 
MALTA !IRAZI:L 
TAIWA!f 
I:NDOHBSI:A u.s.A. 
SI:NG.\POP.B 
POLAND 
R.ac.uaA 
UR.S8 
1101\WAY CJaNA 
WORLD 
JAPAB 
U.Jt. 
DB~ 
SAUDI: ARA!II:A 
CANADA 
PIVJfCB 
GBJUCANY 
:ITALY 
LI:IIBR.I:A 
8WBDBH 
NBTHBR.LA.HD8 
HONG ltOHG 
TUR.ItBY 
GP.BBCB 8PAI:H 
I:NDI:A 
0 Loss ratio among the larger fleet 
Years 1985 -1989 
O,Z1 
0,18 0,15 0,15 0,1 
0,09 
o?628 
o,oz 
0,01 
0,2 0,5 
0,49 
0,45 0,39 0,35 0,32 
0,<1 0,6 0,8 
Percentage [') 0,92 
1 
Sow:ce: 2'be I.a.st.itute o~ Lomoa Umerrn:ite.r:t lc:z:ncreased Tonnage &!aDecreased Tonnage l 
1 Maritime Industries Forom; Final report to the Commission- October 1992. 1,14 
1,2 
Figure 9 
llag State 
ST.VIMCEKT £ GR!KAD. sarm xoR!A 
CYPRUS 
MAL V. 
VAJIUA.1'U 
'l'URXEY 
PAJWfA 
BAHAMAS 
ITALY 
•oJUiD.Y IJID08!SIA 
YUGOSLAVIA 
SIMGAPOJU! u.s.A. LIBERIA 
SW! I)!. 
CBIJIA v.nwr 
J)!JIMAU 
RCMUIA 
G!IU9.H B!»>J])A 
RUSSIA 
AUS'l'RAL IA 8 
Loss ratio amount the larger fleet 
Years 1987-1991 
(Fleet larger than 2 mil. GRT) 
TiiiK)RLJ) 
JAPAM u.x. ·-----0,29 
:;: 0,02 
:t-:~::: 0,04 
:;:;:;:;: 0,04 
:;:;:;:;: 0,04 SPAU rauc! 
CAJW>A 
POL.UD 
BRAZIL 
DTB!RLAJIDS so•G xo•G IJIDIA 
GR!!C! 
PBILIPPIRS ~!LnQ 
0 
Souzce: The Iascicuce or 
LoDdOD DDdervziCez5 0,2 0,4 0,6 0, 8 
Percentage [ '1 
lc:rncreased Tonnag~Decreased Tonnage! 1 1,2 
11. Remarkable variations within the world fleet and also among the fleets of the Member 
States are further demonstrated by Port State Control statistics on deficiencies and detentions 
according to flag. These statistics show a ratio of deficiencies over inspections of almost 79% 
for the worst flag compared with 12% for the best performing ·flags (figure 10)\ EC Member 
States show ratios varying between 52% and 12%. In 1991 at world level a ratio of 23 to 1 was 
recorded between the flag with the highest detention over inspection ratio and the lowest. When 
EC Member States only are considered, the ratio is 7 to 1 (figure 11). 
Figure 10 
ROMANIA 
INDIA 
TURKEY 
ST.VINCENT & GRENAD. 
CHINA 
HONDURAS 
MALTA 
EGYPT 
PANAMA 
PHILIPPINES 
TAIWAN 
CYPRUS 
MY.ANMAR 
SPAIN 
GREECE 
SINGAPORE 
BAHAMAS 
LIBERIA 
IRELAND 
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA 
YUGOSLAVIA 
ITALY 
NORWAY 
PORTUGAL 
FRANCE 
ANTILLES NL 
USA 
POLAND 
,JAPAN 
SWEDEN 
SOUTH COREA 
NETHERLAND.S 
SAUDI ARABIA 
GERMANY 
HONG KONG 
.BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
UNITED.KINGDOM 
USSR 
LUXEMBOURG -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,0% 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 DEFICIENCIES RATIO PER FLAG STATE 
Year 1991 
I 66,1\ 
I 63,5\ 
I 63,2\ 
J 62,4\ 
.. I 60,7\ 
I 59,1\ 
I 58,4\ 
I 57,9\ .. I 57,7\ 
I 54,2\ 
I 52,8\ 
I 52,0\ 
I 51,4\ 
50,4\ 
50,4\ 
50,1\ 
I 50,0\ 
I 49,6\ 
I 49,5\ 
I 47,2\ 
I 46,7\ 
43,8\ 
43,6\ 
43,6\ 
I 42,9\ 
I 40,3\ 
I 39,0\ 
I 37,3\ 
I 37,2\ 
J 35,2\ 
I 33,3\ 
I 31,7% 
I 31,3% 
I 30,8\ 
I 29,5\ 
I 27,2\ 
I 23,9\ 
I 11,8\ 
I I I 
20,0% 40,0% 60,0% I 78,9\ 
I 77,9\ 
-.() 
~ 
I 
80,0% 100,0% 
10 
Figure 11 
Detention ratio per flag state 
Year 1991 
Flag state 
ROMANIA 
ST.VINCENT & GRENAD. 
MALTA 
IRAN 
LEBANON 
HONDURAS 
INDIA 
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBL. 
PANAMA 
CYPRUS 
MYANMAR 
LIBERIA 
BRAZIL 
SPAIN 
EGYPT 
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA 
GREECE 
ITALY 
UNITED KINGDOM 
SOUTH KOREA 
FRANCE 
NETHERLANDS 
GERMANY 
DENMARK 
Source: PSC Repozt, l99l 
Main causes of casualties .. J 22195, 
116117, 
I 1s1 99' 
I 121 50' 
I 121 00' 
I 111 76' 
I 101 DO' 
I 101 oo' 
J 91 24, 
I 7 I 65, 
I 7 I 40, 
I 7 I 14, 
6167, 
6167, 
6156, 
I 61 44' 
J 41 66, = 2189, 
= 2193, ~ ="" 2178, ~ 2141' 
~ 2133, 
2115, :J o, 87, 
5,00' 10100' 15100, 20,00' 25100, 30,00' 
(Cue• i.a wb.icb JDOZe tlla.a 20 .i.adiv.idual 
•lli~ veze .i.avolved) 
12. Most observers of the maritime world agree with the view that existing international 
safety standards are for the most part an adequate framework and therefore the continuing high 
level of risk of casualties in the shipping industry is not primarily determined by the absence of 
adequate international rules, but rather by laxity in their application and enforcement. More 
precisely, two factors intervene to a large extent: first, the unsatisfactory performance of a 
number of shipping operators and the authorities responsible for .safety in their flag States and, 
second, human errors (as shown by the statistics reproduced, see figures 8 to 12). 
13. , Yaria.tions .. in safety performances of flag States result from a number of factors. In 
particular cases gaps and weaknesses in the international Conventions,. Codes or Resolutions may 
be a contributory factor. However, of much greater general significance are inadequate 
implementation and insufficient enforcement of the international standards that do exist as well 
as differences in their interpretation. Together these account for the main differences in the safety 
and environmental performance of the world fleets, including the fleets of the EC Member States. 
11 
14. Human error whether by crew, pilot or shore is a contributory cause in most 
cases giving rise to claims following an accident and accounts for almost 60% of all 
major claims and for 80% of the incidents according to Protection and Indemnity (P & I) 
statistics (figure 12). It is in part explained by the dwindling availability of experienced 
seafarers and to an important extent by insufficient safety management structures and 
procedures for on-board and land activities o(.several shipping operators. The IMO, at 
its 1~ Assembly in November 1991, called on all members and governmental and 
private organisations concerned to take effective measures to respond adequately to these 
two fundamental problems. 
Figure 12 
MAIN CAUSE FOR MAJOR CLAIMS 
Percentage of the Total Number of Claims 
STRUCT. FAILURE 
13,0\ 
EQUXP./MECH.FAXL 
20,0\ ----------6, PXLOT ERROR 12,1\ . SHORE ERROR 20,7 
HUMAN FACTOR ENG. OFFXC. ERROR t 4: 
58,0\ OFFXCER ERROR 43,1\ 
:!$_"$.;~;::.~; CREW ERROR 20,7\ ---------········· 
OTHER 
9,0\ 
Main Causes 
Source: UJ: PU Club, 1991 Human Factor 
... 
. . 15. . Further causes of accidents should not, however, b~ lost from sight by focusing 
only on the above issues. They are in particular those stemming from land-based 
operations, such as the indiscriminate use of modem loading techniques on vessels which 
are not built to withstand them, charterers who may exercise pressure on ship 
performance at the cost of safety, and shippers' incorrect declarations as regards the 
goods loaded in containers or in parcels. 
12 
16. All these variables will continue to determine the accident rates of the future, in 
a manner which cannot be precisely predicted. The Commission believes that what is 
important is that specific problem areas, such as those identified above need to become 
the target of specific, urgent measures if the Community wants to see, in the near future, 
a sharp drop in casualties and pollution by ships followed by a marked trend downwards. 
Public expectations 
17. Thus, public expectations concerning safety and environmental protection are 
rapidly increasing, as are the costs of accidents and subsequent remedial action. The level 
of risk that public opinion will tolerate has declined and the demand for better protection 
and adequate compensation in the case of loss or damage resulting from accidents is ever 
increasing. 
18. In the last two decades public reaction has been the inspiration behind a number 
of important steps designed to improve the safety of shipping and navigation at sea. That 
public reaction was caused by the loss of hundreds of passengers' lives in a relatively 
small number of marine casualties which received extensive media coverage and by 
significant environmental damage which received similar publicity. The awareness of the 
public to dangers in an area of transport generally perceived as safe and environmentally 
acceptable has been sharply increased by such incidents. 
19. The need for and the urgency of action was also emphasized by all maritime 
operators within the Maritime Industries Forum. Note of this goodwill has been taken 
in the final report which the Forum transmitted to the Cominission in October 1992. 
3. THE GLOBAL CHARACTER OF SHIPPING 
I 
20. The worldwide dimension of the interests and activities of the economic operators 
concerned, including shipowner's, charterers, and the fishing industry as well as well as 
those of consumers, whether as passengers, tourists or shippers requires action on the 
widest possible geographical scale. This dimension applies also to maritime safety and 
environmental protection and has led to regulations being primarily promoted and 
adopted at international level, through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). 
21. This global dimension should continue to determine the approach of the 
Community, its Member States and its maritime industries, which must take the 
initiatives required to ensure that the IMO can continue to realise its worldwide 
objectives as to the levels of standards, their effective implementation and enforcement 
and within timescales which meet the concerns of both flag and coastal States and their 
populations. 
(4) 13 
22. Adherence to this policy is dictated not only by the need for the broadest 
possible application of standards guaranteeing a high level of safety world-wide, but also 
in the interest of reducing considerably the negative effects on the competitiveness of the 
fleets of the Member States which result also from the cost advantages enjoyed by the 
operators of substandard ships and crews. 
23. To a certain extent the above also applies to other international organisations such 
as the · International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Association of 
Lighthouse Authorities (IALA). 
14 
4. THE COMMUNITY'S APPROACH 
Introductory Remarks 
24. Actions to promote safety in transport are included in the white paper on a global 
approach on the future development of the common transport policy1 as adopted by the 
Commission on 8 December 1992. This document outlines the general principles and 
the main types of initiatives of a Community programme to enhance the safety at sea and 
to prevent or reduce operational or accidental pollution by ships. As far as quantity of 
oil is concerned, accidental discharge of oil is only the smaller part of the overall 
pollution, even of the overall pollution caused by shipping. However, the impact on the 
environment as well as on certain economic sectors can be dramatic, particularly in the 
local communities where accidents happen. The focus of this communication is the 
safety aspects of relevance for the prevention of such accidents and consequential needs 
to protect marine and coastal environment, while only in broader terms addressing other 
environmental aspects from shipping. 
25. The approach proposed in the present Communication stems from the White 
Paper to tackle the main causes of failures in safety at sea and protection of the marine 
environment from pollution by ships identified above and thereafter to monitor and 
evaluate the success or failure of the measures laid down, and take further appropriate 
measures if necessary. 
26. The European Parliament has always been very sensitive to the public demand 
for greater safety at sea and protection of the sea and has repeatedly called on other 
Community Institutions for effective measures2 and for an increased role of the coastal 
States to further reduce the potential threat shipping activities represent to the maritime 
environment, its natural resources and the industrial and leisure activities which develop 
along the European coastline. 
27. Recently3 the Council has vigorously reacted, recognising the need for intensified 
action at international, Community or national level as appropriate to ensure more 
adequate protection of fish resources and coastal areas of the Community and urging the 
Commission to present this Communication, including an action programme on priority 
measures to enhance maritime safety and pollution prevention. 
1 "The Future Development ofthe Common Transport Policy", 8.12.92. 
2 Resolution 0 J. N° C 129 (Genoa and Livomo) 
Resolution P.E. 163.454 of 17.12.1992 (La Coruiia) 
Bertens Report AJ-0144/92 of 16.9.1992 
Resolution of 21.1.1993 (Shetland Islands) 
3 Conclusions of the extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport on Maritime Safety and Pollution Prevention in the 
Community -25 .1.1993. 
15 
28. The approach seeks, first, to eliminate substandard vessels from Community 
Waters and from Member States' fleets by: 
i. the adoption of Community requirements on the convergent implementa­
tion by the Member States of existing international rules, mostly IMO, through 
non-ambiguous and mandatory rules enforced by them in their capacity as flag 
States; 
ii. ensuring effective enforcement by the Member States in their capacity as 
port and coastal States of the international rules to vessels of all flags when 
operating in Community waters; 
111. promoting a modern, coherent and harmonised development of maritime 
infrastructure including waste management facilities, traffic surveillance and aids 
to navigation, such as the establishment of Vessel Traffic Systems (VTS) and the 
· installation of such systems where necessary in the Community, particularly in 
environmentally sensitive areas and to support real time traffic information or 
regulation measures, using the advances in information technology and 
telecommunication in global information management systems. 
Moreover shore based radiocommunication facilities to support the "Global 
Maritime Distress and Safety System" (GMDSS) as well as additional ship borne 
equipment to facilitate control, should be fully implemented, thus bringing the 
safety of navigation in Community waters into the electronic age; 
iv. initiating and supporting action within the IMO and other relevant 
organisations to ensure that appropriate international provisions are made within 
reasonable timescales to improve safety performance and environmental 
protection, taking into account best available technology. 
~,. Equally important measures are needed on training to address problems 
asso\;;d~ ~ ~ with human error. On the basis of the minimum requirements to be adopted 
by the Community, appropriate programmes should be put in place to produce the 
necessary improvements as rapidly as possible. Attention should be given to employment 
of highly qualified and specifically trained seafarers on board vessels and in particular 
those carrying hazardous cargo, the strengthening of vocational training, pilotage and 
communication. Training should use the best available technologies which reflect state 
of the art operational systems in order to ensure a high level of skills amongst crews and 
the optimal use of technologies to monitor and manage ship borne equipment and related 
land systems. Finally, relevant R&D projects need to be developed with regard. to 
promotion of advanced technological solutions to the problems of maritime safety and 
environment protection. 
16 
30. The global dimension of shipping requires that priority be given to action at 
international level. Therefore the Commission considers appropriate for the Community 
to pursue the enhancement of maritime safety and prevention of pollution of the seas in 
the framework of existing international organisations. However, the Commission notes 
the limits of the present international regulatory system due, interalia, to loopholes in the 
relevant Conventions; to the non binding natt~re of several international instruments; to 
standards leaving wide discretionary margins. to national administrations, to the different 
levels .of application and enforcement of such standards by the flag and port States, 
including Member States. 
