Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. The increasing number of bulk carrier casualties in the past decades and the associated loss of human lives remain an issue of major concern for the European Commission. Back in 1993 it highlighted, in its Communication on a Common Policy on Safe Seas [1], the problem of vanishing bulk carriers and called for priority action to enhance the safety of this vulnerable type of ship.

[1] COM(93) 66 final.

The 1993 Commission Communication reported startling facts on the loss rate of bulk carriers: since 1975 more than 280 bulk carriers had been lost, 30 of which in the period from January 1990 to September 1991 alone. By the end of 1991, this figure had further risen to 43.

The problem particular to bulk carriers casualties is the heavy loss of life associated with foundering when structural failure is, or appears to be, the cause. In many such instances the rapid loss of buoyancy leaves the crew with little chance of safely leaving the sinking vessel. Lord Donaldson's assessment on the loss of the bulk carrier Derbyshire reports that in the period between 1980 and 1994, 149 bulk carriers were lost involving the loss of 1 144 seafarers' lives [2].

[2] Presented to the UK Parliament by the UK Secretary of State for Transport, December 1995.

In response to this sharp and unacceptable increase in losses of ships, cargoes and human lives, the Commission suggested in its 1993 Communication possible courses of action. These suggestions included, amongst others, the mandatory application of Classification Societies' recommendations as an accompanying measure to the convergent application of IMO Conventions and measures at the level of port State control to ensure compliance with those Conventions and recommendations.

The Council, by its Resolution of 8 June 1993 [3], welcomed this Communication and fully supported its objectives. In particular the Council agreed with the Commission that the objectives on effective and uniform implementation of international rules should be implemented by identifying IMO Resolutions considered to be necessary for improving maritime safety of vessels of any flags entering Community waters and to ensure their mandatory application.

[3] OJ C 271, 7.10.1993, p. 1.

The bulk carrier casualty statistics showed a slight decline in the first years following the publication of the Commission communication on safe seas, but still totalled 131 ships in the period 1990 to 1998 with an associated loss of 731 lives [4].

[4] Bulk carrier casualty report - Analysis of vessel losses and fatalities 1998, including data 1990-1998, published by Intercargo.

2. The continuing high rate of bulk carrier losses and the findings on the possible causes for these losses have prompted the international maritime community to take, in the first instance, measures to enhance the structural integrity of dry bulk carriers, focusing mainly on the maintenance and enhancement of the strength of the ship's hull girder and its structural members. Annex I provides an overview of these structural safety standards adopted and implemented at international level.

3. The continuance of the alarming trend in bulk carrier casualties after the publication of its 1993 communication prompted the European Commission to propose a number of port State control measures in support of the ongoing rulemaking efforts at international level aimed at enhancing the safety of dry bulk carriers. A description of these measures is included in Annex II.

4. Research undertaken by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) into the structural losses of dry bulk carriers identified design shortcomings and maintenance problems as possible contributing factors. In particular, corrosion and cracking of the structure within the cargo spaces seemed to have been contributing elements in many of these structural losses. However IACS also indicated that other factors that could have contributed to hull structural failure were over-stressing due to incorrect loading and physical damage to cargo hold structures during cargo discharging.

This contributory role of cargo-handling practices in dry bulk carrier casualties seems to be confirmed by the assessment into the causes of these bulk carrier losses between 1990 and 1997 undertaken by the International Association of dry cargo shipowners (INTERCARGO) [5]. It indicates that more than half of the reported lives lost (377) were due to sinkings which could not be attributed to adverse weather conditions. Furthermore, out of these 377 lives lost, 227 were associated with sinkings for which intake of water and plate failure was reported as the main cause. The other 150 lives lost were associated with sudden disappearances, for which the cause could not be established at all. In particular these disappearances raise the question whether faulty cargo-handling operations could have been at the origin of some of these losses.

[5] Bulk carrier casualty report - Analysis of total loss and fatality statistics for dry bulk carriers 1990-1997, published by Intercargo in September 1998.

5. The impact of dry bulk cargo-handling operations, which has been identified as an important factor affecting the structural safety of ships carrying dry bulk cargoes, should in this context not be neglected. The major risks associated with improper loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes are excessive stresses, the results of which are invisible but may nevertheless become potentially damaging, especially when magnified once the vessel encounters the dynamic forces of wave action on passage.

In some cases the consequences of overstressing the ship's structure whilst loading are direct, as demonstrated by the dramatic and well known example of the "Trade Daring", a 145 000 tdw bulk carrier which broke its back during loading operations at a terminal, owing to the accidental overfilling of one of its holds. As a result, the terminal's berth was blocked for several weeks. The overloading of the hold is believed to have been due to a communication failure [6].

[6] ICHCA Safety Panel Briefing Pamphlet No 13: "The Loading and Unloading of Solid Bulk Cargoes".

Over the years, a more detailed understanding has been developed of how these forces can threaten the ship's safety over a long and rigorous service life, and a number of initiatives at international level have been taken to address the importance of correct ship/port interface procedures to prevent improper dry bulk cargo loading and unloading operations from continuing to contribute to the high number of dry bulk carrier casualties.

6. The specific importance of the ship/port interface in relation to the safety of dry bulk cargo-handling operations has been explicitly recognised by the IMO, through the adoption of the 1996 amendments to Chapter VI of the SOLAS Convention. In these amendments, which became effective from 1 July 1998 onwards, the principal requirements concerning loading, unloading and stowage of bulk cargoes are established.

However, detailed provisions aiming at the enhancement of communication and cooperation between ship and terminal - for example, by establishing responsibilities and procedures to ensure that loading and unloading of dry bulk cargo is carried out in acceptably safe conditions - are not incorporated in these SOLAS regulations. The relevant SOLAS regulations only refer by way of a number of footnotes to the non-mandatory Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (BLU Code) in which detailed provisions are incorporated as guidance for involved parties.

Given the international recognition of the importance of this Code in enhancing the safety of bulk carriers, the 20th IMO Assembly [7], when adopting it, urged contracting Governments to implement the Code as soon as possible. The Assembly also urged Governments in whose territories solid bulk cargo loading and unloading terminals are situated to introduce a number of port by-laws to give legal effect to some of the recommendations contained in the Code and in the earlier IMO Assembly Resolution A.797(19) on the Safety of Ships Carrying Solid Bulk Cargoes.

[7] IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20) adopted on 27 November 1997.

The IMO Assembly urged with this latter Resolution in November 1995 contracting Governments, classification societies, ship owners, ship operators, shipmasters and terminal operators, to take immediate measures along the lines specified in the Annex to the Resolution, pending the development of survey and maintenance requirements for ships carrying dry bulk cargoes by IACS. The measures in the Annex to Resolution A.797(19) are directed specifically to all players in the responsibility chain.

It addresses the responsibility of port State Authorities, when acting independently or in regional cooperation, in respect of safety issues involving terminal operators, stevedores, port authorities and port State control officers. Secondly, it calls upon flag States to ensure the safety of bulk carriers flying their flag. Finally, it also urges shipowners and classification societies to play their role in enhancing the safety of dry bulk carriers.

7. The need to improve the loading and unloading procedures to enhance the safety and survivability of dry bulk carriers has not only been identified and recognised within the IMO. Other international organisations with legitimate interests in the safety of dry bulk carrier operations have either individually or in mutual cooperation recently developed several initiatives to raise the awareness of all parties involved in the transport of dry bulk cargoes by sea. Such initiatives are all aimed at drawing attention to the importance of correct cargo-handling operations for the structural safety of bulk carriers.

8. In view of these developments at international level, the Commission services contracted in 1998 [8] a study to assess the terminal procedures in the Community against the relevant international recommendations on ship/port interface. The results of this study indicated clearly the need to improve the procedures of cooperation and communication between bulk carriers and the dry bulk cargo-handling terminals in European ports at which they call, accompanied by the suggestion that this improvement could be best ensured by setting up a quality assurance policy for the terminals.

[8] Bulk carrier safety, study by Burness, Corlett & Partners, November 1998.

The study identified bulk cargo-handling terminal procedures as the second next important group of high-risk contributors to bulk carrier safety, preceded by ship's structure and maintenance issues. Within this group of terminal procedures, excessive loading rates and the lack of an agreed loading or unloading plan were identified as the most important individual risk contributors. In addition, the study report mentioned stevedore damage as a 'medium' risk category. The most obvious forms of stevedore damage reported are mechanical ones, due to misuse of grabs, payloaders and pneumatic hammers.

Based upon this risk contributor categorisation, a questionnaire on terminal procedures and practices was compiled and sent out to all major dry bulk terminals in Europe. From the analysis of the replies, it emerged that the IMO recommendations for terminal procedures as laid down in the BLU Code are only to a limited extent applied in European terminals.

