Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident

Contents

Introduction

I - Part One: Earlier application of the measures in the Erika I and Erika II packages

1. Initiatives taken by the Commission with a view to earlier application of the Erika I and Erika II packages

* Earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency

* Closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies

* Establishment of a trans-European data exchange network for vessel traffic monitoring

* Publication of an indicative list of substandard vessels under Directive 95/21/EC

* Speeding up preparations of the plans to accommodate vessels in places of refuge

2. Requests to the Member States in the light of the Prestige accident

* Recruit a sufficient number of port State control inspectors

* Take the measures necessary to achieve a sufficient level of inspections at all ports and anchorage areas in the European Union

* Ratify the convention creating a third level of compensation for damage to complement the IOPC Fund.

II - Part Two: Additional measures

1. Specific measures for the carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil

2. Liability and Compensation

* Amendments to the international regime

* Other polluting substances

3. Penal sanctions

4. Introduction of a Community-wide recognition system for certificates of competency issued to seafarers outside the European Union

5. Reporting by pilots

6. Protecting the coastal waters of the EU

III - Part Three: Action at international level

* Keeping dangerous vessels off the principal shipping routes

* Flag State audit procedure

IV - Part Four: Partnership with the industry

ANNEX 1: The Erika I and Erika 2 packages

ANNEX 2: Indicative black list of ships which would have been banned under the latest amendments to the Directive on port State control

ANNEX 3: Port State control inspections by Member States

Introduction

On 13 November 2002 the Prestige, a 26-year-old single hull oil tanker flying the flag of the Bahamas and carrying 77 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, ran into serious trouble off the coast of Galicia. Salvage operations were hampered by particularly bad weather and heavy seas and were unable to prevent the Prestige from sinking on 19 November some 130 miles off the Spanish coast, with most of its cargo still on board.

As the oil slick washed up onto the coastline of Galicia, the Commission reacted immediately through with its monitoring and information centre (MIC). It coordinated the calls from Spain and Portugal for assistance in the form of resources for combating pollution. A team of top European pollution prevention experts was despatched to the scene to give advice on clean-up techniques and the best ways of protecting the coastline, particularly the sensitive environmental sites in the Natura 2000 network.

This latest accident, coming less than three years after the Erika disaster, confirms the urgent need for rigorous action to protect Europe's coasts and citizens against such catastrophes.

More generally, the Prestige accident highlights, yet again, how vulnerable the EU is, with 90% of its oil supplies carried by sea. Against this background, there are legitimate grounds for concern about the increasing risks posed as oil tanker traffic, particularly in vessels carrying far greater quantities of oil then the Prestige, grows. As highlighted in the Commission Green Paper of 29 November 2000 "Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply", steps must therefore be taken to put into action without delay, at Community level, a supply strategy based on diversification of the means of transporting oil, in particular by laying oil pipelines.

In the specific case of heavy fuel oil, which has been to blame for numerous pollution incidents at sea, it must also be stressed that although this product accounts for only 10% or so of the oil carried by sea, it remains indispensable for fuelling certain power stations and merchant shipping.

The Commission also reacted extremely swiftly after the Erika accident by proposing, in its communication of 21 March 2000 on the safety of the seaborne oil trade [1], an initial package of measures designed significantly to reinforce oil tanker safety, which was supplemented, on 6 December 2000, by a second package [2] (see Annex I).

[1] COM(2000) 142 final.

[2] COM(2000) 802 final.

The measures adopted by the European Parliament and the Council will not start to be phased in until January 2003. The Commission regrets the slow pace of adoption and implementation of its proposals. It must be stressed that at the European Council meeting in Nice on 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, the Member States committed themselves to implement in advance the measures approved by the 15 where they do not require an international framework. The Prestige accident makes a firm commitment from the Member States urgently to apply the Erika packages, without waiting for the official dates of entry into force, all the more indispensable.