31. Appropriate action at Community level brings an added value which individual, 
national action, and action within the international organisations, have not so far proved 
capable of attaining. Hence the need, recognised by the extraordinary Council of 
Environment and Transport Ministers of25 January 19931, to set up a Community action 
programme in this context. As to the manner of the Community's intervention in these 
cases, the adoption of binding Community legislation respects the proportionality of that 
legislation, together with the Community's machinery for insuring its proper application, 
that is needed to secure more uniform implementation and enforcement in practice of 
internationally agreed standards and other rules. Other aspects of the proportionality 
principle related to the type of binding legislation proposed are considered further below. 
32. The development of modem maritime infrastructure where it is needed in 
Community waters is a necessary part of the development of transport networks, 
complemented by the accompanying trans-European telecommunication network, 
contemplated by the Treaty on European Union. This applies both to navigational 
systems and port infrastructure, for example, to deal with waste management. The 
proportionality principle will be respected in relation to the manner of the Community 
intervention by reliance on the flexible network guidelines and their accompanying 
measures for which the Union Treaty provides. 
33. Co-ordinated action within relevant international organisations on the setting of 
new standards is needed to ensure that these will meet Community needs while also being 
respected by other maritime nations. Effective action of this kind allows improvements 
in maritime safety to be pursued in a way which takes fully into account the global 
character of the industry. It is also in full conformity with the proportionality principle 
since, to the extent that the international machinery produces effective results, the 
Community need not itself legislate on the same subject matter. 
1 Conclusions ofthe extraordinary Council Environment and Transport of25.1.1993 on Maritime Safety and Pollution Prevention 
in the Community. 
17 
(i) Convergent implementation of international rules 
34. The present international rules laid down mostly in IMO, are subscribed to by 
flag States responsible for 99% of world tonnage vessels. Yet there is a consistent 
pattern of substandard vessels operating under the flags of countries which have ratified 
the international Conventions. This is caused by a variety of factors. 
35. Implementation of the internationally.'"agreed standards is not uniform because 
some instruments are not legally binding, like many IMO Resolutions. Others allow for 
derogations which may be of considerable importance. The totality of vessels is not 
covered, for example, passenger ships plying between ports in the same States or vessels 
below Convention size. Some instruments are defined using such general terms that very 
different interpretations are possible. Thus standards for many basic items are not clearly 
established, as for example in rules on fire prevention, collision, stability, equipment. 
Where an attempt has been made (by IMO) to remedy these deficiencies, very often the 
new specifications are again left to voluntary application. Such voluntary status is also 
enacted for by many IMO Resolutions. 
36. Furthermore it is left to national administrations to define the detailed safety 
rules. In turn they delegate this work to classification societies. Many flag registers and 
classification societies are ill equipped to carry out the task: they lack adequate training, 
experience and technical knowledge. There is also a lack of criteria in minimum 
standards for the activities of classification societies themselves. For ships in service, 
survey intervals and specifications of conditions under which a partially worn out 
structure or worn machinery may be considered unsafe, are not defined. 
37. The Law of the Sea Convention calls on States to adopt laws and regulations on 
safety and pollution prevention for vessels flying their flag or of their registry. It 
establishes that such laws and regulations shall at least have the same effect as that of 
generally accepted international rules established through the competent international 
organisations or general diplomatic conference. The IMO has called for a uni.form 
application of such rules. 
38. The above described divergences not only have an adverse effect on safety, they 
can and do fragment the international market for the maritime supply industry and create 
competitive disadvantages due to technical barriers and different certification processes. 
39. As a frrst step the Commission proposes action by the Community to ensure 
convergent implementation of IMO standards by Member States. This can be done in a 
number of ways, for example, by ensuring that the Community and/or, as the case may 
be, all Member States adhere to international Conventions, by giving legally binding 
effect to international rules that are not mandatory or by Community directives adopting 
common interpretations of rules that are framed as general principles. Where necessary, 
these could provide for the development of additional European technical standards, for 
example, on marine equipment. These and other techniques should permit present 
divergences in safety levels to be reduced within acceptable limits while leaving both to 
the IMO and to national authorities their own particular roles and responsibilities. 
18 
40. In addition, the international standards could also be extended, as required, to 
those vessels falling outside the scope of the international Conventions. This would 
ensure that the same safety level will apply throughout the Community. 
41. As regards ratification of Conventions, a priority measure should be the 
ratification by all Member States of the 1992 PJotocols to the 1969 Liability Convention 
and to the 1971 Fund Convention. The extraordinary Council of25.1.93 has recommen­
ded the Member States to do so, and has urged the Community and its Member States 
to examine the feasibility of developing a system of penalties and civil liability for 
environmental pollution. This subject will be developed in a Communication on civil 
liability for damage to the environment which the Commission is finalising and which 
is intended to be the subject of extensive consultations across the Community. 
42. Moreover the Commission intends to promote in all relevant international fora 
initiatives aimed at an extension of compensation to cover the costs of conducting, where 
appropriate, an ecological survey. 
43. For hazardous cargoes other than oil the Hazardous and Noxious Substances 
Convention (HNS) seems unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable period of time. 
A partial and interim solution might come from a substantial increase of the amounts 
provided for under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, of 
1 September 1976. 
(ii) Uniform enforcement of international rules 
44. The convergent implementation of international rules alone would, however, be 
insufficient to guarantee an adequate level of safety and environment protection in 
Community waters, given that a large percentage of substandard vessels operate under 
other than Community flags, and given that many flag States are unable to set up and 
maintain proper control of vessels on their registers. 
45. There is therefore an increasing need for measures to be taken by both port and 
coastal States to ensure that international rules are complied with by all vessels under any 
flag. The call for action by coastal States is stressed by several articles of the Law of 
the Sea Convention (also signed by the Corrununity), for example articles 192, 194, 197, 
211, and 218 to 221, which provide also for control measures by the State of the port. 
These measures are more specifically required under Regulation 1.19 of the Convention 
for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). 
46. At present, despite positive results emerging from a ·decade of operation ot'the 
European Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Port State Control, the Community 
is still lacking a fully effective and coherent approach to this form of intervention. There 
is no consistent application of safety rules; no systematic system for inspection or 
detention of ships; no efficient and transparent data exchange mechanism; and no uniform 
19 
legal basis for the enforcement of agreed rules. This results in many substandard vessels 
escaping the safety net of the rules. The lack of a common, mandatory approach 
frustrates also the efforts of those who try to implement the rules rigorously and enables 
ships, by such methods as selective use of certain ports of destination, to avoid the net 
for their proper control. The rigorous States pay also in loss of trade for their adherence 
to safety and environment protection policies, while their waters continue to be 
threatened by transiting substandard vessels .. 
47. This is a situation which should be eradicated. This cannot be achieved 
effectively if action is taken solely at national level, nor by relying exclusively on 
voluntary commitments such as those of the MOU on Port State Control, based on non 
uniform inspection and detention criteria. 
48. Community level action is thus required to provide a sound footing on which all 
the Member States can operate, and depend on their neighbours and partners doing 
likewise. The Community approach should be based upon uniform and binding 
application of common criteria for intensification of controls over certain types of ships 
and for evaluation of deficiencies and sanctions including detention or possibility to 
refuse access to Community ports to ships found below internationally agreed standards 
and further which refused to be upgraded or repaired as required, and the rapid adoption 
of EDI as a transparent data exchange mechanism. 
49. In addition, Community action within the framework of the MOU on Port State 
Control to which a number of European third countries are parties, including action 
within its Committee, could permit such measures to be given broader European 
application. 
50. Furthe~ore, port and transit dues which have the effect of penalising modem 
vessels should be revised taking into account IMO Resolution A 722(17) on application 
of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in Segregated Bcillast Tanks (SBT). 
(iii) Development of maritime infrastructure 
51. The responses of Member States to their international obligations and calls for 
a high level of safety of navigation and coastal protection against pollution from ships 
vary considerably in Community waters. For example, a better mix of navigational aids 
including VTS and radio positioning, and of waste reception facilities is provided in the 
northern European area. Even when facilities are provided, the lack of harmonised 
procedures, particularly in the ship/shore interaction and in co-ordination across front_iers 
diminishes the effectiveness of the efforts. This is typical of VTS, developed and still 
developing mostly in response to local needs which leads to an incompatible and 
piecemeal coverage of the Community coastal areas, as well as of port reception facilities 
for oil and waste. 
20 
52. The financial efforts of Member States to provide the necessary infrastructure 
for navigational aids and waste facilities to fulfil the international obligations are 
unbalanced. As regards VTS, for example, some Member States benefit from the large 
coverage of the services provided by others without any financial effort on their part. 
Some Member States are unable to provide the expected services due to the very 
extended coastlines. The burden on those wbo have the benefit of navigational aids 
differs from Member State to Member State. Some States apply totally or partially "the 
user pays" principle imposing lighthouse dues or similar taxes to all ships plying to their 
ports, whilst others provide considerable facilities to shipping in their areas without any 
cost recovery from the users. 
53. As for waste and oil reception facilities, their lack in several ports of the 
Community favours both unlawful discharges at sea and deflection of trade towards more 
permissive ports where use of these facilities is not available or not offered. 
54. Individual States' action has failed to respond both to the need for convergent 
implementation of harmonised procedures for VTS, even when they are developed at 
international level as reference standards by the International Association of Lighthouse 
Authorities (IALA), and to the international commitments for waste reception facilities. 
Furthermore, individual States' actions cannot respond to the need for recovering from 
the users at least the cost of operating and maintaining safety infrastructure. One major 
reason is that for individual States such users are transiting traffic. 
55. Without adequate common action, navigation in several areas of the Community 
will continue to present a higher risk, in terms of safety and pollution, than in other 
better covered areas, while the application of cost recovery principles will remain at best 
partial and unharmonised ·with the effect that some areas will operate at a competitive 
disadvantage. 
56. A coherent body of initiatives at Community ievel to respond to these 
requirements ought to include a Community-wide ship reporting system which may be 
extended to ships in transit; development of a European radionavigation chain as part of 
the projected world-wide system, identification of zones of high ecological interest with 
regard to adopting, when required through IMO, appropriate traffic restrictions, 
including routeing measures and areas to be avoided; appropriate measures on emergency 
services, in particular towing, and co-ordination of the availability of salvage capacities; 
the fostering of harmonised development of VTS networks and the harmonisation of their 
functions and procedures in the Community. As to waste management, appropriate action 
is required for the creation of reception facilities to implement effectively the MARPOL 
provisions. 
57. The Community measures should also include both the development of a 
commonly agreed mechanism whereby users would contribute to the costs of providing 
the infrastructure required for the safety of navigation and the uniform implementation 
of the international commitment to prevent illegal discharges at sea and into the air. 
(5) 21 
58. The phasing-out of substandard ships raises also the issue of scrapping facilities. 
Particular attention should therefore be given to ways and means to promote, at 
worldwide level, the development of technologically advanced and environmentally 
friendly infrastructures for this purpose. 
(iv) International rulemaking 
59. . Slow progress in the international rulemaking process in IMO is primarily due 
to the diverse characteristics, interests and resources of flag States. In some cases, either 
this holds up effective action for so long that it then becomes ineffective, or final 
solutions, while apparently reflecting international consensus, do not bring a satisfactory 
answer to those States who had identified their needs. Decisions on retrofitting of existing 
ships are sometimes to be implemented over such a long period that it is no longer 
credible. These are natural limits to international rulemaking and to the effectiveness of 
the contributions individual Member States can make to such a process. 
60. The Commission believes that, in spite of these drawbacks, safety and pollution 
prevention rules governing maritime activities should continue to be pursued primarily 
through the IMO in order to ensure the widest possible coverage for rules and standards 
applying to a global industry. 
61. However, if the IMO is to remain the body primarily responsible for setting 
standards on maritime safety, it follows that the Community needs to ensure that the 
IMO's work develops in a way which will produce adequate solutions for ships sailing 
in its waters. Action is needed so that co-ordinated positions can be taken favouring the 
adoption of necessary new rules and the modification of old one:s. More rigorous, 
uniform application of international rules within the Community must have as its 
corollary action within the IMO with a view to ensuring similar developments elsewhere 
in the world where Community vessels operate in competition with third country vessels. 
Procedures will have to be developed which will allow the Community to act effectively 
.. v ~ltis end while respecting the IMO's methods of working and the technical character 
of n,'"'~~' ~f its activity, as well as minimising possible negative reactions to suggestions 
of development of regional voices within the organisation. 
62. In this context, one of the areas on which the Community should concentrate its 
efforts is measures to reduce the risk of human error since this element has been 
recognised as the major cause of maritime accidents. Another area concerns the 
introduction of new te~hnologies for shipborne equipment, in particular that related to 
the automatic transfer of data from ship to shore and vice versa. 
63. The opportunity should also be taken to re-examine the present status of the 
Community in IMO, in the light of the completion of the internal market and the 
development of a global common transport policy taking due account of environmental 
aspects. The purpose of this action is to evaluate the need for change which may call for 
the Community to seek membership of the organisation. 
22 
64. A more detailed presentation and explanation of all the measures proposed within 
each of the four main areas of activity is contained in the second part of this Communica­
tion, the action programme. 
65. The Communication and the action programme provide also the basis for the 
necessary dialogue with all parties concerned, and in particular with the Council, the 
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Joint Committee on 
Maritime Transport and the maritime industries. 
23 
PARTll 
THE ACTION PROGRAMME 
INTRODUCTION 
1. In the light of the analyses in Part I, the action programme for the 
implementation of a common maritime safety and pollution prevention policy should 
consist of four main types of initiatives: 
i) Convergent implementation of international rules 
ii) Uniform enforcement of international rules 
iii) Development of maritime infrastructure 
iv) · International rule making. 
The main items for this programme are presented in summary form in annex 1. 
2. The programme claims to be neither exhaustive nor definitive. A number of 
issues which, at this stage, are more in the nature of problems requiring study or analysis 
call for further investigation by the Commission in consultation with government experts, 
industry and users representatives before policy orientations can be suggested. Examples 
of these important issues are the assessment of scrapping requirements and facilities for 
phased-out ships; the co-ordination of the availability of salvage capacities; risk 
evaluation and prevention; the financial responsibilities of owners of hazardous cargoes 
using substandard ships as well as the responsability of the shipowner for the safety of 
crew and passengers; the examination of the possibility to establish an appropriate 
environmental liability system; analysis of the future requirements in terms of design of 
safe and environmentally-friendly ships that take into account research and development 
c~u.~dy done namely at European level. Moreover, after a period of time new issues may 
emet~t; ,._:_j priorities might change. 
3. The action programme thus represents those measures which are at present ripe 
for action at Community level. It will need to be up-dated from time to time as 
circumstances may require. 
4. During the im:t'lementation of the action programme the Coinmission will 
promote public awareness and seek the support of the main economic operators and all 
governments as well as of non-government maritime interestS. In particular the 
Commission will interact with existing or foreseeable frameworks, including ·the 
Maritime Industries Forum. 
24 
CHAPTER 1. CONVERGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL 
RULES 
5. The first component of the action programme breaks down into five main groups 
of measures: 
i. convergent application of generally defined rules of IMO Conventions; 
ii. harmonisation of safety requirements for shipbome equipment; 
iii. convergent implementation of IMO Resolutions; 
iv. . adoption of common standards for non-Convention vessels. 
v. action concerning the human element. 