The results of this survey reveal that only 37% of the terminals provide bulk carriers calling at their berths with terminal procedures. As to the use of an agreed and signed loading/unloading plan and the ship/shore safety checklist the positive responses from terminals were 65% and 37% respectively. About 74% of the responding terminals stated that they maintain a database on visiting vessels, but only in 34% of the cases does the use of these data affect whether a visiting vessel is accepted by terminals. This can be partly explained by the fact that only 57% of the responding terminals apply safety/seaworthiness criteria for accepting vessels and only 45% inspect the vessels during their stay. All responding terminals have a planned maintenance system for their cargo-handling equipment. Finally, the study reported that only 20% of the responding terminals have a quality assurance system in place.

9. Similar findings have emerged from a world-wide survey on terminal procedures undertaken by a joint industry working group on bulk carrier safety [9]. The results of the survey are based upon an analysis of over 1 000 reports from ships and terminals, covering 450 terminals in 50 different countries in Japan, Europe and Australia. Particularly worrying is the fact that the survey indicates that the performance of certain West European terminals is poor compared to that of some terminals in developing countries.

[9] "Bulk carrier safety: the terminal survey and the ship/shore safety checklist" Speech by Capt. Steen Stender Peterson, Deputy Secretary-General, BIMCO, at the Safe Cargo-handling in Ports '98 Conference, Rotterdam, 24 June 1998.

In 57% of the replies, difficulties with terminals and their representatives were reported. The main problems recorded are unduly fast loading, loading plan not followed or accepted, heavy tools used for freeing stuck cargo, and communication and liaison problems. In 22% of the cases, damage to ships was reported, primarily during discharge, with a few reports of terminals not accepting the damage and repairing it prior to departure. In 10% of the cases masters were unsatisfied with the liaison and communication with the terminal.

The loading plan was not accepted in 5% of the cases. Although the latter figure might seem moderate, the survey report comments that bulk carriers have in general at least 10 port calls a year, so that on average they may be confronted with such a situation every second year, which makes ten times in the ship's normal life span. As it is generally recognised that over-stressing the hull girder and local structures have been contributory factors in many bulk-carrier casualties, the non-acceptance of the loading plan should be regarded as a serious problem.

Even when the loading/unloading plan is accepted, in a worrying 20% of the cases loading or unloading is done without following any plan at all. Recently, a particular case has been reported pursuant to the International Marine Accident Reporting Scheme of the Nautical Institute, where the actual loading rate applied by the loading terminal was reported to exceed the loading rate agreed between ship and terminal by 100% to 150% [10].

[10] The Nautical Institute, International Marine Accident Reporting Scheme, Report No 99003.

The international survey concludes that many of the problems can be avoided if loading and unloading terminals are made aware that they are also responsible for the safety of bulk carriers. As a particular problem, a general absence of communication and sometimes a lack of understanding between ship, agent, charter and terminal are mentioned. A better pre-arrival communication is considered a pre-requisite for improving this situation.

10. The European Commission is of the opinion that complementary measures are necessary to slow down the alarming rate of bulk carrier losses. Consideration should be given to the added value that specific complementary legislative action at EU level could provide to give an impetus to the safety measures decided at international level. It should aim at covering all aspects that can have an impact on the safe operation of bulk carriers.

As to operational aspects that may affect the safety of bulk carriers, particular attention has to be paid to those safety aspects, which are related to the ship/port interface. The Commission has already highlighted in its Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure [11] the need to address the ship/port interface as a substantial element in the role of the ports in enhancing maritime safety.

[11] COM(97) 678 final.

In this Green Paper, the Commission pointed to the importance of the cooperation of ports in the implementation or enforcement of the international and European legislation on maritime safety, which is primarily focused on ships.

At the same time, the Paper established that a number of port services, such as cargo-handling, are intrinsically related to the safety of ships and that the absence of uniform application of safety rules among ports can lead to distortions of competition. This fact is considered by the Commission to be extremely important and has been taken into account when drafting this new proposal in the field of maritime safety.

11. When launching the Quality Shipping Campaign in November 1997, the Commissioner for Transport announced that methods of reducing the risks to bulk carriers' integrity from inappropriate loading and unloading in terminals via enforcement of the specific IMO Codes were under examination and was included in the list of work to be done [12].

[12] Europe and Quality shipping, p. 27 "The way ahead...".

Based upon the analysis of the safety problems of dry bulk carriers in general and the impact of loading and unloading procedures in particular, and the assessment of the current ship/port interface procedures in European terminals, this examination leads to the conclusion that IMO Assembly Resolutions A.797(19) and A.862(20) should form the basis for the development of a Community framework aimed at enhancing the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers in European ports. Rendering the main provisions of these IMO Resolutions mandatory through Community legislation, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Council Resolution of 8 June 1993, is considered the most appropriate and effective way to achieve this aim.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE LEGISLATION

12. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a better protection of the safety of bulk carriers calling at terminals in the Community for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes. It aims at reducing the risks of excessive stresses and physical damage to the ship's structure during cargo-handling operations, by laying down suitability requirements for those ships and terminals and by establishing harmonised procedures for cooperation and communication between those ships and the terminals.

The proposal seeks to establish a legal framework in the Community for applying in a harmonised way the relevant provisions of the Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (BLU Code), which was adopted by the IMO in December 1997 through IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20).

It seeks further to ensure that the five main principles referred to in the operative part of this IMO Assembly Resolution are implemented as essential requirements. This operative part urges contracting Governments in whose territories solid bulk cargo loading and unloading terminals are situated to introduce port by-laws to the effect that:

(1) Terminal operators are required to comply with the relevant IMO Codes and recommendations on ship/port cooperation;

(2) Terminal operators are required to appoint a "terminal representative" as stipulated in section 1.6 of the Annex to Resolution A.797(19);

(3) The master is responsible at all times for the safe loading and unloading of the ship, the details of which should be confirmed with the terminal operator in the form of an agreed loading or unloading plan;

(4) In the event of non-compliance with the agreed loading and unloading plans or any other situation which endangers the safety of the ship, the master has the right to stop the loading or unloading; and

(5) Port authorities have the right to stop the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes when the safety of the ship carrying such cargoes is endangered.

13. With regard to the first essential requirement, the proposal aims at implementing the provisions of IMO Codes and recommendations that are addressing operational ship/port interface issues which are important for limiting the impact of solid bulk cargo loading and unloading operations on the structural safety of dry bulk carriers. The Resolution identified above, IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20), and to some extent the provisions of IMO Resolution A.797(19) are particularly relevant in this context.

Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate all the provisions of the BLU Code. Indeed, some of the Code's provisions are already mandatory under SOLAS Regulation VI/7, and should not be repeated, unless deemed necessary for ensuring a harmonised application in the Community.

Following sections of the BLU Code have been selected for the elaboration of a basic set of mandatory provisions in this proposal:

* Section 2: suitability of ships and terminals:

The provisions listed in paragraph 2.2 of the BLU code have been used for establishing a checklist of suitability criteria for ships to be verified by the terminals. These suitability criteria deal with the size of cargo hatch openings, the identification of cargo hold hatches, the readiness for use of an approved loading instrument if available, and of all other ship's equipment that has to be in good order to ensure safe berthing, mooring and loading or unloading of the ship.

As to the suitability criteria for terminals the provisions of paragraphs 2.3.1 to 2.3.4 and 5.3.3.of the BLU Code have been incorporated in this proposal. These provisions contain very general criteria with regard to the suitability of terminals to safely berth ships, of their cargo-handling equipment, and on training of their personnel.

* Section 3: communication procedures prior to the ship's arrival:

The provisions in the BLU Code on information exchange are considered to be a pre-requisite for the preparation and development of the loading or unloading plan and therefore the proposal reflects the substance of paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the BLU Code, in which the information mutually to be provided between ship and terminal is listed.

Of key importance is the need to ensure that an effective communication between ship and terminal is established in order that the ship calling at the terminal is provided with all relevant information concerning the requirements of the terminal and those of the port authorities.

This important aspect has been recognised by the IMO, and the introductory part of the BLU Code recommends that these requirements should be published in terminal and port information books, containing the type of information listed in Appendix 1 to the BLU Code. Accordingly, the elaboration and provision of such information books by the terminals, in cooperation with the port authorities, has been included in this proposal as one of the suitability criteria for terminals. Offering this information to bulk carriers calling at terminals will provide a clear signal of the Community's commitment to adhere to and support the objectives of the IMO in enhancing the safety of dry bulk cargo loading and unloading operations.

* Section 4: cooperation procedures prior to cargo-handling:

The ship/shore safety checklist and the loading or unloading plan are considered to be essential elements to ensure the respect of cargo loading and unloading procedures.

The ship/shore safety checklist aims at ensuring that the communication and understanding between ship and terminal is enhanced. The loading/unloading plan in turn lays down the conditions to be respected to ensure safe loading and unloading of dry bulk cargoes.