What is more, certain key components of the Erika packages, particularly the timetable for phasing out single hull oil tankers, were watered down during the discussions within the Council, which also refused to pursue the discussions on the COPE Fund at Community level, preferring to leave the decision to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). By way of example, the timetable originally proposed by the Commission was to take tankers like the Prestige out of service after 23 years (whereas the Prestige had been in service for 26 years at the time of the accident).

The Prestige accident confirms that the measures proposed by the Commission in the Erika I and Erika II packages are well founded. One of the first lessons which can be learned from the Prestige accident is that there is no need to table numerous new proposals for legislation. The priority must be rapid, effective application of the existing Community legislation.

Consequently, in this communication the Commission:

* calls on the European Council in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December to approve, as an emergency measure, the lines of action set out in this communication;

* calls on the European Parliament and the Council to examine and support the action and measures proposed by the Commission in this communication;

* stresses the need for the Member States to apply, earlier than the scheduled dates, the measures adopted in the Erika I and Erika II packages;

* proposes a number of additional measures, dealing, in particular, with the problems posed by the carriage by sea of highly polluting products such as the heavy fuel oil on board the Prestige;

* calls on the Member States to take action within the International Maritime Organisation with a view to reinforcing safety at sea and preventing pollution from ships.

I - Part One: Earlier application of the measures in the Erika I and Erika II packages

The measures adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (see Annex I) will not start to enter into force until 1 January 2003 (when the first single hull oil tankers will be taken out of service [3]), 22 July 2003 (Directives on port State control and classification societies) and 5 February 2004 (Directive on vessel traffic monitoring).

[3] However, the industry is already taking such measures and it now seems to be common practice for vessel charterers and owners no longer to carry crude oil or oil products to EU ports in vessels over 15 years old but to opt for double hull vessels instead. According to the statistics provided by Intertanko, the proportion of double hull oil tankers rose from 39% in 2000 to 51% at the end of 2002. Intertanko estimates that by 2007 around 75% of oil tankers will be double hull vessels.

Aware of the urgency of the situation, the Commission has not been waiting for these dates to implement the Erika I and Erika II packages. In response to the Prestige accident, it intends to tighten up certain points in the existing legislation. Finally, it expects the Member States and parties concerned to show the same determination to apply these measures.

1. Initiatives taken by the Commission with a view to earlier application of the Erika I and Erika II packages

* Earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency

With the adoption of the Regulation establishing the European Maritime Safety Agency [4], the European Union decided to acquire a powerful instrument for monitoring the effectiveness of the Community rules on maritime safety.

[4] Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency (OJ No L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1).

The Agency will assist the Member States and the Commission with implementation of the Community legislation on maritime safety and evaluate the effectiveness of the Community measures in place, notably with the aid of audits or visits to the Member States. It will centralise all the information available on maritime safety and make the appropriate recommendations.

The Commission has undertaken to make the Agency operational within 12 months of the entry into force of the Regulation establishing it and is now in the process of putting this into action. More specifically, the Administrative Board for the Agency has been set up, with the appointment of the 15 members representing the Member States, the four representatives of the Commission and the four independent professionals nominated by the Commission. The first meeting of the Administrative Board was held on 4 December 2002 and the second is scheduled in January 2003.

The Commission is finalising the selection procedure for the post of Executive Director and is expected to take a decision by 17 December 2002. It will then submit its proposals to the Administrative Board immediately so that the Board can consider the matter at its meeting in January 2003 and appoint the Executive Director.

Although the location of the Agency remains uncertain, the Commission is determined to press ahead. Without waiting for the European Council to decide on the site, the Commission will provisionally house the Agency on its own premises. The Commission will therefore have done everything to make the Agency operational six months ahead of schedule.

* Closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies

The classification societies that can work on behalf of the EU Member States are only those recognised at Community level on the basis of Council Directive 94/57/EC [5]. These organisations are required to comply with strict quality criteria laid down in the Directive, that have been further reinforced following the ERIKA accident. The Commission services have strengthened their assessments of the recognised organisations in order constantly to measure their compliance with the criteria as well as their quality performance.

[5] Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ No L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20), as last amended by Directive 2001/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 9).

