COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION OF A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS
Date: 1993-02-24
Institutions: DG VII – Transport, European Commission
Subjects: accidental pollution, action programme, integrated maritime policy, marine pollution, maritime safety, maritime transport, pollution from ships, ports policy, transport accident

COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

COM(93)66 

final 

Brussels, 24  February  1993 

QQMMUNICAT!ON  FROM  THE  COMMISSION 

·A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS 

TABLE  OF CONTENTS 

PART I 

~CESSITY AND  MAIN FEATURES  OF A COMMON POUCY ON SAFE SEAS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

l.THE IMPORTANCE  OF SHIPPING TO THE COMMUNITY 

2.THE NEED FOR ACTION  ON SAFETY 

General trend in casualties 
Casualties  by type of ship 
Age:  a direct correlation to  casualties? 
Flag States'  performance 
Main causes of casualties 
Public expectations 

3. 

4. 

THE GLOBAL CHARACTER  OF SHIPPING 

THE COMMUNITY'S  APPROACH 

Introductory Remarks 
i)  c6nvergent implementation of international  rules 
ii)  uniform enforcement of international rules 
iii) development of maritime  infrastructure 
iv)  international  rule making 

PARTll 

THE ACTION PROGRAMME 

INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER  1.  CONVERGENT IMPLEMENTATION  OF INTERNATIONAL RULES 

par 

par 

par 
par 
par 
par 
par 
par 

par 

par 

par 
par 
par 
par 
par 

par 

par 

i)  Convergent application of generally defined rules of IMO Conventions 

par 

a)  new  construction 
b)  surveys during ship's life 

1-4 

5-19 

6 
7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-16 
17-19 

20-23 

24-65 

24-33 
34-43 
44-50 
51-58 
59-65 

1-4 

5-56 

7-13 

ii)  Harmonisation of safety requirements  for  shipbome equipment 

par 

14-18 

iii)  Convergent implementation of IMO Resolutions 

a)  vanishing bulk carriers 
b)  international  codes and related resolutions 
c)  port dues  on segregated ballast tanks  in oil tankers 

iv)  Adoption of common  standards for  non-Convention vessels 

v).  The human element,  the STCW  Convention,  and Management  Code 

CHAPTER 2.  UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT  OF INTERNATIONAL RULES 

Analysis  of the present situation 
i)  establishment of a common set of criteria for the infrastructure 

of inspection of certain ships 

ii)  harmonisation of inspection and detention criteria 
iii)  establishment of adequate national  inspection structures and a 

training programme for  inspectors 

iv)  monitoring  and  evaluation of the effectiveness of the PSC  measures 

par 

par 
par 
par 

par 

par 

par 

par 
par 

par 

par 
par 

19-35 

24-26 
27-28 
29-35 

36-42 

43-56 

57-75 

57-70 
71 

72-73 

74 
75 

CHAPTER 3.  DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME  INFRASTRUCTURES 

par 

76-120 

traffic restrictions  in environmentally  sensitive areas 

The legal International framework 
i) 
ii)  reporting systems 
iii)  aids to navigation 

a)  harmonisation measures  for VTS 
b)  aids to navigation and traffic surveillance infrastructure 

and recovery of its costs 

par 
par 
par 
par 
par 
par 

77-82 
83-92 
93-100 
101-108 
109-112 
113 

iv)  pollution prevention facilities  and  monitoring of compliance 

par 

114-120 

CHAPTER 4. 

INTERNATIONAL RULE MAKING 

Introductory remarks 
Performance standards for flag States 
Human element 
Introduction of new technologies 
The Torremolinos  Convention 
The Community's  role in support of the IMO 
Committee on Safe Seas 

ANNEX I.  The action programme 

ANNEX ll. List of abbreviations  and  explanations 

par 

121-157 

par 
par 
par 
par 
par 
par 
par 

121-123 
124-127 
128-137 
138-143 
144-145 
146-151 
152-157 

-.  1  ~ -

"A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS" 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. 

ll. 

m. 

The  Community  is  to  a  large  extent  dependent  on  reliable,  cost  effective  and  safe 
shipping services. Its maritime transport policy must therefore ensure that such services 
are undertaken at a minimum level of risk for all directly or indirectly concerned and for 
the marine environment. 

This Communication looks at the main factors which continue to  determine accidents  at 
sea with a view to identifying crucial areas which call for specific urgent measures at the 
international,  Community,  national,  regional or local level,  as  appropriate. 

The  main  lines  of the  proposed  action  programme  for  enhancing  safety  in  maritime 
transport have already been included in the Commission's  White Paper on  "The future 
development  of  the  Common  Transport  Policy"  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  8 
December  1992. 

The  detailed  action  programme  proposed  here  is  fully  in  accord  with  the  subsidiarity 
principle. It is clear, as is shown by the data and facts  in this Communication,  that in the 
absence of this programme,  adequate common standards will not be developed in full  or 
on  time,  and  will  not  be  observed  in  practice.  Moreover,  required  traffic  rules  and 
infrastructure  will  either  continue to  be lacking  in  certain  areas  of the  Community  or 
have low effectiveness. 

. 

The different initiatives will be based on the same principle and will therefore respect the 
role of other authorities:  international,  national,  regional  and local. 

Calls for intensified and urgent action have come on several occasions from the European 
Parliament, which has complained about a lack of Community initiatives in this field, and 
more recently from the Council. In particular, the extraordinary Council on Environment 
and Transport,  at  its  meeting of 25 January  1993,  urged the Community  and  Member 
States to take a number of steps to  improve maritime safety and prevention of pollution 
of  the  sea.  Also  the  European  industries,  gathered  in  the  Maritime  Forum,  have 
recognised the need and have proposed measures to  enhance safety. 

All  these  bodies  have  invited  the  Commission  to  present  its  Communication  without 
delay.  The Council  in particular indicated its  intention to  h~ve a preliminary  exchange 
of views  at its  meetings  in March  1993  and to  have a full  debate in June. 

N. 

2 

The approach proposed  in the present Communication  seeks  the enhancement of safety 
and  prevention  of pollution  at  sea  through  the  elimination  of substandard  operators, 
vessels  and  crews  from  Community  waters,  irrespective  of the  flag  of the  ships.  The 
main  problem  - given  the  universal  regulatory  approach  in  shipping  stems  from  the 
striking variation  in  the  level  of safety performance between fleets,  including  Member 
States'  fleets.  This  is,  to  a  large  extent,  due  to  the  different  levels  at  which  States, 
including  Member  States,  are  implementing --and  enforcing  the  internationally  agreed 
standards.  Individual  action by  Member States has  not produced adequate results  in the 
past  and  is  unlikely to  do  so  in the future.  The  Community,  thanks  to  its  political  and 
legislative  machinery,  is  uniquely  placed  both  to  ensure  that  Member  States  apply 
standards  to  ships  flying  their  flags  in  a  more  uniform  and  rigorous  manner  and  to 
enforce,  with  common ·methods  and  rigor,  respect of the  same  standards  on vessels  of 
all  flags  when operating  in EC  waters. 

The action programme  is  based upon a coherent package of measures  including: 

i) 

ii) 

iii) 

measures to establish a convergent implementation of existing international rules 
in the  Community; 

measures  to  ensure a tighter and  more effective control of ships by the State of 
the ports. They include uniform enforcement by coastal States of the international 
rules  to vessels  of all  flags  when they  are operating in Community  waters; 

measures to promote coherent and harmonised development of navigational aids 
and traffic surveillance infrastructure, bringing maritime safety into the electronic 
age,  with  specific  attention being  given  to  traffic  measures  in  environmentally 
sensitive areas; 

iv) 

measures to support international organisations enabling them to stengthen their 
primary role in international standard-setting. 

Equally  important are  measures  to  improve training  and  qualification of crew so  as  to 
address  the problem  of human  error,  which  remains  the  main  cause  of accidents.  An 
intensive and re-orientated research programme could also contribute to the overall goal 
of enhancing maritime safety. 

Part I of this Communication demonstrates the necessity and main features of a Common 
Policy on Safe Seas. The action programme in Part n describes those specific measures 
required  to  achieve  the  above  mentioned  objectives.  A  list  of the  single  initi~tives  is 
given in the Annex  1. 

In  conformity  with  the  principle  of subsidiarity,  all  actions  proposed  will  respect  the 
criteria recently defined by the Commission,  in particular the criteria of necessity and the 
criteria of proportionality. 

PART I 

NECESSITY  AND  MAIN FEATURES 
OF A COMMON POLICY ON SAFE SEAS 

1.  THE IMPORTANCE OF SlllPPING TO THE COMMUNITY 

For  centuries  maritime  shipping  has  been  of  great  economic  and  political 
1. 
importance for Europe. Today this is more true than ever. The Community  is to  a large 
extent dependent on reliable,  cost effective and  safe shipping services.  They  carry 90% 
of its  total  external  trade  with  the  rest  of the  world,  whereas  within  the  Community 
maritime transport takes  care of 35%  of total  goods  transport between Member  States. 

In  the  global  approach  to  the  construction  of  a  Community  framework  for 
2. 
sustainable  mobility,  maritime  transport  will  play  a more  and  more  important  role.  In 
order to  permit the internal  market to produce the  expected effects  of economic growth 
and integration and at the same time to contribute to reducing bottle-necks and congestion 
in the land transport system,  short sea shipping will have to  be further developed.  The 
liberalisation of the maritime  cabotage  is  already  one  important  step  in  this  direction. 
Further initiatives will  be taken by the  Commission. 

The development of the Community's economy on the basis of the single market, 
3. 
now becoming  a reality,  will  also  operate as  a stimulus  to  its  external trade which  will 
necessarily be re~ected by an  increase in maritime transport and  shipping activities. 

The maritime transport policy of the European  Community must therefore secure 
4. 
competitive transport services and ensure that such services take place at a minimal level 
of risk for crews, passengers, cargo  and vessels, for the marine environment and coastal 
activities.  As  far  as  the latter is  concerned,  this policy must also  take into  account the 
Community's  environment  policy,  in  particular  as  articulated  by  the  5th  Action 
Programme  of  Policy  and  Action  in  relation  to  the  Environment  and  Sustainable 
Development. 1 

1  COM(92) 23  final. 

2.  THE NEED  FOR ACTION ON SAFETY 

2 

As the internal market in transport services is being completed, shipping disasters 
5. 
in European waters or involving European vessels, deficiencies and ship detention reports 
by port States  and  a rise in the number  of work-related accidents  on board ships  show 
that the level  of risk in shipping activities  is  still very high. 

General  trend in casualties 

6. 
The statistics speak for themselves  (figures  1,  1 bis and 2). The decade of 1975-
1991  shows  a world  wide average of total  losses  of 380 ships per annum  (1.6 million 
gross tonnes).  Since  1986 the rate has fluctuated  at around an average of 230 ships per 
annum (1.1  million gross tonnes),  with a peak of 258 total losses and an accompanying 
high level of loss of life (1204) in 1991. Figure 1 bis shows the distribution of casualties 
per zone in European waters for  the period  1987-1991. 

Total world losses 
Years 1975 - 1991 

Number  of  Ships 

Figure  1 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1975  1976 1977 1978 1979  1980 19811982 1983 1984  1985 1986 1987 1988 1989  1990 1991 

Souzce:  Llord'a  Casualtr  RetuzD,  l99l 

Year 

3 

Distribution of Casualties number 
per zone in European water 
Years 1987 - 1991 

Figure  Ibis 

N-B  ATLANTXC  COAST 

:  1:· 

52,01 

"' 
21,11 

19,11 

BAST  MBDXTBP.AAHBAH 

BALTXC  SEA. 

7,31 

GBRMAN  NORTH  SEA. 

0,41 

0,01 

10,01 

20,01 

30,01 

40,01 

50,01 

60,01 

/ 

Sow:ca:  Lloyd's  Casudty .ReturD 

Figure 2 

Live Lost 
Trend Years 1985 - 1991 

N.lnm c1 rl\aloll 

4000 

3500  • 

3000  •• 

2500 

2000 

~ 

T 
h 
0 
u 

• a 
d • 

n  1500  • 

1067 

1000  ... 

500 

619 
......... 
......... 
......... 
········· 
......... 

38 .. 1 

..  ....... . 
········· 
. ....... . 

......... 

......... 
......... 
.......... 
......... 

......... 
..  ....... . 
......... 
......... 
......... 
......... 
......... 

120 .. 

763 

688 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

Van 

Casualties by type or ship 

4 

7. 
Analysis  of figure 3  below  reveals  that  the  highest  percentage  of total  losses 
worldwide involve general cargo (45%),  fishing vessels (27%), bulk carriers (over 7%), 
ferries  and  passengers  (6%)  and tankers  (5%).  These figures  are  made  more  alarming 
by the fact that 35%  of all bulk carriers which ,. sunk in the last 15  years were lost in the 
last 24 months  alone,  and that 74%  of all vessels lost in  1991  were more than  15  years 
old (see figure 4). 

Figure 3 

Ship  Type 

Total Losses:  Analysis  by type or ship 
Years 1990 - 1991 

GEN. CARGO  <  50 0 0  GT  j~jjj~jjjjj~~ll~jjj)~jj~jjjjjj~llM!jjj)jjj)~j)j~\~j)j)j\j~j~l~jjj~~ll~@j~l~li~iiM!l~j~~lil*~l~lf~lllf!Ml!jj~j~f:jjjjj)jj~jjjjjjjjjjjjj~I~~jj~~!ilj!ill!1  3 9 ' 0' 

FIsHING  <  50 0  GT 

!MI!!i!!!!!l~!I~i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i!!i!i!!!i!i!~I!!!!!!!!!!~i!!~!~)~!i!!i!~~~I!!!!f:~i!ili~!iil!!!  21 '  7' 

BULK  CARRIERS 

~jjjj)~I!l@jjj!m)!)jj  6, 7\ 

GEN.  CARGO  >  50 0 0  GT  )jjjj!~!)j)i\lljjjjjjj)Jjj  6, 5\ 

TANKERS 

RO/ro 

OIL/BULK/ORE 

CHEMICAL 

LNG 

0, 4\ 

CONTAINER  SHIPS  0,2% 

0,0% 

10,0% 

20,0% 

30,0% 

40,0% 

50,0% 

Soru:ce:  l.Loyd'.s  Cau<Llty  Retru:D 

Percentage(\) 

Age:  a  direct correlation to casualties? 

Figures  4  and  5  below  concerning  the  age  of ships  when  lost (4),  and  specifically 
8. 
vanishing bulk carriers  (5), suggest a direct correlation between the age of a vessel and a reduced 
level of safety. This would then be a further reason of concern in itself given that the world fleet 
is  generally  ageing  (figure 6),  owing  to  a decline in the rate of investment in new vessels over 
a prolonged period. In 1991  36%  of the world fleet was over 20 years old (figure 7).  However, 
age itself need not be a major problem if a vessel is built, operated and maintained in accordance 
with international standards. 

5 

Age of total losses 
Year 1991 

26,7% 

Figure 4 

Jo,o• 

25,0' 

20,0' 

1s,o• 

10,0~ 

s,o, 

0,0, 

0-4 

S-9 

10-U 

15-19 

20-24 

25-29 

30+ 

Sow:ce:  I.l())V'.s  Stat.i.stical  !'able.s,  1991 

Age  of  ship  (Years) 

Figure 5 

Percentage(\) 

50,00\ 

Dry bulk cargo vessels 
Totally lost with cargo 
From January 1988 to 1991 

40,00\ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

5,13% 

7, 69% 

1\  1\1\0 

1mmm::1r:m:m:::m1mm 

=== ======::==== ==== = ===========::==  - - - - 1:;·=.·==.1  ;.·==·i:=· •. :l==.,:.==;  i==:.:: 1::.· r:=.i:l;:.::=.; ;:~·:.:~::.::::·.:l::.}.:::.=.i~:::==.~l::.:==.:r::~.-.i==l:::=.=.~==::::.:·==·· !==.::'==.!==.~ ==;:.;: 
;==.,!==.~ !·== . .  ~==:!:==. 
"''''"''m~lmm~"'"""'' 

11-15 

0-10 

-

-

-

16-20 

21-25 

Souzce:  Svedi.sll  Sedazez '.s  ODio.a 

estr.Fail/Heavy  Weat~other Causes 

Age  of  Vessels  when  Lost  [Years] 

Figure 6 

6 

WORLD  AGEING  FLEET 
Percentage  of  Ships  Above  10  Years  Old 

80% 

/ 

60% 

40% 

36% 
~ 

20% 

0% 

1975 

73% 

• 

631 • 

... 

55% • 

42% 

• 

1980 

1985 

1S 

1 

7 

1990 

Sow:c:e:  Bouse  ~ I.ord.s  Report,  1992 

Year 

Figure 7 

AGE  OF  ALL  SHIPS 
Year  1991 

AGE  OF  BULK  ~ERS 
Year  1991 
35,  r---------------------------~ 
30, 
25, 
20, 
15, 
10, 

28' 

0'  ~--n---~--~--~---n--~~-~ 

5-9  10-14  15-19  20-24  25-29  30+ 

0-4 

5' 
o,L--A--~~~----~~~~ 

0-4 

5-9  10-14  15-19  20-24  25-29  30+ 

Age  [Years) 

Age  [Years) 

AGE  OF  OIL  TANKERS 
Year  1991 

AGE  OF  ORE/BULK/ORE  CARRlERS 
Year  1991 

23, 

50' 

40, 

5' 
0'  L-~n---D---~--~--JL--~---' 

0-4 

5-9  10-14  15-19  20-24  25-29  30+ 

Age  [Years) 
Source:  Llord'a  Statiatic:&l  Tablea, 
l99l 

20,  20, 

0-4 

5-9  10-14  15-19  20-24  25-29  30+ 

Age  [Years) 

0'  0' 

30, 

25, 

20, 

15, 

10' 

7 

The  low  safety  record  of  ageing  vessels  calls  therefore  into  question 

9. 
the 
performance of the companies operating them, the loading/unloading techniques used and 
the performance of flag States in their task of ensuring compliance of their vessels  with 
the international  construction,  operation and maintenance standards. 