Clear procedures on cooperation between the ship and terminal in relation to the elaboration and follow-up of these documents has therefore been provided for in the proposal.

* Sections 5 and 6: procedures for loading/unloading and handling of ballast:

The proposal incorporates the ship and terminal duties during the cargo-handling operations, which are specified in these sections of the BLU Code, to ensure that the procedures agreed upon in the loading or unloading plan will be respected in all phases of the cargo-handling operations.

14. The second essential requirement, the appointment of a terminal representative, is included in the proposal as one of the basic suitability requirements for terminals. It should be noted in this context that SOLAS Regulation VI/7 does not require the appointment of a "terminal representative", although it does refer to the terminal representative and establishes his duties with regard to the agreement upon and respecting of the loading/unloading plan.

15. The third essential principle that the master remains responsible at all times for the safe loading and unloading of the ship has been explicitly spelt out in the proposal. In SOLAS Regulation VI/7 on the loading, unloading and stowage of bulk cargoes most of the provisions are laid down as joint responsibilities of the master and the terminal representative.

By including a provision in this proposal on the overall responsibility of the master for the safety of cargo-handling operations, an appropriate legal framework will be provided for the implementation of the more detailed provisions of SOLAS Regulation VI/7 as well as of the fourth key principle of IMO Resolution A.862(20), which provides that the master has also the right to stop the loading or unloading of the ship in case of non-compliance with the agreed loading and unloading plan or any other situation which endangers the safety of the ship.

16. Finally, the proposal encompasses the fifth key principle of the operative part of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20), by providing competent authorities the right to stop the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes when the safety of the ship carrying such cargoes is endangered. This provision aims at providing a framework for settling possible disputes between master and terminal representatives whenever the safety of the ship is reported to be endangered by the cargo-handling operations.

The proposed Directive addresses in this context also cases where the ship might have incurred damages due to loading or unloading operations that may compromise ship safety. The most appropriate way to deal with these cases is to involve the port State Control authorities. They should, in consultation with the flag State or the organisation recognised by it, assess the importance of the damage and decide whether the damage has to be repaired immediately or whether it can be deferred. A provision has been included to the effect that port State control authorities in the Member States may rely upon an EU recognised organisation to inspect the damage and to advise the PSC authorities on the necessity of repairs, immediate or otherwise.

17. In addition to the package of essential requirements, which are all based upon IMO Resolution A.862(20), the proposal specifies a number of equally important accompanying measures aimed at ensuring an effective implementation and monitoring of these requirements.

A first accompanying measure included in this proposal is the implementation of a Quality Management system for terminals. Implementing such a system will ensure that the management and operation of the terminal - in particular the communication and cooperation procedures with the ships - are planned, executed and regularly audited against specified quality criteria and that a constant quality of a sufficiently high level is maintained. This applies equally to the loading and unloading operations conducted by the terminals.

The proposal to require a Quality Management system for terminals aims in addition at providing a valuable response and counterpart to the International Safety Management (ISM) system to which bulk carriers have to adhere to since 1 July 1998 in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS Chapter IX. Moreover, it aims at ensuring that a similar level of commitment to applying internationally agreed safety and quality management principles will be available both on board and ashore. Lastly, it will provide the terminals within the Community with an internationally recognised accreditation of quality and help to foster the safety culture in this sector.

Another accompanying measure in this proposal is aimed at giving a positive signal to the international maritime community that the EU is committed to support the efforts undertaken at international level to improve the ship/port interface for loading and unloading of dry bulk cargoes. It foresees in notifying to the IMO this proposal, once adopted by the Council and the European Parliament as Community legislation. Indeed the IMO, when adopting Assembly Resolution A.797(19), invited port State authorities, whether acting independently or in regional cooperation, to submit confirmation to the Organisation that loading and unloading terminals for solid bulk cargoes comply with the IMO Codes and recommendations on the ship/shore cooperation. Notification to the IMO of the adoption of the proposed Community legislation would provide a suitable answer to this invitation.

Finally, the proposal lays down procedures for monitoring of and reporting on the established procedures. In order to effectively monitor the implementation of the envisaged harmonised procedures and to assess their safety enhancing impact, the proposal foresees in a system of surveillance by the Member States, including random inspections of loading or unloading operations at the terminals. The proposal further provides that Member States have to report on a bi-annual basis the results of their monitoring efforts to the Commission.

The Directive's scope of application concerns all bulk carriers, irrespective of their flag, that fall within the SOLAS definition of bulk carriers and the terminals in the Community they are calling at for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes, with the exclusion of grain.

JUSTIFICATION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

18. (a) What are the objectives of the envisaged action in relation to the obligations of the Community and what is the Community dimension of the problem (for instance how many Member States are involved and what is the present solution)-

The Treaty provides for the establishment of a common transport policy and the measures envisaged to implement such a policy include measures to improve safety in maritime transport as foreseen in Article 80(2) read in conjunction with Article 71(1)(c).

To this end, the main objective of the envisaged action is to implement in the Community, in a harmonised way, the main principles and the provisions of the IMO Assembly Resolutions concerning the safety of ships carrying solid bulk cargoes and the safe loading and unloading of such ships. A harmonised implementation at Community level of these non-mandatory international provisions is necessary to ensure that loading and unloading operations in European terminals are carried out without creating additional risk to the structural safety of the bulk carriers concerned. It is also necessary to avoid that distortion of competition between terminals is created due to the application of divergent levels of safety in requirements for ships and terminals with regard to the loading and unloading of dry bulk cargoes.

Although not all Member States are concerned with the obligations for loading and unloading terminals due to their lack of coastline and ports, the Directive will affect all Member States to a certain extent, since all Member States may have ships carrying solid bulk cargoes which fly their flag.

19. (b) Is the action envisaged solely the responsibility of the Community or is the responsibility shared with the Member States-

It is a responsibility shared between the Community and the Member States.

20. (c) What is the most efficient solution taking into account the resources of the Community and the Member States-

In view of the internal market dimension of maritime transport, an action at Community level is the only possible way to ensure that the same level of safety is guaranteed for the loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers in European ports, while reducing the risks of distortion of competition between terminals due to divergent terminal procedures in respect of the safe loading and loading of dry bulk carriers.

21. (d) What is the concrete added value of the action envisaged by the Community and what would be the cost of inaction-

The Community has a major interest in ensuring that the loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers in terminals established in the Member States is carried in safe and acceptable conditions. A harmonised action is necessary to avoid improper cargo-handling operations that may impair the structural safety of these ships and could eventually contribute to the loss of these ships and the lives of the crew on board.

Appropriate principles and procedures aimed at enhancing the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers have been agreed at international level. However, as these principles and procedures are of a non-binding nature, their implementation in the Community can only be assured through the establishment of an enforceable and harmonised Community framework.

The cost of inaction would be that the rate of losses of these types of ships and their crews would remain unacceptably high. Furthermore, if no harmonised criteria are established within the Community concerning the suitability of bulk carriers to load or unload solid bulk cargoes, the risk of sub-standard and over-aged bulk carrier tonnage shifting to Europe its trade patterns from areas where strict safety policies are applied cannot be combatted.

Furthermore, inaction could entail a risk of distortion of competition between terminals through the application of diverging levels of safety in the cargo-handling operations and terminal procedures.

Moreover, inaction would do nothing to overcome the existing problems that bulk carriers experience with terminals not agreeing and adhering to the loading or unloading plans established with a view to ensuring that the ship's structure is not over-stressed or damaged during cargo-handling operations.

22. (e) What forms of actions are available to the Community- (recommendation, financial assistance, regulation, mutual recognition)

Since the internationally agreed procedures and principles on the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers are non-mandatory, they are difficult to enforce in relation to the protection of the structural safety of the ships calling at loading or unloading terminals in the Member States. In addition, the lack of or divergence in implementing these international recommendations in the Member States, could result in a distortion of competition between terminals. Hence it is necessary to ensure a harmonised and mandatory application of these internationally agreed procedures and principles, either in the form of a Directive or a Regulation.

23. (f) Is uniform legislation necessary or does a Directive setting the general objectives and leaving the execution to the Member States suffice-

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, a Directive will be sufficient as this will establish common requirements at Community level to ensure the harmonised implementation and enforcement of the internationally agreed procedures and principles for the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers, while leaving to each Member State the responsibility of deciding on the implementation tools which best fit its internal system.

CONTENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

24. The proposed Directive requires Member States to ensure that the five key principles of the operative paragraph of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20) concerning the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers are respected in the loading and unloading terminals established in their territory.

To this end the Directive list a series of requirements in relation to the suitability of bulk carriers for the loading and unloading of dry bulk cargoes.

Terminals have to verify that bulk carriers calling at their berths for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes comply with these suitability requirements.