6. A summary explanation of the negative effects on safety at sea and on prevention 
of pollution by ships resulting from the lack of uniformity in the level of application by 
flag States of internationally agreed standards is given in Part I(§ 34 to§ 36). The more 
detailed analysis outlined below of the ways the present international regulatory system 
operates helps in forming a wider understanding of the limits of such a system; of the 
reasons why, in the Commission's view, a Community answer rather than single States 
could improve the situation; and what type of answer is proposed. 
i) Convergent application of generally defined rules of IMO Conventions 
7. Neither the SOLAS '7 4 Convention nor the Load Line Convention identify all 
standards to which all ships must conform at the building stage and during their entire 
life to a degree detailed enough to ensure that they are uniformly implemented in the 
Community in a non-divergent manner. This is particularly true for elements such as the 
hull, machinery, electrical and control installations. These fundamental ship components 
are controlled according· to the rules of classification societies·. Therefore most 
administrations decided to delegate to the classification societies the preparation and 
enforcement of safety rules concerning their reliability. The classification societies in 
question traditionally had adequate staff and facilities to develop the rules in question and 
to cover the related inspections. 
8. However, and this is the root of today's problems in this field, during the past 
two decades the number of classification societies has greatly increased whilst several of 
them do not have the traditional characteristics to justify their being delegated to act on 
behalf of the administrations. For example they have insufficient trained and experienced 
personnel and infrastructure to prepare and to carry out tests and to interpret rules. The 
result of this historical evolution is that today the national authorities are cOnfronted with 
a problem which is threefold: 
a. the SOLAS rules concerning the most important parts of the ship are hot 
specified; 
b. this danger is frequently exacerbated by the absence of the expertise and long 
experience of a high quality classification society; 
c. also unspecified are the standards which need to be applied to ensure that the 
ship continues to be safe for the whole of its life. 
25 
9. This has led to a situation where not only rules differ in the Community but also 
the conformity of ships to such rules is determined by bodies of different levels of quality 
and expertise whose decisions on safety-related issues can hardly disregard other 
considerations such as the need to keep a fleet under their register. 
10. An effective answer to these problel!lS could be the adoption of a Community 
directive establishing measures to be followed by the Member States and national 
organisations concerned with the certification and the related surveillance of compliance 
by ships with the international Conventions on safety and pollution prevention at sea. 
11. The first objective of the directive would be to secure the direct and tighter 
involvement of the national administrations in the ships certification and survey process. 
Where a Member State decides to delegate fully or in part its statutory role on surveys 
and certification of compliance to Conventions such as SOLAS, Load Lines and 
MARPOL, or to rely upon expertise (organisations or qualified surveyors) outside its 
competent administration to carry out inspections and surveys related to those certificates, 
it shall entrust these duties only to organisations which meet an established set of criteria 
demonstrating their ability and commitment to perform at highly reliable and efficient 
level. 
12. As an example, the Commission notes that several of the following criteria 
characterise efficient and highly regarded classification societies. They can: 
comply with the criteria specified in EN 45000 and EN 29001 European 
standardisation (CEN); 
demonstrate their ability to carry out all surveys required by the Conventions for 
the issue of certificates ; 
set up and monitor international technical standards, and have sufficient 
experience and skill in performing technical surveys; 
demonstrate their ability to develop and keep updated a full set of own rules and 
regulations on hull, machinery and electrical and control equipment to 
internationally recognised technical standards; 
show world-wide representation and employ a minimum number of qualified 
technical staff; 
demonstrate a minimum size of classified fleet or tonnage; 
Clearl;· these would be among the criteria upon which the Community would base 
recognition of the organisations entrusted with statutory duties. 
26 
A working relationship should be established between the competent national 
administrations and the organisations acting on their behalf to ensure quality and 
consistency of rules, surveys and certifications. It should be based upon a formalized 
agreement between the parties setting out the specific duties and functions assumed by 
the organisations. This should include a periodic audit by the administrations of this 
work, as well as the possibility of checking procedures by national administrations 
involving random inspections of ships. 
13. A second objective of such a directive would be to ensure that all "Convention" 
ships entitled to fly the flag of a Member State comply with precisely defined 
requirements designed to achieve equivalent results on safety and reliability of hull, 
machinery, electrical and control installations. 
These requirements should apply both to the certification of new constructions and to 
surveys during the life of the ship. 
a) New construction 
Preparation of sufficiently detailed standards for new constructions would mean 
practically re-writing the extremely large and complex set of rules and procedures of the 
classification societies on these components and keeping them continuously updated. 
This would be unrealistic and unnecessary since the major classification societies 
members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) have 
developed, maintained and upgraded in the course of the years all necessary standards 
for these ships' main components. Although they may differ in cases, it is generally 
accepted that their effects on the safety of ships are substantially equivalent. 
Thus, a more pragmatic and realistic approach would consist in including in such a 
directive provisions to the effect that ships are to be built arid maintained in conformity 
with the requirements for hull, machinery, electrical and control installations of those 
classification societies which meet the set of common criteria described above. 
The proposed approach would introduce equivalent safety levels on all main components 
of ships under Member States' flags. Moreover, it would take away from the 
"approved" organisations, the present economic pressure put on them by unsound 
competitors. Such undue influence of the economic activities of classification societies 
on their statutory work has raised the doubts of many observers of the maritime world 
on the ability of these high level organisations to maintain the required full independence 
of judgement when carrying out their statutory duties on behalf of the national 
administrations. 
27 
The adoption and adequate implementation in the Community of such a measure would 
restore in all concerned, including Member States administrations, the full confidence on 
the effectiveness and reliability of the inspections and surveys of these classification 
societies and in their continuous commitment to maintain and update rules on hull, 
machinery, electrical and control installations. 
,. 
A further provision would also be necessary to ensure that these classification societies 
will consult with each other periodically with a view to maintaining equivalence of their 
future standards and implementation thereof. 
(b) Surveys during ship's life 
Two aspects need to be considered: 
1. specification of intervals between various types of periodical surveys and scope 
and extent of each survey; 
2. specification of conditions under which a partially worn-out hull structure or 
worn machinery may still be considered safe for the period between two surveys 
and the extent of repairs or substitutions required. 
The former are dealt with under classification rules and the above approach for new 
construction would apply. The latter are difficult to codify in written standards, each case 
requiring an evaluation on its own merits as well as the knowledge and the experience 
of the surveyor. He may also need detailed information from files giving the history of 
similar ships. The skill of the surveyor and the efficiency of the inspecting organisation 
are therefore key elements. This problem would be solved by delegating the execution 
of these tasks only to organisations meeting the criteria described above. 
Finally complementary action is required to ensure that all flag administrations other than 
Member States administrations, which delegate the testing and certification of ships 
entrust such statutory duties only to highly reliable organisations. 
To this end, a specific measure is required addressing the Member States as States of the 
port, to select for priority inspections those ships whose certificates, including the class 
certificate, have been delivered by an organisation which does not meet the criteria laid 
down for the EC-approved organisations. · 
Moreover, the Community· . and its Membet States should, ·as . recommended by the 
Council in its conclusions of 25.1.1993, as well as by the ·industry in the Maritime 
Industries Forum, act in a co-ordinated manner in IMO to obtain the extension of these 
provisions to the whole shipping world. 
28 
The serious gap described above can only be filled by such a directive establishing a 
common framework of quality at Community level to guarantee certain safety 
performances in the EC. It respects the proportionality principle by leaving to each 
Member State the right to decide the implementation tools that best fits its internal system 
and to the delegated competent organisations the duty and the tasks to lay down, maintain 
and apply the appropriate standards under th~ surveillance of the Member States in co­
operation with the Commission. 
ii) Harmonisation of safety requirements for shipborne equipment 
14. For marine equipment a different approach from that put forward for hull, 
machinery, electrical and control installations is proposed. The reason is simple. Rules 
and standards for marine equipment are developed, to a certain extent within the relevant 
Conventions, rather than relying as was explained before, for hull and machinery, upon 
rules laid down by classification societies. The problem is rather that of ensuring that 
the margin of interpretation left to administrations or testing organisations converges as 
far as is reasonable and that they are effectively applied in a consistent manner in all 
Member States. 
15. Following extensive consultation, both with the shipping industry and 
government experts, the Commission has formed the view that the level of performance 
of shipbome equipment required by the SOLAS or MARPOL Conventions suffers from 
problems similar to those identified for the main ship components: different levels of 
national standards implementing the international rules or recommendations concerning 
technical specifications and testing procedures leaving discretionary margins to 
certification bodies, and different levels of qualifications and experience, as well as 
testing methods of such bodies. 
16. This leads to differing levels of safety, and in turn, despite the existence of 
international standards, to reluctance of Member States· to accept without control 
equipment approved by another Member State; to the creation of technical barriers to 
trade and to unnecessary costs and administrative procedures related to the approval of 
this equipment. Moreover, shipping companies face higher costs in some Member States 
than in others because of different national requirements, and accordingly are at a 
competitive disadvantage to companies in other Member States. Community action for 
harmonisation in the Community of international technical requirements and testing of 
ship borne equipment as well as of conformity assessment procedures designed to improve 
safety at sea, safeguard human life and protect the environment seems therefore 
justified. 
17. Directives should be adopted addressing in the first place ship borne equipment 
for which SOLAS and MARPOL require the approval by national administrations in 
accordance to standards set out in IMO Conventions or Resolutions. 
29 
The primary objective of such directives would be to establish the same level of safety 
performance of this equipment throughout the Community. Such directives would make 
use of certain aspects of the Community's "New Approach on Technical specifications, 
Testing and Certification"1 to technical regulation and standardisation because they would 
provide that all equipment placed on the market for use on board a ship shall comply 
with common technical and testing requiremen~. This would be proven, in line with the 
provisions of the "new approach", by conformity assessment procedures which shall 
consist of the CE-type examination (module B) and, at the choice of the manufacturer, 
the EC declaration of conformity to type (either module Cor D). Complying products 
shall exhibit the CE mark, the CE-type examination certificate and the identification 
number of the notified body. This approach would meet the further objective of ensuring 
the free movement of goods within the Community by establishing that Member States 
shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market for putting into use on 
ships, equipment which complies with the requirements of the directives. Provisions 
shall establish that Member States shall recognise equipment exhibiting the above 
identifications also when granted in another Member State. Finally, procedures for 
recognition of notified bodies competent to carry out the conformity assessment 
procedures are set up. They should limit the EC recognition only to those organisations 
which meet a set of common minimum criteria to be established in the context of these 
directives. 
18. As regards shipbome equipment for which no international provisions exist as 
regards both mandatory carriage and safety standards, the full use of the "new approach 
to standardisation "2 is foreseen. It will focus only on those products for which the survey 
carried out by the services of the Commission has identified the existence of technical 
barriers to trade. 
iii) Converg~t implementation of IMO Resolutions 
19. In addition to the international Conventions and Protocols, the IMO Assembly 
adopts Resolutions to upgrade international standards or to complement those set in the 
Conventions and their Protocols. In most cases, acceptance of these Resolutions does not 
entail an obligation to comply. A survey carried out by the Commission's services with 
the help of government experts on a limited number of important safety-related IMO 
Resolutions, has provided evidence of a large variety of approaches in the Member States 
for the application and interpretation of these voluntary standards. 
1 Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 (OJ. No. Cl36, 4.6.85). 
2 Council Resolution of7 May 1985 (OJ. No. Cl36, 4.6.85). 
30 
20. Examples are found in rules on fire prevention, collision, grounding, stability 
and the minimising of consequences of casualties. To cope with some of these 
imperfections, yet more rules were adopted by the IMO Assembly. Since their 
interpretation or the decision as regards their application were left to the national 
administrations, these safety standards are also not determined or applied unequivocally . 
... 
21. Further examples of important Resolutions of a non-mandatory nature are found 
among those dealing with the carriage of dangerous goods, such as the International 
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG) and the Code for Construction and Equipment 
of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH). 
22. Also of high relevance in the light of past and recent dramatic events where 
hundreds of human lives are lost at sea, are those IMO Resolutions concerning passenger 
vessels and bulk carriers. Here problems related both to construction and to operational 
issues are underlined and recommendations are made extending from thorough 
investigations of accidents reports, so as to assist in the adoption of appropriate remedial 
measures, to implementation of specific interim measures, addressed also to loading 
terminal operators or crews as appropriate. 
23. The negative impact which the use of different national rules implementing 
international standards has on safety, prevention of pollution, competition, barriers to 
trade and added costs and administrative procedures, has already been developed in 
previous paragraphs and will not be repeated here at great length. However, certain 
issues of high relevance to safety are shortly outlined through three specific examples of 
the type of actions required. 
a) Vanishing bulk carriers 
24. The effect of the rising graph of the vanishing bulk carriers deserves special 
attention. The facts are startling. Since 1975 more than 280 bulk carriers have been .lost, 
30 in the period from January 1990 to September 1991. 
Mariners, shipbuilders, metallurgists, naval architects, classification societies and insurers 
are highly critical of current standards and practices, particularly as regards older vessels 
lifting heavy ores. When searching the causes of losses, it becomes clear that there is no 
single cause: structural failure, stress (including that due to vibrations), the type of steel 
used, corrosion, handling, cargo damage, and working practices have all been put 
forward. Immediate action is a must, and it was strongly urged by IMO' Resolution 
A. 713(17) of 6.11.1991 "On the safety of ships carrying solid bulk cargo". 
25. A first answer may come through the measures proposed under section i) 
"Convergent application ofiMO Conventions" which should ensure that ship inspection 
requirements are dictated and enforced by law, i.e. direct Government intervention in the 
issuing of licences and certificates at all levels, or delegation only to highly qualified 
classification societies under strict supervision of the administrations, thus making both 
more accountable and legally liable. 
31 
26. But this will not suffice. Classification societies recommendations should be 
immediately implemented. For example: side structure to cover minimum strength and 
thickness for frames and brackets, detailed design and welding of brackets, with an 
increased weld factor; use of higher tensile steel frames and brackets; new requirements 
for watertight bulk heads. 
A directive setting adequate provtstons for the mandatory application of such 
recommendations, as an accompanying measure to that under section i), could bring a 
substantial contribution to the solution of the problems for vessels operating under 
Member States flags. A further measure should be taken at the level of port State control 
to ensure that other flags' vessels do respect these international recommendations. This 
point is further developed in the next chapter. 
b) International Codes and related Resolutions 
27. Along the same line of approach, other problems underlined by IMO resolutions 
could be solved by adopting, as a first step, Community directives giving mandatory 
nature to groups of Resolutions or parts of them for all vessels operating under the flags 
of the Member States. This approach would seem suitable for example to make sure that 
all Member States fully apply and enforce compliance to international codes such as the 
IMDG and the BCH Codes. As for the bulk carriers case, complementary action would 
then be needed at the level of port State control and in full compliance with the "no more 
favourable treatment" principle to encourage non-Community States to apply to vessels 
under their flag, codes and related Resolutions which they have approved within IMO. 
28. As regards the Resolution A.680(17) and its recommendations related to the Safe 
Management Code, the modalities of their effective application in the Community should 
be thoroughly examined. A possible step could be to require any shipping company to 
have a "safety rilanager" responsible for all safety-related aspects of the shipping 
activities. This constitutes an integral part of the certification rules in aviation and the 
lack of it is a regrettable gap in the shipping industry. Furthermore, the expediency of 
making relevant provisions of this code mandatory for all operators of passenger ships 
which operate on a regular basis to and from Community ports should be examined. The 
same approach should be considered for other Resolutions concerning operational 
provisions related to these vessels, their crews and passengers, and those related to 
tankers. 
c) Port dues on segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers 
29. Conventional oil tankers must carry part of their water ballast in cargo tanks. 
Modern oil tankers are equipped with segregated ballast tanks, which are completely 
separate from the cargo oil and fuel system, having their own lines and pumps. An SBT 
tanker has a space which, therefore, cannot be used for cargo, and the volume of which 
is 15% -20% over and above the volume of a conventional tanker with the same 
carrying capacity. SBT oil tankers have been ordered for the benefit of the marine 
environment. 