In this respect, the classification societies have been warned on several occasions that in order to keep their recognition at Community level they will have to maintain good safety and pollution prevention performance records, measured for all their ships, irrespective of the flag the ships fly, and irrespective of the region of the world in which they sail. The Commission services have made it clear that they will implement the new provisions of the Directive very strictly and that they will not hesitate to launch procedures to suspend or even withdraw the EU recognition of those organisations which do not give enough guarantees in safety terms.

Finally, another point which must be looked into is the practice where classification societies issue seaworthiness certificates for vessels on a commercial basis, on behalf of the shipowner, and also by delegation, on behalf of the flag State which is supposed to monitor the vessel. As a result, the classification society sometimes seems to be judging its own case. The first objective should be to examine, together with the classification societies already recognised at Community level, how to change these practices and keep these different checks more separate.

* Publication of an indicative list of substandard vessels under Directive 95/21/EC

The amendments made to Directive 95/21/EC on port State control [6] in response to the Erika accident introduced a procedure for banning vessels which have been detained repeatedly over the last two or three years and are on the "black list" of flags with an above average number of detentions.

[6] Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control on shipping (OJ No L 157, 7.7.1995, p.1), as last amended by Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 17).

To help to implement the Erika I package earlier and to send a clear, strong message to the shipowners and flag States concerned about the impact of this new measure, the Commission has compiled an indicative list of vessels which would be refused access to European ports if the latest amendments to Directive 95/21/EC were in force (Annex II to this communication). The indicative list is established by the Commission on the basis of information which is available within the Paris Memorandum of Understanding of port State control and the Equasis database.

The Commission hopes that this will prompt the owners and flag States of the vessels concerned to take the measures required to come into line with the maritime safety standards in force before the Erika I measures enter into force.

* Establishment of a trans-European data exchange network for vessel traffic monitoring

Directive 2002/59/EC [7], adopted by the European Parliament and the Council as part of the Erika II package, aims at establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. The Member States must apply the provisions laid down in the Directive by 5 February 2004 at the latest. They have longer, until the end of 2007, to complete their national network of shore-based infrastructure for monitoring vessels off their coasts.

[7] Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (OJ No L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10).

Without waiting until then, even before final adoption of the Directive, the Commission started work on putting into place the Community vessel traffic monitoring system. This system, known as "SafeSeaNet", includes establishment of a European database and of a network between the Member States for exchanging real-time data from transponders [8] on board vessels so that the authorities can know the identity, position and cargo of vessels sailing in European waters at any time.

[8] Transponders or AIS (Automatic Identification Systems) are devices fitted on board vessels capable of automatic, quasi-continuous transmission of information concerning the identity, position and routing of a given vessel to other vessels in the vicinity and to coastal stations. At international level, the IMO has adopted a timetable which was incorporated in the Directive and extended to other vessel categories.

SafeSeaNet, a unique example of a common vessel management system covering all Member States - and open to other States by the seas bordering the Union - will make it possible to keep closer track of shipping, allow better detection of situations posing a threat to the environment, including cases involving vessels in transit, and permit more effective intervention in the event of accidents at sea.

* Speeding up preparations of the plans to accommodate vessels in places of refuge

Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system provides for the Member States to draw up plans to accommodate vessels in distress in the waters under their jurisdiction.

In the light of recent events, without waiting until February 2004, the date set for transposition of the Directive, the Commission will take the initiative and, in consultation with the European Maritime Safety Agency, will convene a meeting with the Member States as early as January 2003 to speed up the preparations of the plans to accommodate vessels in distress so that they can be adopted at the time that the Directive enters into force at the latest.

2. Requests to the Member States in the light of the Prestige accident:

With a view to earlier application of the measures in the Erika I and Erika II packages, the Commission calls on the Member States, without waiting for the date set for implementation of these measures:

* To recruit a sufficient number of port State control inspectors, if need be from amongst former merchant shipping officers, to be able to meet in time the new obligations imposed by the amendments to Directive 95/21/EC, particularly on tougher compulsory inspections, and strictly to meet the minimum inspection rate of 25% set in the Directive.