As to the terminals themselves, the proposed Directive requires that they comply with the suitability criteria for terminals as laid down in the BLU Code, and that they appoint a terminal representative as the responsible persons for the loading or unloading of bulk carriers calling at the terminal. Further, terminals should make information booklets available to visiting bulk carriers, containing all the information necessary to facilitate the cargo-handling operations at the terminal. Finally, terminals are also required to establish and maintain a quality management system, based upon the internationally recognised ISO 9000 series of standards.

In the BLU Code and to some extent also in the SOLAS Convention, the responsibilities and duties of the master of a bulk carrier and the terminal representative are spelled out. The proposed Directive groups these responsibilities aimed at their harmonised application in the Community. It also stipulates the procedures to be followed by the ship's master and the terminal representative prior to and during the loading and unloading operations, based upon the provisions of the BLU Code and with particular emphasis on the need for proper communication and cooperation between ship and terminal.

The BLU Code provides also for an intervening role of a competent authority in case cargo-handling operations give rise to situations, which might endanger the safety of the ship. This principle has been incorporated in the proposed Directive, whilst ensuring that the primary responsibility for the safe loading or unloading of a ship should remain with the master. Therefore, the Directive envisages to limiting the intervening role of the competent authorities to those cases where the master and the terminal representative would fail to agree mutually on measures to remedy possibly safety endangering situations caused by the cargo-handling operations.

However, in cases where the ship has suffered safety-endangering damages to its structure, the Directive provides that port State control authorities have to intervene to decide upon the necessity of repairs, in close consultation with the flag State administration, or the recognised organisation acting on its behalf. If necessary or desirable the port State authorities have the right to rely on the technical expertise of an EU recognised organisation to decide upon the necessity and urgency of repairing the damages.

Finally, the proposed Directive provides that Member States monitor and report on the implementation of the Directive's provisions, aimed at enabling the Commission to compile and process this information in view of assessing the implementation of the Directive.

The proposal also provides for the notification of the adoption of the Directive to the IMO, in accordance with IMO Assembly Resolution A.797(19), which requests that confirmation is submitted to the IMO that loading and unloading terminals for solid bulk cargoes comply with the IMO codes and recommendations on ship/shore cooperation.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Article 1

This Article defines the purpose of the Directive: to safeguard the structural safety of bulk carriers by avoiding the risk of unacceptable stresses and damages due to improper loading or unloading operations. This aim has to be achieved through the establishment of harmonised procedures for cooperation and communication between bulk carriers and terminals and by laying down suitability requirements for these ships and terminals.

It is not the objective of this Directive to cover issues of liability. Liability issues related to cargo-handling operations should be dealt with within the context of national legislation or the contractual agreement between the shipping company and the terminal operator.

Article 2

This Article defines the scope of application of the Directive. It covers all bulk carriers calling at terminals within Community ports for the loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes. It is obvious, that in order for the regime to be workable and to respect the principle of no more favourable treatment, it has to cover all these ships, irrespective of their flag. This is true both from a competition and a safety enhancing perspective. The provisions of this Directive pertinent to bulk carriers are based upon the requirements of the SOLAS Convention and the principles of the BLU Code. The 1974 SOLAS Convention has been widely ratified by the world's maritime States and every bulk carrier has to meet the requirements of SOLAS Regulation VI/7, which entered into force on 1 July 1998. Further, the provisions of the BLU Code represent the internationally agreed principles and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers, and this code of safe practice has been endorsed by the international maritime community through the adoption of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20) in November 1997. In this Resolution contracting Governments are not only urged to implement the provisions of the BLU Code, but are also urged to introduce legislation to ensure that the key principles of this important Resolution can be enforced.

As already explained in the special considerations related to the definition of 'bulk carrier' in Article 2, the scope of the Directive is limited to genuine bulk carriers, and does not include general cargo ships which occasionally might carry one or more batches of dry bulk cargoes in their general cargo holds.

The inclusion of all bulk carriers within the scope of the Directive by necessity implies that all terminals at which these ships are calling for the loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes should be included as well. Consequently, all types of terminals established in the Community are covered, irrespective whether they consist of fixed, floating or mobile installations.

It should be noted that within the international framework governing the safe loading and unloading of dry bulk carriers no limitation regarding size of bulk carriers or terminals is provided for. The requirements of SOLAS regulation VI/7 apply to all ships for which the carriage of cargoes may require special precautions owing to the particular hazards of these cargoes to ships or persons on board. Further, the definition of bulk carrier which is laid down in Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention for the purpose of implementing the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, does not refer to any ship's size limit either. This implies that since 1 July 1998, all bulk carriers, whose design and utilisation comply with the criteria in the SOLAS definition of bulk carrier, have to comply with the ISM Code, and this irrespective of their size.

In the ISM Code itself, also no distinction is made regarding the size of a shipping company for the purpose of its scope of application. In the preamble of the ISM Code it is recognised that no two shipping companies or shipowners are the same, and that ships operate under a wide range of different conditions and that therefore the ISM Code is based on general principles and objectives. As a consequence the ISM Code applies to all companies, irrespective of the number or type of ships they are operating.

Similarly, the BLU Code is reflecting general principles and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers and therefore does not introduce any size limit for terminals or bulk carriers for its scope of application. The Commission is of the opinion that this international approach is fully justified and that for the sake of safety and also for reasons of competition, a two-tier safety regime whereby certain classes of bulk carriers or terminals are excluded from the scope of application of this Directive based upon size criteria only, should be avoided.

Article 3

This Article contains the definitions of the key concepts of the Directive. The Directive strives, as far as possible, to ensure consistency with definitions in international legal instruments such as the 1974 SOLAS Convention and existing EC legislation in the field of maritime safety.

Definition (1): For the definition of the term 'international conventions' reference is made to the existing definition in the port State control Directive, in order to ensure consistency with Community legislation already in force.

Definition (2) defines the 1974 SOLAS Convention.

Definition (3): The definition of the 'BLU Code' is referring to the Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers, as contained in the Annex to IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20). This acronym is used for practical reasons: it facilitates referring to the Code and is identical to the title of the IMO publication containing the provisions of the Code. The acronym "BLU" stands for "Bulk Loading/Unloading".

Definition (4): The definition of 'bulk carrier' is the one as laid down in the SOLAS Convention. Taking into account that this definition leaves some room for diverging interpretations, a harmonised interpretation was adopted at the 1997 SOLAS Conference through Conference Resolution 6. This interpretation clearly describes the design characteristics and configuration the cargo holds need to have for a ship to be defined as bulk carrier. By taking over this IMO approach for the purpose of this Directive, the scope of the Directive will be limited to genuine bulk carriers, i.e. cargo ships which are designed, constructed and operated for the purpose of carrying dry cargoes in bulk. Implicitly this definition excludes general cargo ships, which might occasionally carry a batch of solid bulk cargoes in one or more of its holds.

Definition (5): 'dry cargo in bulk' or 'solid bulk cargo' is the terminology defined in the SOLAS Convention and used in the BLU Code. Grain is excluded from the scope of this definition since the BLU Code explicitly does not apply to loading and unloading of grain. The carriage of grain is covered by a separate IMO instrument, the International code for the safe carriage of grain in bulk (International Grain Code).

Definition (6): 'grain' is defined by referring to the SOLAS definition to make clear that the exclusion of grain, for the purpose of this Directive, is not only limited to grain, but also includes wheat, maize (corn), oats, rye, barley, rice, pulses seeds and processed forms thereof whose behaviour is similar to that of grain in its natural state.

Definition (7): the term 'terminal' is defined in the broadest sense possible to cover every facility that can be used for the loading or unloading of the bulk carriers as defined in definition (4), in order to ensure that no distortion of competition is created between terminals by excluding some of them from the scope of this Directive. The wording of this definition is to a large extent based upon the approach followed in the proposal for a Council Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues [13] to define port reception facilities.

[13] COM(1998) 452 final of 17 July 1998.

Definition (8): the wording in the definition of 'terminal operator' is to a large extent based upon the approach followed in the definition of 'company' in Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 on the safety management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries (ro-ro ferries), with the aim to ensure that the terminal operator is defined on an equivalent footing with the shipping company operating the bulk carriers.

Definition (9): the definition of 'terminal representative' has been largely based upon the description of terminal representative in Regulation VI/7.1 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention. Together with the master of the bulk carrier to be loaded or unloaded, the terminal representative is a key person for the safe conduct of the cargo-handling operations.

Definition (10): the definition of 'master' has been based upon the definition of master in the BLU Code, with some minor editorial changes to be consistent with the terminology used for the purpose of this Directive.

Definition (11): the definition of 'recognised organisation' is the same as the one laid down in Council Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

Definition (12):'administration of the flag State' has been defined in line with the definition laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95, but adapted to reflect that in this Directive this administration is addressed specifically with regard to bulk carriers flying the flag of that State.

Definition (13): a 'port State control authority' is the same authority as the one which is empowered in a Member State to exercise the control provisions of Council Directive 95/21/EC on port State control.