Flag States' performances 

The  International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO),  and  in  particular  the  17th 
10. 
Assembly  have drawn  the  attention of the shipping  world  to  the  fact  that many  flag 
States are unable to secure and maintain a proper control of the safety and  environment 
protection standards of vessels on their respective registers or operating under their flags, 
thus leading to varying levels of safety performance. This fact has been further confirmed 
by  the  European  Maritime  Industries  Forum1
•  This  is  striking,  given  the  universal 
regulatory  approach  largely  followed  for  the  adoption  of safety  rules  in  the  shipping 
sector,  which should lead to  a similar level  of safety performance in all  fleets  adhering 
to  international  Conventions.  However,  statistics  support  the  conclusions  reached  by 
IMO.  They show a wide variation in the loss ratios of fleets,  the worst being  100 times 
the  best  in  fleets  of 2  million  tonnes  or more,  (see  figures  8  and  9).  Such  astounding 
variations  exist  also  among  the  fleets  of the  Member  States  where  the  worst  level  is 
50 times  the best.  The charts  show  also  that fleets  with  the worst losses  are almost  all 
expanding,  one of the reasons  being the flagging  out. 

Figure 8 

Loss  ratio among the larger fleet 
Years 1985 -1989 

0,92 

1,14 

0,5 
0,49 

0,45 

0,39 

0,35 

0,32 

O,Z1 

0,18 

0,15 
0,15 

0,1 
0,09 
o?628 

o,oz 
0,01 

Flaq  Stat.e 

SOUTH  ltOP.BA 
CYPRUS 
PAHAMA. 
PJaLI:PPI:NB8 
GI:!IP..\LTAR. 
BAHAMAS 
YUG08LA.v::tA 
MALTA 
!IRAZI:L 
TAIWA!f 
I:NDOHBSI:A 
u.s.A. 
SI:NG.\POP.B 
POLAND 
R.ac.uaA 
UR.S8 
1101\WAY 
CJaNA 

WORLD 

JAPAB 
U.Jt. 
DB~ 

SAUDI:  ARA!II:A 
CANADA 
PIVJfCB 
GBJUCANY 
:ITALY 
LI:IIBR.I:A 
8WBDBH 
NBTHBR.LA.HD8 
HONG  ltOHG 
TUR.ItBY 
GP.BBCB 
8PAI:H 
I:NDI:A 

0 

0,2 

0,<1 

0,6 

0,8 

1 

1,2 

Sow:ce:  2'be  I.a.st.itute  o~ Lomoa  Umerrn:ite.r:t 

Percentage  [') 
lc:z:ncreased  Tonnage  &!aDecreased  Tonnage l 

1  Maritime Industries Forom;  Final report to the Commission- October  1992. 

8 

Loss  ratio  amount  the  larger fleet 
Years  1987- 1991 
(Fleet larger than 2 mil. GRT) 

· - - - - -0 ,29  
:;:  0,02 
:t-:~:::  0,04 
:;:;:;:;:  0,04 
:;:;:;:;:  0,04 

Figure 9 

llag  State 
ST.VIMCEKT  £  GR!KAD. 
sarm  xoR!A 
CYPRUS 
MAL V. 
VAJIUA.1'U 
'l'URXEY 
PAJWfA 
BAHAMAS 
ITALY 
•oJUiD.Y 
IJID08!SIA 
YUGOSLAVIA 
SIMGAPOJU! 
u.s.A. 
LIBERIA 
SW! I)!. 
CBIJIA 
v.nwr 
J)!JIMAU 
RCMUIA 
G!IU9.H 
B!»>J])A 
RUSSIA 
AUS'l'RAL IA 

TiiiK)RLJ) 

JAPAM 
u.x. 
SPAU 
rauc! 
CAJW>A 
POL.UD 
BRAZIL 
DTB!RLAJIDS 
so•G  xo•G 
IJIDIA 
GR!!C! 

PBILIPPIRS  ~!LnQ 

0 

0,2 

0,4 

0,6 

0, 8 

1 

1,2 

Souzce:  The  Iascicuce  or 
LoDdOD  DDdervziCez5 

Percentage  [ '1 

lc:rncreased  Tonnag~Decreased Tonnage! 

11. 
Remarkable variations  within the world fleet  and  also among the fleets  of the Member 
States  are  further  demonstrated  by  Port State  Control  statistics  on deficiencies  and  detentions 
according to  flag.  These statistics  show  a ratio of deficiencies over inspections of almost 79% 
for  the worst flag  compared  with  12%  for  the best performing ·flags  (figure 10)\  EC  Member 
States show ratios varying between 52%  and  12%. In 1991  at world level a ratio of 23  to  1 was 
recorded between the flag  with the highest detention over inspection ratio and the lowest.  When 
EC  Member  States only are considered,  the ratio  is 7 to  1 (figure  11). 

Figure  10 

DEFICIENCIES RATIO PER FLAG  STATE 
Year 1991 

-
-

-

-

-

-

-
-

-
-

-

-

-

ROMANIA 
INDIA 
TURKEY 
ST.VINCENT  & GRENAD. 
CHINA 
HONDURAS 
MALTA 
EGYPT 
PANAMA 
PHILIPPINES 
TAIWAN 
CYPRUS 
MY.ANMAR 
SPAIN 
GREECE 
SINGAPORE 
BAHAMAS 
LIBERIA 
IRELAND 
ANTIGUA  &  BARBUDA 
YUGOSLAVIA 
ITALY 
NORWAY 
PORTUGAL 
FRANCE 
ANTILLES  NL 
USA 
POLAND 
,JAPAN 
SWEDEN 
SOUTH  COREA 
NETHERLAND.S 
SAUDI  ARABIA 
GERMANY 
HONG  KONG 
.BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
UNITED.KINGDOM 
USSR 
LUXEMBOURG 

0,0% 
Source:  PSC  Report,  1991 

.. 

.. 

I  78,9\ 

I  77,9\ 

I  66,1\ 

I  63,5\ 
I  63,2\ 
J  62,4\ 

I  60,7\ 

I  59,1\ 
I  58,4\ 
I  57,9\ 
I  57,7\ 

-.() 

~ 

I  54,2\ 

I  52,8\ 
I  52,0\ 
I  51,4\ 
50,4\ 
50,4\ 
50,1\ 
I  50,0\ 
I  49,6\ 
I  49,5\ 

I  47,2\ 
I  46,7\ 

43,8\ 
43,6\ 
43,6\ 
I  42,9\ 

I  40,3\ 

I  39,0\ 

I  37,3\ 
I  37,2\ 

J  35,2\ 

I  33,3\ 

I  31,7% 
I  31,3% 
I  30,8\ 

I  29,5\ 

I  27,2\ 

I  23,9\ 

I  11,8\ 

I 
20,0% 

I 
40,0% 

I 
60,0% 

I 
80,0% 

100,0% 

Figure  11 

10 

Detention ratio per flag  state 
Year  1991 

Flag  state 
ROMANIA 
ST.VINCENT  &  GRENAD. 
MALTA 
IRAN 
LEBANON 
HONDURAS 
INDIA 
SYRIAN  ARAB  REPUBL. 
PANAMA 
CYPRUS 
MYANMAR 
LIBERIA 
BRAZIL 
SPAIN 
EGYPT 
ANTIGUA  &  BARBUDA 
GREECE 
ITALY 
UNITED  KINGDOM 
SOUTH  KOREA 
FRANCE 
NETHERLANDS 
GERMANY 
DENMARK 

.. 

J  22195, 

116117, 
I 1s1 99' 

I  12 1 50' 

I  121 00' 
I  111 76' 

I  101 DO' 
I  101 oo' 

J  91  24, 

I  7 I  65, 
I  7 I  40, 
I  7 I  14, 
6167, 
6167, 
6156, 
I  61  44' 

J  41  66, 

= 
2189, 
= 
2193, 
~ ="" 2178, 
~ 2141' 
~ 2133, 
2115, 
:J  o, 87, 

Source:  PSC  Repozt,  l99l 

(Cue•  i.a  wb.icb  JDOZe 

tlla.a  20  .i.adiv.idual 
•lli~  veze  .i.avolved) 

5,00' 

10100' 

15100, 

20,00' 

25100, 

30,00' 

Main  causes  of casualties 

12.  Most  observers  of the  maritime  world  agree  with  the  view  that  existing  international 
safety standards are for the most part an adequate framework  and therefore the continuing high 
level of risk of casualties in the shipping industry is  not primarily determined by the absence of 
adequate  international  rules,  but  rather  by  laxity  in  their  application  and  enforcement.  More 
precisely,  two  factors  intervene  to  a  large  extent:  first,  the  unsatisfactory  performance  of a 
number  of shipping operators and  the authorities responsible for .safety  in their flag  States and, 
second,  human errors  (as  shown by the statistics reproduced,  see figures  8 to  12). 

, Yaria.tions .. in  safety  performances  of flag  States  result  from  a  number  of factors.  In 
13. 
particular cases gaps and weaknesses in the international Conventions,. Codes or Resolutions may 
be  a  contributory  factor.  However,  of  much  greater  general  significance  are  inadequate 
implementation  and  insufficient enforcement of the international standards that do  exist as  well 
as differences in their interpretation. Together these account for the main differences in the safety 
and environmental performance of the world fleets, including the fleets of the EC Member States. 

11 

14. 
Human  error whether  by  crew,  pilot or shore  is  a  contributory  cause  in  most 
cases  giving  rise to  claims  following  an  accident  and  accounts  for  almost  60%  of all 
major claims and for 80% of the incidents according to Protection and Indemnity (P  & I) 
statistics (figure  12). It is in part explained by the dwindling availability of experienced 
seafarers  and  to  an  important  extent by  insufficient  safety  management  structures  and 
procedures for on-board and land activities  o(.several shipping operators.  The IMO,  at 
its  1~ Assembly  in  November  1991,  called  on  all  members  and  governmental  and 
private organisations concerned to take effective measures to respond adequately to these 
two fundamental  problems. 

Figure  12 

MAIN  CAUSE  FOR  MAJOR  CLAIMS 
Percentage  of  the  Total  Number  of  Claims 

STRUCT.  FAILURE 
13,0\ 

EQUXP./MECH.FAXL 
20,0\ 

OTHER 
9,0\ 

----------

HUMAN  FACTOR 
58,0\ 

---------········· 

, PXLOT  ERROR  12,1\ 
6

:!$_"$.;~;::.~;  CREW  ERROR  20,7\ 

.  SHORE  ERROR  20,7 

ENG. OFFXC. ERROR  t 4: 

OFFXCER  ERROR  43,1\ 

Main  Causes 

Human  Factor 

Source:  UJ:  PU  Club,  1991 

. .  15. 

.  Further causes of accidents should not, however,  b~ lost from sight by focusing 
only  on  the  above  issues.  They  are  in  particular  those  stemming  from  land-based 
operations, such as the indiscriminate use of modem loading techniques on vessels which 
are  not  built  to  withstand  them,  charterers  who  may  exercise  pressure  on  ship 
performance  at  the  cost  of safety,  and  shippers'  incorrect  declarations  as  regards  the 
goods loaded  in containers or in parcels. 

... 

12 

All these variables will continue to determine the accident rates of the future,  in 
16. 
a  manner  which  cannot be precisely predicted.  The Commission  believes  that  what is 
important is that specific problem areas,  such as  those identified above need to become 
the target of specific, urgent measures if the Community wants to see, in the near future, 
a sharp drop in casualties and pollution by ships followed by a marked trend downwards. 

Public expectations 

17. 
Thus,  public  expectations  concerning  safety  and  environmental  protection are 
rapidly increasing, as are the costs of accidents and subsequent remedial action. The level 
of risk that public opinion will  tolerate has declined and the demand for better protection 
and adequate compensation in the case of loss or damage resulting from accidents is ever 
increasing. 

18. 
In the last two decades public reaction has been the inspiration behind a number 
of important steps designed to  improve the safety of shipping and navigation at sea. That 
public  reaction  was  caused  by  the  loss  of hundreds  of passengers'  lives  in a  relatively 
small  number  of marine  casualties  which  received  extensive  media  coverage  and  by 
significant environmental damage which received similar publicity. The awareness of the 
public to dangers in an area of transport generally perceived as safe and environmentally 
acceptable has been sharply increased by such incidents. 

The  need  for  and  the  urgency  of action  was  also  emphasized  by  all  maritime 
19. 
operators within the Maritime  Industries Forum.  Note of this  goodwill  has  been taken 
in the final  report which the Forum transmitted to the Cominission  in October  1992. 

3.  THE GLOBAL  CHARACTER OF SHIPPING 

I 

20. 
The worldwide dimension of the interests and activities of the economic operators 
concerned, including shipowner's, charterers, and the fishing industry as well as well as 
those of consumers,  whether  as  passengers,  tourists  or shippers  requires  action on the 
widest possible geographical  scale.  This dimension applies  also to  maritime  safety  and 
environmental  protection  and  has  led  to  regulations  being  primarily  promoted  and 
adopted at international level,  through the International Maritime  Organization (IMO). 

21. 
This  global  dimension  should  continue  to  determine  the  approach  of  the 
Community,  its  Member  States  and  its  maritime  industries,  which  must  take  the 
initiatives  required  to  ensure  that  the  IMO  can  continue  to  realise  its  worldwide 
objectives as  to the levels of standards,  their effective implementation  and enforcement 
and within timescales  which meet the concerns of both flag and  coastal States and their 
populations. 

13 

Adherence  to  this  policy  is  dictated  not  only  by  the  need  for  the  broadest 
22. 
possible application of standards guaranteeing a high level of safety world-wide, but also 
in the interest of reducing considerably the negative effects on the competitiveness of the 
fleets  of the  Member  States  which  result also  from  the cost advantages  enjoyed  by  the 
operators of substandard ships  and  crews. 

23. 
To a certain extent the above also applies to other international organisations such 
as  the · International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  and  the  International  Association  of 
Lighthouse Authorities  (IALA). 

(4) 

14 

4.  THE COMMUNITY'S  APPROACH 

Introductory Remarks 

Actions to promote safety in transport are included in the white paper on a global 
24. 
approach on the future  development of the common transport policy1  as  adopted by the 
Commission  on 8 December  1992.  This document outlines  the general  principles  and 
the main types of initiatives of a Community programme to enhance the safety at sea and 
to prevent or reduce operational or accidental pollution by ships.  As  far  as  quantity of 
oil  is  concerned,  accidental  discharge  of oil  is  only  the  smaller  part  of the  overall 
pollution,  even of the overall pollution caused by shipping.  However, the impact on the 
environment  as  well  as  on certain economic sectors can be dramatic,  particularly in the 
local  communities  where  accidents  happen.  The  focus  of this  communication  is  the 
safety aspects of relevance for the prevention of such accidents  and consequential needs 
to protect marine and coastal environment,  while only in broader terms addressing other 
environmental  aspects from  shipping. 

25. 
The  approach  proposed  in  the  present  Communication  stems  from  the  White 
Paper to  tackle the main  causes  of failures  in safety  at sea and  protection of the marine 
environment  from  pollution  by  ships  identified  above  and  thereafter  to  monitor  and 
evaluate the success  or failure  of the measures  laid  down,  and  take further  appropriate 
measures  if necessary. 

The European Parliament has  always  been very sensitive to  the public demand 
26. 
for  greater  safety  at  sea  and  protection  of the  sea  and  has  repeatedly  called  on  other 
Community  Institutions  for  effective measures2  and for  an  increased role of the coastal 
States to  further reduce the potential threat shipping activities represent to  the maritime 
environment,  its natural resources and the industrial and leisure activities which develop 
along the European coastline. 

Recently3 the Council has vigorously reacted, recognising the need for intensified 
27. 
action  at  international,  Community  or  national  level  as  appropriate  to  ensure  more 
adequate protection of fish resources and coastal areas of the Community  and urging the 
Commission to present this Communication,  including an action programme on priority 
measures  to  enhance maritime safety  and pollution prevention. 

1  "The Future Development ofthe Common Transport Policy",  8.12.92. 

2  Resolution 0 J. N°  C  129  (Genoa  and  Livomo) 

Resolution P.E.  163.454 of 17.12.1992 (La  Coruiia) 
Bertens Report AJ-0144/92 of 16.9.1992 
Resolution of 21.1.1993  (Shetland  Islands) 

3  Conclusions of the extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport on Maritime Safety and  Pollution Prevention in the 

Community - 25 .1.1993. 

15 

The  approach  seeks,  first,  to  eliminate  substandard  vessels  from  Community 

28. 
Waters  and  from  Member  States' fleets  by: 

i. 
the adoption of Community requirements on the convergent implementa 
tion by the Member States of existing international rules,  mostly IMO,  through 
non-ambiguous  and  mandatory  rules  enforced by them  in their  capacity  as  flag 
States; 

ii. 
ensuring effective enforcement by the Member States in their capacity as 
port  and  coastal  States  of the  international  rules  to  vessels  of all  flags  when 
operating  in  Community  waters; 

promoting a modern, coherent and harmonised development of maritime 
111. 
infrastructure including waste management facilities, traffic surveillance and aids 
to navigation, such as the establishment of Vessel Traffic Systems (VTS) and the 
· installation of such systems  where necessary  in the Community,  particularly in 
environmentally  sensitive areas  and  to  support  real  time  traffic  information  or 
regulation  measures,  using  the  advances 
in  information  technology  and 
telecommunication  in global  information management  systems. 