* To take the measures necessary to achieve a sufficient inspection rate at all ports and anchorage areas in the Union to avoid undermining the deterrent effect of the Directive on substandard vessels. In particular, it would be incompatible with the effectiveness of Directive 95/21/EC and with the principles of fair competition if some ports or anchorage areas were to become literal "ports of convenience" inside the European Union itself, because no inspections or insufficient inspections were carried out there. In this context, it must be pointed out that a large number of vessels in transit off Europe's coasts call into European ports only for refuelling and are therefore not subject to the same degree of control as vessels making a full commercial call. In some cases, these calls are the only opportunity to exercise any effective control over such vessels. It is therefore indispensable that the port control authorities pay the same attention to these vessels as they do to vessels making "normal" commercial calls. To remedy such anomalies in inspection practice and prevent the emergence of "ports of convenience", the Commission will propose new measures to produce a more even level of inspections in ports in the European Union.

* To ratify without delay the Protocol establishing a Supplementary Fund for compensation for oil pollution incidents and to ensure that the fund covers damage up to EUR 1 billion and is fully operational before the end of 2003. It is of fundamental importance that victims of oil spills are adequately compensated. Therefore, in the Erika II package the Commission proposed to raise considerably the compensation available to victims of an oil pollution incident. through the establishment of a Fund for the Compensation of Oil Pollution damage in European waters (the COPE Fund), which would raise the overall compensation to EUR 1 billion instead of the current international maximum limit of EUR 185 million [9]. Such a measure would ensure that all victims who have a legitimate claim for compensation will be fully compensated in case of an oil spill in EU waters and would also serve to speed up the compensation of victims. However, the Council decided not to proceed with the proposal, but instead to promote the establishment of a similar fund at international level. Given the unquestionable benefits for European citizens, the Commission is very concerned about the lack of progress in this area. As the Commission has repeatedly insisted, the international supplementary fund can only be accepted as an alternative to the COPE Fund if its overall limit is set at no less than EUR 1 billion and if all coastal Member States participate in it from the start. Should this not be the case, rapid adoption of the Commission's proposal for a COPE Fund, as amended following the support of the European Parliament, is essential.

[9] COM(2000)802 final of 6 December 2000.

II - Part Two: Additional measures

This communication focuses primarily on the measures which can be taken to reduce the risk of major pollution incidents such as the Erika and the Prestige accidents and in particular measures relating to maritime safety. However, these accidents should also be seen in a wider policy context. By June 2003 the Commission will undertake an assessment of whether current legislative and policy instruments, in particular those dealing with the environment, health, research, fisheries and regional development, should be adapted in order to minimise both the risk of occurrence and of the damage (immediate and long-term) associated with such accidents.

Although the precise causes of the Prestige accident are not yet known, a number of lessons can be learned already. The Commission proposes that the Member States support the following measures to supplement the action already taken in the Erika packages:

1. Specific measures for the carriage of heavy fuel oil

Heavy fuel oil is among the most polluting types of oil. In view of its relatively low commercial value and comparatively small risk of fire or explosion, it is regularly carried in older tankers nearing the end of their economic lives, i.e. ships that pose the greatest safety risks. This anomaly is of great concern to the Commission and these concerns have clearly been intensified by the accidents of the Erika and the Prestige, both 26-year-old single hull tankers carrying heavy fuel oil. By contrast, in two recent accidents in the Baltic Sea, involving the Baltic Carrier and the Pindar, similar disastrous consequences were avoided, thanks to, inter alia, the double bottom or double hull construction of the tankers involved.

In order to minimise the risk of future accidents such as those involving the ERIKA and the PRESTIGE, the Commission intends to propose a regulation prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil in single-hulled tankers bound for or leaving EU ports. The European Council in Copenhagen is invited to politically call upon Member States to stress the importance of this matter. In addition, the Commission urges the Council to grant the Commission without delay a negotiating mandate in order to ensure that candidate countries, as well as neighbouring countries which are relevant for the heavy fuel oil trade in EU waters, will apply the same principles, through appropriate administrative agreements to be developed within existing co-operation frameworks, such as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control and Euro-Med.