Definition (14): a definition of 'competent authority' is necessary to take account of the different ways in which Member States can decide which authority in their internal governmental structure is the most suitable for exercising the control provisions of this Directive. The terminology 'port authority' as used in the BLU Code is felt not to be appropriate for the purpose of this Directive. It could lead to confusion with the authority, which is actually operating a port and may have commercial interest in the bulk loading or unloading terminal in that port.

The competent authority should be totally independent from the commercial operating activities of such a terminal in order to ensure impartiality when intervening in disputes between the terminal and the ship about issues related to the safe loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes.

The role of the competent authority in this Directive is focused on ensuring that the principles and procedures of safe loading and unloading in terminals, as laid down in this Directive, are implemented and respected. Only in cases where structural damages to the ship's structure have occurred during loading or unloading, or when deficiencies, as defined in the PSC Directive, are reported, the port State control authorities should intervene. Nothing in this Directive pre-empts the right of Member States for assigning the responsibilities for the competent authority laid down in this Directive to their port State control Authorities.

Definition (15): for the definition of 'cargo information' reference is made to the requirements on cargo information as laid down in the 1974 SOLAS Convention.

Definition (16): for the definition of 'loading or unloading plan' reference is made to the plan as required by Regulation VI/7.3 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention and having the format as laid down in Appendix 2 of the BLU Code.

Definition (17): the 'ship/shore safety checklist' is defined as the list referred to in Section 4 of the BLU and having a format as presented in Appendix 3 of the BLU Code.

Definition (18): the definition of 'solid bulk cargo density declaration' is based upon the requirement of Regulation XII/10 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention. This regulation requires that the shipper, in addition to the cargo information required by SOLAS Regulation VI/2, shall declare the density of the cargo prior to loading bulk cargoes in a bulk carrier.

Article 4

Article 4 lays down provisions on suitability requirements for bulk carriers. The suitability requirements for bulk carriers of the BLU Code that are considered relevant for the purpose of this Directive are listed in Annex I to the Directive.

Fulfilment of these suitability criteria by bulk carriers is considered essential for ensuring that the design and the condition of the ship, its cargo holds or any other part or equipment important for cargo-handling operations do not create a risk to the safety of these operations.

Article 4 therefore requires that bulk carriers calling at terminals in the Member States for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes are checked by these terminals on compliance with the suitability requirements listed in Annex I.

Article 5

This Article establishes the suitability requirements, which terminals established in the Community have to comply with. These requirements are based upon the provisions of SOLAS Regulation VI/7 and the BLU Code, complemented with the requirement to develop, implement and maintain a quality assurance system in accordance with the relevant ISO 9000 series.

The first suitability requirement for terminals is that they have to comply with the relevant suitability criteria of the BLU Code, which are listed in Annex II. These criteria stipulate that only bulk carriers may be accepted that can safely berth and load or unload at the terminal. Further, they specify that the terminal's cargo-handling equipment has to be maintained in good order and operated by qualified personnel, and include accuracy criteria for cargo weighing equipment. Finally, they address training of the terminal personnel, as well as its personal protection and the need for respecting duly rest to avoid accidents due to fatigue.

With regard to these latter aspects which have an impact on the safety and health of terminal workers, it should be noted that a number of Community measures adopted in the social field already apply to the marine transport sector and to terminal workers as well.

Concerning the provision and use of personnel protective equipment as recommended in the BLU Code and incorporated in this Directive, two Council Directives have to be mentioned in particular. First of all there is the general framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work [14].

[14] OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

In the context of this framework Directive, a particular Directive concerning minimum safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace [15] has been adopted. This third individual Directive according to Directive 89/391/EEC, lays down the conditions for the provision of workers with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and for compliance of this equipment with relevant Community provisions with respect to safety and health. Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) [16] lays down the basic safety requirements PPE must satisfy in order to ensure the health protection and safety of users.

[15] Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989, OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

[16] OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

As to the training and rest of terminal workers, following existing Community measures in the social field should be mentioned. First there is the already mentioned framework Directive 89/391/EEC in which the principles on provision of information and training have been established. Furthermore, Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time [17], includes provisions regarding daily rest, breaks, weekly rest periods, maximum weekly working time, night work, shift work, work patterns and safety and health protection.

[17] OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

The Commission is of the opinion that with these Community measures already in place, compliance with the recommendations of the BLU Code on training and rest of terminal personnel can be ensured without the need for adopting additional specific measures within this Directive.

The second suitability criterion for terminals provided for in Article 5 is the requirement for terminals to have an appointed terminal representative for each bulk carrier calling at the terminal for the loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes. It should be mentioned that although Regulation VI/7 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention refers to such a terminal representative, it does not contain the explicit requirement for a terminal to appoint this representative. The fact that the operative paragraph of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20), with which the BLU Code was adopted, urges contracting Governments to introduce legislation to the effect that terminal operators are required to appoint a terminal representative could be considered as a way of remedying this shortcoming in the SOLAS Convention. By including this as a suitability requirement for terminals, the Directive will ensure that at least in the Community this request by the IMO Assembly is complied with.

Taking into account the responsibilities and tasks for the terminal representative listed in the BLU Code, it is obvious that the terminal representative has a key role to play in ensuring that loading and unloading operations in the terminal are conducted in safe conditions. He will also be the master's counterpart in the preparation, establishment and execution of the loading or unloading plan, and will have to discharge also other responsibilities during the entire sequence of cargo-handling, the details of which are further specified in Article 5.

The third suitability criterion for terminals is the requirement to prepare information books on the terminal's and competent authorities' requirements, together with the information on the terminal and the port as listed in Appendix 1 of the BLU Code. This information books have to be made available to the masters of bulk carriers calling at the terminals for the loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes. The provisions of this Directive on the elaboration and provision of such information books by the terminals will provide a clear signal of the Community's commitment to adhere to and support the objectives of the IMO in enhancing the safety of dry bulk cargo loading and unloading operations.

Finally, Article 5 requires that terminals develop, implement and maintain a quality management system, in accordance with the ISO 9001:2000 standards, which should be audited in accordance with the ISO 10011:1991 standard. This requirement originates from the results of a study into EU terminal practices, which was carried out for the Commission services in 1998. This study revealed that only 20% of the terminals responding to a questionnaire confirmed to have a quality management in place and recommended that implementing a quality management system standardised across all terminals would be beneficial in view of achieving the envisaged harmonisation of procedures in EU terminals for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers.

Through imposing this suitability criterion, the Directive aims at ensuring that the management and operation of the terminal - in particular the communication and cooperation procedures with bulk carriers - will be planned, executed and regularly audited against specified quality criteria and that a constant quality of a sufficiently high level is maintained.

Moreover, implementing and maintaining quality management systems for terminals through this Directive will provide a valuable response and counterpart to the International Safety Management system to which bulk carriers have to adhere to since 1 July 1998 in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS Chapter IX. It aims at ensuring that a similar level of commitment to applying internationally agreed safety and quality management principles will be available not only on board bulk carriers, but also ashore at the terminals, which they are calling at for the loading or unloading of dry bulk cargoes. Lastly, it will provide the terminals within the Community with an internationally recognised accreditation of quality and help to foster the safety culture in this sector.

It should be noted that it is an established approach in the Community to use certified quality systems as a method of assuring the quality of goods freely moving within the Community.

The ISO 9000 series is a set of several individual, but closely related, international standards on quality management which were developed to harmonise various national standards and to support the growing impact of quality as a factor in business. They are not specific to any particular industry, product, or service, but are recognised as universal indicators of consistent quality. The ISO 9000 series is an umbrella for several separate documents that describe the elements for establishing or maintaining quality management systems.

The standard for the establishment of the quality assurance system proposed in this Directive is ISO 9001:2000. Upon its publication in 2000, this third edition of ISO 9001 will replace the second edition (ISO 9001:1994) which has been technically revised. Further, ISO 9001:2000 also incorporates the provisions of ISO 9002:1994 and ISO 9003:1994. These two standards will be withdrawn on the publication of ISO 9001:2000. This implies that terminals which have already been using ISO 9002:1994 and ISO 9003:1994 in the past, may use ISO 9001:2000 through limiting the scope of its application, by excluding certain of its requirements. Further, it should be noted that the ISO 9001:2000 edition carries a revised title, which no longer includes the term quality assurance. This reflects the fact that the quality management system requirements in the ISO 9001:2000 edition not only address the quality assurance of product and/or service conformity, but also include the need for an organisation to demonstrate its capability to achieve customer satisfaction.

ISO 10011 establishes basic audit principles, criteria and practices, and provides guidelines for establishing, planning, carrying-out and documenting audits of quality systems. It provides guidelines for verifying the existence and implementation of elements of a quality system and for verifying the system's ability to achieve defined quality objectives. It is sufficiently general in nature to permit it to be applicable or adaptable to different kinds of industries and organisations. Each organisation should develop its own specific procedures for implementing these guidelines.