32 
30. When calculated on ships' volumes, dues and charges are e.g. 15-20% higher 
for these SBT oil tankers than the dues on conventional tankers. The charging of dues 
on the volume of the SBT tanks is an operational disadvantage for those who have taken · 
an important step towards a cleaner environment. 
31. In order to avoid that owners who hav~ ordered SBT tankers pay such additional 
port costs, IMO Resolution A.388 (X) was adopted in 1977. Its wording has later been 
refined, and.IMO Resolution A.722 (17), was adopted on 6 November 1991 by IMO's 
General Assembly. In short, this resolution deals with the exemption of the tonnage of 
SBT spaces. At its biennial general meeting in Spain in 1991, the International 
Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) passed a Resolution supporting the IMO 
Resolution. 
32. The Commission is aware that in spite of the adoption of these Resolutions, 
State and port authorities in many countries, including some Member States, continue to 
enforce dues and charges on SBT tankers in a manner which does not comply with such 
recommendations and punishes SBT tanker owners, thus encouraging operators not to use 
these more environmentally friendly vessels. 
33. The mandatory application of Resolution A. 722(17) in all community ports 
would provide a much needed solution to this problem. 
34. The very large number of the existing Resolutions and their varied degree of 
precision and details malces it impracticable to develop further in this context the specific 
actions required. This is particularly true for those Resolutions, and they are many, 
where a large discretionary interpretative role is left to the national administrations. The 
Commission intends to address the latter case by bringing to completion as soon as 
possible the exercise already started in the course of 1992 with the support of 
government experts. It consists in the establishment of a list of priority Resolutions, for 
which ad hoc measures shall then be proposed. · 
In this context the Commission underlines the request by the Extraordinary Council on 
Environment and Transport of 25 january 1993 to support the IMO action on the 
reduction of the safety gap between new and existing ships by up-grading and/or phasing­
out existing ships, including ferries, built to earlier standards after a reasonable period 
of operation, paying particular attention to oil tankers not meeting the MARPPO~ 
standards which entered into force in 1982 . 
35. An indispensable corollary to these actions would be to try and promote in IMO 
the solutions found for the Community to ensure that all vessels under non-EC flags 
would be put on an equal footing and would not constitute· an unacceptable threat' to 
safety and to the environment of EC coastal waters. 
33 
iv) Adoption of common standards for non-Convention vessels 
36. Among the efforts aimed at plugging the gaps in international regulations, a 
further step is required as regards those vessels which, by virtue of specific exemptions 
in the international Conventions, are not subject to international standards. This is the 
case for passenger vessels and cargo ferries plying between ports in the same Member 
State, cargo ships of less than Convention size and, should the Torremolinos Protocol 
be adopted in its present form, fishing vessels below 45 metres. On the one hand, the 
international framework is of fundamental importance to maritime safety given the global 
character of the shipping industry. At the same time, it would appear necessary that also 
those ships operating exclusively in Member States waters, thus Community waters, 
should respect common requirements providing, as general rule, the guarantees of safe 
operation required by the international standards. Furthermore, certification of 
conformity should be done by qualified bodies if a level playing field based on 
convergent standards is to be achieved. This complex issue has been examined by the 
Commission and the Group of Government Experts on Maritime Safety (GGEMS) in its 
lOth meeting held in Brussels on 2 April 1992. 
37. As regards passenger vessels on domestic voyages, the Group expressed itself, 
in general, in favour of a solution at Community level, based on a Council Directive 
establishing minimum rules for new passenger vessels -despite the complexity of the 
issue-and to extend such rules, as far as possible, also to existing ships. Bearing in 
mind the economic impact of such measures a phasing-in period is certainly required. 
The main reference framework for such a directive should be the SOLAS Convention, 
with due regard, of course, to the need to single out appropriate derogations for specific 
situations. 
38. The need for such a measure was underlined by several experts not only on the 
basis of safety aspects, but also in the light of the recent adoption of the EC Regulation 
on liberalisation of cabotage services1 which, opening national trades to ships from other 
Member States, emphasises the importance of ensuring that competition takes place on 
an equal footing. Today this would not be the case. Among the factors leading to an 
unequal footing are the varying safety levels of national rules for the fleets operating only 
on domestic routes. 
39. As regard new cargo vessels below Convention size a large consensus on the 
need for a community measure also formed in the Group of Government experts at its 
1 Qth session, though some consideration should be given to the degree_ of priority with 
which a Directive should be prepared. In fact, while there seems to be little doubt that 
some of these vessels, particularly the tankers operating feeder services, represent a real 
threat to local environmentally sensitive areas, justification· of this measure is found 
1 Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3577192 of7.12.1992 • Applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport 
wilhin Member States (Maritime Cabotage)•. 0.1. L 364, p. 7 of 12.12.1992. 
34 
particularly in looking ahead. The already large number of these vessels is bound to 
increase greatly if short sea shipping develops as a serious alternative to inland 
transport1• By focusing on new vessels only, the Community could anticipate a potential 
problem thus avoiding, in the near future, a number of those problems which are at the 
root of this Communication, in particular safety and distortion of competition. The 
Community measure would be based upon the,.. requirements developed, for such smaller 
vessels, in the Torremolinos Convention and its Protocols as well as on SOLAS rules as 
appropriate. Given the international character of these vessels the Community and its 
Member States should also try, in a second stage, to promote adoption of these rules in 
IMO. 
40. A third area where measures at EC level seem justified is that of the safety of 
fishing vessels bearing in mind the high casualty rate of these vessels. For the period 
1982-1991 not less than 1.580 casualties (world-wide), with 1186 lives lost, were 
reported to Lloyd (these figures relate only to vessels above 100 GT). To remedy the 
situation several Member States, supported by the Commission, tried fruitlessly for a 
long period of time to establish acceptable safety standards through the adoption of an 
international Convention (the "Torremolinos" Convention of 1977). Regrettably, the 
international agreement was never ratified and the present expectations do not go beyond 
the acceptance of a Protocol to the Torremolinos Convention in the spring of 1993 (see 
also par. 144 and 145) The main chapters of this Protocol would apply only to vessels 
above 45 m in length. However this Protocol does recognise the need and encourages the 
adoption of regional agreements for vessels below this size. Given that 85% of the 
vessels of the Community fleet of vessels above 100 GT are between 24 and 45 meters, 
the international solution will not provide the required answer for the Community. 
41. The next step is therefore the search for a Community solution to be extended 
as far as possible to other countries of the European region, seeking a high level of 
safety.· The Commission proposals will be based upon the internationally agreed rules 
for vessels above 45 m., adjusted in so far as necessary, to take into account the. local 
conditions of the areas where the vessels operate. 
42. For vessels below 24 meters, the Commission intends to examine with the 
Member States' experts whether further measures are required to complement those 
already proposed to the Council for the protection of workers on board of fishing 
vessels2• 
1 See also "TTle future development of the Common Transport Policy; a global approach to the construction of a Community 
framework for sustainable mobility•. 
2 Proposal for a Council Directive concemi111 the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels 
0.1. C 337 p. 21 of31.12.91. 
35 
v) Action concerning the human element 
43. A further area where much remains to be done concerns the weight of the 
human element in the chain of events leading to an accident. Figure 11 in chapter I has 
shown that human error, either by crew or shore-based personnel, is accounting for 
about 60% of all claims following an acciden~ , and over 80% of the incidents. 
44. . An analysis of major claims carried out by the United Kingdom Protection and 
Indemnity Club has substantiated these figures with factual evidence. In particular this 
analysis demonstrates that: 
The majority of all personal injuries are caused by human error either on the part 
of the individual performing the task or by the officer in charge failing to give 
clear instructions or to supervise the performance of the task. There is also clear 
evidence to suggest that language difficulties on board ships are a contributing 
factor. 
About 80% of property damage accidents are due to the human factor, in 
particular errors by pilots during berthing operations. There is no doubt that poor 
communication, often aggravated by language difficulties, is a major factor. 
Collision is also an area where most if not all accidents are caused by human 
error. There is a greater likelihood of a collision occurring during the morning 
watch, traditionally kept by the first officer. Statistical evidence developed by 
the UK P&l club (1992 claims report) shows that 32% of the collisions occur 
between 04.00-08.00 hr, with most occurring around dawn in areas of high 
shipping activity :when the master and a full bridge complement are on the 
bridge. 
An analysis of cargo and pollution accidents shows that half of these acci,9ents 
are due to human error. They mostly consist of mistakes in storage, ignorance 
of carriage requirements of various commodities and bunker-related spills. 
45. These facts and figures provide enough evidence of the high priority that should 
be given to measures aiming at reducing the risk of human error. 
46. The Convention on Standard of Training Certification and Watchkeeping 
{STCW) developed under the auspices of ILO and IMO is the existing instrument for 
an international response to the need for qualified crews and officers. However, the 
above facts and figures show that the STCW Convention and its actual level of 
application need to be largely improved. It is also a fact that international Conventions 
on the issue of competence certificates are not always applied by all Member States and 
that such international acts may be unilaterally denounced. 
36 
4 7. Those measures aimed at giving increased effectiveness to the provisions of the 
STCW Convention are outlined in this chapter. Others relate to joint action in IMO, and 
are developed in chapter 4. 
48. The first example of areas requiring action concerns the mutual recognition of 
diplomas. At Community level, the issue of qualification has been dealt in the context 
of two general Directives1 addressing guidelit;J.es to several professions. Although they 
are important to ensure the free movement of seafarers in the Community they are not 
sufficient to guarantee a appropriate minimum level of training for all seafarers sailing 
on vessels flying a flag of a Member State, more so when they are involved in the 
transport of dangerous goods and passengers. 
49. The question of training in the Community could also be improved by providing 
financial support to nautical institutions and schools in Member States as well as to EC 
shipowner's providing on board training for EC seafarers. Existing Community funds 
could be used for this purpose. Special attention in this context should be given to 
specialised courses related to certain types of transport such as transport of dangerous 
goods and passengers. These aspects could be considered in the context of the use of the 
Social Fund. 
50. It would therefore seem expedient to lay down minimum training requirements 
within the Community to ensure that EC seafarers receive an appropriate level of training 
and enjoy freedom of movement within the Community. Such an appropriate level of 
training will contribute to navigational safety and the protection of the marine 
environment. 
51. The Commission therefore proposes as a first step a Council Directive to ensure 
that ratings and lifeboatmen who intend to serve on a ship registered in a Member State 
have accomplished an appropriate training. This proposal will be submitted in the very 
near future. The requirements advocated are based upon those of the STCW Conve~tion 
with the aim of their harmonised implementation. In addition, as recommended by the 
Council, mandatory provisions are included with regard to adequate knowledge of 
language for seafarers in charge of safety duties on board of passenger vessels and for 
ratings serving on liquified gas, oil or chemical tankers and ships carrying hazardous or 
polluting cargo. 
52. As a second step, the Commission intends to examine with interested parties 
similar measures for captains and officers, taking into account the experience to be 
gained from the application at Community level of the Directive on ratings and 
lifeboatmen. 
1 Council Directive of21.12.1988 (89/48/EEC) OJ. Ll9, 24.1.1989 and Council Directive of 18.6.1992 (92/51/EEC) OJ. L209 
24.7.1992. 
37 
53. Regarding third countries crews the Community should, in the context of port 
State control take appropriate action as regards ships with crews who do not possess 
adequate professional qualifications as these are required by international Conventions 
in particular the STCW Convention of 1978. 
54. While these measure aim specifically t_o on-board personnel the overall concept 
of shipping management has also been identified by the IMO as a problem area requiring 
urgent .and effective resources. IMO Resolution A 680 (17) and its related 
recommendations on the "Safe Management Code" try to provide the sound international 
basis upon which IMO Members should build their national solutions. 
55. In this context the Community and its Member States should thoroughly examine 
the modalities of the most effective application and enforcement in the Community of 
Resolution A680(17) and the Safe Management Code, in parallel to appropriate action 
in IMO to secure its effective application worldwide. 
56. A similar approach should be considered for other Resolutions or Conventions 
concerning operational provisions related to these vessels, to the safety of their crews and 
their working conditions, to passengers, and those related to tankers. 
For example, as regards the ILO Convention 147 of 1976 on minimum standards in 
merchant ships the Commission has prepared requirements for transport workers, and 
their working environment on board transport means1• 
1 C25 of28.01.1993, p 17. 
38 . 
CHAPTER 2. UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RULES 
Analysis of the present situation 
57. While actions proposed under the first component address primarily the roles 
and responsibility of Member States as flag States, the second component focusses on 
their roles as port States. 
58. As shown in Part I, such action is justified in general by the fact that many flag 
States are unable to secure and maintain proper application and control of the safety and 
environment protection standards for ships on their respective registers. In fact, among 
the top priorities stressed by the IMO Secretary General and shared by the 1 ~ Assembly 
is the need to secure a more uniform and effective application and enforcement of IMO 
Conventions. This is vital not only to ensure that ships of all flags comply with the 
standards as a condition for operating in Community waters, but also to ensure that ship 
operators who respect the rules are not penalised by unfair competition from substandard 
ships. 
59. This is a task for the port States. European co-ordination of this task is 
currently carried out in the framework of the European Memorandum of Understanding 
on Port State Control (MOU). The MOU was originally concluded at The Hague in 
1978, between the maritime authorities of eight States bordering the North Sea and the 
Channel, in order to enforce international Conventions relating to safety and living 
conditions on board ship. A new MOU, adopted in Paris in January 1982, is relied on 
by all maritime authorities in Community Member States with seaport facilities to control 
ships flying flags other than the national one. The fact that Norway, Sweden, Finland and 
recently Poland have signed the Memorandum shows that the approach also has the 
potential for ens~ring that the whole of W estem Europe could, by agreement, apply 
similar regimes to the control of ships. 
60. Being a full member of the MOU Committee, the Commission has been able 
both to contribute and to closely examine the work and the achievements of the MOU. 
The statistical data on deficiencies and detention resulting from the PSC inspections as 
well as those presented in the frrst part of this Communication provide the basis for an 
analysis of the present situation. 
39 
61. Figure 13, for example, shows that every year more deficiencies are found by 
the PSC authorities. A growing number of deficiencies would naturally be expected due 
to the gradual increase of the activities of inspection authorities. After this initial phase, 
the deterring effect of these inspections should have reached the objective of discouraging 
substandard vessels from returning into Community ports. Hence, after 10 years of 
operation of PSC the deficiencies level should~ be showing a steady decline every year. 
However, this is not so. A possible explanation is that several flag States and operators 
using such flags are not pressed enough by the present inspection mechanisms to remedy 
deficiencies detected and, more generally, they are not encouraged to maintain their ships 
at the required standard, nor are they discouraged from returning with the same 
substandard ships to the countries of the Memorandum. 
Figure 13 
30 I' 
25 
T 20 
h 
0 
u 
s 15 
a 
n 
d 
s 10 
5 
0 TREND IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES 
All Categories, Years 1985-1991 
Number of Deficiencies 
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 
Year 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 1,991 
40. 