2. Liability and compensation

* Amendments to the international regime

The Commission also considers that certain aspects of the international regime for liability and compensation for oil pollution need to be revised. There is a need for a better balance between the responsibility of the players involved in the transport of oil by sea and their exposure to liability and for stricter application of the polluter pays principle. Since action at international level is the only way to achieve such amendments, Member States' action and support is essential in achieving this. In this regard, Member States should in particular support proposals aimed at restricting the right of shipowners to limit their financial liability if the accident is due to their actual fault and proposals aimed at removing the de facto immunity of other key players, in particular the charterer, operator or manager of the ship from compensation claims (other than from recourse claims by the registered owner). Moreover, as it stands, the international regime does not provide for adequate compensation for damage to the environment as such (ecological restoration).

* Other polluting substances

The Commission is concerned that a number of international conventions aimed at improving liability and compensation for maritime pollution are not yet widely ratified by Member States and thus not applicable in the EU. The Commission therefore considers that Member States should immediately take measures to ratify in the interest of the European Community the Bunkers and HNS Conventions, as foreseen in recent Council Decisions to this effect [10].

[10] Council Decision 2002/762 of 19 September authorising the Member States, in the interest of the Community, to sign, ratify or accede to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (the Bunkers Convention). A similar decision for the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 (the HNS Convention) was adopted on 18 November 2002.

Bearing in mind that the focus of these two conventions lies primarily on compensation for damage caused to goods, property and personal injury, further measures may be necessary in relation to environmental damage.

The Commission also underlines the importance of being promptly authorised by the Council to negotiate on behalf of the Community a new Protocol to supplement the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (IOPC Fund).

3. Penal sanctions

To complement the measures in the area of liability and compensation described above, the Commission considers that penal sanctions should be taken against any person who, through gross negligence, causes marine pollution, whether deliberate or accidental.

As an immediate step, the Commission considers that Community legislation introducing penal sanctions against any person (including legal persons) who has caused a pollution incident through grossly negligent behaviour should be rapidly adopted. A measure of this kind was already included among the Erika II proposals (Article 10 of the COPE Fund proposal) and was supported by the European Parliament, but has not advanced within the Council. This measure is of a penal nature and hence not related to compensation for damage. Instead, it is intended to ensure Community-wide application of a deterrent sanction for those involved in the transport of oil by sea.

The Commission also draws the attention to its proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law [11] and an initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark for a framework decision on environmental crime, [12] neither of which is adopted by the Council. Without prejudice to these proposals, the Commission will introduce a proposal for a directive on illegal discharges from ships. This proposal relates to operational (deliberate) discharges from ships and will be coupled with provisions on the gathering of evidence and the prosecution of offenders.

[11] COM (2001) 139 final of 13 March 2001. An amended proposal was adopted on 30 September 2002 [COM (2002) 544 final].

[12] OJ C 39/4 of 11.2.2000.

4. Introduction of a Community-wide recognition system for certificates of competency issued to seafarers outside the European Union

In order to ensure that seafarers holding certificates of competency issued outside the European Union have a level of competence which is at least equivalent to all the requirements of the STCW Convention, the Commission will very shortly propose a new legal text revising the provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC [13], aiming, in particular, to reinforce the existing procedure for the recognition of certificates issued by third countries. The purpose of this revision is the introduction of a Community-wide assessment and recognition system for third countries complying with the requirements of the Convention. This amendment will ensure systematic use of English as the language for communications between vessels and the authorities on shore.

[13] As regards training and qualification of seafarers employed on board tankers, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in 1978, as last amended (STCW Convention), contains specific mandatory training requirements for masters, officers and ratings who are recruited on these ships. These requirements have been incorporated into Community law by Directive 2001/25/EC, which transposes all the minimum requirements of the Convention into Community legislation.