Article 6

Article 6 lists the responsibilities of masters and terminal representatives.

In paragraph 1, the responsibilities of the master are laid down. The first responsibility is reflecting the fifth key principle of the operative paragraph of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20) with which the BLU Code was adopted. It seeks at ensuring that at all times the master shall be responsible for the safe loading and unloading of the bulk carrier under his command.

Secondly, the master has to provide the terminal well in advance of the ship's estimated time of arrival at the terminal with the information listed Annex III to this Directive. This Annex compiles the information to be provided by the master to the terminal as foreseen in the BLU Code that is considered relevant for the purpose of this Directive.

Thirdly, the master has also the responsibility of ensuring that he receives the cargo information and where necessary the cargo density declaration before any solid bulk cargoes are loaded. Finally, Annex IV lists the remainder responsibilities for the master as mentioned in the BLU Code, which are considered important for the purpose of this Directive.

Paragraph 2 deals with the responsibilities of the terminal representative. Similar to the responsibility for the master to provide the terminal representative with information relevant for the terminal to plan and prepare cargo-handling operations, the terminal representative has the responsibility to provide the master of a visiting bulk carrier with the information necessary for the master to prepare the loading or unloading plan. The information to be provided has been compiled in Annex V to this Directive, based upon the requirements for information provision contained in the BLU Code. The second responsibility for the terminal representative is to ensure that the master has received the cargo information contained in a cargo declaration form.

Furthermore, the terminal representative has to notify to the port State control authorities any deficiency found on board that could endanger the safe loading or unloading of that ship. This requirement has been based upon the principle that the terminal operator, and hence his representative, has a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, as referred to in Annex III, paragraph 3, of Council Directive 95/21/EC on port State control. In that paragraph of Annex III it is stipulated that a report or complaint by any person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship provide clear grounds for a more detailed inspection as referred to in Article 6(3) of the port State control Directive. Similarly, paragraph 9 of Annex III of that Directive mentions evidence of cargo operations not being conducted safely, or in accordance with IMO guidelines as a clear ground for a more detailed inspection.

As to these IMO guidelines, it should be noted that the IMO Assembly adopted in December 1997 Resolution A.866(20) on guidance to ships' crews and terminal personnel for bulk carrier inspections. In this Assembly Resolution, it is recommended that terminal operators regularly inspect cargo holds, hatch covers and ballast tanks with a view to detecting damage and defects.

Based upon this IMO recommendation, in combination with the provisions of the port State control Directive on clear grounds for more detailed inspections, this Directive provides for a reporting by the terminal representative of any deficiency found that could endanger the safety of loading or unloading operations.

Finally, paragraph 2(d) of Article 6 refers to the remainder responsibilities for the terminal representative as listed in Annex VI to the Directive, which contains the provisions on terminal representative's responsibilities of the BLU Code which are considered relevant for the purpose of this Directive.

Article 7

Article 7 lays down the procedures to be respected by bulk carriers and terminals in respect of the loading or unloading of bulk carriers with solid bulk cargoes. This Article compiles the relevant provisions of SOLAS Regulation VI/7 and of the BLU Code on this important issue. The cornerstones in these procedures are on the one hand the use and agreement on a loading or unloading plan and a ship/shore safety checklist and on the other the establishment of an effective communication between ship and terminal during the entire cargo-handling operations.

Before commencing the cargo-handling operations, the master and the terminal representative have, in compliance with SOLAS regulation VI/7.3, to agree on a loading or unloading plan and any subsequent changes to it. They shall use for this plan the format provided for in Appendix 2 of the BLU Code. The agreed plan should be followed during the entire loading or unloading sequence, and after completion of these operations the master and the terminal representative shall agree in writing that the operations have been carried out in accordance with this agreed plan. In order to have traceable evidence available in case of damage to or accidents with the bulk carrier during or after loading or unloading operations, the Directive requires that this agreed and signed plan be lodged with the competent authority, as it is provided for in the BLU Code.

Similarly, important is the ship/shore safety checklist, for which the BLU Code provides that it has to be completed and signed both by the master and the terminal representative prior to commencing with the loading or unloading operations. This safety checklist aims at ensuring that there is a clear understanding between the master and the terminal representative on the procedures to be followed and that the necessary precautions have been taken to ensure that the loading or unloading can be conducted in safe conditions.

Article 8

Article 8 specifies the role and responsibilities of the competent authorities.

In accordance with the fifth key principle of the operative paragraph of IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20), paragraph 1 seeks to ensure that competent authorities have the right to prevent or stop the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes whenever the safety of the bulk carrier concerned is reported to be endangered by the loading or unloading operations.

Further, paragraph 2 provides also the intervention of the competent authorities in case of disagreement between the master and the terminal representative on the application of the cooperation procedures between ship and terminal laid down in Article 7, where this is required in the interest of safety or the marine environment.

Article 9

Article 9 establishes the procedures to be followed in case damage to the ship has occurred during loading or unloading operations. It requires, in accordance with the provisions of the BLU Code, that such damage is reported by the terminal representative to the master and if necessary repaired.

As to the decision on the necessity of such repairs, paragraph 2 requires, in line with the provisions of the BLU Code, the intervention of the flag State administration and the port State control authorities whenever the damage could impair the structural capability or watertight integrity of the hull, or the ship's engineering systems. The port State control authorities have to take the decision in consultation with the flag State administration or the organisation recognised by it and acting on its behalf. Given the technical expertise that may be required to establish a sound judgment on the need for repairing structural damages, paragraph 3 provides that the port State control authorities may rely for that purpose upon a recognised organisation.

The procedures of Article 9 aim solely at ensuring that if a bulk carrier is damaged during loading or unloading operations the necessary precautions are taken to guarantee that the ship will be in a seaworthy condition before it proceeds to sea. They do not aim at resolving issues of liability for the damage incurred. These issues should be dealt with within the national legal framework and the contractual agreements between the ship and the terminal.

Article 10

Article 10 contains provisions on monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Directive. It provides that Member States regularly monitor terminals to verify whether they comply with the requirements of Articles 5.1, 6.2 and 7 and for that purpose carry out unannounced inspections during loading or unloading operations.

Member States are required to report biannually to the Commission on the results of their monitoring efforts, and this within four months after each biannual period upon which is reported.

Article 11

Article 11 provides for the notification to IMO of the adoption of this Directive. This notification aims at providing a positive signal to the international maritime community that the EU is committed to support the efforts undertaken at international level in the area of safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers.

The IMO, when adopting Assembly Resolution A.797(19), invited Port State Authorities, whether acting independently or in regional cooperation, to submit confirmation to the Organisation that loading and unloading terminals for solid bulk cargoes comply with the IMO Codes and recommendations on the ship/shore cooperation. Notification to the IMO of the adoption of this Directive aims at providing a suitable answer to this invitation.

Article 12

The establishment of a regulatory Committee is incorporated in this Article, including also a reference to the procedures of Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC [18], in accordance with which it has to act. The Article also fixes the period for the Council to act in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of that Article to three months.

[18] Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

Article 13

This Article allows the Commission to amend this Directive and its Annexes, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12, to ensure the application, for the purpose of this Directive, of any subsequent amendments to the international Conventions and Codes, IMO resolutions and Circulars, ISO standards or Community instruments which may be adopted, amended or entered into force after the adoption of this Directive, without broadening the Directive's scope.

It also provides under the same procedure for the adoption and incorporation in Article 7 and the Annexes of provisions for the implementation of the procedures laid down in this Directive, without broadening its scope.

Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17

No comments

Annexes

The six Annexes to the Directive compile for each of the issues mentioned in the specific Articles referred to in their subheadings, the relevant provisions of the BLU Code which are considered important for the purpose of the Directive.

ANNEX I

STRUCTURAL SAFETY MEASURES FOR DRY BULK CARRIERS ADOPTED AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

Since the publication of the Commission's Communication on a Common Policy on Safe Seas in 1993, important initiatives on bulk carrier safety have been undertaken at international level, mainly within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), but also by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). These initiatives mainly focus on improving the survivability and structural strength of bulk carriers, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of foundering in case of flooding of a cargo hold for whatever reason (collision damage, failure of the watertight hull envelope, ingress of green water through hatch covers).

These initiatives have led to the adoption of a set of world-wide, mandatory safety requirements for dry bulk carriers through the adoption in 1997 of a new Chapter XII on bulk carrier safety in the SOLAS Convention. The new Chapter lays down survivability and structural requirements for dry bulk carriers to prevent them from sinking if water enters the ship for any reason. Existing bulk carriers, which do not comply with the appropriate requirements, will have to be reinforced - or they may have to limit either the loading pattern of the cargoes they carry or move to carrying lighter cargoes.