62. This explanation finds further supporting evidence in the data collected (see 
figure 14) showing the trend in detention ratio for some flag States. Every year the ratio 
of detentions over inspections for vessels with low safety performance record increases 
steadily. It is not yet clear that the deficiencies found in flags with a good maritime 
tradition tend to diminish. This would seem to show that those very ships the MOU had 
set out to eliminate from European waters k~p coming back every year with lesser 
maintenance and worse crews, in spite of the laudable efforts made by the surveyors and 
their administrations. Such ships compete with an unfair advantage with those which have 
made the additional financial efforts to meet the requirements. 
Figure 14 
R~IA 
IRAN 
MALTA 
LEBANON 
CYPRUS 
PANAMA 
INDIA 
LIBERIA 
0% TREND IN DETENTION RATIO FOR A NUMBER OF 
FLAG STATES WITH LOW PERFORMANCE RECORDS 
Years 1989-1991 
5% 10% 15% 20% 
CJ1989 ml1990 •1991 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 25% 
41 
63. A further startling information emerges from the inspection statistics: the 
number of detentions made by the national administrations varies greatly among the 
MOU members (see figure 15). The difference in percentage of ships detained as per 
number of inspected ships between the country with the lowest ratio and the country with 
the highest is in the range of 1 to 30. Figures for the other member States are distributed 
between these extremes. 
Figure 15 
Port State DETENTION RATIO PER PORT STATE 
IN PSC MEMBER STATES 
Year 1991 
BELGIUM 
NETHERLANDS 
DENMARK l1o, 6% 
UNITED KINGDOM 
FRANCE 
SPAIN 
SWEDEN 
.NORWAY 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
PORTUGAL 
IF.ELAND 
FINLAND 
ITALY 1 2, 6% 
1 2, 5% 
11,9% 
.' 11,6% 
]1, 4% 
11,2% 
11,1% 0 0,3% 0 0,2% 
0,0% 2,0% 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 110,5% 
1 4, 8% 
1 4, 3% 
l 3, 8% 
. 
4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 
42 
64. These data must be read only for what they say, i.e. that there is a large degree 
of variety in the MOU decision-making process leading to detention of ships. They may 
not be used entirely as an assessment of the overall deterrent effect produced in the 
individual countries by the application of PSC. 
Indeed, to this end, it would seem appropriate to examine also how many ships 
(percentage) have been detained out of all ships calling in the ports of each MOU 
member. This exercise, when carried out for 1991, shows an even larger degree of 
variety in the decision-making process, a detention ratio of seventy (70) between the 
highest and the lowest (see figure 16). It also shows that in two countries only the 
number of ships detained of all ships calling is above the average of the Memorandum 
countries, while in several Member States the number is quite below average. 
Figure 16 
DETENTIONS PER PORT CALL 
IN PSC MEMBER STATES 
Port State Year 1991 
NETHERLANDS I 2, as• 
UNITED KINGDOM 11,746, 
DENMARK ,1, 1' 
FRANCE 1 o, 89, 
PORTUGAL J 0,816' 
NORWAY J 0, 69, . 
BELGIUM J o, se• 
SWEDEN 1 o,s13' 
GREECE 1 o, 47, 
GERMANY 1 o,3e6' 
IRELAND D 0,168' 
...... 
FINLAND u 0,07' 
ITALY ] 0,04' 
o• O,S, 1' 1,S, 2\ 2,S\ 3'6 
Detentions over Port Calls (\] 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 3,S\ 
43 
65. This uneven distribution undermines the objective of the MOU and raises the 
further concern that these differences in sanctioning non-compliance with international 
standards may also have a distorting effect on competition between neighbouring ports. 
66. A further cause for concern arises as regards the present mechanism for data 
collection and exchange on inspections which appears inadequate for the following 
reasons: 
inspecting authorities of a Member State lack essential information on the ships 
entering their ports, even when these have already been inspected. It is not 
known, for example, if the deficiencies recorded have actually been rectified 
before departure. This information would allow a more effective planning of the 
daily inspection programme. Besides, in several instances, deficiencies which 
were recorded as rectified were found still in existence by the PSC authority in 
the next port of call; 
it is not known, in general, how many ships were found with deficiencies at the 
first inspection, and on how many of such ships the same deficiencies were found 
during the second inspection; 
it is not known if defective ships were actually those found defective the 
previous year; generally it is not known what happened after inspection or 
detention; were deficiencies actually remedied, where and under whose 
supervision? 
the relationship between the age of the vessel and deficiencies found or 
detentions made is· unknown; 
when the ship is allowed to proceed under the provi~o that she will be repaired 
as required, thereafter often nothing more is known. On several occasions the 
ships may simply change names and return later in the year with no improvement 
of her standards. The present system does not provide for systematic inspection 
of a ship entering the waters of the MOU countries for the first time (under that 
name). 
67. In many Member States the emphasis is still laid only on the number of 
inspections carried out rather than on focussing attention on the quality of their inspection 
efforts, thus failing to act as agreed by the Ministers at the 4th Ministeriat Conference 
on Port State Control1• 
1 •safo oporation of ship• and pollution prevention• held in Paris on 14.3.1991. 
44 
68. There is plenty of statistical evidence (figure 3 and 17) showing that certain 
types of ships, for example general cargo ships, bulk carriers over 10 years old, ageing 
oil tankers, are more accident and deficiency prone than others. Furthermore, figures 
8, 9, 10 and 11 show that ships operating under certain flags represent a higher risk to 
safety than other vessels owned or operated under flags whose safety record is well 
below average. Although the PSC system does not prohibit targeting these ships as 
priorities for inspections, no coherent and cbnsistent action has yet been taken in this 
respect. 
Figure 17 
INSPECTIONS WITH DEFICIENCIES 
Per Ship's Type, Over or Under Average 
Ship type 
GENERAL CARGO Year 1991 
01,6% 
BULK CARRIERS 1 4, 2% 
TANKERS/ OBO ,1, 9% 
GAS TANKERS -11,2% ~ 
CHEMICAL TANKERS 0 0,9, 
PASSENGER/FERRIES -3,2% 1 
REFRIGERATED CARGO -4,3% ~ 
ROro/CONTAINER -10,8% ~ 
OTHER -1,9% 1 
.A.VEJV.GB 
45.6 ' 
AVERAGE % ... 
-14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 
Percentage over or under (-) average [%] 
Source: PSC Report, 1991 .·· 
45 
69. All the above points demonstrate that, after 10 years of voluntary operation of 
the Port State Control under the MOU, and although a degree of progress has certainly 
taken place in the PSC system a high number of substandard ships continue to operate 
in European waters. There is also a striking lack of uniformity in inspection criteria 
including: the different choice of ships to be inspected, different importance and follow­
up given to deficiencies found, different decision-making processes leading to different 
levels of inspection and different resources allocated. 
70. This, in turn, frustrates the efforts of those member States and surveyors who 
try to implement the rules rigorously, and enables by such methods a selective use of 
certain ports of destination to slip through the net of proper control. 
This situation should be eradicated. A possible solution would be the adoption of a more 
uniform target-orientated set of measures at Community level, while pursuing the same 
objectives also under the PSC framework, to try and achieve a wider European 
application. Bearing in mind the weaknesses of the system identified above, such actions 
should concentrate on measures to: 
i) establish a common set of criteria for the intensification of inspections of certain 
ships; 
ii) harmonise inspection and detention criteria; 
iii) establish adequate national inspection structures and a training programme for 
inspectors and 
iv) set up an effective mechanism to control and evaluate the 
effectiveness of the PSC measures. 
i) &tablishment of a common set of criteria for the intensification of inspection 
of certain ships 
71. The Commission intends to put forward a draft directive setting up a list of 
"cases" which justify, more than others, the intensification of inspections on the grounds 
of their particular threat to safety or the environment. On the basis of the above analysis, 
such a list might include: 
ships flying flags with above average deficiencies, or detentions or casualties 
records, or an appropriate combination to be agreed. To this end, useful 
information may be obtained by correlating data concerning flag States with the 
highest detention ratio (see figure 10) with data on the world average loss ratio. 
(see figure 8); 
passenger vessels, including Ro/Ro vessels operating regularly/exclusively 
between the ports of the MOU members; 
bulk carriers particularly those older than 10 years; 
46' 
tankers nearing the date of phasing out agreed in IMO under MARPOL, Annex 
I, Regulation 13 G, or under the US "Oil Pollution Act of 1990". The latter is 
necessary since such tankers, being unable to operate in USA waters, are bound 
to concentrate in other areas, including those of MOU countries; 
vessels owned or operated by companies which do not comply with the IMO Safe 
Management Code; 
·vessels failing to comply with MARPOL requirements on the use of reception 
facilities in ports when these are available; 
vessels failing to comply with notification or reporting requirements; 
vessels re-entering a port of the Members States under a different name; 
vessels carrying certificates issued by non-EC recognised organisations; 
a system for rapid exchange of information between the responsible authorities 
of the Member States. 
ii) Harmonisation of inspection and detention criteria 
72. The Commission has the intention to propose a draft directive setting guidelines 
for the control of deficiencies and detention. They should take into account the different 
types of vessels, e.g. bulk carriers, oil tankers, passenger vessels. The guidelines should 
provide clear guidance to the inspectors on questions such as: what to inspect, how to 
inspect and how to decide~ and strike an acceptable balance between-commonly agreed 
objective evidence and the professional judgement of the surveyors, particularly on the 
often complex issue of determining whether to detain the ship until the deficiencies are 
corrected or to allow it to sail under certain conditions. A .list of serious deficiencies 
potentially leading to detention should be established leading to a more stringent' and 
harmonised application of internationally agreed rights and obligations for the detention 
of vessels in the case of alleged violations or deficiencies. 
73. In this respect it is necessary to improve the means to obtain conclusive evidence 
against alleged offenders, with a view to enable judicial authorities to impose very high 
fines. The provisions could also include the prohibition of further access to the ports 
of the Community for such ships should they refuse to comply. A tentative list to provide 
practical examples of deficiencies leading to detentions, with a particular emphasis on oil 
tankers, is given below: 
absence of valid certificates of safety (SOLAS) or of the International Load Lines 
Certificate; 
serious absence of compliance with the conditions fixing the load lines; 
serious deficiencies of the hull or of the ship structure; 
47 
serious deficiencies of the machinery, the electrical installations, the main or 
auxiliary steering gear; 
serious deficiencies of the equipment needed for the operation of the ship, the 
manoeuvring, the communications, the navigation or the collision prevention; 
serious deficiencies in the field of fire safety; 
· deficiency of the inert gas device; 
absence of a valid International Oil Pollution Prevention (I.O.P.P.) certificate or 
similar document; 
absence of the Oil Record Book or submittance of an incomplete or fake register; 
absence or serious lack of the operational handbooks with which the oil tankers 
must be provided; 
non compliance with paragraph 3 of the new Regulation 13 G of MARPOL 
73/78; 
deficiency of the equipment concerning pollution prevention, including the 
hydrocarbons detectors; 
deficiency of the crude oil washing system; 
bad repair or mai~tenance such as to jeopardize the safety of the ship or pollution 
prevention; 
unjustified failure to comply with notification or reporting requirements such as 
those established under the Council Directive concerning minimum requirements 
for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or 
polluting goods. 
no compliance with the operation standards or the on-board procedures which 
are required by the relevant instruments related to the maritime safety or 
pollution prevention; in this respect insufficient professional qualification of the 
crew and non respect of those provisions of the ILO Convention 1471 laid down 
under par. 4.1. of Chapter 1 of the MOU on Port State Control may also be 
considered as a serious deficiency. 
1 Merchant Shipping Convention (No 147) of 1976 concerning minimum standards in merchant ships. 
48 
iii) Establishment of adequate national inspection structures and a training 
programme for inspectors 
74. Action here could be developed in stages: 
evaluation at Community level of the results of the investigation by the MOU of 
the actual situation in each MOU member state as regards the number of 
surveyors available, and the professional knowledge and experience required to 
·perform the various tasks; 
development, if necessary, of guidelines guaranteeing at national level an 
appropriate inspection structure able to fulfil the PSC commitments, 
establishment of training programmes (objectives, syllabus, methodology) on the 
basis of needs identified under the first stage; complement identified gaps with 
a common team of experienced surveyors and with the technical backing of 
qualified classification societies; interexchange of national PSC 
inspectors/surveyors. 
implementation of the training programme. 
iv) Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the PSC measures 
75. The efforts deployed by the national administrations over the coming years must 
be controlled and monitored in order to provide the Commission and the Member States 
with full transparency on the effectiveness of these port State control measures. An 
effective mechanism controlling the appropriate application of these measures should be 
established by the. Community. This could be further expanded through the port State 
control mechanism of the Memorandum of Understanding of Paris adequately 
strengthened and duly supported by the development of an on-line information system, 
if possible on an international basis, and accompanied by regular publication of 
information on substandard ships. 
49 
CHAPTER 3. DEVEWPMENT OF MARITIME INFRASfRUCTURE 
76. In the previous chapters the role of flag and port States have been examined. 
The third component of the action programme focuses on the rights and duties of coastal 
States as regards the infrastructure and systems that ensure safety of navigation and the 
protection of the coastal resources from accidental and operational pollution. 
The legal international framework 
77. The role of States and their right of intervention in waters, under their 
juridistiction, and on high seas is the subject of international and regional conventions. 
The language of these instruments is subject to different and, in some cases, conflicting 
interpretations. However, they provide reference and guidance in the planning of 
national and Community measures addressed to maritime traffic and aimed at increasing 
the safety of navigation and the protection of Community waters. Thus they are certainly 
relevant to some of the measures outlined in this third component of the action 
programme. Particularly relevant to this chapter is the question of the extent to which 
States are free, in view of the freedom of navigation granted under international law, to 
legislate on or intervene in navigation in their territorial sea and in their exclusive 
economic zone. 
78. The relevant Articles of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
Sea (UNCLOS), and more precisely articles 21(1), 21(1)(f), 22, 24, 56, 192, 211(2) and 
211(3), allow that rules on ship reporting and notification may be established by States 
and applied to 
i. ships flying their flags, 
ii. ships destined for one of their ports, wherever those ships might be, 
iii. ships navigating in a part of their territorial seas that is not a strait used for 
international navigation. 
These rules may cover the provision of information such as identity, position, cargo and 
destination of ships. 
79. As regards the remaining scenarios, in particular transiting ships, that is, ships 
not bound for a port in the State concerned in the exclusive zone and in straits used for 
international navigation, the Commission is aware of the present ambjguity of the 
international customary law leading to opposing interpretations. Therefore, it proposes, 
in conformity with articles 39(2)b) and 56 of UNCLOS, a pragmatic approach with the 
aim of obtaining international acceptance: the Member States. of the IMO should agree 
on the adoption, possibly by amending the SOLAS Convention, of a clear provision, 
establishing beyond doubt the right of coastal States to apply mandatory reporting 
obligations to ships in transit in the exclusive economic zones and in straits used for 
international passage. 
50 
80. No international decision is required for the other situations described in 
paragraph 78, except information to the IMO and to the shipping world of the measures 
taken by the coastal States or regional governmental organisation or institutions such as 
the European Community. 
81. This interpretation of the existing international law in respect to ship reporting 
systems provides the legal framework fot some of the actions and measures the 
Commission intends to propose as part of the third component of the action programme. 
82. This third component, the harmonisation and development of infrastructure, may 
be broken down into four sub-components: 
i. traffic restrictions in environmentally sensitive areas 
ii. reporting systems 
iii. aids to navigation, including 
a. harmonisation measures for VTS 
b. aids to navigation infrastructure and recovery of its 
costs 
iv. pollution prevention facilities and monitoring of compliance. 
i) Traffic restrictions in environmentally sensitive areas 
83. The 16000 km of European coastline constitute a unique source of revenue and 
well-being to the European citizens and are a natural ecological environment to be 
safeguarded. 