Moreover  shore  based  radiocommunication  facilities  to  support  the  "Global 
Maritime Distress and Safety System" (GMDSS)  as  well  as  additional  ship borne 
equipment to  facilitate  control,  should be fully  implemented,  thus  bringing the 
safety of navigation in Community  waters  into the electronic age; 

initiating  and  supporting  action  within  the  IMO  and  other  relevant 
iv. 
organisations to ensure that appropriate international provisions are made within 
reasonable  timescales  to  improve  safety  performance  and  environmental 
protection,  taking into  account best available technology. 

Equally  important  measures  are  needed  on  training  to  address  problems 
~,. 
asso\;;d~ ~  ~ with human error.  On the basis of the minimum  requirements  to  be adopted 
by  the  Community,  appropriate  programmes  should  be  put  in  place  to  produce  the 
necessary improvements as rapidly as possible.  Attention should be given to employment 
of highly  qualified  and  specifically trained  seafarers  on board vessels  and  in particular 
those  carrying  hazardous  cargo,  the  strengthening of vocational  training,  pilotage  and 
communication.  Training should use the best available technologies  which  reflect state 
of the art operational systems in order to ensure a high level of skills amongst crews and 
the optimal use of technologies to monitor and manage ship borne equipment and related 
land  systems.  Finally,  relevant  R&D  projects  need  to  be  developed  with  regard.  to 
promotion  of advanced  technological  solutions  to  the problems  of maritime  safety  and 
environment protection. 

16 

The  global  dimension  of shipping  requires  that  priority  be  given  to  action  at 
30. 
international level.  Therefore the Commission considers appropriate for the Community 
to  pursue the enhancement of maritime safety and prevention of pollution of the seas  in 
the framework of existing international organisations.  However,  the Commission notes 
the limits of the present international regulatory system due,  interalia, to loopholes in the 
relevant Conventions;  to  the non binding  natt~re of several  international  instruments;  to 
standards leaving wide discretionary margins. to national administrations, to the different 
levels .of application  and  enforcement  of such  standards  by  the  flag  and  port  States, 
including Member  States. 

31. 
Appropriate action at Community level brings an added value which individual, 
national action,  and action within the international organisations,  have not so far proved 
capable  of  attaining.  Hence  the  need,  recognised  by  the  extraordinary  Council  of 
Environment and Transport Ministers of25 January 1993 1
,  to set up a Community action 
programme in this  context.  As to the manner of the Community's  intervention in these 
cases, the adoption of binding Community legislation respects the proportionality of that 
legislation, together with the Community's machinery for insuring its proper application, 
that  is  needed  to  secure  more  uniform  implementation  and  enforcement  in practice of 
internationally  agreed  standards  and  other  rules.  Other  aspects  of the  proportionality 
principle related to the type of binding legislation proposed are considered further below. 

32. 
The  development  of  modem  maritime  infrastructure  where  it  is  needed  in 
Community  waters  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  development  of  transport  networks, 
complemented  by  the  accompanying  trans-European  telecommunication  network, 
contemplated  by  the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  This  applies  both  to  navigational 
systems  and  port  infrastructure,  for  example,  to  deal  with  waste  management.  The 
proportionality principle will  be respected  in relation to the manner of the Community 
intervention  by  reliance  on  the  flexible  network  guidelines  and  their  accompanying 
measures  for which the Union Treaty provides. 

33. 
Co-ordinated action within relevant international organisations on the setting of 
new standards is needed to ensure that these will meet Community needs while also being 
respected by other maritime nations.  Effective action of this kind allows  improvements 
in  maritime  safety  to  be  pursued  in  a  way  which  takes  fully  into  account  the  global 
character of the industry.  It is  also in full  conformity with the proportionality principle 
since,  to  the  extent  that  the  international  machinery  produces  effective  results,  the 
Community  need not itself legislate on the same subject matter. 

1  Conclusions ofthe extraordinary Council Environment and Transport of25.1.1993 on Maritime Safety and Pollution Prevention 

in the  Community. 

(i) 

Convergent implementation of international rules 

17 

The present international  rules laid  down mostly  in IMO,  are subscribed to  by 
34. 
flag  States  responsible  for  99%  of world  tonnage  vessels.  Yet  there  is  a  consistent 
pattern of substandard vessels operating under the flags  of countries which have ratified 
the international  Conventions.  This  is  caused by a variety of factors. 

Implementation  of the  internationally.'"agreed  standards  is  not  uniform  because 
35. 
some instruments  are not legally binding, like many IMO Resolutions.  Others allow for 
derogations  which  may  be  of considerable  importance.  The  totality  of vessels  is  not 
covered, for example, passenger ships plying between ports in the same States or vessels 
below Convention size. Some instruments are defined using such general terms that very 
different interpretations are possible. Thus standards for many basic items are not clearly 
established,  as  for  example  in rules  on fire  prevention,  collision,  stability,  equipment. 
Where an attempt has  been made  (by IMO)  to  remedy  these deficiencies, very often the 
new  specifications  are  again  left to  voluntary  application.  Such  voluntary status  is  also 
enacted for  by many  IMO  Resolutions. 

Furthermore  it  is  left  to  national  administrations  to  define  the  detailed  safety 
36. 
rules.  In turn they delegate this work to classification societies.  Many flag  registers  and 
classification societies are ill equipped to carry out the task:  they lack adequate training, 
experience  and  technical  knowledge.  There  is  also  a  lack  of  criteria  in  minimum 
standards  for  the  activities  of classification  societies  themselves.  For ships  in  service, 
survey  intervals  and  specifications  of  conditions  under  which  a  partially  worn  out 
structure or worn machinery  may  be considered unsafe,  are not defined. 

The Law of the Sea Convention calls on States to  adopt laws and regulations on 
37. 
safety  and  pollution  prevention  for  vessels  flying  their  flag  or  of their  registry.  It 
establishes  that such  laws  and  regulations  shall  at  least have  the  same  effect as  that  of 
generally  accepted  international  rules  established  through  the  competent  international 
organisations  or  general  diplomatic  conference.  The  IMO  has  called  for  a  uni.form 
application of such rules. 

38. 
The above described divergences not only have an adverse effect on safety, they 
can and do fragment the international market for the maritime supply industry and create 
competitive disadvantages due to technical barriers and different certification processes. 

As  a  frrst  step  the  Commission  proposes  action  by  the  Community  to  ensure 
39. 
convergent implementation of IMO  standards by Member  States.  This can be done in a 
number of ways,  for example,  by ensuring that the Community  and/or,  as  the case may 
be,  all  Member  States  adhere  to  international  Conventions,  by  giving  legally  binding 
effect to international rules that are not mandatory or by Community directives adopting 
common interpretations of rules that are framed  as  general principles. Where necessary, 
these could provide for the development of additional European technical standards,  for 
example,  on  marine  equipment.  These  and  other  techniques  should  permit  present 
divergences in safety levels to  be reduced within acceptable limits  while leaving both to 
the IMO  and  to  national  authorities their own particular roles  and  responsibilities. 

18 

In addition,  the  international  standards  could  also  be extended,  as  required,  to 
40. 
those  vessels  falling  outside  the  scope  of the  international  Conventions.  This  would 
ensure that the same safety level  will  apply throughout the Community. 

As  regards  ratification  of  Conventions,  a  priority  measure  should  be  the 
41. 
ratification by all Member States of the 1992 PJotocols to the 1969 Liability Convention 
and to the  1971 Fund Convention.  The extraordinary Council of25.1.93 has recommen 
ded  the Member  States to  do  so,  and  has  urged the  Community  and its  Member  States 
to  examine  the  feasibility  of developing  a  system  of penalties  and  civil  liability  for 
environmental  pollution.  This  subject will  be developed  in a  Communication  on civil 
liability for  damage to the environment which  the Commission  is  finalising  and  which 
is  intended to  be the subject of extensive consultations  across the Community. 

42. 
Moreover the  Commission  intends to  promote in all  relevant international  fora 
initiatives aimed at an extension of compensation to cover the costs of conducting, where 
appropriate,  an ecological  survey. 

For  hazardous  cargoes  other  than  oil  the  Hazardous  and  Noxious  Substances 
43. 
Convention  (HNS)  seems  unlikely  to be concluded  within a reasonable period of time. 
A  partial  and  interim  solution  might  come  from  a  substantial  increase  of the  amounts 
provided for  under the  Convention  on Limitation of Liability for  Maritime  Claims,  of 
1 September  1976. 

(ii) 

Uniform enforcement of international rules 

44. 
The convergent implementation of international rules alone would, however,  be 
insufficient  to  guarantee  an  adequate  level  of safety  and  environment  protection  in 
Community  waters,  given that a large percentage of substandard vessels  operate under 
other than Community  flags,  and  given that  many  flag  States  are unable to  set up  and 
maintain proper control of vessels  on their registers. 

45. 
There is therefore an increasing need for measures to be taken by both port and 
coastal States to ensure that international rules are complied with by all vessels under any 
flag.  The call  for  action by  coastal  States  is  stressed by several  articles  of the Law of 
the Sea Convention (also signed by the Corrununity),  for example articles  192, 194, 197, 
211,  and 218 to  221,  which provide also  for  control  measures  by the State of the port. 
These measures are more specifically required under Regulation 1.19 of the Convention 
for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). 

46. 
At present,  despite positive results  emerging from  a ·decade of operation ot'the 
European Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Port State Control, the Community 
is still lacking a fully effective and coherent approach to this form of intervention. There 
is  no  consistent  application  of safety  rules;  no  systematic  system  for  inspection  or 
detention of ships; no efficient and transparent data exchange mechanism; and no uniform 

19 

legal basis for the enforcement of agreed rules.  This results in many substandard vessels 
escaping  the  safety  net  of  the  rules.  The  lack  of  a  common,  mandatory  approach 
frustrates  also the efforts of those who try to  implement the rules rigorously and enables 
ships,  by such methods  as  selective use of certain ports of destination,  to  avoid the net 
for their proper control. The rigorous States pay also  in loss of trade for their adherence 
to  safety  and  environment  protection  policies,  while  their  waters  continue  to  be 
threatened by transiting substandard vessels .. 

47. 
This  is  a  situation  which  should  be  eradicated.  This  cannot  be  achieved 
effectively  if action  is  taken  solely  at  national  level,  nor  by  relying  exclusively  on 
voluntary commitments  such  as  those of the MOU  on Port State Control,  based on non 
uniform inspection and  detention criteria. 

48. 
Community level action is thus required to provide a sound footing on which all 
the  Member  States  can  operate,  and  depend  on  their  neighbours  and  partners  doing 
likewise.  The  Community  approach  should  be  based  upon  uniform  and  binding 
application of common  criteria for  intensification of controls over certain types of ships 
and  for  evaluation  of deficiencies  and  sanctions  including  detention  or  possibility  to 
refuse access to Community ports to ships found  below internationally agreed standards 
and further which refused to be upgraded or repaired as required,  and the rapid adoption 
of EDI as  a transparent data exchange mechanism. 

In addition,  Community  action within the framework of the MOU on Port State 
49. 
Control  to  which  a  number  of European  third  countries  are  parties,  including  action 
within  its  Committee,  could  permit  such  measures  to  be  given  broader  European 
application. 

50. 
Furthe~ore, port and  transit dues  which  have the effect of penalising  modem 
vessels  should be revised taking  into  account IMO Resolution  A 722(17) on application 
of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces  in Segregated Bcillast Tanks  (SBT). 

(iii) 

Development of maritime infrastructure 

The responses  of Member  States to  their  international obligations  and  calls for 
51. 
a high level  of safety of navigation  and  coastal  protection against pollution from  ships 
vary considerably in Community  waters.  For example,  a better mix of navigational aids 
including VTS  and radio positioning, and  of waste reception facilities  is provided in the 
northern  European  area.  Even  when  facilities  are  provided,  the  lack  of harmonised 
procedures, particularly in the ship/shore interaction and in co-ordination across front_iers 
diminishes  the  effectiveness  of the  efforts.  This  is  typical  of VTS,  developed  and  still 
developing  mostly  in  response  to  local  needs  which  leads  to  an  incompatible  and 
piecemeal coverage of the Community coastal areas, as well as of port reception facilities 
for oil  and  waste. 

20 

The financial  efforts  of Member  States  to  provide the necessary  infrastructure 
52. 
for  navigational  aids  and  waste  facilities  to  fulfil  the  international  obligations  are 
unbalanced.  As  regards  VTS, for  example,  some  Member States benefit from the large 
coverage of the services  provided by  others  without  any  financial  effort on their part. 
Some  Member  States  are  unable  to  provide  the  expected  services  due  to  the  very 
extended  coastlines.  The  burden  on  those  wbo  have  the  benefit  of navigational  aids 
differs from  Member State to Member State. Some States apply totally or partially  "the 
user pays" principle imposing lighthouse dues or similar taxes to all ships plying to their 
ports, whilst others provide considerable facilities to shipping in their areas without any 
cost recovery from  the users. 

As  for  waste  and  oil  reception  facilities,  their  lack  in  several  ports  of  the 
53. 
Community favours both unlawful discharges at sea and deflection of trade towards more 
permissive ports where use of these facilities  is  not available or not offered. 

Individual  States'  action has  failed  to  respond  both to  the  need  for  convergent 
54. 
implementation  of harmonised  procedures  for  VTS,  even  when  they  are  developed  at 
international level as  reference standards by the International Association of Lighthouse 
Authorities (IALA),  and to the international  commitments  for waste reception facilities. 
Furthermore,  individual States'  actions  cannot respond to the need for  recovering from 
the users at least the cost of operating and maintaining safety  infrastructure.  One major 
reason is  that for  individual States such users  are transiting traffic. 

55.  Without adequate common action, navigation in several areas of the Community 
will  continue  to  present  a  higher  risk,  in  terms  of safety  and  pollution,  than  in  other 
better covered areas, while the application of cost recovery principles will remain at best 
partial  and  unharmonised ·with  the effect that some areas  will  operate  at a  competitive 
disadvantage. 

A  coherent  body  of  initiatives  at  Community  ievel  to  respond  to  these 
56. 
requirements  ought to  include a  Community-wide  ship  reporting system which may  be 
extended to ships in transit; development of a European radionavigation chain as part of 
the projected world-wide system,  identification of zones of high ecological interest with 
regard  to  adopting,  when  required  through  IMO,  appropriate  traffic  restrictions, 
including routeing measures and areas to be avoided; appropriate measures on emergency 
services, in particular towing,  and co-ordination of the availability of salvage capacities; 
the fostering of harmonised development of VTS networks and the harmonisation of their 
functions and procedures in the Community. As to waste management, appropriate action 
is required for the creation of reception facilities to  implement effectively the MARPOL 
provisions. 

The  Community  measures  should  also  include  both  the  development  of  a 
57. 
commonly  agreed mechanism whereby users would contribute to the costs of providing 
the infrastructure required for the safety of navigation  and the uniform  implementation 
of the international  commitment to prevent illegal  discharges  at sea and  into  the air. 

21 

The phasing-out of substandard ships raises also the issue of scrapping facilities. 
58. 
Particular  attention  should  therefore  be  given  to  ways  and  means  to  promote,  at 
worldwide  level,  the  development  of  technologically  advanced  and  environmentally 
friendly  infrastructures  for  this  purpose. 

(iv) 

International rulemaking 

. Slow  progress  in the international  rulemaking  process  in IMO  is  primarily due 
59. 
to the diverse characteristics, interests and resources  of flag States. In some cases,  either 
this  holds  up  effective  action  for  so  long  that  it  then  becomes  ineffective,  or  final 
solutions, while apparently reflecting international consensus, do not bring a satisfactory 
answer to those States who had identified their needs. Decisions on retrofitting of existing 
ships  are  sometimes  to  be  implemented  over  such  a  long  period  that  it  is  no  longer 
credible.  These are natural  limits to  international rulemaking  and to  the effectiveness of 
the  contributions  individual  Member  States  can make  to  such a process. 

60. 
The Commission believes that,  in spite of these drawbacks,  safety and pollution 
prevention rules  governing maritime  activities should  continue to  be pursued primarily 
through the IMO in order to ensure the widest possible coverage for rules  and  standards 
applying to  a global  industry. 

However,  if the  IMO  is  to  remain  the  body  primarily  responsible  for  setting 
61. 
standards  on maritime  safety,  it  follows  that  the  Community  needs  to  ensure  that  the 
IMO's  work develops  in a way  which  will produce adequate solutions  for  ships  sailing 
in its waters.  Action is  needed so that co-ordinated positions can be taken favouring the 
adoption  of  necessary  new  rules  and  the  modification  of old  one:s.  More  rigorous, 
uniform  application  of  international  rules  within  the  Community  must  have  as  its 
corollary action within the IMO with a view to ensuring similar developments elsewhere 
in the world where Community vessels operate in competition with third country vessels. 
Procedures will have to be developed which will allow the Community to  act effectively 
.. v  ~ltis end  while respecting the IMO's methods  of working and  the technical  character 
of n,'"'~~'  ~f its activity,  as well as  minimising possible negative reactions to  suggestions 
of development of regional  voices  within the organisation. 

In this context, one of the areas on which the Community  should concentrate its 
62. 
efforts  is  measures  to  reduce  the  risk  of human  error  since  this  element  has  been 
recognised  as  the  major  cause  of  maritime  accidents.  Another  area  concerns  the 
introduction of new  te~hnologies for  shipborne equipment,  in  particular that  related  to 
the automatic  transfer of data from  ship  to  shore and  vice versa. 

The  opportunity  should  also  be  taken  to  re-examine  the  present  status  of the 
63. 
Community  in  IMO,  in  the  light  of the  completion  of the  internal  market  and  the 
development of a global common transport policy taking due account of environmental 
aspects. The purpose of this action is to evaluate the need for change which may call for 
the Community  to  seek membership  of the organisation. 