These - mainly structural - measures, if uniformly and effectively applied, will contribute substantially to reduce the number of bulk carrier casualties once they start to enter gradually into force from 1 July 1999 onwards. It should be noted that the proposed phasing in scheme of these measures for retro-active application on all existing bulk carriers which are over 10 years of age at the date of entry into force will take five years. Bulk carriers, which are 20 years old and over on 1 July 1999 will have to comply by the date of the first intermediate or periodical survey after that date, whichever is sooner. Bulk carriers aged 15-20 years must comply by the first periodical survey after 1 July 1999, but not later than 1 July 2002. Bulk carriers less than 15 years old must comply by the date of the first periodical survey after the ship reaches 15 years of age, but not later than the date on which the ship reaches 17 years of age.

The very active and important role of IACS in the elaboration and adoption of the abovementioned IMO measures has to be recognised. In particular the analysis of the statistical data on casualties to bulk carriers [19] provided by IACS has been of considerable help in identifying the main problems and their extent. The IACS study into bulk carrier survivability revealed that if a bulk carrier is flooded in the forward hold, the bulkhead between the two foremost holds may not be able to withstand the pressure that results from the sloshing mixture of cargo and water, especially if the ship is loaded in alternate holds with high density cargoes (such as iron ore). If the bulkhead between one hold and the next collapses, progressive flooding could rapidly occur throughout the length of the ship and the vessel would sink in a matter of minutes.

[19] Annex to MSC 67/4/3 of 1 October1996.

IACS concluded that the most vulnerable areas are the bulkhead between numbers one and two holds at the forward end of the vessel and the double bottom of the ship at this location. It proposed that during special surveys of ships, particular attention should be paid to these areas and, where necessary, reinforcements should be carried out.

The Commission is of the opinion that the recently adopted amendments to the SOLAS Convention contained in Chapter XII seem to address adequately the structural safety of the ships covered by its scope. It considers that, at this stage, there is no need for additional Community action in this particular field, moreover since the issue of structural safety of other types of bulk carriers has been taken on board as a priority action in the IMO's work programme.

IMO is currently reviewing whether further measures will be needed to enhance bulk carrier safety, following the publication of the report of the joint United Kingdom European Commission assessment into the sinking of the bulk carrier Derbyshire in 1980, with the loss of all on board. The report was presented to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the IMO in May 1998 and contains further recommendations relating to the design and construction of bulk carriers. Issues for further consideration include strength of hatch covers and coamings, freeboard and bow height, reserve buoyancy at fore end, including forecastles, structural means to reduce loads on hatch covers and forward structure, and fore deck and fore end access. These issues, amongst other, will be investigated in an international formal safety assessment project on bulk carriers.

Finally, the Commission recalls that EU recognised organisations have to ensure, in close consultation as provided for in Article 15.1 of Council Directive 94/57/EC, the uniform application of these structural safety measures on board Community ships.

ANNEX II

EU Port State Control measures as a supporting measure for the implementation of the international safety rules for dry bulk carriers

A first Community initiative with an impact on bulk carrier safety was decided through the adoption in June 1995 of the Council Directive on Port State Control, which has become operational since the 1st of July 1996. In this Directive, bulk carriers of more than 12 years old are listed as one of the categories of ships eligible for expanded inspection. As a consequence, this type of vulnerable ships will be subject to a more in depth scrutiny when selected for port State control inspection. However, this measure can only be considered as a first step towards the enhancement of bulk carrier safety and due to its re-active nature, the remedial effect can only be assessed after sufficient time has elapsed since the Directive came into operation.

Port State control statistics on deficiencies found on board ships inspected and on the reasons for detaining ships indicated that the structural safety of dry bulk carriers was a growing source for concern and remedial action. Studies on bulk carrier safety carried out for the Commission services in 1997 and 1998 to investigate into this development demonstrated that a more focused port State control action on bulk carrier was necessary to deter sub-standard and over-aged bulk carrier tonnage from trading to and from European ports. The results of the 1998 [20] study showed clearly that enhanced PSC action focusing at structural safety of bulk carriers proves to be very effective in deterring sub-standard shipping from trading to or from the area in which such a policy is applied.

[20] Bulk carrier safety study by Burness, Corlett & Partners, November 1998.

As an example, the study reported on the strict policies developed by Australian bulk terminals, using over-age and observed condition criteria for non-acceptance of sub-standard tonnage. These strict terminal policies seem to be driven by commercial interests, since the Australian Maritime Safety Agency applies a policy of an at least 60% PSC inspection rate for bulk carriers calling at Australian terminals. These port State control inspections include structural examination and result in immediate detention in case of serious deficiencies. This lead initially to a very high rate of detentions and caused problems for the Australian terminals since their throughput was placed at risk if vessels were detained at the loading berths. The terminals therefore adapted a pro-active policy of applying suitability criteria, which resulted in a marked reduction in the incidence of sub-standard tonnage calling at Australian terminals, an improved casualty record, a more reliable throughput of cargo and fewer detentions.

This successful policy in the Pacific however resulted in a transfer of over-aged and sub-standard tonnage to Atlantic trades, between Europe, Africa and South America, as demonstrated by the analysis of trading patterns carried out in a study for the Commission services in 1997 [21].

[21] The safety of bulk carriers and possible legislative initiatives for the European Community by SPH Global, June 1997 (contract No D-B96-B2 7020-SIN 4921-ETU).

In response to the outcome of these studies, the Commission services proposed in 1998 to the Port State Control Committee of the Paris MOU to organise a concentrated PSC inspection campaign on the structural soundness of cape size bulk carriers. The Port State Control Committee of the Paris MOU agreed to this proposal and decided to hold a three-month campaign from 1 April to 20 June 1999.

The results of this inspection campaign are currently assessed by the Paris MOU task force on bulk carrier safety. However, preliminary results indicate that 40 out of the 79 ships inspected were found to have at least one structural defect and that eight of them were detained for structural deficiencies.

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission [22],

[22] OJ C

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [23],

[23] OJ C

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions [24],

[24] OJ C

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty,

Whereas:

(1) In view of the high number of shipping accidents involving bulk carriers with an associated loss of human lives, further measures should be taken to enhance safety in maritime transport within the framework of the comon transport policy.

(2) Assessments into the causes of bulk carrier casualties indicate that loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes, if not properly conducted, can contribute to the loss of bulk carriers, either by over-stressing the ship's structure or by mechanically damaging its structural members in the cargo holds; the protection of the safety of bulk carriers can be enhanced through the adoption of measures aimed at reducing the risk of structural damage and losses due to improper loading and unloading operations.

(3) At international level, the International Maritime Organisation (the "IMO"), through a number of Assembly Resolutions, has adopted recommendations on the safety of bulk carriers addressing ship/port interface issues in general and loading and unloading operations in particular.

(4) By Assembly Resolution A.862(20), the IMO adopted a Code of practice for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (hereinafter "the BLU Code"), and urged contracting governments to implement this Code at the earliest possible opportunity and to inform IMO of any non-compliance. In the Resolution, the IMO further urged contracting governments in whose territories solid bulk cargo loading and unloading terminals are situated to introduce laws to the effect that a number of key principles necessary for the implementation of this Code could be enforced.

(5) The impact of loading and unloading operations on bulk carrier safety, in view of the global character of dry bulk carrier trade, has transboundary implications. The development of action to prevent the foundering of bulk carriers due to improper loading and unloading practices is best done at Community level, since Member States in isolation cannot take adequate and effective action.

(6) Action at Community level is the most effective way of establishing harmonised requirements and procedures to implement the IMO recommendations laid down in the Assembly Resolution A.862(20) and the Code of practice for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers.

(7) In view of the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, a Directive is the appropriate legal instrument as it provides a framework for the Member States' uniform and compulsory application of the requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, while leaving each Member State the right to decide which implementation tools best fit its internal system. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary for the objectives pursued.

(8) The protection of the safety of bulk carriers and their crews can be enhanced by reducing the risks of improper loading and unloading at dry bulk cargo terminals; this can be implemented by establishing harmonised procedures for cooperation and communication between ship and terminal and by laying down suitability requirements for ships and terminals.

(9) In the interests of enhancing bulk carrier safety and avoiding distortion of competition, the harmonised procedures and suitability criteria should apply to all bulk carriers, irrespective of the flag they fly, and to all terminals in the Community at which such carriers call for the purpose of loading or unloading solid bulk cargoes.

(10) Bulk carriers calling at terminals for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes should be suitable for that purpose. Terminals should verify that visiting bulk carriers comply with the relevant suitability criteria laid down in the BLU Code.

(11) Terminals should also be suitable for receiving and loading or unloading visiting bulk carriers; for that purpose they should comply with the suitability criteria of the BLU Code relating to berthing facilities, cargo-handling and weighing equipment, training and working patterns of terminal personnel.