Parts of these coastlines and islands are of exceptional beauty and the natural habitat of 
rare flora and fauna, the privileged source of fisheries and aquaculture activities, or the 
site of historic relics. They may be also located on the most expedient route of dense 
shipping activities or on the most direct course for a ship on her way to a neighbouring 
port. 
84. The recent events at the end of 1992 and beginning of 1993, ~I involving oil 
tankers, have drawn once more the world's attention to the high risks to which these 
sources of life and well-being are exposed by necessary trade activities. These events 
are not the result of an unfortunate and unlikely combination of unlucky circumstanc~. 
They are the result, as we have seen throughout this document, of a number of factors 
which can only lead to further and possibly even more catastrophic consequences. 
51 
85. If one focusses, for sake of exemplification, on the case of oil tankers, statistics 
will readily show that, while oil tankers accidents sharply decreased during the eighties 
they have started to rise again with worrying progression since 1989 (Exxon Valdez year 
in Alaska). This fact coincides with the ageing of the oil tanker fleet and the 
prolification of poorly trained crews often from developing countries but used more and 
more on European-owned vessels. This is jl}so to a large extent associated with a 
continuous reduction of freight rates. 
86. The results are of high concern, since recent estimates show that more than 50% 
of these ships are older than 15 years and 50% of tankers show deficiencies which 
reduce their operational safety while, overall, more than 65% of accidents relate to ships 
older than 16 years. The average age of the world fleet has increased by 5 1/2 months 
per annum since 1980 as construction orders in the shipyards have continued to go down. 
Today shipyard orders equal 38 millions tons over a total fleet in operation of 
245 million tons. 
87. In the light of the above, and as a complementary measure to those discussed 
in the previous chapters, coastal States threatened by such high risk activities are forced 
to examine further action. 
88. The Law of the Sea provides ample guidance on the choice of actions and the 
methods to implement them. In a number of cases, traffic restrictions and monitoring 
such as prohibition of passage, deep water routes, traffic separation schemes have 
provided satisfactory solutions. IMO has already adopted over 150 such zones and traffic 
separation schemes. They provide both evidence to the international acceptance of such 
solutions as well as experience to be used when planning further action along these lines. 
89. The Council1 has in fact called for these types of measures through co-ordinated 
and firm action m IMO of the Community and its Member States. The European 
Parliamenf has urged the Community to take similar initiatives. 
90. The Commission intends to respond rapidly and effectively to such urgent calls. 
As announced in the Council of Environment and Transport Ministers of 25 January 
1993, the Commission intends to set up very soon a group of Government Experts 
composed of all administrations concerned to identify together, on the basis of objective 
criteria, those areas which are of the highest ecological importance and which are most 
exposed to the traffic of ships carrying hazardous cargoes. 
1 Council Conclusions of 25.1.1993 
2 Resolution of the European Parliament of21.1.1992. 
52 
91. Each case should then be examined on its own merits to devise the most 
appropriate solution, bearing in mind the need to avoid hasty decisions introducing 
unnecessary new hazards, for example bottlenecks with increased risks of collisions, or 
diverting traffic to another site where other activities might be exposed. The 
deliberations reached will then, as and when required, be submitted to IMO for approval 
or information as appropriate. 
92. . As a corollary, monitoring infrastructure such as VTS might also be required. 
This issue is examined below under section iii). For the purpose of this section it seems 
worth underlining that this exercise may also provide useful guidance to national and 
regional administrations by pinpointing their attention to areas at high risk thus helping 
them, to focus national resources, often limited, on effective investments in maritime 
traffic infrastructure. This would also help in the identification of areas where emergency 
facilities including towing could be concentrated. 
ii) Reporting Systems 
93. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the volume and range of 
dangerous and noxious substances transported by sea, at a time when public opinion, 
alerted by a number of major accidents, is increasingly aware of the impact such 
accidents have on both man and environment. Thus a number of coastal States have 
promoted international and regional actions both to acquire timely and complete 
information on the goods transported at sea and to be able to intervene effectively where 
and when required. 
94. In an effort to increase the vigilance of the authorities on the movements of 
these products, both in bulk and in parcels, amendments have been made in the SOLAS 
and MARPOL Conventions. These amendments introduce obligations on shipping 
operators to provide accurate information to the authorities in the port of loading. In 
addition, the International Convention on Intervention on the High Seas recognises the 
right of coastal States to take proportionate measures should an incident occur threatening 
their coastal resources and related concerns. 
These instruments, however, are far from providing an adequate answer to the need for 
timely and precise information to the coastal States concerned and fail to identify the 
remedial action and to set up the required m~ of intervention in each coastal State. 
They are, however, a useful internationally acc~ted basis upon which effective systems 
may be built in the Community in response to the need. -· 
95. The Council has recognised the importance of this prob(em and the need ~or 
action by agreeing at political level in substance in December 1992 a Directive 
establishing minimum reporting requirements on shippers, ship operators and shipmasters 
for vessels leaving or bound for ports in the Community and carrying dangerous or 
polluting goods. This first set of requirements, built upon the minimum international 
basis, would enable the Member States to obtain precise and timely information on the 
cargo on board vessels, even on the high seas, should an accident occur or the likelihood 
of an accident arise. 
53 
96. The Council recognised also that this is only the first step of a two-stage 
approach which will need to be completed by the introduction of a full mandatory 
reporting system under which the States concerned would have ready access to all 
relevant information on the movement of vessels carrying dangerous and polluting 
cargoes and on the precise nature of such cargoes when they operate in their waters. 
97. The technical requirements for such. system are already in preparation under 
Community R & D programmes, such as EURET 1.3, RTIS and EWTIS. Results, 
expected at the latest by the end of 1993, should enable the Commission and the Member 
States to co-ordinate efforts to set up the network required to respond to the provisions 
of the first phase. This network should be designed in modular form to be easily adapted 
to meet broader requirements of the second phase provided for in the Directive. This 
would include the development of an EDI system for the processing and interchange of 
the notifications and the reports provided for under these directives. 
98. Particular attention and support will be paid to the ongoing work in IMO on the 
mandatory carriage of transponders (see also Chapter IV). These devices, by providing 
automatically relevant data on ships position and movement to the shore-based stations 
would greatly enhance the effectiveness of traffic monitoring by coastal authorities and 
the implementation of the directives (frrst and second phase) on the minimum 
requirements for ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods. 
99. Meanwhile, the Commission intends to carry out an in-depth analysis of the 
existing international and regional agreements on intervention at sea, to identify the 
precise needs of the minimum intervention infrastrUcture which should be available in 
each coastal State to permit adequate and effective response to the potential threats which 
will be detected by the above described system. 
100. Finally, co-ordinated action should be promoted within the IMO to develop 
further acceptance of reporting obligations by transiting ships and to ensure that work in 
this organisation does not result in rules which could diminish either Community 
objectives or the right of intervention afforded today to coastal States under international 
law (as outlined above). 
iii) Aids to navigation 
101. Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and radionavigation aids, either shore or satellite­
based, are increasingly becoming an essential feature of the maritime safety policies of 
the coastal States. VTS in particular respond to the need to acquire in real time an image 
of the traffic in the waters of concern, to enable the coastal authorities to interact ~ith 
ships, to provide symptomatic response to traffic situations and to organise, where 
necessary, the passage of vessels or the development of other activities in the safest and 
most expeditious ways. 
54 . 
102. In important regions of the world, for example Canada, VTS have been 
developed in a coherent and co-ordinated manner, in response to and as part of an 
integrated approach to coastal control of traffic. Until recently in Europe VTS 
developments have taken place on a piecemeal basis, in response to local needs or to 
specific accidents and the related public demand for action . 
.... 
103. This, in turn, has lead and continues. to lead to the development of incompatible 
and piecemeal coverage of the Community's coastal area. The negative consequences of 
this situation are several: 
The national authorities encounter the greatest difficulties in obtaining full 
participation in their local systems. For example, non captive traffic, that is, 
vessels not bound for a port in the Member States whose waters they are 
transiting, often fail to take part or even to respond to the VTS, thus greatly 
limiting both the effectiveness of this service, and the possibility of imposing 
sanctions in case of non compliance. 
Shipmasters who take part in the systems are confronted by a maze of rules and 
procedures differing from one area to another, due to the lack of standardised 
procedures. 
Economies of scale assisting in the development of new systems requiring heavy 
"up-front" investment are hardly possible. This fact has been and still is a large 
inhibiting factor in the national decision-making process of several Member 
States in this area, thus giving rise to an uneven situation in the Community. For 
example, while a mix of navigational aids (VTS, radio positioning) at least exists 
in some western and northern European areas, in the Mediterranean sea there is 
only a partial radionavigation coverage and an almost total lack of VTS, in spite 
of its greater exposure to pollution risks: oil carriage and oil pollution accidents 
are 3 to 4 times higher than in the North Sea (figures 18, 19 and 20). 
Figure 18 
Figure 19 
40000 
35000 
30000 
t 25000 
0 
n 20000 n 
e 
s 15000 
10000 
5000 ' 
s 
!I 
1 
1 
1 
1 .. 
0 
n 
s 
0 
~ 
t 
0 z 
n 
n 
e 
s 55 
Average amount of oil present 
at any one moment in tonnes 
Atlantic: Baltic !ledit.erranean 
Loca~ity 
Average amount of oil spilt in a year 
due to collisions in tonnes 
Atiantic Ba~tic North 8ea 
Locality North Sea 
Mediterranean 
Figure 20 
zsooo 
t 
0 
n 
n zoooo 
e 
s 
15000 
10000 
At~anti.c 56 
Average amount of oil lost per year 
due to sinking ships in tonnes 
Ba~ti.c Medi.terr anean Jlortb Sea 
Locality 
In several cases investments in safety infrastructure are financed from the general 
national budgets and come under the annual financing of public services. Thus 
they suffer the general constraints and reductions of those budgets. 
A large number of these investments are dictated by the national need to respond 
to a potential threat created by transiting traffic , i.e. a traffic unbound to any 
national port. Member States, in particular those with an extensive coastline, are 
therefore called upon to invest heavily to protect their waters from a commercial 
activity which does not generate financial returns to their economies. These 
inequalities have been the source of complaints also because unilateral imposition 
of levies to recover at least part of the costs from home-bound traffic may lead 
and indeed has lead to diversion of traffic to neighbouring ports in contiguous 
Member States which impose no levies thus creating a distortion of competition 
between ports. 
57 
104. These problems and the search for a more effective answer to them have been 
the subject of R&D work carried out by 15 European States under Council Decisions1 
(Project COST 301) and of further analysis by the VTS Committee of the International 
Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA). The latter, working on documents 
developed under COST 301, has developed reC9mmendations specifically directed at the 
introduction of harmonised procedures and standards in VTS, thus explicitly recognising 
the need for the widest possible use of common standards and procedures for VTS. 
105. However, IALA can only recommend standards to its members, and it does not 
include all Member States administrations concerned. Therefore, such recommendations 
have not been implemented in a convergent manner in the Community. There is also 
uncertainty as to a future application of harmonised VTS functions and procedures. The 
first fundamental step of harmonising risk evaluation has not been taken. 
106. This situation contrasts sharply with the IMO Resolution A.648/(16) and also 
with the recognition by the European coastal States, parties to the 4th Ministerial 
Conference of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, of the 
importance of having the largest possible degree of harmonisation. 
107. Finally the European Maritime Industries Forum (MIF) has called for 
Community action in the field of VTS as a tool to prevent accidents. More specifically 
the report of the MIF sees the VTS as an area where Governments should concentrate 
efforts and resources to prevent accidents rather than focusing in further safety 
construction measures aimed at improving on ships' survivability or better pollution 
containment after an accident. Furthermore, the MIF recommended the installation of 
an information system at ·Community level indicating equipment and other obstacles 
situated at the sea~.ed as accidents to fishing vessels are caused mostly by seabed hazards. 
108. In the search for effective remedies to the situation just described, and bearing 
in mind the European and international results already achieved, the following specific 
measures would appear justified at Community level: 
a. harmonisation measures for VTS and 
b. aids to navigation and traffic surveillance infrastructure and recovery of its costs. 
1 Council Decision 82/887/EC of 13.12.82 on shore-based marine navigation aid systems. 
Council Decision 83/124/EC of 15.4.83 on a Community-COST Conccrtation Agrecmc~t. 
58 
iii a) Harmonisation measures for VTS 
109. Using as a basis the output of COST 301, IALA and IMO Resolution 
A.648(16), a first effective step could consist in the adoption of Community directives 
aimed at establishing a set of common rules and procedures concerning VTS functions 
and operating procedures. This should incluge evaluation of risks, communication 
procedures for ship-shore interaction and for data exchange between VTS centres as well 
as minimum qualifications for VTS operators. 
110. In conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, the Community measures would 
leave to each State, or to regional agreements as appropriate, the final right and 
responsibility to decide where and when local VTS infrastructure is required and the 
choice of the local VTS functions. It is proposed that when the national decision is taken 
to set up a VTS, its functions decided and, where required, notified or accepted by the 
IMO, the formats, procedures, message contents and operators qualifications shall meet 
common requirements set by a Community Directive. It will be based on the 
internationally recommended standards where they exist. An additional advantage at the 
level of enforcement could be obtained by network integration and by co-operation 
between national authorities in all Member States when compliance with the VTS is 
mandatory or recommended. The integration of the local VTS within a co-operative 
Community-wide system would permit the implementation of effective corrective 
measures on a much larger number of non complying ships than it would be possible if 
the national systems were not integrated. 
111. Harmonisation would include also the adoption of a common guide for access or 
transit in the VTS areas based on a standard model. In fact, such a gu_ide could easily be 
conceived as the European volume of the World VTS Guide drawn up by IALA. All 
Community port and coastal VTS should provide the information required in accordance 
with the IALA moael and all vessels concerned should have on board and use the guide 
to facilitate their interaction with the VTS authorities and their compliance with the local 
rules. 
112. Finally, objective means of measuring the impact of VTS in general, and of these 
measures in particular on traffic should be introduced. This could take the form of a 
monitoring system analysing the behaviour of traffic in the VTS covered areas. This 
project named European Permanent Traffic Observatory (EPTO) is currently being 
developed by the Commission at the level of a pilot project in full co-operation with VTS 
authorities and, more particularly, by the IALA-VTS Committee in a number of sample 
cases. It uses information supplied by data bases set up as part of the existing VTS 
centres, and processed systematically according to common criteria. Should the pilot 
project prove its use, it could be extended in a more permanent manner throughout the 
Community to provide to the competent authorities an objective tool, using common 
criteria, to assess the effectiveness of the local, regional, national or Community 
measures. 
59 
iii b) Aids to navigation and traffic surveillance infrastructure and recovery of its 
costs 
113. Member States administrations are confronted with the twofold problem of setting 
up and operating advanced aids to navigation in response to a largely non home-bound 
traffic and of finding appropriate ways of recqvering the costs for setting up, operating, 
maintaining and up-grading them. 
Aids to navigation infrastructure 
Community action to assist in a more harmonious development of VTS and 
radionavigation chains using advanced technologies both on shore and on ship 
as part of the Community trans-European networks should create the economies 
of scale required for the application of more advanced technologies. It would 
also help the national authorities to take full advantage of the possibilities of the 
electronic age in their actions on maritime safety, thereby achieving 
improvements which would be hard to realise on a national level. 