5. Reporting by pilots

Pilots often have first-hand information about the quality of ships entering EU ports. For this reason, they are under an obligation under Directive 95/21 (on port State control) to inform the appropriate authority of any deficiency which may prejudice the safe navigation of the ship or which may pose a threat to the marine environment. Ships which have been so reported by pilots represent an overriding priority for inspection and should therefore be inspected in the next port. This crucial role of pilots should be further enhanced by strengthening this reporting mechanism. The Commission proposes that the relevant provisions on the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control should be reviewed to make sure that this reporting procedure is extended to ships in transit in EU waters, including straits, and that copies of such reports by pilots must be sent to the European Maritime Safety Agency. Given the administrative nature of this Memorandum, such a measure can be taken within a relatively short period of time.

6. Protecting the coastal waters of the EU

The legislation adopted since the Erika accident is designed to keep substandard vessels out of ports in the Member States. However, such vessels already avoid ports in the Union in order to evade the inspections, but still sail off our coasts and in the territorial seas and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Member States.

International law of the sea places significant restrictions on what measures coastal States may take, in the field of legislation and enforcement, to protect their coastal waters from environmental hazards posed by shipping. For example, there are very significant limitations as to the actions, if any, that a coastal State can take to exclude a ship from its coastal waters, even if the ship in question is well-known to be of very poor quality, or even banned from all EU ports. The balance between maritime and environmental interests as laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, notably Articles 211 and 220 thereof, which were developed in the late 1970s, leans heavily in favour of the maritime interests. This bias towards the freedom of navigation, at the expense of environmental protection, does not reflect the attitudes of today's society, nor those of the Commission.

The Commission therefore calls for coordinated action by the EU Member States to analyse and address various ways to take measures to protect their coastal waters, including the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone, from ships which represent a threat to the marine environment. Exclusion from the coastal waters of ships which clearly represent environmental hazards and fail to comply with the most basic safety standards should, in the view of the Commission, be a duty for coastal States.

In conclusion, the Commission proposes that the following steps should be taken:

* The adoption of an administrative agreement between the maritime administrations of Member States, candidate countries and neighbouring States providing for a ban on the use of single hull oil tankers for carrying heavy fuel oil;

* The adoption of some key amendments to the international conventions governing liability and compensation for oil pollution damage;

* The adoption of a legislative measure on penal sanctions for parties that have caused maritime pollution by grossly negligent behaviour;

* A proposal for the setting-up of an EU agreement for the recognition of seafarers' certificates of competency issued by third countries;

* Review of the Paris MoU provisions relating to the obligation on pilots to report ships in doubtful condition;

* A review of measures to improve the protection of EU coastal waters from ships that pose a threat to the marine environment.

III - Part Three: Action at international level

Alongside the action which it will be taking within the Union, the Commission intends to play its role on the international scene. In order to achieve this, it will coordinate and support the steps taken by the Member States within the IMO.

Also, on 9 April 2002 the Commission made a recommendation to the Council with a view to accession by the European Community to the IMO. This will enable the European Union to use its full weight directly in the preparation and adoption of stricter international rules on maritime safety.

* Keeping dangerous vessels off the principal shipping routes

Shipping practices must be governed by regulations to guarantee maritime safety, i.e. to safeguard human lives and protect the environment.

The density of modern maritime traffic and the dangers posed by the transport of dangerous cargoes by sea require the Commission to proceed rapidly with this legal adaptation. The Commission intends to request the IMO to examine this matter as a matter of urgency together with the Member States.

A number of measures on management and monitoring of maritime traffic have been adopted by the Member States and amplified by Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, which creates a framework for putting into place all the instruments currently available for vessel traffic management along the Union's coasts.

However, today these tools seem insufficient to protect areas with particularly heavy traffic in the form of vessels carrying hazardous goods, such as the Atlantic Arc, the Mediterranean Sea or the Baltic Sea. To improve vessel management along the Union's coasts, the Commission intends to work in coordination with the Member States, the candidate countries and neighbouring States to evaluate the existing systems and study the needs to put in place in new traffic separation systems.