(5) 

22 

A more detailed presentation and explanation of all the measures proposed within 
64. 
each of the four main areas of activity is contained in the second part of this Communica 
tion,  the action programme. 

The  Communication  and  the  action  programme  provide  also  the  basis  for  the 
65. 
necessary  dialogue  with  all  parties  concerned,  and  in particular  with  the  Council,  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the  Joint  Committee  on 
Maritime Transport and the  maritime  industries. 

23 

PARTll 

THE ACTION PROGRAMME 

INTRODUCTION 

In  the  light  of  the  analyses  in  Part I, 

1. 
the  action  programme  for  the 
implementation  of a  common  maritime  safety  and  pollution  prevention  policy  should 
consist of four  main types of initiatives: 

i) 
ii) 
iii) 
iv) 

Convergent implementation  of international  rules 
Uniform enforcement of international  rules 
Development of maritime  infrastructure 

· International rule making. 

The main  items  for  this  programme  are presented in summary  form  in annex  1. 

The  programme  claims  to  be  neither  exhaustive  nor  definitive.  A  number  of 
2. 
issues which, at this stage, are more in the nature of problems requiring study or analysis 
call for further investigation by the Commission in consultation with government experts, 
industry and users representatives before policy orientations can be suggested. Examples 
of these important issues are the assessment of scrapping requirements  and facilities  for 
phased-out  ships;  the  co-ordination  of  the  availability  of  salvage  capacities;  risk 
evaluation and prevention; the financial  responsibilities of owners of hazardous cargoes 
using substandard ships as  well  as  the responsability of the shipowner for  the safety  of 
crew  and  passengers;  the  examination  of the  possibility  to  establish  an  appropriate 
environmental  liability system;  analysis of the future requirements  in terms of design of 
safe and environmentally-friendly ships that take into account research and development 
c~u.~dy done namely at European level. Moreover, after a period of time new issues may 
emet~t; ,._:_j  priorities might change. 

3. 
The action programme thus  represents those measures  which are at present ripe 
for  action  at  Community  level.  It  will  need  to  be  up-dated  from  time  to  time  as 
circumstances  may  require. 

During  the  im:t'lementation  of  the  action  programme  the  Coinmission  will 
4. 
promote public awareness  and seek the support of the main  economic operators  and  all 
governments  as  well  as  of  non-government  maritime  interestS. 
In  particular  the 
Commission  will  interact  with  existing  or  foreseeable  frameworks,  including  ·the 
Maritime Industries Forum. 

24 

CHAPTER  1.  CONVERGENT  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  INTERNATIONAL 
RULES 

5. 
of measures: 

The first component of the action programme breaks down into five main groups 

i. 
ii. 
iii. 
iv. 
v. 

convergent application of generally defined  rules  of IMO  Conventions; 
harmonisation of safety  requirements  for  shipbome equipment; 
convergent implementation of IMO  Resolutions; 
. adoption of common  standards  for  non-Convention vessels. 
action concerning  the human  element. 

A summary explanation of the negative effects on safety at sea and on prevention 
6. 
of pollution by ships resulting from  the lack of uniformity  in the level of application by 
flag States of internationally agreed standards is given in Part I(§ 34 to§ 36). The more 
detailed analysis outlined below  of the ways the present international regulatory system 
operates helps  in forming  a wider understanding  of the limits  of such  a system;  of the 
reasons why,  in the Commission's  view,  a Community  answer rather than single States 
could  improve the situation;  and  what type of answer  is  proposed. 

i) 

Convergent application of generally defined rules of IMO Conventions 

Neither the  SOLAS  '7 4  Convention nor the Load Line Convention  identify  all 
7. 
standards to  which  all  ships  must  conform at the building  stage and during their  entire 
life to  a  degree  detailed  enough  to  ensure that  they  are uniformly  implemented  in the 
Community  in a non-divergent manner.  This is particularly true for elements such as the 
hull, machinery, electrical and control installations. These fundamental ship components 
are  controlled  according·  to  the  rules  of  classification  societies·.  Therefore  most 
administrations  decided  to  delegate  to  the  classification  societies  the  preparation  and 
enforcement of safety  rules  concerning their  reliability.  The classification societies  in 
question traditionally had adequate staff and facilities to develop the rules in question and 
to  cover the related  inspections. 

8. 
However,  and  this  is  the root of today's problems  in this field,  during the past 
two decades the number of classification societies has greatly increased whilst several of 
them do  not have the traditional  characteristics to justify their being delegated to  act on 
behalf of the administrations.  For example they have insufficient trained and experienced 
personnel and infrastructure to prepare and to carry out tests  and to interpret rules.  The 
result of this historical evolution  is that today the national authorities are cOnfronted with 
a problem which  is  threefold: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

the  SOLAS  rules  concerning  the  most  important  parts  of  the  ship  are  hot 
specified; 
this  danger  is  frequently  exacerbated  by  the  absence  of the expertise  and  long 
experience of a high  quality  classification society; 
also  unspecified  are  the standards  which  need  to  be applied  to  ensure that the 
ship  continues to  be safe for the whole of its  life. 

25 

9. 
This has led to a situation where not only rules differ in the Community but also 
the conformity of ships to such rules is determined by bodies of different levels of quality 
and  expertise  whose  decisions  on  safety-related  issues  can  hardly  disregard  other 
considerations such  as  the need  to  keep  a fleet under their register. 

10. 
An  effective answer  to  these problel!lS  could be the adoption of a Community 
directive  establishing  measures  to  be  followed  by  the  Member  States  and  national 
organisations concerned with the certification and the related surveillance of compliance 
by ships  with the international  Conventions  on safety and pollution prevention at sea. 

The  first  objective  of the  directive  would  be  to  secure  the  direct  and  tighter 
11. 
involvement of the national administrations in the ships certification and survey process. 
Where a Member  State decides  to  delegate fully  or in part its  statutory role on surveys 
and  certification  of  compliance  to  Conventions  such  as  SOLAS,  Load  Lines  and 
MARPOL,  or to  rely  upon  expertise  (organisations  or  qualified  surveyors)  outside  its 
competent administration to carry out inspections and surveys related to those certificates, 
it shall entrust these duties only to organisations which meet an established set of criteria 
demonstrating  their  ability  and  commitment  to  perform  at highly  reliable  and  efficient 
level. 

12. 
characterise efficient and  highly regarded  classification societies.  They can: 

As  an  example,  the  Commission  notes  that  several  of the  following  criteria 

comply  with  the  criteria  specified  in  EN 45000  and  EN  29001  European 
standardisation (CEN); 

demonstrate their ability to carry out all surveys required by the Conventions for 
the issue of certificates  ; 

set  up  and  monitor  international  technical  standards,  and  have  sufficient 
experience and  skill  in performing technical  surveys; 

demonstrate their ability to develop  and keep updated a full  set of own rules and 
regulations  on  hull,  machinery  and  electrical  and  control  equipment  to 
internationally recognised technical  standards; 

show world-wide representation and  employ  a  minimum  number  of qualified 
technical  staff; 

demonstrate a minimum  size of classified fleet or tonnage; 

Clearl;·  these  would  be  among  the  criteria  upon  which  the  Community  would  base 
recognition of the organisations  entrusted with statutory duties. 

26 

A  working  relationship  should  be  established  between  the  competent  national 
administrations  and  the  organisations  acting  on  their  behalf  to  ensure  quality  and 
consistency  of rules,  surveys  and  certifications.  It should  be based  upon  a formalized 
agreement between the parties  setting out the specific duties  and  functions  assumed  by 
the  organisations.  This  should  include  a  periodic  audit  by  the  administrations  of this 
work,  as  well  as 
the  possibility  of checking  procedures  by  national  administrations 
involving random  inspections  of ships. 

13. 
A second objective of such a directive would be to ensure that all  "Convention" 
ships  entitled  to  fly  the  flag  of  a  Member  State  comply  with  precisely  defined 
requirements  designed  to  achieve  equivalent  results  on  safety  and  reliability  of hull, 
machinery,  electrical and  control  installations. 

These requirements  should  apply  both to  the certification of  new  constructions  and  to 
surveys  during the life of the ship. 

a) 

New  construction 

Preparation  of  sufficiently  detailed  standards  for  new  constructions  would  mean 
practically re-writing the extremely large and complex set of rules  and procedures of the 
classification societies on these components  and keeping them  continuously updated. 

This  would  be  unrealistic  and  unnecessary  since  the  major  classification  societies 
members  of  the  International  Association  of  Classification  Societies  (IACS)  have 
developed,  maintained  and  upgraded  in the course of the years  all  necessary standards 
for  these  ships'  main  components.  Although  they  may  differ  in  cases,  it is  generally 
accepted that their effects on the safety of ships  are substantially  equivalent. 

Thus,  a  more  pragmatic  and  realistic  approach  would  consist  in including  in  such  a 
directive provisions to the effect that ships are to be built arid  maintained in conformity 
with  the  requirements  for  hull,  machinery,  electrical  and  control  installations  of those 
classification societies  which  meet the set of common  criteria described above. 

The proposed approach would introduce equivalent safety levels on all main components 
of  ships  under  Member  States'  flags.  Moreover,  it  would  take  away  from  the 
"approved"  organisations,  the  present  economic  pressure  put  on  them  by  unsound 
competitors.  Such undue influence of the economic  activities of classification societies 
on their statutory work has  raised the doubts  of many  observers of the maritime  world 
on the ability of these high level organisations to maintain the required full  independence 
of  judgement  when  carrying  out  their  statutory  duties  on  behalf  of  the  national 
administrations. 

27 

The adoption and  adequate implementation in the Community  of such a measure would 
restore in all concerned, including Member States administrations, the full  confidence on 
the  effectiveness  and  reliability  of the  inspections  and  surveys  of these  classification 
societies  and  in  their  continuous  commitment  to  maintain  and  update  rules  on  hull, 
machinery,  electrical  and  control  installations. 
,. 

A further provision would  also  be necessary to  ensure that these classification societies 
will consult with each other periodically with a view to maintaining equivalence of their 
future standards  and  implementation thereof. 

(b) 

Surveys  during ship's life 

Two  aspects  need to  be considered: 

1. 

2. 

specification of intervals between various types of periodical  surveys and  scope 
and  extent of each  survey; 

specification  of conditions  under  which  a  partially  worn-out  hull  structure  or 
worn machinery may still be considered safe for the period between two surveys 
and  the extent of repairs  or substitutions  required. 

The  former  are  dealt  with  under  classification  rules  and  the  above  approach  for  new 
construction would apply. The latter are difficult to codify in written standards, each case 
requiring an evaluation on its own merits  as  well as  the knowledge and  the  experience 
of the surveyor.  He may  also  need detailed information from  files  giving the history of 
similar ships.  The skill of the surveyor and the efficiency of the inspecting organisation 
are therefore key  elements.  This  problem would  be solved by delegating the execution 
of these tasks only to  organisations  meeting the criteria described above. 

Finally complementary action is required to ensure that all flag administrations other than 
Member  States  administrations,  which  delegate  the  testing  and  certification  of ships 
entrust such statutory duties  only to highly reliable organisations. 

To this end, a specific measure is required addressing the Member States as States of the 
port, to select for priority inspections those ships whose certificates,  including the class 
certificate, have been delivered by an organisation which does not meet the criteria laid 
down for the EC-approved  organisations. 

· 

Moreover,  the  Community· . and  its  Membet  States  should,  ·as . recommended  by  the 
Council  in  its  conclusions  of 25.1.1993,  as  well  as  by  the ·industry  in  the  Maritime 
Industries Forum,  act in a co-ordinated manner in IMO to obtain the extension of these 
provisions to the whole shipping world. 

28 

The serious  gap  described  above  can  only  be filled  by  such  a  directive  establishing  a 
common  framework  of  quality  at  Community  level  to  guarantee  certain  safety 
performances  in  the  EC.  It  respects  the  proportionality  principle  by  leaving  to  each 
Member State the right to decide the implementation tools that best fits its internal system 
and to the delegated competent organisations the duty and the tasks to lay down, maintain 
and apply  the appropriate standards under th~ surveillance of the Member  States  in co 
operation with the Commission. 

ii) 

Harmonisation of safety requirements for shipborne equipment 

14. 
For  marine  equipment  a  different  approach  from  that  put  forward  for  hull, 
machinery,  electrical and control  installations is proposed.  The reason is simple.  Rules 
and standards for marine equipment are developed, to  a certain extent within the relevant 
Conventions,  rather than relying as  was  explained before, for hull  and  machinery,  upon 
rules  laid  down by classification societies.  The problem  is  rather  that of ensuring that 
the margin of interpretation left to administrations  or testing organisations converges as 
far  as  is  reasonable  and  that  they  are  effectively  applied  in  a  consistent  manner  in  all 
Member  States. 

Following  extensive  consultation,  both  with  the  shipping  industry  and 
15. 
government experts, the Commission has formed  the view that the level of performance 
of shipbome equipment  required by the SOLAS or MARPOL Conventions suffers from 
problems  similar  to  those  identified  for  the  main  ship  components:  different  levels  of 
national standards implementing the  international rules or recommendations  concerning 
technical  specifications  and  testing  procedures  leaving  discretionary  margins  to 
certification  bodies,  and  different  levels  of qualifications  and  experience,  as  well  as 
testing methods  of such bodies. 

16. 
This  leads  to  differing  levels  of safety,  and  in turn,  despite  the  existence  of 
international  standards,  to  reluctance  of  Member  States·  to  accept  without  control 
equipment  approved  by  another  Member  State;  to  the  creation of technical  barriers  to 
trade and to  unnecessary  costs  and  administrative procedures  related to  the approval  of 
this equipment.  Moreover, shipping companies face higher costs in some Member States 
than  in  others  because  of  different  national  requirements,  and  accordingly  are  at  a 
competitive disadvantage to  companies  in other Member States.  Community  action  for 
harmonisation  in the Community  of international  technical  requirements  and testing  of 
ship borne equipment as well as of conformity assessment procedures designed to improve 
safety  at  sea,  safeguard  human  life  and  protect  the  environment  seems 
therefore 
justified. 

Directives should be adopted addressing  in the first place  ship borne equipment 
17. 
for  which  SOLAS  and  MARPOL  require  the  approval  by  national  administrations  in 
accordance to  standards  set out in  IMO  Conventions  or Resolutions. 

29 

The primary  objective of such directives  would be to  establish  the same level  of safety 
performance of this equipment throughout the Community.  Such directives would make 
use of certain aspects of the Community's  "New Approach on Technical specifications, 
Testing and Certification" 1 to technical regulation and standardisation because they would 
provide that  all  equipment placed  on the  market  for  use  on board  a  ship  shall  comply 
with common technical and testing requiremen~. This would be proven,  in line with the 
provisions  of the  "new  approach",  by  conformity  assessment  procedures  which  shall 
consist of the CE-type examination  (module B)  and,  at the choice of the manufacturer, 
the EC declaration of conformity to type  (either module Cor D).  Complying products 
shall  exhibit  the  CE  mark,  the  CE-type  examination  certificate  and  the  identification 
number of the notified body.  This approach would meet the further objective of ensuring 
the free  movement of goods  within the Community  by  establishing that Member States 
shall  not prohibit,  restrict or impede  the placing on the  market for  putting  into  use  on 
ships,  equipment  which  complies  with  the  requirements  of the  directives.  Provisions 
shall  establish  that  Member  States  shall  recognise  equipment  exhibiting  the  above 
identifications  also  when  granted  in  another  Member  State.  Finally,  procedures  for 
recognition  of  notified  bodies  competent  to  carry  out  the  conformity  assessment 
procedures are set up. They should limit the EC recognition only to those organisations 
which  meet a set of common  minimum  criteria to  be established  in the context of these 
directives. 

As  regards  shipbome equipment for  which  no  international provisions exist as 
18. 
regards both mandatory carriage and safety standards, the full  use of the "new approach 
to standardisation "2 is foreseen. It will focus only on those products for which the survey 
carried  out by the services  of the Commission has  identified the  existence of technical 
barriers to  trade. 

iii) 

Converg~t implementation of IMO Resolutions 

In addition to the international Conventions  and Protocols, the IMO Assembly 
19. 
adopts  Resolutions  to upgrade international standards or to  complement those set in the 
Conventions and their Protocols. In most cases, acceptance of these Resolutions does not 
entail an obligation to comply.  A survey carried out by the Commission's  services with 
the  help  of government  experts  on  a  limited  number  of important  safety-related IMO 
Resolutions, has provided evidence of a large variety of approaches in the Member States 
for the  application and  interpretation of these voluntary standards. 

1  Council Resolution of 7 May  1985  (OJ.  No.  Cl36, 4.6.85). 

2  Council Resolution of7 May  1985  (OJ.  No.  Cl36, 4.6.85). 

30 

20. 
Examples  are found  in rules on fire prevention,  collision,  grounding,  stability 
and  the  minimising  of  consequences  of  casualties.  To  cope  with  some  of  these 
imperfections,  yet  more  rules  were  adopted  by  the  IMO  Assembly.  Since  their 
interpretation  or  the  decision  as  regards  their  application  were  left  to  the  national 
administrations, these safety standards are also  not determined or applied  unequivocally . 

21. 
Further examples of important  Resolutions of a non-mandatory nature are found 
among  those  dealing  with  the  carriage of dangerous  goods,  such  as  the International 
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG) and the Code for Construction and Equipment 
of Ships  Carrying Dangerous Chemicals  in Bulk (BCH). 

... 