Through the establishment of guidelines, priorities and plans of action, projects 
of common interest can be identified. Interaction and inter-operability of the local 
systems with the networks can be assured. Indeed, infrastructure needs for VTS 
and radio navigation ought to be an integral part of the concept of trans-European 
networks for traffic management. Relevant projects will thus be able to benefit 
from the different sources of Community funding now available, in particular 
those available for trans-European networks, from the growth initiative and the 
Cohesion Fund. In this connection, it should be noted that p~ojects related to the 
prevention of pollution at sea may respond at once to the two objectives laid 
down for the Cohesion Fund: the development of trans-European networks and 
the proteCtion of the environment. They should also be considered in the 
perspective of the promotion of short sea shipping in the overall transport 
concept of sustainable mobility for the Community. 
Community action should recognise a special priority to the Mediterranean 
region and the W estem approaches to this sea, for both VTS and 
radiopositioning such as Loran-C. This priority is fully justified by the special 
ecosystem of the Mediterranean sea which has been recognised by international 
Conventions. Figures 19 and 20 provide factual evidence of the pollution level 
as a result of accidental spillage. This level is three to four times that of the 
North Sea, the coastline exposed is enormous while the infrastructure for traffic 
assistance and surveillance is extremely limited. ' 
As regards VTS, efforts started in 1991 by the competent Ministers of France, Greece, 
Italy, Portugal and Spain. They were recently co-ordinated by the Commission, to 
develop an integrated regional VTS network based on the concept developed under COST 
301 which should now be made an integral part of the trans-European network plan for 
VTS. 
60 
As regards radionavigation, following its recent report to the Council on the results of 
research into the financial implications of regional Loran-C systems for the Member 
States, the Commission will also respond to the Council request with a report on a 
European radionavigation plan comparable and compatible with those of the US and 
Russia. The Commission is carrying out this task in close collaboration with the 
International Association of Lighthouse Authqrities (!ALA). It was this collaboration 
which led to the Commission's proposal on regional Loran-C chains, and the subsequent 
adoption of the Council Decision on radionavigation systems1• The Commission proposes 
to step up this co-operation with a view to setting up at a later stage a satellite system for 
radionavigation for civil purposes, supplemented as far as required by terrestrial systems. 
Finally, concerted action would seem necessary to ensure the full implementation of the 
"Global Maritime Distress and Safety System" promoted within IMO -this would 
necessitate in particular, the co-ordinated setting up of both the required shore-based 
facilities and the phasing-out of present systems. 
Recovery of costs 
The analysis carried out above underlines the difficulty faced by several Member 
States of recovering the investments or at least the operating costs of navigation 
safety infrastructure. Such difficulty has not only hindered the coherent 
development of national plans in several Member States. Where cost recovery 
from the users is applied, it has also given rise to a situation where some ports 
operate at a competitive disadvantage. Also a major difficulty is recovering the 
costs from transiting traffic, which is the most significant part of the traffic for 
some States. 
These are the main reasons why the answer to these problems cannot be found 
through national action alone. A mechanism must be set up in order to provide 
a level playing field in infrastructure investments without leading to ports in 
some Member States operating at a competitive disadvantage. It should ensure 
that expenditure on infrastructure reflects the real and current needs of the 
maritime sector and of coastal populations of the Community. A system under 
which users pay, directly or indirectly, for the provision of safety infrastructure 
will help to solve the problem. 
It is important to find a suitable cost-sharing formula which would permit: 
the identification of the VTS and radionavigation infrastructure that is 
required to meet common needs, for example; navigation aids to 
international traffic; · 
a cost recovery mechanism which would make the system self­
supporting. 
1 Council Decision of25 February 1992 on Radionavigation Systems, OJ. No L159, Pg. 17, 17.4.92 
61 
The Commission believes that the Community dimension is appropriate, in both 
geographical and institutional terms, to assess the risks, establish the objectives; 
identify and optimize resources, and set up a common arrangement under which 
dues are set, collected and then shared among the national authorities; and 
develop effective machinery to deal with non compliance. 
The search for appropriate solutions reciuires as a preliminary step the gathering 
.of information from Member States on the costs of providing general marine 
navigation aids outside harbour limits, the methods of finance, the length of 
national coast lines, the number of light buoys and beacons provided, the coastal 
VTS (existing and planned), the level of traffic and the income out of dues to be 
paid, taking into account that several systems already exist in the Member States. 
The solution to be reached should include the "user pays principle", where dues 
will be based on a methodology aimed at eliminating competitive distortions and 
reflecting the results of the above exercise. Various approaches are possible, 
either based upon existing systems or on a "Eurocontrol "-style system, whereby 
each country recoups the costs it incurs in running the system from a central 
authority. The Commission intends to discuss the matter rapidly with the 
Member States to identify and to propose to the Council an appropriate solution 
for the Community. 
iv. Pollution prevention facilities and monitoring of compliance 
114. Operational discharges at sea by ships are one, though not the major, 
contributory cause of coastal waters pollution. International rules on discharging at sea 
have been established to a ·certain extent. Parts of them are mandatory. Compliance by 
ships with these rules is very limited. Monitoring of compliance and sanctioning illegal 
discharges is extremely expensive and relatively ineffective. 
115. Under international rules, all parties are obliged to provide and maintain facilities 
in their ports for the discharging of waste, including bunker oil. However, it is a fact that 
in the Community the level of port reception facilities differs sharply from one port to 
another. Port policies in this respect have the potential to give rise to deflection of trade 
for instance through weak application of the law to encourage access to the port. This 
is however also a fact potentially leading to unlawful discharges at sea. 
116. · As regards air pollution caused by shipping, an important part of irbccurs during 
loading and unloading in ports, and is due to the emission of harmful or noxious 
substances released during transshipment of volatile cargoes. 
117. Seagoing vessels generally possess Vapour Emission Control (VEC) systems in 
compliance with international regulation. There seems to be little doubt that the root of 
the problem arises in ports because of the absence of compatible systems on board and 
on shore, or because of the lack of VEC facilities in ports. 
62 . 
118. Adequate response to the above described problems cannot be found in individual 
action by Member States: the general international framework of rules being established, 
the problem is clearly that of a homogeneous response at the level of implementation and 
enforcement. 
119. In this respect Community-wide initiatives which may produce results, where the 
individual action by Member States would have at best a more marginal result, should 
aim at .developing: 
i) Oil/waste reception facilities 
Ensuring that Community ports install adequate reception installations aligned to 
the specific waste discharges required by the type of shipment operations. 
As a further step, and in an effort to encourage compliance before moving onto 
sanctions, where adequate facilities are available, a common-·system should be 
implemented whereby movements of ships refusing to make use.of.the facilities 
would be closely monitored. For example, the quantity of oil water mixtures and 
residues on board would be measured, and the information would be provided 
to the next port of call in the Community. Subsequent control on the quantity of 
this waste at the next port of call would enable the competent authority to 
ascertain whether illegal discharges have occurred during the crossing. 
Furthermore, as already proposed under chapter ll (par. 71, indent 6) a ship 
refusing without a valid reason to use the facilities offered, would justify a very 
close inspection by PSC authorities of the status of the ship, _in particular its full 
compliance to the MARPOL, SOLAS and Load Line Conventions. 
The Comlnunity could closely examine the consequences of imposing mandatory 
discharging of oil residues and oily mixtures by all ships using Community ports. 
A survey on a Community scale of the micro and macro economic consequences 
will provide the first set of information to evaluate the adequacy of such 
measure. 
Finally, on the educational level, information and training of seafarers and of 
ship management on the reduction of illegal discharges could be promoted by the 
Community. As regards ship management the programme should focus on means 
to introduce more environmentally responsible management, by making clear that 
setting up an appropriate environment policy is not necessarily to the detri~ent 
of the operating costs of the company. 
63 
120. These proposals will be consistent with "a European Programme of Policy and 
Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development" 1 recently agreed by 
the Council, where specific proposals for Council directives are also foreseen. 
These include a proposal on "the reduction of operational and accidental pollution by 
small boats"; a proposal on the definition of su!J>hur content in all liquid fuels (including 
bunker oil) and, as a complementary action, a. specific measure on the presence of toxic 
chemical components in bunkers. 
(ii) Vapour emission control 
Concerns over safety problems related to vapour return systems for ships may 
result in their deletion from the scope of a proposed directive on the control of 
volatile organic compound losses in the storage and transport of petrol. A 
commitment should however be made to include shipping in the scope of the 
directive as soon as these problems are overcome. A priority should be given 
to the search for the required technical solutions and for international agreement 
to their adoption. As for the waste reception facilities, an answer at Community 
level is also preferable, as compared with national solutions, given the distortion 
of competition that otherwise arises favouring those ports which do not impose 
the use of vapour emission control systems. 
1 COM (92) 23 F'mal. 
64. 
CHAPTER 4. INTERNATIONAL RULE MAKING 
Introductory remarks 
121. Most of the rules and requirements for sea-going vessels are negotiated in the 
IMO. This international framework is offundaqtental importance to maritime safety and 
to the protection of the sea from operational and accidental pollution, and it must remain 
so, given the global character of the shipping industry. 
122. It is also generally accepted that today a large number of construction and 
maintenance rules have been adopted, and efforts should first concentrate on their 
effective application. The role of the Community in respect to the latter has been outlined 
in the previous chapters. 
123. However, the need for new rules in a number of areas exists. It is dictated by 
specific problems which call for international solutions, and appear on the agenda of the 
specialised committees and sub-committees of the IMO. There seems to exist a large 
consensus in the competent administrations and in the industries of the Community1 on 
the need to deal with some of these negative factors as a matter of urgency. 
Performance standards for nag States 
124. A first area of very high concern is that of the diversity of attitude and 
performance of flag States. It is a fact that several Member States of the IMO have 
severe difficulties in meeting their obligations as regards effective certification of 
conformity of vessels to, interalia, the SOLAS, MARPOL, ILO 147 and Load Line 
Conventions. Among the primary reasons why several States offering registry facilities 
for sea-going ships are not able to perform as adequately as required one may recall: 
insufficient infrastructure to properly interpret and support application and enforcement 
of international conventions; insufficient trained and experienced technical staff within 
the administrations; unclear delegation of authority and inadequate regulatory oversight 
when surveys and inspections are entrusted either to surveyors nominated for that 
purpose or to organisations recognised by the administration; and absence of effective 
monitoring programmes to ensure that consistent and adequate maritime safety actions 
are taken. 
1 Maritime Industries Forum; Final report to the Commission, October 1992. 
65 
125. It would therefore appear indispensable to set minimum requirements against 
which their ability to respond to their obligations may be measured. For example, they 
should at least: 
(a) have a comprehensive body of relevant national laws and regulations to enable 
the maritime administrations to implement and enforce the required international 
rules and standards pertaining to the .operation of a maritime registry; 
(b) maintain an effective system for the promulgation of relevant maritime law and 
regulations with their amendments to all operators of ships under its registration; 
(c) maintain an effective and adequately staffed maritime administration to execute 
its responsibilities for: 
proper and legally correct registration of ships; 
exercise of inspection, survey and control, in accordance with relevant 
international Conventions, over ships entered in its registry; 
conduct of casualty investigations; 
issuing of Seaman's Identity Books. 
126. The IMO has set up a sub-committee on flag State implementation (PSI) to 
examine this problem and adopt the required standards. The policy and economic 
implications of this initiative are very far-reaching. They are bound to be opposed by 
several States for different reasons, not least their lack of the required capabilities in 
terms of financial resources, qualifications and training. However, this issue needs to 
find a rapid and satisfactory answer at international level to prevent further shifting of 
~e responsibility for safety of construction and maintenance of ships ·from the flag States 
to the port and coastal States, a process already gradually under way, if it continues for 
too long, which would risk to reduce the effectiveness of internal rule-making. 
, 
127. The Community should act to provide the required support to this initiative of 
the IMO not only within the sphere of the regulatory discussions but also in the context 
of its policy of support to third countries, for example in the framework of co-operation 
agreements such as those with developing countries. Resources could be channelled to 
provide the required support to those national administrations who need it most, to be 
able to align themselves to the standards of performance being developed in the IMO. 
Human element 
128. The very high impact of human errors on casualties at' sea and a number of 
actions to reduce its effect have been examined in sector· v) of chapter 1. Further 
initiatives are required which by their nature belong to this chapter. 
66 
129. The first one relates directly to the STCW Convention. Its revision, which is 
long since due, has just begun under the joint responsibility of ILO and IMO. So far 
much more attention has been paid to scholastic education than to problems of training 
and upgrading crews, bearing in mind also the problems and costs that such upgrading 
courses imply. Action of the Community and its Member States is required to speed up 
this process. Several elements will have to be taken into account with high priority an~ 
in particular communication. The ability to communicate in a common language on board 
has become a very serious issue at a time where the multiplication of multilingual crews 
has become a widely spread operational reality. This is more so during emergencies and 
particularly on all ships carrying passengers. 
130. The language problems are also particularly significant during pilotage 
operations. Not only do the pilot and the master have difficulty in communicating with 
each other, but the consequences of misunderstandings between master/pilot and crews 
become inevitably more serious where there is less margin for error, as in berthing 
operations. Moreover, incident analysis carried out by the P&l clubs has shown that 
not only is it necessary to improve communications between master and pilot but also to 
ensure a clearer understanding between them as to who is responsible for well defined 
tasks at each stage in the manoeuvring of the ship. The P&l Club's own investigations 
revealed the need for master and pilot to discuss each stage and to think through areas 
of potential difficulty. In this context, the P&l club concluded "the shorter the time the 
pilot is on board the more likely the risk of an expensive accident". 
131. A further area where much effort is required is that of technological 
development, particularly of ship handling equipment. Remote steering positions~ 
integrated bridge control of engines, bow thrusters, stern thrusters, high-lift rudder, 
automatic helms are now commonplace. While adding to the controls of those in 
command, they have also brought new problems. Automatic helms reduced steering 
expertise of seamen. Coupled with reduced manning this leads to master or pilot 
steering the ship also on occasions where their freedom of n1ovement would have been 
an advantage. Other problems followed the advent of the controllable pitch propeller. 
Once more the P&l shows that there is a good case to be made for all controllable pitch 
propeller ships to have the fail-safe position clearly displayed and have the rnain engine 
emergency stop control located on the bridge. 
132. Moreover, facing an emergency situation on board a ship with a reduced crew 
requires a special training comparable to that of a plane crew, involving also a more 
efficient ship-land communication system and adequate training tools, e.g. simulators 
designed to study or to test more efficient ship/crews interface systems. 
133. In more general terms these issues and several more could be summed up by 
saying that there is a need to analyse the conditions under which the various systems for 
ensuring the safety of navigation are operated. In this connection, the participants in 
maritime traffic, at whatever level of responsibility, should follow a prescribed pattern, 
which is essential for the integration of the four basic components of high quality 
operation: man, machine, methods and procedures. 
67 
134. Some of these matters are being addressed at Community level in the framework 
of research programmes such as EURET1, in particular project 2.4 "Human factors in 
the man/ship system", and by COST actions such as COST 311, on the use of 
stimulation facilities for training of crews, pilots and VTS operators. Others will have 
to be introduced in the further phase of BURET. 
135. For a long time simulation methods have been identified for both research and 
training purposes in the maritime context, but it is only in the past four years that a 
search for a common approach to its application at Community level has been undertaken 
in COST 311. The results of the COST 311 operation demonstrate the lack of a co­
ordinated plan to promote and implement simulation methods and technology in Europe. 
Although some countries, mainly Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom, have invested heavily in this field, many others are not using this technology 
to the extent required. On the other hand, duplication and redundancy are to be avoided 
so as not to waste the investment made, however promising the market could be. A cost 
effective solution to this problem should be searched also within the Community. 