The Commission will support the steps initiated by the Member States in future within the International Maritime Organisation to set up compulsory shipping routes and zones restricted to shipping, in implementation of the international rules, with the objective, in particular, of keeping vessels carrying cargoes posing a particularly high pollution risk away from the European Union's sensitive coastlines.

* Flag State audit procedure

To ensure closer coordination of the action against flags of convenience, it will be necessary to improve monitoring of the shipping authorities and recognised bodies which inspect the structural integrity of merchant vessels. In practice, some of the public or private bodies performing the flag State's tasks lack the resources or the will to do the job in a manner up to the internationally recognised standards.

The proposal to introduce an audit procedure for the flag States' tasks was first made at the interministerial conference in Tokyo in January 2002. The Commission supported this idea, which it had been advocating since the 2001 White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide".

Consequently, to combat an unsafe shipping system, run by underqualified bodies, a procedure for auditing the States in which vessels are registered must be brought into operation as fast as possible.

Against this background, the Commission urges the Member States to work with it, within the IMO, in order:

- to reach agreement on the establishment of a code of practice to be followed by flag States;

- to start a pilot project, with volunteer States, to develop audit procedures;

- to secure the introduction of these procedures as a binding IMO instrument.

IV - Part Four: Partnership with the industry

The Commission intends to start negotiations with the oil companies with a view to concluding a code of conduct at Community level on the carriage of oil products by sea.

This agreement could include commitments by the industry:

* no longer to charter single hull oil tankers over 23 years old, as the Commission originally proposed in 2000;

* no longer to carry heavy fuel oil in single hull oil tankers, whether directly or indirectly via traders;

* to exchange information on substandard vessels;

* to collaborate with the Commission on analyses with a view to a more balanced approach between chartering huge oil tankers to carry the EU's oil supplies and the development of an integrated trans-European oil pipeline network linking the EU to neighbouring oil-producing countries.

In the absence of such an agreement, the Commission reserves the possibility of proposing new measures in line with its original timetable for earlier withdrawal of single hull oil tankers.

Annex 1

The Erika I and Erika II packages

1. Erika I

The Erika I package addresses the most serious gaps in the Community legislation on maritime safety rules revealed by the oil spill of December 1999:

- First, it strengthens the existing Directive on port State control. The number of thorough inspections of ships in EU ports has been greatly increased. Over 4000 vessels considered to represent particular risks will be subject to mandatory structural inspections each year. Ships repeatedly found to be in a bad condition will be black-listed, and refused access to EU ports.

Second, it strengthens the existing Directive governing the activities of classification societies, which conduct structural safety checks of ships on behalf of flag States. The quality requirements for classification societies have been raised. Approval to operate within the EU will be conditional on continuing to meet these requirements and the performance of the classification societies will be strictly monitored. Failure to meet the standards will result in temporary or permanent withdrawal of the Community approval to operate on behalf of EU Member States.

- Finally, it brought forward the timetable for the worldwide phasing-out of single hull oil tankers. Double hull tankers offer better protection for the environment in case of an accident. Because of this, IMO had decided that only double hull oil tankers should be constructed as from 1996. However, the gradual replacement of single hulls by double hulls was spread over a very long period ending in 2026. The EU insisted on speeding up this process, which the maritime world accepted after tough negotiations. The industry has followed quickly and double hull tankers now represent almost half of the world tonnage. The last single hull tankers will be banned from EU waters by 2015 according to the new international and Community standards.

2. Erika II

The Erika II package:

- proposed the creation of a European Agency Maritime Safety. In general terms the Agency will provide technical and scientific advice to the Commission in the field of maritime safety and prevention of pollution by ships in the continuous process of updating and developing new legislation. In order to monitor the overall functioning of the Community maritime safety and ship pollution prevention system Agency officials will carry out visits to the Member States.

Among its specific tasks, the Agency will contribute to strengthening the port State control regime, helping to monitor those classification societies recognised at Community level, setting up a maritime safety database, developing a common methodology for the investigation of maritime accidents and establishing a Community vessel traffic and information system.