22. 
Also  of high  relevance  in  the  light of past  and  recent  dramatic  events  where 
hundreds of human lives are lost at sea, are those IMO Resolutions concerning passenger 
vessels and bulk carriers.  Here problems related both to construction and to operational 
issues  are  underlined  and  recommendations  are  made  extending  from  thorough 
investigations of accidents reports, so as to assist in the adoption of appropriate remedial 
measures,  to  implementation  of specific  interim  measures,  addressed  also  to  loading 
terminal  operators or crews  as  appropriate. 

23. 
The  negative  impact  which  the  use  of different  national  rules  implementing 
international  standards has on safety, prevention of pollution, competition,  barriers to 
trade  and  added  costs  and  administrative  procedures,  has  already  been  developed  in 
previous  paragraphs  and  will  not  be  repeated  here  at  great length.  However,  certain 
issues of high relevance to safety are shortly outlined through three specific examples of 
the type of actions  required. 

a) 

Vanishing bulk carriers 

The effect of the rising  graph of the vanishing bulk carriers deserves  special 
24. 
attention. The facts are startling. Since 1975 more than 280 bulk carriers have been .lost, 
30 in the period from  January  1990 to  September  1991. 

Mariners, shipbuilders, metallurgists, naval architects, classification societies and insurers 
are highly critical of current standards and practices, particularly as regards older vessels 
lifting heavy ores. When searching the causes of losses, it becomes clear that there is no 
single cause:  structural failure,  stress (including that due to vibrations), the type of steel 
used,  corrosion,  handling,  cargo  damage,  and  working  practices  have  all  been  put 
forward.  Immediate  action is  a must,  and  it was  strongly urged by IMO' Resolution 
A.  713(17) of 6.11.1991  "On the safety of ships  carrying solid bulk cargo". 

A  first  answer  may  come  through  the  measures  proposed  under  section  i) 
25. 
"Convergent application ofiMO Conventions"  which should ensure that ship inspection 
requirements are dictated and enforced by law, i.e. direct Government intervention in the 
issuing  of licences  and  certificates  at  all  levels,  or  delegation  only to  highly  qualified 
classification societies under strict supervision of the administrations, thus making both 
more accountable and  legally liable. 

31 

But  this  will  not  suffice.  Classification  societies  recommendations  should  be 
26. 
immediately  implemented.  For example:  side structure to  cover minimum  strength  and 
thickness  for  frames  and  brackets,  detailed  design  and  welding  of brackets,  with  an 
increased weld factor;  use of higher tensile steel frames  and brackets; new requirements 
for  watertight bulk heads. 

A  directive  setting  adequate  provtstons  for  the  mandatory  application  of  such 
recommendations,  as  an  accompanying  measure to  that under section i),  could  bring a 
substantial  contribution  to  the  solution  of the  problems  for  vessels  operating  under 
Member States flags.  A further measure should be taken at the level of port State control 
to ensure that other flags'  vessels do  respect these international recommendations.  This 
point is  further  developed  in the next chapter. 

b) 

International Codes and related Resolutions 

Along the same line of approach, other problems underlined by IMO resolutions 
27. 
could  be  solved  by  adopting,  as  a first  step,  Community  directives  giving  mandatory 
nature to groups of Resolutions or parts of them for all vessels operating under the flags 
of the Member States. This approach would seem suitable for example to make sure that 
all  Member States fully apply and enforce compliance to international codes such as  the 
IMDG and the BCH Codes.  As for the bulk carriers case, complementary  action would 
then be needed at the level of port State control and in full compliance with the "no more 
favourable treatment"  principle to  encourage non-Community  States to  apply to vessels 
under their flag,  codes  and  related Resolutions  which they have approved within IMO. 

28. 
As regards the Resolution A.680(17) and its recommendations related to the Safe 
Management Code, the modalities of their effective application in the Community should 
be thoroughly examined.  A possible step  could be to  require any  shipping company to 
have  a  "safety  rilanager"  responsible  for  all  safety-related  aspects  of  the  shipping 
activities.  This  constitutes  an  integral  part of the certification rules  in  aviation  and  the 
lack of it is  a regrettable gap  in the shipping industry.  Furthermore,  the expediency of 
making relevant provisions of this  code mandatory for  all  operators of passenger ships 
which operate on a regular basis to and from Community ports should be examined. The 
same  approach  should  be  considered  for  other  Resolutions  concerning  operational 
provisions  related  to  these  vessels,  their  crews  and  passengers,  and  those  related  to 
tankers. 

c) 

Port dues  on segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers 

29. 
Conventional  oil  tankers  must  carry part of their water ballast in cargo  tanks. 
Modern  oil  tankers  are  equipped  with  segregated  ballast tanks,  which  are  completely 
separate from the cargo oil and fuel system, having their own lines and pumps.  An SBT 
tanker has a space which,  therefore, cannot be used for cargo,  and the volume of which 
is  15%  - 20%  over  and  above  the  volume  of a  conventional  tanker  with  the  same 
carrying  capacity.  SBT  oil  tankers  have  been  ordered  for  the  benefit  of the  marine 
environment. 

32 

When calculated on ships' volumes,  dues and charges are e.g.  15-20% higher 
30. 
for  these SBT  oil tankers than the dues  on conventional tankers.  The charging of dues 
on the volume of the SBT tanks is an operational disadvantage for those who have taken  · 
an important step towards  a cleaner environment. 

In order to avoid that owners who hav~ ordered SBT tankers pay such additional 
31. 
port costs,  IMO Resolution A.388  (X) was  adopted in 1977.  Its wording has later been 
refined,  and.IMO Resolution A.722  (17),  was  adopted on 6 November  1991  by IMO's 
General Assembly.  In short, this resolution deals with  the exemption of the tonnage of 
SBT  spaces.  At  its  biennial  general  meeting  in  Spain  in  1991,  the  International 
Association  of Ports  and  Harbours  (IAPH)  passed  a  Resolution  supporting  the  IMO 
Resolution. 

The  Commission  is  aware  that  in  spite  of the  adoption  of these  Resolutions, 
32. 
State and port authorities in many countries,  including some Member States, continue to 
enforce dues  and charges on SBT tankers in a manner which does  not comply with such 
recommendations and punishes SBT tanker owners, thus encouraging operators not to use 
these more  environmentally  friendly  vessels. 

33. 
would provide a much  needed solution to this problem. 

The  mandatory  application  of Resolution  A. 722(17)  in  all  community  ports 

34. 
The very  large number  of the  existing Resolutions  and  their varied  degree of 
precision and details malces it impracticable to develop further in this context the specific 
actions  required.  This  is  particularly  true  for  those  Resolutions,  and  they  are  many, 
where a large discretionary interpretative role is left to the national administrations. The 
Commission  intends  to  address  the  latter  case  by  bringing  to  completion  as  soon  as 
possible  the  exercise  already  started  in  the  course  of  1992  with  the  support  of 
government experts.  It consists in the establishment of a list of priority Resolutions,  for 
which  ad hoc measures  shall then be proposed. 

· 

In this context the Commission  underlines the request by the Extraordinary Council  on 
Environment  and  Transport  of 25  january  1993  to  support  the  IMO  action  on  the 
reduction of the safety gap between new and existing ships by up-grading and/or phasing 
out existing ships,  including ferries,  built to  earlier standards  after a reasonable period 
of operation,  paying  particular  attention  to  oil  tankers  not  meeting  the  MARPPO~ 
standards  which entered into force in  1982  . 

35. 
An indispensable corollary to these actions would be to try and promote in IMO 
the  solutions  found  for  the  Community  to  ensure  that  all  vessels  under  non-EC  flags 
would  be  put  on  an  equal  footing  and  would  not  constitute· an  unacceptable  threat' to 
safety and  to  the environment of EC  coastal waters. 

33 

iv) 

Adoption of common standards for non-Convention vessels 

36. 
Among  the  efforts  aimed  at  plugging  the  gaps  in  international  regulations,  a 
further step is  required as regards those vessels which, by virtue of specific exemptions 
in the international  Conventions,  are not subject to  international  standards.  This  is  the 
case for passenger vessels  and  cargo  ferries  plying between ports  in the same Member 
State,  cargo  ships  of less  than  Convention size and,  should the Torremolinos  Protocol 
be adopted in its present form,  fishing vessels below 45 metres.  On the one hand,  the 
international framework is of fundamental importance to maritime safety given the global 
character of the shipping industry. At the same time,  it would appear necessary that also 
those  ships  operating exclusively  in Member  States  waters,  thus  Community  waters, 
should respect common requirements providing, as  general rule,  the guarantees of safe 
operation  required  by  the  international  standards.  Furthermore,  certification  of 
conformity  should  be  done  by  qualified  bodies  if  a  level  playing  field  based  on 
convergent standards  is  to be achieved.  This  complex  issue has  been examined  by  the 
Commission and the Group of Government Experts on Maritime Safety (GGEMS) in its 
lOth  meeting held in Brussels on 2 April  1992. 

37. 
As  regards passenger vessels on domestic voyages, the Group expressed itself, 
in  general,  in favour  of a  solution  at  Community  level,  based  on a  Council  Directive 
establishing minimum  rules  for  new passenger  vessels  - despite the  complexity  of the 
issue- and  to  extend  such rules,  as  far  as  possible,  also  to  existing  ships.  Bearing  in 
mind  the economic  impact  of such measures  a  phasing-in period  is  certainly  required. 
The main reference framework  for such a directive should be the SOLAS  Convention, 
with due regard, of course, to the need to single out appropriate derogations for specific 
situations. 

The need for such a measure was underlined by several experts not only on the 
38. 
basis of safety aspects, but also in the light of the recent adoption of the EC Regulation 
on liberalisation of cabotage services1 which, opening national trades to ships from other 
Member States,  emphasises  the importance of ensuring that competition takes place on 
an equal  footing.  Today this  would not be the case.  Among  the factors  leading to  an 
unequal footing are the varying safety levels of national rules for the fleets operating only 
on domestic routes. 

39. 
As  regard new  cargo  vessels  below  Convention size a  large consensus  on the 
need  for  a  community  measure also formed  in the Group  of Government  experts  at  its 
1 Qth  session,  though some  consideration should be given to  the degree_ of priority with 
which a Directive should be prepared.  In fact,  while there seems to be little doubt that 
some of these vessels, particularly the tankers operating feeder services, represent a real 
threat  to  local  environmentally  sensitive  areas,  justification· of this  measure  is  found 

1 Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3577192 of7.12.1992 • Applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport 

wilhin Member States (Maritime Cabotage)•. 0.1. L 364, p. 7 of 12.12.1992. 

34 

particularly  in  looking  ahead.  The already  large number  of these  vessels  is  bound  to 
increase  greatly  if  short  sea  shipping  develops  as  a  serious  alternative  to  inland 
transport1
•  By focusing on new vessels only, the Community could anticipate a potential 
problem thus  avoiding,  in the near future,  a number of those problems which  are at the 
root  of this  Communication,  in  particular  safety  and  distortion  of competition.  The 
Community  measure would be based upon the,.. requirements developed,  for such smaller 
vessels,  in the Torremolinos Convention and its Protocols as  well as on SOLAS rules as 
appropriate.  Given the  international  character of these vessels  the  Community  and  its 
Member  States should also try,  in a second stage, to promote adoption of these rules in 
IMO. 

40. 
A third area  where measures  at EC level seem justified is  that of the safety of 
fishing  vessels  bearing  in mind the high casualty rate of these vessels.  For the period 
1982-1991  not  less  than  1.580  casualties  (world-wide),  with  1186  lives  lost,  were 
reported to  Lloyd  (these figures  relate only  to  vessels  above  100  GT).  To remedy  the 
situation  several  Member  States,  supported  by  the  Commission,  tried  fruitlessly  for  a 
long period of time to  establish  acceptable  safety  standards through  the  adoption of an 
international  Convention  (the  "Torremolinos"  Convention  of  1977).  Regrettably,  the 
international agreement was never ratified and the present expectations do not go beyond 
the acceptance of a Protocol to the Torremolinos Convention in the spring of 1993  (see 
also  par.  144 and  145) The main chapters  of this  Protocol would  apply  only to  vessels 
above 45 m in length.  However this Protocol does recognise the need and encourages the 
adoption  of regional  agreements  for  vessels  below  this  size.  Given  that  85%  of the 
vessels of the Community fleet of vessels above 100 GT are between  24 and  45 meters, 
the international  solution will not provide the required  answer for  the Community. 

41. 
The next step is therefore the search for  a Community  solution to  be extended 
as  far  as  possible  to  other  countries  of the  European  region,  seeking  a  high  level  of 
safety.·  The Commission  proposals will  be based upon the internationally agreed  rules 
for vessels  above 45  m.,  adjusted  in so  far  as  necessary,  to take  into  account the. local 
conditions of the areas  where the vessels operate. 

42. 
For  vessels  below  24  meters,  the  Commission  intends  to  examine  with  the 
Member  States'  experts  whether  further  measures  are  required  to  complement  those 
already  proposed  to  the  Council  for  the  protection  of workers  on  board  of fishing 
vessels2

• 

1  See also  "TTle  future  development of the Common Transport Policy;  a global approach  to the construction of a Community 

framework for sustainable  mobility•. 

2  Proposal for a Council Directive concemi111 the minimum safety and health  requirements  for work on board  fishing  vessels 

0.1. C 337 p. 21  of31.12.91. 

v) 

Action concerning the human element 

35 

43. 
A  further  area  where  much  remains  to  be  done  concerns  the  weight  of the 
human element in the chain of events leading to  an  accident.  Figure 11  in chapter I has 
shown  that  human  error,  either  by  crew  or shore-based  personnel,  is  accounting  for 
about 60%  of all  claims  following  an  acciden~ ,  and  over 80%  of the incidents. 

.  An analysis of major claims  carried out by the United Kingdom Protection and 
44. 
Indemnity  Club  has  substantiated these figures  with  factual  evidence.  In particular this 
analysis  demonstrates  that: 

The majority of all personal injuries are caused by human error either on the part 
of the  individual performing the task or by the officer in  charge failing to  give 
clear instructions or to supervise the performance of the task.  There is  also clear 
evidence to  suggest that language difficulties  on board  ships  are  a  contributing 
factor. 

About  80%  of property  damage  accidents  are  due  to  the  human  factor,  in 
particular errors by pilots during berthing operations. There is no doubt that poor 
communication,  often aggravated by language difficulties,  is  a major factor. 

Collision  is  also  an  area where  most  if not  all  accidents  are  caused  by  human 
error.  There is  a greater likelihood of a collision occurring during the morning 
watch,  traditionally kept by the first  officer.  Statistical  evidence developed  by 
the  UK P&l  club  (1992  claims  report)  shows  that  32%  of the  collisions  occur 
between  04.00- 08.00 hr,  with  most  occurring  around  dawn  in  areas  of high 
shipping  activity :when  the  master  and  a  full  bridge  complement  are  on  the 
bridge. 

An  analysis  of cargo  and  pollution  accidents  shows  that half of these acci,9ents 
are due to  human  error.  They mostly  consist of mistakes  in storage,  ignorance 
of carriage requirements  of various  commodities  and  bunker-related spills. 

45. 
be given to  measures  aiming  at reducing the risk of human  error. 

These facts and figures provide enough evidence of the high priority that should 

The  Convention  on  Standard  of  Training  Certification  and  Watchkeeping 
46. 
{STCW)  developed  under the auspices  of ILO  and  IMO  is  the  existing  instrument for 
an  international  response  to  the  need  for  qualified  crews  and  officers.  However,  the 
above  facts  and  figures  show  that  the  STCW  Convention  and  its  actual  level  of 
application need to  be largely improved.  It is  also  a fact that international  Conventions 
on the issue of competence certificates are not always  applied by all  Member States and 
that such international  acts  may  be unilaterally denounced. 

36 

Those measures aimed at giving increased effectiveness to  the provisions of the 
4 7. 
STCW Convention are outlined in this chapter.  Others relate to joint action in IMO, and 
are developed in chapter 4. 

The first  example of areas requiring action concerns the mutual  recognition of 
48. 
diplomas.  At Community  level,  the issue of qualification has  been dealt in the context 
of two  general  Directives1  addressing guidelit;J.es  to  several professions.  Although  they 
are important to  ensure the free  movement of seafarers  in the Community  they  are not 
sufficient to  guarantee a appropriate minimum  level  of training for  all  seafarers sailing 
on  vessels  flying  a  flag  of a  Member  State,  more  so  when  they  are  involved  in  the 
transport of dangerous  goods  and passengers. 

The question of training in the Community  could also be improved by providing 
49. 
financial  support to  nautical  institutions and schools  in Member States as  well  as  to EC 
shipowner's providing on board training  for  EC  seafarers.  Existing Community  funds 
could  be used  for  this  purpose.  Special  attention  in  this  context  should  be  given  to 
specialised  courses  related  to  certain types  of transport such  as  transport  of dangerous 
goods and passengers.  These aspects could be considered in the context of the use of the 
Social Fund. 

50. 
It would therefore seem expedient to  lay down minimum  training requirements 
within the Community to ensure that EC seafarers receive an appropriate level of training 
and  enjoy  freedom  of movement  within the  Community.  Such an  appropriate level  of 
training  will  contribute  to  navigational  safety  and  the  protection  of  the  marine 
environment. 

51. 
The Commission therefore proposes as a first step a Council Directive to ensure 
that ratings and lifeboatmen who  intend to  serve on a ship registered in a Member State 
have accomplished an  appropriate training.  This proposal will be submitted in the very 
near future.  The requirements advocated are based upon those of the STCW Conve~tion 
with the aim  of their harmonised  implementation.  In addition,  as  recommended  by the 
Council,  mandatory  provisions  are  included  with  regard  to  adequate  knowledge  of 
language for  seafarers  in  charge of safety duties  on board of passenger vessels  and  for 
ratings serving on liquified gas, oil or chemical  tankers and ships carrying hazardous or 
polluting cargo. 

