Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on marine equipment ()

(96/C 97/06)

On 8 August 1995, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 17 January 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 332nd Plenary Session (meeting of 31 January 1996), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

The proposal is one of the measures envisaged by the Commission in its communication of 24 February 1993 on a common policy on safe seas (COM(93) 66 final).

The Committee Opinion on the communication () felt that mutual recognition was the most effective way of handling the problem of the safety of shipborne equipment, with regular checks on the benefits of harmonization.

1.1. The proposal also meets the request made by the Council in its Resolution of 8 June 1993 () concerning the primary objective of increasing safety at sea.

2. Present situation

2.1. The international conventions adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on vessel safety and prevention of pollution from vessels specify the equipment (appliances, materials, devices and apparatus) needed to ensure general safety and safety of operations, and to prevent pollution.

2.2. These conventions lay down the general requirements for such equipment. The detailed standards and performance specifications relating to such items as lifesaving, fire-fighting, radio and on-board navigation equipment are laid down in recommendations and standards adopted by the IMO or other international bodies.

2.3. The equipment covered by the conventions must be of the type approved by the national authority. Before giving its approval, this authority must ascertain that the equipment has been tested and proven to conform with the standards laid down in the IMO recommendations, or with criteria which are substantially equivalent and not of a lower level.

2.4. The IMO recently tackled the question of mutual recognition of equipment when it issued a proposal to establish international approval procedures based on an IMO code for equipment type-approval.

2.5. The proposal was not adopted because some countries supported the current practice based on bilateral or multinational arrangements.

3. Content of the proposal

3.1. The proposal is designed to enhance on-board safety through the uniform application of international standards, and to harmonize the procedures for assessing the conformity of the marine equipment which vessels must carry on board.

3.2. The situations obtaining in Member States differ as regards the bodies appointed by the national authorities to approve the equipment and the criteria for applying the international standards.

3.3. The Commission considers that the present situation is unsatisfactory in safety terms. Community harmonization therefore appears justified, in order to ensure that equipment is reliable and can thus protect human life and the marine environment in general.

3.4. As well as raising safety levels, the implementation of precise Community rules should allow such equipment to circulate freely in all Member States.

3.5. This will be possible because approved equipment will bear a Community Mark that will enable its manufacturer to market it in other Member States without seeking specific approval there.

3.6. The Commission feels that this will lead to savings because it will reduce the administrative costs related to approval and will produce economies of scale, as the Community Mark will allow the equipment to be sold on a larger market.

3.7. The proposal takes a suitably gradual approach, grouping the equipment in two Annexes:

A1 - Equipment for which detailed testing standards already exist in international instruments;

A2 - Equipment for which detailed testing standards do not exist yet in international instruments.

4. Comments

4.1. General comments

4.1.1. The Committee approves the proposal, subject to the suggestions and comments which follow. It strongly supports the underlying objectives, namely:

- to improve safety at sea;

- to secure the harmonized application of testing standards within the EU;

- to allow free movement of the approved equipment in all Member States, according to the standards and criteria laid down by the EU.

4.1.2. The Committee endorses the basic consideration that achievement of the highest possible safety level is closely bound up with the on-board availability of safe, reliable equipment. Hence there is a close link between marine pollution and disasters and the standard and quality of equipment carried on board.

4.1.3. However, the proposal appears geared more to the objective of removing obstacles to the free movement of goods, rather than the further enhancement of safety levels.

4.1.4. The Committee holds safety as sacrosanct, and asks the Commission to give constant consideration to safety and environmental protection when framing legislation in this field. Committee Opinions on maritime shipping, starting with the Opinion on a common policy on safe seas, have always highlighted these elements.

4.2. The international backdrop to the proposal

4.2.1. The Committee supports the free movement of equipment and the harmonization of testing criteria as key objectives for the automatic mutual recognition of equipment throughout the EU.

4.2.2. However, it feels that the Community must make a determined effort to extend to all international shipping the high safety and reliability criteria which it pursues itself.

4.2.3. This can be achieved by initiatives at the IMO to resume negotiations with a view to ensuring real and effective application of the international standards for safe and reliable equipment, to be extended to all world shipping.

4.2.4. The persistence of regional standards based on an often differing application of IMO standards may impair the competitiveness of European shipowners, and may lower safety and environmental protection levels - particularly in the case of non-EU vessels which sail in Community waters.

4.3. Protection of the quality of Community production

4.3.1. As regards the quality assurance for Community production (modules C and D appended to the proposal), the requirements seem sufficiently stringent to guarantee a high quality product.

4.3.2. However, the Committee asks the Commission, in leaving the IMO to establish the standards and assessment criteria for the equipment covered by Annex A2, to ensure the fullest possible protection for users.

4.3.3. Such protection should be assured by:

- strict application and regular updating of the criteria laid down in Articles 9,12 and 13 and in Annex C;

- the Member States devoting careful attention to the appointment of the control bodies responsible for the authorization procedure laid down in Article 9.

4.3.4. While understanding the Commission's reasons, the Committee also wonders whether the mark of conformity mentioned in Annex D, which differs from the certification system that was standardized by Directive 93/68, might create confusion and conflict with existing provisions governing life-saving equipment.

4.4. Specific comments

4.4.1. Article 1

The Article rightly enshrines the principle of improving safety. This principle should receive greater mention in the Articles which follow.

4.4.2. Article 2

In the definition of 'International Conventions', the reference to the 1966 convention should be deleted as this convention does not mention equipment.

In the definition of 'Testing Standards', mention should also be made of other bodies (such as CEN and Cenelec) which are recognized as leading European standardization bodies.

4.4.3. Articles 4, 5 and 6

These Articles constitute the core of the Directive, as they seek to strengthen the principle of safety and free movement of equipment.

4.4.4. Article 7

Article 7(2) and (4) empower the Commission to undertake certain tasks on the Community's behalf. The Committee thinks that the proposal is right, as the intention is clearly for the Commission ultimately to coordinate Member States' action on the Community's behalf.

4.4.5. Article 8

It should be more clearly stated that this Article is also to apply to existing third-country vessels which are transferred to the register of a Member State.

4.4.6. Article 13

The 'shortcomings in the Testing Standards' mentioned in Article 13(1)(c) do not constitute grounds for non-compliance. Article 13(1)(c) should therefore be deleted, as it could raise practical and legal problems in the event of action by a Member State.

4.4.7. Article 14

The scope of Article 14(2) should be clarified so as to specify whether it extends to equipment produced in third countries.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 218, 23. 8. 1995, p. 9.

() OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 47.

() OJ No C 271, 7. 10. 1993, p. 1.