The Agency will work closely with the Member States. It will assist them with the practical implementation of Community measures and will organise appropriate training activities on port State control and flag State related issues. In that way the Agency will favour cooperation between the Member States and disseminate best practices in the Community;

- proposed a Directive to establish a notification system for improved monitoring of traffic in European waters. Member States will be given strengthened powers to intervene when there is a threat of accident or pollution. Ships bound for ports in the Union will be required to fit automatic identification systems for automatic communication with coastal authorities and voyage data recorders (black boxes) to facilitate accident investigation. The Directive will improve procedures for the shared use of data about dangerous cargoes, via a trans-European data exchange network, and allow the authorities to prevent the departure of ships in extreme weather conditions. It will also require each maritime Member State to establish places of refuge for ships in distress;

- addressed the question of payment of compensation to victims of oil spills and proposed to improve the current international mechanism in this area. The Commission proposed to raise the upper limits on the amounts payable in the event of major spills in European waters (up to EUR 1 billion from the current ceiling of EUR 200 million) and to impose adequate penalties on operators who cause pollution by negligent behaviour.

This proposal has not resulted in EU legislation, but has triggered a substantial revision and improvement of the international oil pollution compensation system, the IOPC Fund. An agreement on an international fund, essentially serving the same purpose as the COPE Fund is scheduled for adoption in May 2003.

Annex 2

INDICATIVE BLACK LIST OF SHIPS

based on Article 7b of Directive 95/21/EC on port State control, as amended, concerning refusal of access of vessels into ports of the Member States

1. Summary of data collected.

After the sinking of the oil tanker "ERIKA" on the 12 of December 1999, the European Parliament and the Council, on the 19th of December 2001, adopted measures to strengthen the existing port State Control regime within the Community, as laid down in Directive 95/21/EC.

Amongst the measures adopted, a new Article 7b requires the Commission to publish every six months the information relating to ships that have been refused access to the Community ports, in accordance with the following criteria :

« Any ship in one of the categories of Annex XI, section A (i.e. gas and chemical tankers, bulk carriers, oil tankers and passenger ships), is refused access to ports within the Community, if the ship:

either

-- flies the flag of a State appearing in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and

-- has been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU,

or

-- flies the flag of a State described as "very high risk" or "high risk" in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and

-- has been detained more than once in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU."

The new provisions on Port State Control shall be applicable by the 22 July 2003 at the latest. However, in its meeting of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, in Nice, the European Council stressed the importance of an earlier implementation of such measures.

In the light of the above, the Commission wishes to provide information on the foreseen impact of the measure of refusal of access within the European Union. Using the information already made public by the Paris memorandum of understanding on Port State Control, the Commission has identified, for a test-period between 1 December 1999 and 1 December 2002, a number of vessels which would have been refused access to ports of the European Union according to the provisions of Directive 2001/106/EC.

A list of ships falling under the criteria of Article 7b is given in Annex. The total number of ships involved is 66, representing 13 flags.

Further statistical information relating to the indicative black list is provided here below:

- Number of ships per flag:

Turkey // 26

St. Vincent & Grenadines // 12

Cambodia // 9

Algeria // 3

Panama // 3

Sao Tome and Principe // 3

Bolivia // 2

Egypt // 2

Romania // 2

Honduras // 1

Lebanon // 1

Morocco // 1

Syrian Arab Republic // 1

- Number of ships per type of vessel:

Bulk carriers // 49

Chemical tankers // 8

Oil tankers // 8

Passenger vessels // 1

- Number of ships per number of detentions during a given period

5 detentions in 3 years // 3

4 detentions in 3 years // 4

3 detentions in 3 years // 13

3 detentions in 2 years // 3

2 detentions in 3 years // 43

2. Indicative table established in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 7b, paragraph 1, of Directive 95/21/EC (from 1st December 1999 to 1st December 2002)

>TABLE POSITION>

Annexe 3

PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTIONS BY EU/EEA MEMBER STATES [14]

[14] Information published in the Annual Reports of Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control.

>TABLE POSITION>