52. 
As  a second  step,  the  Commission  intends  to  examine  with  interested parties 
similar  measures  for  captains  and  officers,  taking  into  account  the  experience  to  be 
gained  from  the  application  at  Community  level  of 
the  Directive  on  ratings  and 
lifeboatmen. 

1  Council Directive of21.12.1988 (89/48/EEC) OJ. Ll9, 24.1.1989 and  Council  Directive of 18.6.1992 (92/51/EEC) OJ.  L209 

24.7.1992. 

37 

Regarding third countries  crews the Community  should,  in the context of port 
53. 
State  control  take  appropriate  action  as  regards  ships  with  crews  who  do  not  possess 
adequate professional  qualifications  as  these are  required by international  Conventions 
in particular the STCW Convention of 1978. 

54. 
While these measure aim specifically t_o  on-board personnel the overall concept 
of shipping management has also been identified by the IMO as  a problem area requiring 
urgent  .and  effective  resources. 
IMO  Resolution  A  680  (17)  and  its  related 
recommendations on the "Safe Management Code" try to provide the sound international 
basis upon which IMO Members  should build their national  solutions. 

In this context the Community and its Member States should thoroughly examine 
55. 
the modalities  of the  most  effective  application  and  enforcement  in  the  Community  of 
Resolution  A680(17)  and  the Safe Management  Code,  in parallel  to  appropriate action 
in IMO to  secure its  effective application worldwide. 

56. 
A similar approach should be considered for other Resolutions or Conventions 
concerning operational provisions related to these vessels, to the safety of their crews and 
their working conditions,  to  passengers,  and  those related to  tankers. 

For  example,  as  regards  the  ILO  Convention  147  of 1976  on  minimum  standards  in 
merchant  ships  the  Commission  has  prepared  requirements  for  transport workers,  and 
their working environment on board transport means1

• 

1  C25  of28.01.1993, p  17. 

38 

. 

CHAPTER 2. UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT  OF INTERNATIONAL  RULES 

Analysis  of the present situation 

While actions  proposed under the first component address primarily  the roles 
57. 
and  responsibility  of Member  States  as  flag  States,  the second  component focusses  on 
their roles  as  port States. 

As  shown in Part I,  such action is justified in general by the fact that many flag 
58. 
States are unable to secure and maintain proper application and  control of the safety and 
environment protection standards for  ships on their respective registers.  In fact,  among 
the top priorities stressed by the IMO Secretary General and shared by the 1 ~ Assembly 
is  the need to  secure a more uniform and  effective application and  enforcement of IMO 
Conventions.  This  is  vital  not  only  to  ensure  that  ships  of all  flags  comply  with  the 
standards as  a condition for operating in Community  waters, but also to ensure that ship 
operators who respect the rules are not penalised by unfair competition from substandard 
ships. 

This 

is  a  task  for  the  port  States.  European  co-ordination  of this  task  is 
59. 
currently carried out in the framework of the European Memorandum of Understanding 
on  Port  State  Control  (MOU).  The  MOU  was  originally  concluded  at The  Hague  in 
1978,  between the maritime  authorities of eight States bordering the North Sea and the 
Channel,  in  order  to  enforce  international  Conventions  relating  to  safety  and  living 
conditions on board ship.  A new  MOU,  adopted in Paris in January  1982,  is  relied on 
by all maritime authorities in Community Member States with seaport facilities to control 
ships flying flags other than the national one. The fact that Norway, Sweden, Finland and 
recently  Poland  have  signed  the  Memorandum  shows  that  the  approach  also  has  the 
potential  for  ens~ring that  the  whole  of W estem Europe  could,  by  agreement,  apply 
similar regimes  to  the control of ships. 

60. 
Being  a full  member  of the MOU  Committee,  the Commission  has  been  able 
both to  contribute and to  closely  examine the work and the achievements  of the MOU. 
The statistical data on deficiencies  and  detention resulting from  the PSC  inspections  as 
well  as  those presented in the frrst part of this  Communication provide the basis for  an 
analysis of the present situation. 

39 

Figure 13,  for  example,  shows that every year more deficiencies  are found  by 
61. 
the PSC authorities. A growing number of deficiencies would naturally be expected due 
to the gradual increase of the activities of inspection authorities.  After this initial phase, 
the deterring effect of these inspections should have reached the objective of discouraging 
substandard  vessels  from  returning  into  Community  ports.  Hence,  after  10  years  of 
operation of PSC  the deficiencies level  should~ be showing a steady decline every  year. 
However, this is  not so.  A possible explanation is that several flag  States  and operators 
using such flags are not pressed enough by the present inspection mechanisms to remedy 
deficiencies detected and, more generally, they are not encouraged to maintain their ships 
at  the  required  standard,  nor  are  they  discouraged  from  returning  with  the  same 
substandard ships to  the countries of the Memorandum. 

Figure  13 

TREND  IN  TOTAL  NUMBER  OF  DEFICIENCIES 
All  Categories,  Years  1985-1991 

Number  of  Deficiencies 

30 

I' 

25 

T  20 
h 
0 
u 
s  15 
a 
n 
d 
s  10 

5 

0 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

Year 

1989 

1990 

1,991 

Source:  PSC  Report,  1991 

40. 

This  explanation  finds  further  supporting  evidence  in  the  data  collected  (see 
62. 
figure  14) showing the trend in detention ratio for some flag States. Every year the ratio 
of detentions over inspections for vessels  with low safety performance record increases 
steadily.  It  is  not  yet  clear  that  the  deficiencies  found  in  flags  with  a  good  maritime 
tradition tend to diminish.  This would seem to show that those very ships the MOU had 
set  out  to  eliminate  from  European  waters  k~p coming  back  every  year  with  lesser 
maintenance and worse crews, in spite of the laudable efforts made by the surveyors and 
their administrations. Such ships compete with an unfair advantage with those which have 
made the additional financial  efforts to  meet the requirements. 

TREND  IN  DETENTION  RATIO  FOR  A NUMBER  OF 
FLAG  STATES  WITH  LOW  PERFORMANCE  RECORDS 
Years  1989-1991 

Figure  14 

R~IA 

IRAN 

MALTA 

LEBANON 

CYPRUS 

PANAMA 

INDIA 

LIBERIA 

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

Source:  PSC  Report,  1991 

CJ1989  ml1990  •1991 

41 

A  further  startling  information  emerges  from  the  inspection  statistics:  the 
63. 
number  of detentions  made  by  the  national  administrations  varies  greatly  among  the 
MOU  members  (see  figure  15).  The difference  in  percentage  of ships  detained  as  per 
number of inspected ships between the country with the lowest ratio and the country with 
the highest is in the range of 1 to 30. Figures for the other member States are distributed 
between these extremes. 

Figure 15 

Port  State 

BELGIUM 

NETHERLANDS 

DENMARK 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

FRANCE 

SPAIN 

SWEDEN 

.NORWAY 

DETENTION  RATIO  PER  PORT  STATE 
IN  PSC  MEMBER  STATES 
Year  1991 

1 4, 8% 

1  4, 3% 

l 3, 8% 

1 2, 6% 

1 2, 5% 

11,9% 

GERMANY 

.' 

11,6% 

GREECE 

PORTUGAL 

IF.ELAND 

FINLAND 

ITALY 

]1, 4% 

11,2% 

11,1% 

0 0,3% 
0 0,2% 

l1o, 6% 

110,5% 

. 

0,0% 

2,0% 

4,0% 

6,0% 

8,0% 

10,0% 

12,0% 

Source:  PSC  Report,  1991 

42 

64. 
These data must be read only for what they say,  i.e. that there is a large degree 
of variety in the MOU decision-making process leading to detention of ships. They may 
not  be  used  entirely  as  an  assessment  of the  overall  deterrent  effect  produced  in the 
individual  countries by the application of  PSC. 

Indeed,  to  this  end,  it  would  seem  appropriate  to  examine  also  how  many  ships 
(percentage)  have  been  detained  out  of all  ships  calling  in  the  ports  of each  MOU 
member.  This  exercise,  when  carried  out  for  1991,  shows  an  even  larger  degree  of 
variety  in  the  decision-making  process,  a  detention  ratio  of seventy  (70)  between  the 
highest  and  the  lowest  (see  figure  16).  It  also  shows  that  in  two  countries  only  the 
number of ships  detained  of all  ships  calling is  above the average of the Memorandum 
countries,  while in several  Member  States the number  is  quite below  average. 

Figure  16 

Port  State 

NETHERLANDS 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

DENMARK 

FRANCE 

PORTUGAL 

NORWAY 

BELGIUM 

SWEDEN 

GREECE 

DETENTIONS  PER  PORT  CALL 
IN  PSC  MEMBER  STATES 
Year  1991 

11,746, 

,1, 1' 

1 o, 89, 
J 0,816' 

J 0, 69, 

J o, se• 
1 o,s13' 

1 o, 47, 

I 2, as• 

. 

...... 

1 o,3e6' 

GERMANY 

IRELAND  D 0,168' 
FINLAND  u 0,07' 

ITALY 

]  0,04' 

o• 

O,S, 

Source:  PSC Report,  1991 

1,S, 

1' 
Detentions  over  Port  Calls  (\] 

2\ 

2,S\ 

3'6 

3,S\ 

43 

This uneven distribution undermines the objective of the MOU  and  raises the 
65. 
further concern  that  these differences in sanctioning non-compliance with international 
standards may  also have a distorting effect on competition between neighbouring ports. 

A  further  cause for  concern  arises  as  regards  the present mechanism  for data 
66. 
collection  and  exchange  on  inspections  which  appears  inadequate  for  the  following 
reasons: 

inspecting authorities of a Member State lack  essential information on the ships 
entering  their  ports,  even  when  these  have  already  been  inspected.  It  is  not 
known,  for  example,  if the  deficiencies  recorded  have  actually  been  rectified 
before departure. This information would allow a more effective planning of the 
daily  inspection  programme.  Besides,  in  several  instances,  deficiencies  which 
were recorded as  rectified were found  still in existence by the PSC authority  in 
the next port of call; 

it is  not known,  in general, how many ships were found  with deficiencies at the 
first inspection, and on how many of such ships the same deficiencies were found 
during the second  inspection; 

it  is  not  known  if  defective  ships  were  actually  those  found  defective 
the 
previous  year;  generally  it  is  not  known  what  happened  after  inspection  or 
detention;  were  deficiencies  actually  remedied,  where  and  under  whose 
supervision? 

the  relationship  between  the  age  of  the  vessel  and  deficiencies  found  or 
detentions  made  is· unknown; 

when the ship  is  allowed  to  proceed under the provi~o that she will  be repaired 
as  required,  thereafter  often nothing  more  is  known.  On  several  occasions  the 
ships may simply change names and return later in the year with no improvement 
of her standards. The present system does not provide for systematic inspection 
of a ship entering the waters of the MOU countries for the first time (under that 
name). 

In  many  Member  States  the  emphasis  is  still  laid  only  on  the  number  of 
67. 
inspections carried out rather than on focussing attention on the quality of their inspection 
efforts, thus  failing  to  act  as  agreed by the Ministers  at the 4th  Ministeriat  Conference 
on Port State Control 1

• 

1  •safo oporation of ship• and pollution prevention•  held  in Paris on 14.3.1991. 

44 

There  is  plenty  of statistical  evidence  (figure 3  and  17)  showing  that  certain 
68. 
types of ships,  for example general cargo ships, bulk carriers over 10 years old,  ageing 
oil  tankers,  are more  accident  and  deficiency  prone than others.  Furthermore,  figures 
8,  9,  10  and  11  show that ships operating under certain flags  represent a higher risk to 
safety  than  other  vessels  owned  or  operated  under  flags  whose  safety  record  is  well 
below  average.  Although 
the  PSC  system  does  not prohibit targeting  these  ships  as 
priorities  for  inspections,  no  coherent  and  cbnsistent  action  has  yet been taken  in this 
respect. 

Figure 17 

INSPECTIONS  WITH  DEFICIENCIES 
Per  Ship's  Type,  Over  or  Under  Average 
Year  1991 

Ship  type 

GENERAL  CARGO 

BULK  CARRIERS 

TANKERS/ OBO 

GAS  TANKERS 

-11,2%  ~ 

CHEMICAL  TANKERS 

PASSENGER/FERRIES 

REFRIGERATED  CARGO 

ROro/CONTAINER 

-10,8%  ~ 

01 ,6%  

1 4, 2% 

,1, 9% 

0 0,9, 

-3,2%  1 

-4,3%  ~ 

.·· 

OTHER 

-1,9%  1 

AVERAGE  % 

.A.VEJV.GB 
45.6  ' 

... 

-14% 

-12% 

-10% 

-8% 

-6% 

-4% 

-2% 

0% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

Percentage  over  or  under  (-)  average  [%] 

Source:  PSC  Report,  1991 

45 

69. 
All  the above points demonstrate that,  after  10 years  of voluntary operation of 
the Port State Control  under the MOU,  and although a degree of progress has  certainly 
taken place in  the  PSC  system  a high  number  of substandard  ships  continue to  operate 
in  European waters.  There is  also  a striking  lack of uniformity  in  inspection  criteria 
including:  the different choice of ships to be inspected,  different importance and follow 
up given to  deficiencies found,  different decision-making processes leading to  different 
levels of inspection and  different resources  allocated. 

70. 
This,  in turn,  frustrates  the efforts of those member  States  and  surveyors who 
try to  implement  the  rules  rigorously,  and  enables  by  such  methods  a  selective use  of 
certain ports  of destination to  slip through the net of proper control. 

This situation should be eradicated.  A possible solution would be the adoption of a more 
uniform target-orientated set of measures  at Community  level,  while pursuing the same 
objectives  also  under  the  PSC  framework,  to  try  and  achieve  a  wider  European 
application. Bearing in mind the weaknesses of the system identified above, such actions 
should  concentrate on  measures  to: 

i) 

ii) 
iii) 

iv) 

i) 

establish a common set of criteria for the intensification of inspections of certain 
ships; 
harmonise  inspection and  detention criteria; 
establish  adequate  national  inspection  structures  and  a training  programme  for 
inspectors  and 
set up  an effective mechanism  to  control  and  evaluate the 
effectiveness of the PSC  measures. 

&tablishment of a common set of criteria for the intensification of inspection 
of certain ships 

The  Commission  intends  to  put  forward  a  draft  directive  setting  up  a  list  of 
71. 
"cases" which justify, more than others, the intensification of inspections on the grounds 
of their particular threat to safety or the environment.  On the basis of the above analysis, 
such  a list might  include: 

ships  flying  flags  with  above  average  deficiencies,  or detentions  or  casualties 
records,  or  an  appropriate  combination  to  be  agreed.  To  this  end,  useful 
information may  be obtained by correlating data concerning flag  States with the 
highest detention ratio  (see figure  10) with data on the world average loss ratio. 
(see figure  8); 

passenger  vessels,  including  Ro/Ro  vessels  operating  regularly/exclusively 
between the ports of the MOU  members; 

bulk carriers particularly those older than  10  years; 

46' 

tankers nearing the date of phasing out agreed in IMO under MARPOL,  Annex 
I,  Regulation  13  G,  or under the US  "Oil Pollution Act of 1990".  The latter is 
necessary since such tankers, being unable to operate in USA waters,  are bound 
to  concentrate in other areas,  including those of MOU  countries; 

vessels owned or operated by companies which do not comply with the IMO Safe 
Management  Code; 

·vessels  failing  to  comply  with  MARPOL  requirements  on the use of reception 
facilities  in ports  when these are available; 

vessels  failing  to  comply  with notification or reporting requirements; 

vessels  re-entering  a port of the Members  States  under  a different name; 

vessels  carrying certificates  issued by non-EC  recognised organisations; 

a system for  rapid  exchange of information between the responsible  authorities 
of the Member States. 

ii) 

Harmonisation of inspection and detention criteria 

The Commission has the intention to propose a draft directive setting guidelines 
72. 
for the  control of deficiencies and detention. They should take into  account the different 
types of vessels, e.g. bulk carriers, oil tankers, passenger vessels. The guidelines  should 
provide clear  guidance to  the inspectors on questions  such  as:  what to  inspect,  how to 
inspect and  how to  decide~ and strike an acceptable balance between- commonly  agreed 
objective evidence and the professional judgement of the surveyors,  particularly on the 
often complex  issue of determining whether to  detain the ship until  the deficiencies are 
corrected  or to  allow  it to  sail  under  certain  conditions.  A .list of serious  deficiencies 
potentially  leading  to  detention  should  be established  leading  to  a  more  stringent' and 
harmonised application of internationally agreed rights and  obligations for the detention 
of vessels  in the case of alleged violations or deficiencies. 