136. Moreover, reducing human error through international requirements, standards 
and guidelines is also a priority agreed to in IMO to the extent that all committees and 
sub-committees have been recommended to review all measures in the light of human 
element issue and to bring proposals. Therefore, the Commission proposes that results 
of the efforts of both the P&l club members and the Community R&D programmes 
outlined above be brought to IMO as contributions of the Community and its Member 
States to the work programme of this organisation. 
137. Finally, well co-ordinated action of the Community and its Member States should 
be set up in view of securing an effective application of the Safe Management Code also 
at international level. 
Introduction of new technologies 
138. The introduction of new technologies for ship borne equipment, systems for 
automatic transfer of data from ship to shore and vice versa, and potentiai applicatioru: 
of new technologies are under discussion in the IMO. They are: 
Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS); 
guidelines on the use of transponders on ships for safety purposes; optimum 
methods of radar display presentation; 
voyage data recorders and their mandatory use. 
1 Council Decision of 21.12.1990 adopting a specific research and technological development programme in the field of transport 
(EURE1) 1990 to 1993 (91/11/EEC) O.J. L 8 p. 16 of 11.1.1991. 
68 
139. All of these fall within the area of information and communication technology. 
Their introduction should considerably modify the balance between shore and ship in the 
navigational decision-making process and the respective roles of man and machine in 
these processes. 
140. Experience with the introduction of high level information technology in major 
industrial activities has demonstrated that transitional periods require special care in all 
respectS: social, organisational and technical, including psychological and physiological 
consideration for the design of man machine interfaces. 
141. In particular, two major areas of concern always arise from this type of 
development: 
i. the co-existence for a long period of different levels of advancement in technical 
and operational standards; 
ii. the drastic changes in skills and knowledge needed to operate the new systems 
correctly, operators having to retain all the relevant past experience while as far 
as possible acquiring new skills, both being necessary for the safe operation of 
the newly implemented systems. 
142. These matters are critical in the shipping industry, for the following reasons: 
navigation entails interaction between ships of different flag and coastal 
States; 
maritime activities go back a long way, making them reliant on past 
experience and resulting in a reluctance to accept changes. National 
certification, in the absence of IMO or EC rules, is often not mutually 
recognised by other States' administrations. This results in long delays 
for approval of new technology and thus in limited markets offering few 
incentives for R & D investments; 
recruitment of crews is often driven by economic and social criteria 
rather than seeking to recruit highly qualified crew; cheap labour on 
board leaves little encouragement for the manufacturing industries to 
invest in innovative technology which would reduce crew numbers. In 
deciding on crews for ships, operators have to balance the cost of 
sophisticated equipment with the cost of reduced but well trained crews; 
the risk to valuable capital assets if crews are not as competent .as 
required; and the overall need to make profit; 
the reliability of new technology equipment must be ensured to guarantee 
safety and protection of the marine environment. 
69 
143. Satisfactory answers are relevant to Community policies on safety at sea, and 
would contribute to the creation of wider markets for the European manufacturing 
industries. The Community and its Member States should therefore provide the required 
support to the initiatives of the IMO in the above mentioned areas in a well co-ordinated 
n1anner. 
The Torremolinos Convention 
144. The IMO Maritime Safety Committee has decided to undertake a revision of the 
Torremolinos Convention to bring it into line with the new SOLAS provisions. The 
original Convention in fact never came into force. The revision will be completed by 
a diplomatic Conference to be held in Torremolinos in spring 1993. The entry into force 
of this Convention through the adoption of a Protocol would satisfy requirements of the 
Community to a certain extent only. This would apply .particularly to the requirements 
of Community policies on safety of fishing vessels, on achieving the objectives of the 
internal market and on fisheries where different construction standards may cause 
distortions of competition. As recommended by the Commission in its Communication 
to the Council on the principle of subsidiarity,1 Member States' and Community's 
accession to the Torremolinos Protocol would be the most adequate response to the above 
requirements instead of an internal Community measure. 
145. Community accession would in fact ensure that the Convention is brought into 
application within the Community at the same time. The Commission stresses that any 
other approach would not provide the required guarantee that uniform and simultaneous 
application will occur in the Community. To this end the Commission has transmitted 
to the Council a Recommendation for a Council Decision giving the Commission 
negotiating directives. In accordance with the agreement reached in the Council 
framework on 3 February 1993, the Commission and 1\.fember States will attend the 
Conference and will co-ordinate with the view of defending common positions. To this 
end consensus has been reached on the main objectives to be achieved during the 
negotiations, to safeguard a uniform high level of safety for the European fishing fleet; 
to preserve the right to adopt appropriate rules at Community level for vessels between 
24 and 45 meters and the possibility for the Cor.rununity to become a contracting party 
to the Protocol, if the Council so decides. 
The Community's role in support of the IMO 
146. The four specific areas examined show the importance of action in the IMO in 
the search for solutions to the problems identified. The Community has an important 
role to play, both within and in support of the IMO to ensure that the IMO rule-making 
process does indeed reach its objectives and is not unnecessarily stretched over such a 
long period of time that it is no longer credible or effective. 
. 1 SEC(92) 1992 fmal, 27.10.92. 
70 
14 7. It follows that the Community needs to take action so that co-ordinated positions 
can be taken favouring the adoption of necessary new rules or the modification of old 
ones. 
148. So far it has proved difficult to develop this Community role. For example, 
Member States have on occasion resisted this effort to co-ordinate, introducing friction 
and inefficiency into· the task of ensuring that work in the IMO takes proper account of 
the Community's requirements. They have also opposed the natural development of the 
Community's current status as an observer in IMO to keep pace with developing 
Community competence. The end result of these attitudes can be to limit unacceptably 
the role of the Community's institutions in setting and implell)enting standards ha\'ing a 
direct effect on the proper functioning of the internal market, the safety of ships, life and 
the protection of the marine environment. 
149. It is the Commission's belief that this state of affairs should be rapidly remedied. 
The Commission sees positive prospects in common action by the Community to support 
and to promote further and more coordinated and firm action in the IMO as urged by the 
Extraordinary Council of 25.1.1993, aimed at : 
identifying jointly priority problem areas; 
bringing proposals to IMO and 
providing well co-ordinated support during the negotiations phase. 
In this context specific attention should be given to joint action aimed at promoting the 
adoption by IMO -thus on an international scale -of those measures the application of 
which has been enhanced by the Community provisions outlined in the previous chapters 
of this communication. 
150. This approach should not only speed up the international decision-making proce..;;;s 
but also, in turn, facilitate, the convergent application of such rules in the Community. 
151. Finally, the Community's participation in the IMO should be kept under 
examination with a view to ensuring that it can participate as effectively as possible in 
work on matters falling within jts competence, in the light of the completion of the 
internal market, of t.,e development of the Common Transport Policy and the Community 
Environment Policy. In the light of the experience of the conunon action, if necessary, 
the possibilities and modalities for the Community to become a member of IMO should 
be expiore.d with a view to achieving the most effective participation of the Community. 
71 
Committee on Safe Seas 
152. The Commission intends to propose to the Council a Decision setting up a 
Committee on Safe Seas (COSS), in conformity with Council Decision 87/373/EC of 
13 July 1987,1 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers 
conferred on the Commission. 
153. COSS could be the forum for identifying and evaluating subjects of priority 
importance, including those for which solutions are best searched for at international 
level, and to co-ordinate the Member States' contribution to these subjects in IMO. 
154. Guidelines for such co-ordination should be set to ensure effective action while 
respecting the IMO's methods of working and the technical character of much of its 
activity. This should also take due account of the need to minimise possible negative 
reactions to the development of regional voices within the organisation. 
155. COSS could also be the forum where, following decisions taken at IMO, their 
convergent and timely application in the Community, including the accompanying 
measures needed, would be considered. 
156. The setting up of COSS could also be used to avoid the proliferation of 
committees by taking upon COSS work entrusted to ad hoc committies under the specitic 
measures outlined in the previous chapters or under future measures. 
157. During tl-te interim period required for the Council and the European Parliament 
to examine the proposal of setting up COSS, the Commission and the 1.1ember States 
should co-ordinate action in the lMO on priority issues such as those outlined in this 
chapter. The experience gained through such co-ordination would provide further inputs 
to the definition of the guidelines of COSS. 
1 Council Decision of 13 July 1982 laying down the procedurea for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the 
Commission. 
ANNEX 1 
THE ACTION PROGRAMME 
A. COUNCIL DIRECTIVES/DECISIONS 
List of measures proposed 
1. Proposals to be adopted by the Commission in 1993. 
Carriage of dangerous and polluting goods by sea. Minimum requirements for vessels 
bound for or leaving Community sea ports,. designed to ensure that the authorities are 
properly informed and can take appropriate action· (EC directive on a reporting system, 
2nd phase) (Chapter 3, section ii). 
Control of ships by the port State: tighter measures (EC directive on the establishment 
of common criteria for the intensification of inspection of certain ships) (Chapter 2, 
section i ). 
International rules and certain Resolutions of the IMO: convergent application in the 
Community of certain IMO Resolutions (e.g. tankers, bulk carriers, passenger vessels) 
(Chapter 1, section iii ). 
Introduction of common safety rules for: 
marine equipment used on board of commercial and passenger vessels (Chapter 1, 
section ii ) . 
training of seafarers (minimum level of training for certain maritime professions) 
(Chapter 1, section v ) . 
Introduction of common rules and standards for classification societies and technical safety 
standards for ships (Chapter 1, section i). 
Decision setting up a Committee on Safe Seas (Chapter ·4, last section). 
2. Proposals in the pipeline for adoption by the Commission in 1994-1995. 
Further meac;ures on convergent application of IMO Resolution (Chapter 1 ~ section iii ). 
Directive on safety requirements for vessels not subject to international Conventions. 
(Passenger vessels on domestic voyages, fishing vessels below 45 meters, cargo vessels 
below Torremolinos Convention size ), (Chapter 1, section i ). 
Further rules on maritime equipment (of mandatory carriage) (Chapter 1 ,Section ii ) and 
on minimum level of training for captain and officer (Chapter 1, section v ). 
Control of ships by State of port: harmonisation of detention rules, and mechanism to 
control effectiveness of port State inspections (Chapter 2, section ii ). 
Measure on traffic surveillance and aid, including identification of environmentally 
sensitive areas (Chapter 3, section i ), harmonisation of procedures for vessel traffic 
services (Chapter 3, section iii a ) and mechanism on recovery of costs for traffic 
surveillance/aid infrastructure (Chapter 3, section iii b ). 
I ' • ~ 
Measures on vapour emission controls, on the reduction of operational and accidental 
pollution by small boats and on sulphur content of liquified fuels and toxins in tanker fuels 
(Chapter 3, section iv ). 
Measure on the ratification of the Protocol to the Torremolinos Convention (Chapter 4). 
B. OTHER ACTIONS 
Training programmes for crews, surveyors, VTS operators, port State control inspectors 
(Chapter 2,3 and 4). 
Traffic surveillance and aid infrastructure: VTS development including emergency 
facilities, demonstration projects of automatic ship tracking using transponders, European 
permanent traffic observatory, European radionavigation plan, development of LORAN-C 
in the Mediterranean Area (Chapter 3, section iii ) . 
. Development and use of reception facilities (Chapter 3, section iv ). 
Studies on: 
Assessment of scrapping requirements and facilities 
Co-ordination of availability of salvage capacities 
Risk evaluation and prevention 
Financial responsibility for cargo owners using substandard ships 
Responsibility of shipowners for the safety of crew and passengers 
Feasibility of a civil liability system for damage to the environment 
Evaluation of results of accidents reports, particularly on bulk carriers. 
R & D: directing of the research and development programme on transport in support to 
priority requirements of the Common Policy on Safe Seas as identified e.g. hun1an factor 
in maritime casualties, environment friendly tankers designs. 
Assembly 
BCH 
Classification 
Societies 
COST (301) (311) 
EC coastal State ANNEX2 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. 
The Assembly of the International Maritime Organization. 
Code for Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous 
Chemicals in Bulk, adopted by IMO. 
Private or public organisations which execute inspections on board vessels 
related to the seaworthiness, the safety, the pollution prevention and the 
equipment of (seagoing) vessels. 
Research programme to investigate into the possibilities to establish a 
Community vessel traffic management system. 
One of the States of the European Community with a coastal area open to the 
sea. 
ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System, a new technical 
development to replace the common printed geographical charts of sea-areas 
with computer assisted displays on board vessels to manoeuvre the ship. 
EC rule Legal instrume.nt adopted in the framework of the European Community. 
EEC Treaty (Treaty) The Treaty on the institutionalisation of the European Economic Community, 
(freaty of Rome 1957). 
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone; a zone in the high seas established by the coastal 
State under the provisions of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 
EFT A European Fre.e Trade Association. 
EPTO European Parliament Traffic Observatory. 
EURET Research and Develop1nent programmes on Transport. 
EWTIS Research and Development project on exchange of information between 
Member States. 
Flag State A State under whose flag a vessel is entitled to sail. 
GGEMS Group of Governmental Experts on Maritime Safety to assist the Commission 
in developing measures for maritime safety. 
GMDS Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, the new satellite distress and 
safety communication for shipping. 
IACS International Association of Classification Societies. 
IALA 
IAPH 
ILO 
ILO 147 
IMDG-code 
IOPP certificate 
IMO 
IMO Resolution 
Loran-C 
Maastricht Treaty 
MARPOL. 
Member State 
MIF 
MOU 
P & I clubs 
Pon State 
PSC 
R&D International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, an international 
organisation of Governments and Industries. 
International Association on Port and Harbours. 
International Labour Organisation, one of the Specialised Organisations of the 
United Nations. 
Convention 147 of the International Labour Organisation. 
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, a Resolution of the Assembly 
of IMO adopted on 6 November 1991, as Resolution A. 716(17). 
International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate; a certificate to be issued by 
the flag State or on its behalf after inspections have been carried out on board 
the vessel. 
International Maritime Organization, one of the specialised organisations of 
the United Nations. 
Decision taken by the Assembly of IMO, the main bodies of IMO, or a 
conference convened by IMO. 
Existing radiopositioning system for use in shipping. 
Treaty on the European Union (1992). An agreement between the EC 
Member States to amend the EEC Treaty. 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 
amended by its Protocol in 1978. 
One of the States of the European Community. 
Maritime Industries Forum, composed of representatives from the European 
maritime industries, trade unions, ministries of the EC and Scandinavian 
EFTA countries, European Parliamentarians and various EC Conunissioners. 
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, an agreement between 
various European States to execute control on board ships visiting their ports 
under the aegis of international Conventions. 
Private organisations on the insurance market, which act together in insuring 
ships and their cargo. 
A State where the port is situated which is visited by a vessel. 
Port State Control, an agreement between various European States to execute 
control on board ships which visit their harbours under the aegis of 
international Conventions. 
Research and Development undertaken or supported by the European 
Community. 
RTIS 
SBT 
SOLAS 
STCW 
Torremolinos 
Treaty 
UN CL OS 
VTS Research and Development project on Transport (Regional Traftic 
Information Service). 
Segregated Ballast Tanker; tanker with dedicated cargo tanks which are solely 
used for carrying ballast, no ballast in oil cargo tanks permitted. 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended. 
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and 
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978. 
Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 
1977. 
The Treaty on the institutionalisation of the European Economic Community 
(Treaty of Rome, 1957). See also EEC Treaty. 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as adopted during the 
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, ~lontego-Bay, 10 
December 1982. 
Vessel Traffic Services, system to guide and instruct maritime traffic from 
shore, using· modern observation and communication technology.