(12) Terminals should, in the interests of enhancing the cooperation and communication with the ship's master on matters relating to the loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes, appoint a terminal representative and make information books with the terminal's and port's requirements available to the masters in accordance with the provisions of the BLU Code.

(13) The development, implementation and maintenance of a quality management system by the terminals would ensure that the cooperation and communication procedures and the actual loading and unloading by the terminal are planned and executed in accordance within a harmonised framework that is internationally recognised and auditable. In view of its international recognition, the quality management system should be based upon the ISO 9000 series of standards adopted by the International Standardisation Organisation.

(14) For the purpose of ensuring that loading and unloading operations are carefully prepared, agreed and conducted with a view to avoid endangering the structural integrity of the ship, the responsibilities of the master and the terminal representative should be laid down in accordance with the relevant provisions of the SOLAS Convention, IMO Assembly Resolution A.862(20) and the BLU Code. For the same purpose, procedures for the preparation, agreement and conduct of loading or unloading operations should be laid down on the basis of the provisions of those international instruments.

(15) In the general interests of the Community in deflecting sub-standard shipping from its ports, the responsibility of the terminal representative should include a duty to notify port State control authorities of any apparent deficiency on board a bulk carrier that could prejudice the safety of the loading or unloading operations.

(16) It is necessary that the competent authorities of the Member States have the right to prevent or halt the loading or unloading operations whenever ship or crew safety is reported to be endangered by these operations. The authorities should also intervene in the interests of safety in the event of disagreement between the master and the terminal representative as to the application of these procedures.

(17) It is necessary to lay down procedures whereby damage to ships incurred during loading or unloading operations is reported, and repaired if necessary. Where such damage could impair the safety or seaworthiness of the ship, the decision as to the necessity and urgency of repairs should be taken by the port State control authorities in consultation with the administration of the flag State. In view of the technical expertise necessary to take such a decision, the authorities should have the right to call upon a recognised organisation to inspect the damage and to advise them on any need for repairs.

(18) Enforcement of this Directive should be enhanced by the establishment of a surveillance system in the Member States, including unannounced inspections during loading and unloading operations: reporting the results of this monitoring effort will provide valuable information on the effectiveness of the requirements and harmonised procedures laid down in this Directive.

(19) The IMO in its Assembly Resolution A.797(19) on the safety of ships carrying solid bulk cargoes requested port State authorities to submit confirmation that loading and unloading terminals for solid bulk cargoes comply with the IMO Codes and recommendations on ship/shore cooperation. Notification of the adoption of this Directive to the IMO will provide an appropriate response to this request and a clear signal to the international maritime community that the Community is committed to supporting the efforts undertaken at international level to enhance the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers.

(20) Since the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive are measures of general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [25], they should be adopted by use of the regulatory procedure provided for in Article 5 of that Decision.

[25] OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(21) It should be possible to amend certain provisions of this Directive in accordance with that procedure, so as to bring them into line with international and Community instruments adopted, amended or entering into force after the entry into force of this Directive and for the implementation of the procedures laid down in this Directive, without broadening its scope.

(22) The provisions of Council Directive 89/391/CEE of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work [26] and its relevant individual directives are fully applicable to the work relating to the loading and unloading of bulk carriers,

[26] OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Purpose

The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the safety of bulk carriers calling at terminals in the Community in order to load or unload solid bulk cargoes, by reducing the risks of excessive stresses and physical damage to the ship's structure during loading or unloading, through the establishment of:

(1) suitability requirements for those ships and terminals, and

(2) harmonised procedures for cooperation and communication between those ships and terminals.

Article 2

Scope

This Directive shall apply to:

(1) all bulk carriers, irrespective of their flag, calling at a terminal for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes; and

(2) all terminals within the territory of the Member States.

Article 3

Definitions

For the purpose of this Directive:

(1) "international conventions" shall mean the conventions currently in force, as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 95/21/EC [27];

[27] OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.

(2) "1974 SOLAS Convention" shall mean the International Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea, together with the Protocols and amendments thereto, in force;

(3) "BLU Code" shall mean the Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers, as contained in the Annex to IMO Assembly Resolution A.862 (20) of 27 November 1997, as amended;

(4) "bulk carrier" shall bear the meaning given to it in Regulation IX/1.6 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention and interpreted by Resolution 6 of the 1997 SOLAS Conference, namely:

- a ship constructed with single deck, top-side tanks and hopper-side tanks in cargo spaces and intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk; or

- an ore carrier, meaning a sea-going single deck ship having two longitudinal bulkheads and a double bottom throughout the cargo region and intended for the carriage of ore cargoes in the centre holds only; or

- a combination carrier as defined in Regulation II-2/3.27 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention;

(5) "dry cargo in bulk" or "solid bulk cargo" shall mean solid bulk cargo as defined in Regulation XII/1.4 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, excluding grain;

(6) "grain" shall bear the meaning given to it in Regulation VI/8.2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention;

(7) "terminal" shall mean any fixed, floating or mobile facility equipped and used for the loading or unloading of dry cargo in bulk into or from bulk carriers;

(8) "terminal operator" shall mean the owner of a terminal, or any organisation or person having taken over from the owner the responsibility for operating the terminal;

(9) "terminal representative" shall mean a person appointed by the terminal operator, who has the overall responsibility for and authority to control the loading or unloading operations conducted by the terminal for a particular bulk carrier;

(10) "master" shall mean the person who has command over a bulk carrier or a ship's officer designated by the master for the loading or unloading operations;

(11) "recognised organisation" shall mean an organisation recognised in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 94/57/EC [28];

[28] OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20.

(12) "administration of the flag State" shall mean the competent authorities of the State whose flag the bulk carrier is entitled to fly;

(13) "port State control authority" shall mean the competent authority of a Member State empowered to exercise the control provisions of Directive 95/21/EC;

(14) "competent authority" shall mean a national, regional or local public authority in the Member State empowered by national legislation to implement and enforce the requirements of this Directive;

(15) "cargo information" shall mean the cargo information required by Regulation VI/2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention;

(16) "loading or unloading plan" shall mean a plan as referred to in Regulation VI/7.3 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention and having the format as contained in Appendix 2 of the BLU Code;

(17) "ship/shore safety checklist" shall mean the checklist as referred to in section 4 of the BLU Code and having the format as contained in Appendix 3 of the BLU Code;

(18) "solid bulk cargo density declaration" shall mean the information on the density of the cargo to be provided in compliance with Regulation XII/10 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention.

Article 4

Requirements in relation to the suitability of bulk carriers

Member States shall make the necessary arrangements to ensure that terminal operators verify the suitability of bulk carriers for loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes, by checking compliance with the provisions of Annex I.

Article 5

Requirements in relation to the suitability of terminals

Member States shall ensure that terminals:

(1) comply with the provisions of Annex II;

(2) have an appointed terminal representative for each bulk carrier calling at the terminal for the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes;

(3) have prepared information books containing the requirements of the terminal and the competent authorities and the information on the port and terminal as listed in Appendix 1 of the BLU Code, and that they make these information books available to the masters of bulk carriers calling at the terminal for loading or unloading solid bulk cargoes; and

(4) have developed, implemented and maintain a quality management system, certified in accordance with the ISO 9001:2000 standards and audited in accordance with the guidelines of the ISO 10011:1991 standard.

Article 6

Responsibilities of masters and terminal representatives

Member States shall make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the following principles concerning the responsibilities of masters and terminal representatives are respected and applied:

(1) Responsibilities of the master:

(a) The master shall be responsible at all times for the safe loading and unloading of the bulk carrier under his command.

(b) The master shall, well in advance of the ship's estimated time of arrival at the terminal, provide the terminal with the information set out in Annex III.

(c) Before any solid bulk cargo is loaded, the master shall ensure that he has received the cargo information required by Regulation VI/7.2 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, and where required, a solid bulk cargo density declaration. This information shall be contained in a cargo declaration form as set out in Appendix 5 of the BLU Code.

(d) Prior to the start of and during loading or unloading the master shall discharge the responsibilities listed in Annex IV.

(2) Responsibilities of the terminal representative:

(a) Upon receipt of the ship's initial notification of its estimated time of arrival, the terminal representative shall provide the master with the information mentioned in Annex V.

(b) The terminal representative shall be satisfied that the master has been advised as early as possible of the information contained in the cargo declaration form.

(c) The terminal representative shall without delay notify the port State control authority of apparent deficiencies on board a bulk carrier which could endanger the safe loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes.

(d) Prior to the start of and during loading or unloading, the terminal representative shall discharge the responsibilities listed in Annex VI.

Article 7

Procedures between bulk carriers and terminals

Member States shall ensure that the following procedures are applied in respect of the loading or unloading of bulk carriers with solid bulk cargoes:

(1) Before solid bulk cargoes are loaded or unloaded, the master shall agree with the terminal representative on the loading or unloading plan in accordance with the provisions of Regulation VI/7.3 of th