In this respect it is necessary to improve the means to obtain conclusive evidence 
73. 
against alleged offenders, with a view to  enable judicial authorities to impose very high 
fines.  The provisions could also  include the prohibition of further  access  to  the ports 
of the Community for such ships should they refuse to comply.  A tentative list to provide 
practical examples of deficiencies leading to detentions, with a particular emphasis on oil 
tankers,  is  given below: 

absence of valid certificates of safety (SOLAS) or of the International Load Lines 
Certificate; 

serious  absence of compliance with the conditions fixing  the load lines; 

serious deficiencies  of the hull  or of the ship  structure; 

47 

serious  deficiencies  of the  machinery,  the  electrical  installations,  the  main  or 
auxiliary steering gear; 

serious deficiencies  of the  equipment  needed  for  the  operation of the  ship,  the 
manoeuvring,  the communications,  the navigation or the collision prevention; 

serious deficiencies  in the field  of fire safety; 

· deficiency of the inert gas  device; 

absence of a valid International Oil Pollution Prevention (I.O.P.P.) certificate or 
similar document; 

absence of the Oil Record Book or submittance of an incomplete or fake register; 

absence or serious lack of the operational handbooks  with which the oil  tankers 
must be provided; 

non  compliance  with  paragraph  3  of the  new  Regulation  13  G  of MARPOL 
73/78; 

deficiency  of  the  equipment  concerning  pollution  prevention,  including  the 
hydrocarbons detectors; 

deficiency of the crude oil  washing system; 

bad repair or mai~tenance such as to jeopardize the safety of the ship or pollution 
prevention; 

unjustified failure to comply with notification or reporting requirements such as 
those established under the Council Directive concerning minimum requirements 
for  vessels  bound  for  or leaving  Community  ports  and  carrying  dangerous  or 
polluting goods. 

no  compliance with the operation standards or the on-board  procedures  which 
are  required  by  the  relevant  instruments  related  to  the  maritime  safety  or 
pollution prevention;  in this respect insufficient professional qualification of the 
crew and non respect of those provisions of the ILO Convention 1471  laid down 
under  par.  4.1.  of Chapter  1 of the  MOU  on Port State  Control  may  also  be 
considered as  a serious deficiency. 

1  Merchant Shipping Convention (No  147) of 1976  concerning  minimum standards in merchant ships. 

48 

iii) 

Establishment  of  adequate  national  inspection  structures  and  a  training 
programme for  inspectors 

74. 

Action here could be developed in stages: 

evaluation at Community level of the results of the investigation by the MOU of 
the  actual  situation  in  each  MOU  member  state  as  regards  the  number  of 
surveyors available,  and the professional knowledge and experience required to 
·perform the various  tasks; 

development,  if  necessary,  of  guidelines  guaranteeing  at  national  level  an 
appropriate inspection structure able to  fulfil  the PSC  commitments, 

establishment of training programmes (objectives, syllabus, methodology) on the 
basis  of needs  identified  under the first  stage;  complement  identified gaps  with 
a  common  team  of experienced  surveyors  and  with  the  technical  backing  of 
qualified 
interexchange  of  national  PSC 
inspectors/surveyors. 

classification 

societies; 

implementation of  the training  programme. 

iv) 

Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the PSC measures 

75. 
The efforts deployed by the national administrations over the coming years must 
be controlled and monitored in order to provide the Commission and the Member States 
with  full  transparency  on  the  effectiveness  of these  port  State  control  measures.  An 
effective mechanism controlling the appropriate application of these measures should be 
established  by the. Community.  This  could be further  expanded  through the port State 
control  mechanism  of  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  of  Paris  adequately 
strengthened and duly  supported by the development of an on-line information system, 
if  possible  on  an  international  basis,  and  accompanied  by  regular  publication  of 
information on substandard ships. 

49 

CHAPTER 3. DEVEWPMENT  OF MARITIME INFRASfRUCTURE 

76. 
In the previous  chapters  the  role of flag  and  port States  have been  examined. 
The third component of the action programme focuses  on the rights and duties of coastal 
States as  regards the infrastructure and systems that ensure  safety of navigation and the 
protection of the coastal  resources from  accidental  and  operational pollution. 

The legal international framework 

77. 
The  role  of  States  and  their  right  of  intervention  in  waters,  under  their 
juridistiction,  and  on high seas  is  the subject of international  and  regional  conventions. 
The language of these instruments  is  subject to different and,  in some cases,  conflicting 
interpretations.  However, 
they  provide  reference  and  guidance  in  the  planning  of 
national and Community measures  addressed to maritime traffic and aimed at increasing 
the safety of navigation and the protection of Community waters. Thus they are certainly 
relevant  to  some  of  the  measures  outlined  in  this  third  component  of  the  action 
programme.  Particularly  relevant to  this  chapter is  the  question of the extent to  which 
States are free,  in view of the freedom of navigation granted under international law,  to 
legislate  on  or  intervene  in  navigation  in  their  territorial  sea  and  in  their  exclusive 
economic zone. 

The relevant Articles of the 1982 United  Nations  Convention on the Law of the 
78. 
Sea (UNCLOS), and more  precisely articles 21(1), 21(1)(f), 22, 24, 56, 192, 211(2) and 
211(3),  allow that rules on ship  reporting and  notification may  be established by  States 
and  applied to 

i. 
ii. 
iii. 

ships flying  their flags, 
ships  destined for  one of their ports,  wherever those ships might be, 
ships  navigating  in  a  part  of their  territorial  seas  that  is  not  a  strait  used  for 
international  navigation. 

These rules may  cover the provision of information such as  identity, position, cargo and 
destination of ships. 

As  regards the remaining  scenarios,  in particular transiting ships,  that is,  ships 
79. 
not bound for a port in the State concerned  in the exclusive zone and in straits used for 
international  navigation,  the  Commission  is  aware  of the  present  ambjguity  of  the 
international customary law leading to opposing interpretations. Therefore,  it proposes, 
in conformity  with articles  39(2)b) and 56 of UNCLOS,  a pragmatic approach  with the 
aim  of obtaining  international  acceptance:  the Member  States. of the IMO should agree 
on the  adoption,  possibly  by  amending  the  SOLAS  Convention,  of a  clear provision, 
establishing  beyond  doubt  the  right  of  coastal  States  to  apply  mandatory  reporting 
obligations  to  ships  in  transit  in  the  exclusive  economic  zones  and  in  straits  used  for 
international passage. 

50 

No  international  decision  is  required  for  the  other  situations  described  in 
80. 
paragraph 78, except information to the IMO and to the shipping world of the measures 
taken by the coastal States or regional governmental organisation or institutions such as 
the European Community. 

This interpretation of the existing international law in respect to  ship  reporting 
81. 
legal  framework  fot  some  of the  actions  and  measures  the 
systems  provides  the 
Commission intends to propose as part of the third component of the action programme. 

This third component, the harmonisation and development of infrastructure, may 

82. 
be broken down into  four  sub-components: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

traffic restrictions  in environmentally  sensitive areas 

reporting  systems 

aids  to  navigation,  including 
a.  harmonisation measures  for  VTS 
b.  aids to  navigation infrastructure and  recovery of its 

costs 

iv. 

pollution prevention facilities  and monitoring of compliance. 

i) 

Traffic restrictions in environmentally sensitive areas 

83. 
The 16000 km of European coastline constitute a unique source of revenue and 
well-being  to  the  European  citizens  and  are  a  natural  ecological  environment  to  be 
safeguarded. 

Parts of these coastlines  and islands  are of exceptional beauty and the natural habitat of 
rare flora and fauna,  the privileged source of fisheries  and aquaculture activities, or the 
site of historic  relics.  They  may  be also  located on the most  expedient route of dense 
shipping activities or on the most direct course for a ship on her way to a neighbouring 
port. 

The recent events at the end of  1992 and beginning of  1993,  ~I involving oil 
84. 
tankers,  have  drawn  once  more  the  world's  attention  to  the  high  risks  to  which  these 
sources  of life and  well-being  are exposed  by  necessary trade activities.  These events 
are not the result of an unfortunate and unlikely combination of unlucky  circumstanc~. 
They  are the result,  as  we have seen throughout this document,  of a number of factors 
which can only  lead to further  and possibly even more catastrophic consequences. 

51 

If one focusses,  for sake of exemplification, on the case of oil tankers, statistics 
85. 
will  readily show that,  while oil tankers accidents sharply decreased during the eighties 
they have started to rise again with worrying progression since 1989 (Exxon Valdez year 
in  Alaska).  This  fact  coincides  with  the  ageing  of  the  oil  tanker  fleet  and  the 
prolification of poorly trained crews often from developing countries but used more and 
more  on  European-owned  vessels.  This  is  jl}so  to  a  large  extent  associated  with  a 
continuous  reduction of freight rates. 

86. 
The results are of high concern, since recent estimates show that more than 50% 
of these  ships  are  older  than  15  years  and  50%  of  tankers  show  deficiencies  which 
reduce their operational safety while, overall, more than 65%  of accidents relate to ships 
older than  16  years.  The average age of the world fleet  has  increased by 5  1/2  months 
per annum since 1980 as construction orders in the shipyards have continued to go down. 
Today  shipyard  orders  equal  38  millions  tons  over  a  total  fleet  in  operation  of 
245 million tons. 

In the  light of the above,  and  as  a complementary  measure  to  those discussed 
87. 
in the previous chapters, coastal States threatened by such high risk activities  are forced 
to  examine further  action. 

The Law of the Sea provides  ample guidance on the choice of actions  and  the 
88. 
methods  to  implement them.  In a  number of cases,  traffic restrictions  and  monitoring 
such  as  prohibition  of passage,  deep  water  routes,  traffic  separation  schemes  have 
provided satisfactory solutions.  IMO has already adopted over 150 such zones and traffic 
separation schemes.  They provide both evidence to the international  acceptance of such 
solutions as  well as experience to be used when planning further action along these lines. 

The Council1 has in fact called for these types of measures through co-ordinated 
89. 
and  firm  action  m IMO  of the  Community  and  its  Member  States.  The  European 
Parliamenf has urged the Community  to take similar initiatives. 

90. 
The Commission intends to respond rapidly and effectively to such urgent calls. 
As  announced  in  the  Council  of Environment  and  Transport  Ministers  of 25  January 
set up  very soon  a  group  of Government  Experts 
1993,  the  Commission  intends  to 
composed of all administrations concerned to identify together, on the basis of objective 
criteria,  those areas  which are of the highest ecological importance  and which  are most 
exposed to  the traffic of ships  carrying hazardous  cargoes. 

1  Council Conclusions of 25.1.1993 

2  Resolution of the  European Parliament of21.1.1992. 

52 

Each  case  should  then  be  examined  on  its  own  merits  to  devise  the  most 
91. 
appropriate  solution,  bearing  in  mind  the  need  to  avoid  hasty  decisions  introducing 
unnecessary new hazards, for  example bottlenecks with increased risks of collisions,  or 
diverting  traffic  to  another  site  where  other  activities  might  be  exposed.  The 
deliberations reached will then, as and when required, be submitted to IMO for approval 
or information as  appropriate. 

92. 
. As  a corollary,  monitoring  infrastructure such  as  VTS  might also  be required. 
This issue is  examined below under section iii).  For the purpose of this section it seems 
worth  underlining  that this  exercise  may  also  provide  useful  guidance  to  national  and 
regional  administrations by pinpointing their attention to  areas at high risk thus helping 
them,  to  focus  national  resources,  often  limited,  on  effective  investments  in  maritime 
traffic infrastructure. This would also help in the identification of areas where emergency 
facilities  including towing  could be concentrated. 

ii) 

Reporting Systems 

93. 
Recent  years  have  seen  a  significant  increase  in  the  volume  and  range  of 
dangerous  and  noxious  substances  transported  by  sea,  at  a  time  when  public  opinion, 
alerted  by  a  number  of  major  accidents,  is  increasingly  aware  of  the  impact  such 
accidents  have  on  both  man  and  environment.  Thus  a  number  of coastal  States  have 
promoted  international  and  regional  actions  both  to  acquire  timely  and  complete 
information on the goods transported at sea and to be able to  intervene effectively where 
and  when required. 

In an  effort to  increase  the vigilance  of the  authorities  on  the  movements  of 
94. 
these products, both in bulk and in parcels,  amendments  have been made in the SOLAS 
and  MARPOL  Conventions.  These  amendments  introduce  obligations  on  shipping 
operators  to  provide  accurate  information  to  the  authorities  in  the  port of loading.  In 
addition,  the International  Convention on Intervention on the High Seas recognises  the 
right of coastal States to take proportionate measures should an incident occur threatening 
their coastal resources  and  related  concerns. 

These instruments, however,  are far from providing an adequate answer to the need for 
timely  and  precise information  to  the  coastal  States  concerned  and  fail  to  identify  the 
remedial  action and  to  set up  the required  m~ of intervention  in  each  coastal  State. 
They are, however,  a useful internationally acc~ted basis upon which effective systems 
may  be built in the Community  in response to  the need. 

-· 

The  Council  has  recognised  the  importance  of this  prob(em  and  the  need  ~or 
95. 
action  by  agreeing  at  political  level  in  substance  in  December  1992 
a  Directive 
establishing minimum reporting requirements on shippers, ship operators and shipmasters 
for  vessels  leaving  or  bound  for  ports  in  the  Community  and  carrying  dangerous  or 
polluting  goods.  This  first  set  of requirements,  built upon  the  minimum  international 
basis,  would enable the Member  States to  obtain precise and timely  information on the 
cargo on board vessels, even on the high seas, should an accident occur or the likelihood 
of an accident arise. 

53 

The  Council  recognised  also  that  this  is  only  the  first  step  of  a  two-stage 
96. 
approach  which  will  need  to  be  completed  by  the  introduction  of a  full  mandatory 
reporting  system  under  which  the  States  concerned  would  have  ready  access  to  all 
relevant  information  on  the  movement  of  vessels  carrying  dangerous  and  polluting 
cargoes  and  on the precise nature of such  cargoes when they operate in their waters. 

97. 
The  technical  requirements  for  such. system  are  already  in  preparation  under 
Community  R  &  D  programmes,  such  as  EURET  1.3,  RTIS  and  EWTIS.  Results, 
expected at the latest by the end of 1993, should enable the Commission and the Member 
States to co-ordinate efforts to  set up  the network required to  respond to  the provisions 
of the first phase. This network should be designed in modular form to be easily adapted 
to  meet broader requirements  of the  second  phase provided  for  in the Directive.  This 
would include the development of an EDI system  for the processing and interchange of 
the notifications  and  the reports provided for under these directives. 

Particular attention and support will be paid to the ongoing work in IMO on the 
98. 
mandatory  carriage of transponders  (see  also  Chapter IV).  These devices,  by providing 
automatically  relevant data on ships position and movement  to  the shore-based stations 
would greatly enhance the effectiveness of  traffic monitoring by coastal  authorities and 
the  implementation  of  the  directives  (frrst  and  second  phase)  on  the  minimum 
requirements  for ships  carrying dangerous  or polluting goods. 

Meanwhile,  the  Commission  intends  to  carry  out  an  in-depth  analysis  of the 
99. 
to  identify  the 
existing  international  and  regional  agreements  on  intervention  at  sea, 
precise needs  of the minimum  intervention infrastrUcture  which  should be available  in 
each coastal State to permit adequate and effective response to the potential threats which 
will be detected by the above described  system. 

100. 
Finally,  co-ordinated  action  should  be  promoted  within  the  IMO  to  develop 
further acceptance of reporting obligations by transiting ships and to ensure that work in 
this  organisation  does  not  result  in  rules  which  could  diminish  either  Community 
objectives or the right of intervention afforded today to coastal States under international 
law (as  outlined above). 

iii) 

Aids  to navigation 

101.  Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and radionavigation aids,  either shore or satellite 
based,  are increasingly becoming  an  essential feature of the maritime safety policies of 
the coastal States.  VTS in particular respond to the need to  acquire in real time an image 
of the traffic  in the waters  of concern,  to  enable the coastal  authorities  to  interact ~ith 
ships,  to  provide  symptomatic  response  to  traffic  situations  and  to  organise,  where 
necessary, the passage of vessels or the development of other activities  in the safest and 
most expeditious  ways. 

54 

. 

In  important  regions  of  the  world,  for  example  Canada,  VTS  have  been 
102. 
developed  in  a  coherent  and  co-ordinated  manner,  in  response  to  and  as  part  of an 
integrated  approach  to  coastal  control  of  traffic.  Until  recently  in  Europe  VTS 
developments  have  taken place  on a  piecemeal  basis,  in  response  to  local  needs  or to 
specific accidents  and  the related public demand for  action . 

103. 
This, in turn, has lead and continues. to lead to the development of incompatible 
and piecemeal coverage of the Community's  coastal area.  The negative consequences of 
this  situation are several: 

.... 

The  national  authorities  encounter  the  greatest  difficulties  in  obtaining  full 
participation  in  their  local  systems.  For  example,  non  captive  traffic,  that  is, 
vessels  not  bound  for  a  port  in  the  Member  States  whose  waters  they  are 
transiting,  often  fail  to  take  part  or  even  to  respond  to  the  VTS,  thus  greatly 
limiting  both  the  effectiveness  of this  service,  and  the possibility  of imposing 
sanctions  in case of non compliance. 

Shipmasters who take part in the systems  are confronted by a maze of rules and 
procedures  differing  from  one area  to  another,  due to  the lack  of standardised 
procedures. 

Economies of scale assisting in the development of new systems requiring heavy 
"up-front"  investment are hardly possible.  This fact has  been and still is  a large 
inhibiting  factor  in  the  national  decision-making  process  of several  Member 
States in this area, thus giving rise to an uneven situation in the Community.  For 
example, while a mix of navigational aids (VTS, radio positioning) at least exists 
in some western and northern European areas,  in the Mediterranean sea there is 
only a partial radionavigation coverage and an almost total lack of VTS, in spite 
of its greater exposure to pollution risks:  oil carriage and oil pollution accidents 
are 3 to  4 times  higher than in the  North Sea (figures  18,  19  and 20). 

Figure  18 

55 

Average  amount  of oil present 
at  any  one moment  in tonnes 

' 

s 

!I 
1 
1 
1 
1 .. 
0 
n 
s 

0 

~ 

t 
0  z 
n 
n 
e 
s 

Atlantic: 

Baltic 

!ledit.erranean 

North  Sea 

Loca~ity 

Figure 19 

Average  amount  of oil  spilt in a  year 
due  to  collisions  in tonnes 

40000 

35000 

30000 

t  25000 

20000 

0 
n 
n 
e 
s  15000 

10000 

5000 

Atiantic 

Ba~tic 

North  8ea 

Mediterranean 

Locality 

56 

Average  amount  of oil  lost per year 
due  to  sinking  ships  in tonnes 

Figure 20 

t 
0 
n 
n 
e 
s 

zsooo 

zoooo 

15000 

10000 

At~anti.c 

Ba~ti.c 

Medi.terr anean 

Jlortb  Sea 

Locality 

In several cases investments in safety infrastructure are financed from the general 
national  budgets  and  come under the annual  financing  of public services.  Thus 
they suffer the general  constraints  and reductions  of those budgets. 

A large number of these investments are dictated by the national need to respond 
to  a potential  threat created by  transiting traffic  ,  i.e.  a traffic unbound to  any 
national port.  Member States, in particular those with an extensive coastline, are 
therefore called upon to invest heavily to protect their waters from a commercial 
activity  which  does  not  generate  financial  returns  to  their  economies.  These 
inequalities have been the source of complaints also because unilateral imposition 
of levies  to  recover at least part of the costs from home-bound traffic may lead 
and  indeed  has  lead to  diversion of traffic  to  neighbouring  ports  in  contiguous 
Member States which impose no  levies thus  creating a distortion of competition 
between ports. 

57 

104. 
These problems  and  the search for  a more  effective  answer  to  them  have  been 
the subject of R&D  work carried out  by  15  European States under  Council  Decisions1 
(Project COST 301)  and of further  analysis  by the VTS  Committee  of the International 
Association  of  Lighthouse  Authorities  (IALA).  The  latter,  working  on  documents 
developed under COST 301, has developed reC9mmendations  specifically directed at the 
introduction of harmonised procedures and standards in VTS, thus explicitly recognising 
the need for  the widest possible use of common standards  and procedures for  VTS. 

105.  However, IALA can only recommend  standards to  its members,  and it does not 
include all Member States administrations concerned. Therefore, such recommendations 
have  not  been  implemented  in  a  convergent  manner  in  the  Community.  There is  also 
uncertainty as  to  a future application of harmonised  VTS  functions  and procedures. The 
first fundamental  step  of harmonising  risk evaluation has  not been taken. 

This  situation contrasts  sharply  with  the IMO  Resolution  A.648/(16)  and  also 
106. 
with  the  recognition  by  the  European  coastal  States,  parties  to  the  4th  Ministerial 
Conference  of  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  on  Port  State  Control,  of  the 
importance of having the largest possible degree of harmonisation. 

107. 
Finally  the  European  Maritime  Industries  Forum  (MIF)  has  called  for 
Community  action in the field  of VTS  as  a tool to  prevent accidents.  More specifically 
the  report  of the MIF  sees  the VTS  as  an area where  Governments  should  concentrate 
efforts  and  resources  to  prevent  accidents  rather  than  focusing  in  further  safety 
construction  measures  aimed  at  improving  on  ships'  survivability  or  better  pollution 
containment  after an  accident.  Furthermore,  the MIF  recommended  the installation of 
an  information  system  at ·Community  level  indicating  equipment  and  other  obstacles 
situated at the sea~.ed as accidents to fishing vessels are caused mostly by seabed hazards. 

108. 
In the search for  effective remedies  to  the situation just described,  and  bearing 
in mind the European and  international  results  already  achieved,  the following  specific 
measures  would  appear justified at Community  level: 

a.  harmonisation measures  for  VTS  and 
b.  aids  to  navigation and  traffic surveillance infrastructure and  recovery of its  costs. 

1 Council Decision 82/887/EC of 13.12.82 on shore-based  marine navigation aid  systems. 

Council  Decision 83/124/EC of 15.4.83 on a Community-COST Conccrtation  Agrecmc~t. 

iii a)  Harmonisation measures for VTS 

58 

109.  Using  as  a  basis  the  output  of  COST  301,  IALA 
and  IMO  Resolution 
A.648(16),  a first  effective step  could consist in the adoption of Community  directives 
aimed  at establishing a set of common  rules  and  procedures  concerning VTS  functions 
and  operating  procedures.  This  should  incluge  evaluation  of  risks,  communication 
procedures for ship-shore interaction and for data exchange between VTS  centres as well 
as  minimum  qualifications  for  VTS  operators. 

110. 
In conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, the Community measures would 
leave  to  each  State,  or  to  regional  agreements  as  appropriate,  the  final  right  and 
responsibility  to  decide  where  and  when  local  VTS  infrastructure  is  required  and  the 
choice of the local VTS functions.  It is proposed that when the national decision is taken 
to  set up  a VTS,  its  functions  decided and,  where required,  notified or accepted  by  the 
IMO,  the formats,  procedures,  message contents  and operators qualifications shall meet 
common  requirements  set  by  a  Community  Directive.  It  will  be  based  on  the 
internationally recommended  standards where they exist.  An additional advantage at the 
level  of enforcement  could  be  obtained  by  network  integration  and  by  co-operation 
between  national  authorities  in  all  Member  States  when  compliance  with  the  VTS  is 
mandatory  or  recommended.  The  integration  of the  local  VTS  within  a  co-operative 
Community-wide  system  would  permit  the  implementation  of  effective  corrective 
measures on a much larger number of non complying ships than it would be possible if 
the national systems  were not integrated. 

111.  Harmonisation would include also the adoption of a common guide for access or 
transit in the VTS  areas based on a standard model. In fact,  such a gu_ide could easily be 
conceived  as  the  European volume  of the World  VTS  Guide  drawn  up  by  IALA.  All 
Community port and coastal VTS should provide the information required in accordance 
with the IALA moael  and all vessels concerned  should have on board and use the guide 
to facilitate their interaction with the VTS authorities and their compliance with the local 
rules. 

Finally, objective means of measuring the impact of VTS in general, and of these 
112. 
measures  in particular  on traffic  should  be  introduced.  This  could  take  the  form  of a 
monitoring  system  analysing  the  behaviour  of traffic  in  the  VTS  covered  areas.  This 
project  named  European  Permanent  Traffic  Observatory  (EPTO)  is  currently  being 
developed by the Commission at the level of a pilot project in full co-operation with VTS 
authorities and, more particularly, by the IALA-VTS  Committee  in a number of sample 
cases.  It uses  information  supplied  by  data  bases  set  up  as  part  of the  existing  VTS 
centres,  and  processed  systematically  according  to  common  criteria.  Should  the  pilot 
project prove its  use,  it could be extended  in a more permanent manner throughout the 
Community  to  provide  to  the  competent  authorities  an  objective  tool,  using  common 
criteria,  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  local,  regional,  national  or  Community 
measures. 

59 

Aids to navigation and traffic surveillance infrastructure and recovery of its 

iii b) 
costs 

113.  Member States administrations are confronted with the twofold problem of setting 
up  and operating advanced  aids to  navigation in response to  a largely non home-bound 
traffic and of finding  appropriate ways of recqvering the costs for setting up, operating, 
maintaining  and  up-grading them. 

Aids to  navigation  infrastructure 

Community  action  to  assist  in  a  more  harmonious  development  of VTS  and 
radionavigation  chains  using  advanced  technologies  both  on shore and  on ship 
as part of the Community trans-European networks should create the economies 
of scale  required  for  the  application  of more  advanced  technologies.  It  would 
also help the national authorities to  take full  advantage of the possibilities of the 
thereby  achieving 
their  actions  on  maritime  safety, 
electronic  age 
improvements  which would be hard to  realise on a national  level. 

in 

Through the establishment of guidelines, priorities and plans of action,  projects 
of common interest can be identified. Interaction and inter-operability of the local 
systems with the networks can be assured. Indeed, infrastructure  needs for VTS 
and radio navigation ought to be an integral part of the concept of trans-European 
networks  for  traffic management.  Relevant projects will  thus  be able to  benefit 
from  the  different sources  of Community  funding  now  available,  in particular 
those available for trans-European  networks, from the growth initiative and the 
Cohesion Fund. In this connection, it should be noted that p~ojects related to the 
prevention  of pollution  at  sea  may  respond  at  once to  the two  objectives  laid 
down for the Cohesion Fund:  the development of trans-European networks and 
the  proteCtion  of the  environment.  They  should  also  be  considered  in  the 
perspective  of the  promotion  of  short  sea  shipping  in  the  overall  transport 
concept of sustainable mobility  for the Community. 

the  W estem  approaches 

Community  action  should  recognise  a  special  priority  to  the  Mediterranean 
region  and 
this  sea,  for  both  VTS  and 
radiopositioning such  as  Loran-C.  This priority is  fully justified by the special 
ecosystem of the Mediterranean sea which has been recognised by international 
Conventions.  Figures  19  and 20 provide factual  evidence of the pollution level 
as  a  result  of accidental  spillage.  This  level  is  three to  four  times  that  of the 
North Sea, the coastline exposed is enormous while the infrastructure for traffic 
assistance and  surveillance is  extremely limited. 

to 

' 

As regards  VTS,  efforts started in  1991  by the competent Ministers  of France,  Greece, 
Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain.  They  were  recently  co-ordinated  by  the  Commission, 
to 
develop an integrated regional VTS network based on the concept developed under COST 
301  which should now be made an  integral part of the trans-European network  plan for 
VTS. 

60 

As  regards  radionavigation,  following  its  recent report to  the Council  on the results  of 
research  into  the  financial  implications  of regional  Loran-C  systems  for  the  Member 
States,  the  Commission  will  also  respond  to  the  Council  request  with  a  report  on  a 
European  radionavigation  plan  comparable  and  compatible  with  those  of the  US  and 
Russia.  The  Commission  is  carrying  out  this  task  in  close  collaboration  with  the 
International  Association  of Lighthouse  Authqrities  (!ALA).  It  was  this  collaboration 
which led to the Commission's proposal on regional Loran-C chains, and the subsequent 
adoption of the Council Decision on radionavigation systems1
•  The Commission proposes 
to step up this co-operation with a view to setting up at a later stage a satellite system for 
radionavigation for civil purposes, supplemented as far as required by terrestrial systems. 

Finally,  concerted action would seem necessary to ensure the full  implementation of the 
"Global  Maritime  Distress  and  Safety  System"  promoted  within  IMO  - this  would 
necessitate in  particular,  the  co-ordinated  setting up  of both the  required shore-based 
facilities  and  the phasing-out of present systems. 

Recovery of costs 

The analysis carried out above underlines the difficulty faced by several Member 
States of recovering the investments or at least the operating costs of navigation 
safety  infrastructure.  Such  difficulty  has  not  only  hindered  the  coherent 
development  of national  plans  in several  Member  States.  Where  cost  recovery 
from the users  is  applied,  it has  also given rise to  a situation where some ports 
operate at a competitive disadvantage.  Also a major difficulty  is  recovering the 
costs from  transiting traffic,  which  is the most significant part of the traffic for 
some  States. 

These are the main  reasons  why the answer to  these problems  cannot be found 
through national  action alone.  A mechanism  must be set up  in order to provide 
a  level  playing  field  in  infrastructure  investments  without  leading  to  ports  in 
some  Member  States  operating  at a competitive disadvantage.  It should ensure 
that  expenditure  on  infrastructure  reflects  the  real  and  current  needs  of the 
maritime sector  and of coastal populations of the Community.  A  system under 
which users pay, directly or indirectly, for the provision of safety infrastructure 
will  help  to  solve the problem. 

It is  important to  find  a suitable cost-sharing formula  which  would permit: 

the  identification of the  VTS  and  radionavigation  infrastructure that  is 
required  to  meet  common  needs,  for  example;  navigation  aids  to 
international  traffic; 
a  cost  recovery  mechanism  which  would  make  the  system  self 
supporting. 

· 

1  Council  Decision of25  February  1992 on Radionavigation Systems,  OJ.  No  L159,  Pg.  17,  17.4.92 

61 

The Commission believes that the Community dimension is appropriate,  in both 
geographical and institutional terms, to assess the risks, establish the objectives; 
identify and optimize resources, and set up a common arrangement under which 
dues  are  set,  collected  and  then  shared  among  the  national  authorities;  and 
develop  effective machinery to  deal  with non compliance. 

The search for appropriate solutions reciuires as  a preliminary step the gathering 
.of information  from  Member  States  on the  costs  of providing  general  marine 
navigation  aids  outside  harbour  limits,  the  methods  of finance,  the  length  of 
national coast lines, the number of light buoys and beacons provided, the coastal 
VTS  (existing and planned), the level of traffic and the income out of dues to be 
paid, taking into account that several systems already exist in the Member States. 

The solution to be reached should include the "user pays principle", where dues 
will be based on a methodology aimed at eliminating competitive distortions and 
reflecting  the  results  of the  above  exercise.  Various  approaches  are  possible, 
either based upon existing systems or on a "Eurocontrol "-style system, whereby 
each  country  recoups  the  costs  it  incurs  in  running  the  system  from  a  central 
authority.  The  Commission  intends  to  discuss  the  matter  rapidly  with  the 
Member States to identify and to propose to the Council  an appropriate solution 
for the Community. 

iv. 

Pollution prevention facilities and monitoring of compliance 

114.  Operational  discharges  at  sea  by  ships  are  one,  though  not  the  major, 
contributory cause of coastal waters pollution.  International rules on discharging at sea 
have been established to  a ·certain extent.  Parts of them are mandatory.  Compliance by 
ships with these rules is very limited.  Monitoring of compliance and sanctioning illegal 
discharges  is  extremely  expensive and relatively ineffective. 

115.  Under international rules, all parties are obliged to provide and maintain facilities 
in their ports for the discharging of waste, including bunker oil. However, it is a fact that 
in the Community  the level of port reception facilities  differs sharply from  one port to 
another. Port policies in this respect have the potential to give rise to deflection of trade 
for  instance through  weak application of the law to  encourage  access  to  the port.  This 
is however also  a fact potentially leading to  unlawful  discharges  at sea. 

116. ·  As regards air pollution caused by shipping, an important part of irbccurs during 
loading  and  unloading  in  ports,  and  is  due  to  the  emission  of harmful  or  noxious 
substances released during transshipment of volatile cargoes. 

117. 
Seagoing vessels generally possess Vapour Emission Control  (VEC) systems  in 
compliance with international  regulation.  There seems  to be little doubt that the root of 
the problem arises  in ports because of the absence of compatible systems  on board and 
on shore, or because of the lack of VEC  facilities  in ports. 

62 

. 

118.  Adequate response to the above described problems cannot be found in individual 
action by Member States: the general international framework of rules being established, 
the problem is clearly that of a homogeneous response at the level of implementation and 
enforcement. 

119. 
In this respect Community-wide initiatives which may produce results, where the 
individual  action by  Member  States  would have at best a more  marginal  result,  should 
aim at .developing: 

i) 

Oil/waste reception facilities 

Ensuring that Community ports install adequate reception installations aligned to 
the specific waste discharges  required by the type of shipment operations. 

As  a further step,  and in an effort to  encourage compliance before moving  onto 
sanctions,  where  adequate facilities  are  available,  a common-·system  should  be 
implemented whereby movements  of ships refusing to  make use.of.the facilities 
would be closely monitored. For example, the quantity of oil water mixtures and 
residues  on board  would  be measured,  and  the  information  would be provided 
to the next port of call in the Community.  Subsequent control on the quantity of 
this  waste  at  the  next  port  of call  would  enable  the  competent  authority  to 
ascertain whether illegal discharges have occurred during the crossing. 

Furthermore,  as  already  proposed  under  chapter  ll (par.  71,  indent  6)  a ship 
refusing without a valid reason to use the facilities offered, would justify a very 
close inspection by PSC authorities of the status of the ship, _in particular its full 
compliance to  the MARPOL,  SOLAS  and Load Line Conventions. 

The Comlnunity could closely examine the consequences of imposing mandatory 
discharging of oil residues and oily mixtures by all ships using Community ports. 

A survey on a Community scale of the micro and macro economic consequences 
will  provide  the  first  set  of  information  to  evaluate  the  adequacy  of  such 
measure. 

Finally,  on the  educational  level,  information  and  training  of seafarers  and  of 
ship management on the reduction of illegal discharges could be promoted by the 
Community. As regards ship management the programme should focus on means 
to introduce more environmentally responsible management, by making clear that 
setting up  an appropriate environment policy is  not necessarily to the detri~ent 
of the operating costs of the company. 

63 

120. 
These proposals  will be consistent with  "a European Programme  of Policy and 
Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development" 1 recently agreed by 
the Council,  where specific proposals for  Council directives  are also foreseen. 

These  include  a  proposal  on  "the reduction  of operational  and  accidental  pollution  by 
small boats"; a proposal on the definition of su!J>hur content in all liquid fuels  (including 
bunker oil) and,  as  a complementary action,  a. specific measure on the presence of toxic 
chemical  components  in bunkers. 

(ii) 

Vapour emission control 

Concerns  over safety problems  related  to  vapour return systems  for  ships  may 
result in their deletion from  the scope of a proposed directive on the control of 
volatile  organic  compound  losses  in  the  storage  and  transport  of  petrol.  A 
commitment  should  however  be  made  to  include  shipping  in the  scope of the 
directive as  soon as  these problems  are overcome.  A  priority should be given 
to the search for the required technical solutions and for international agreement 
to their adoption.  As for the waste reception facilities,  an answer at Community 
level is also preferable, as compared with national solutions, given the distortion 
of competition that otherwise arises favouring those ports which do  not impose 
the use of vapour emission control systems. 

1  COM (92) 23  F'mal. 

64. 

CHAPTER 4. INTERNATIONAL RULE MAKING 

Introductory remarks 

121.  Most of the  rules  and  requirements  for  sea-going  vessels  are negotiated  in the 
IMO. This international framework is offundaqtental importance to maritime safety and 
to the protection of the sea from operational and accidental pollution, and it must remain 
so, given the global  character of the shipping industry. 

It  is  also  generally  accepted  that  today  a  large  number  of construction  and 
122. 
maintenance  rules  have  been  adopted,  and  efforts  should  first  concentrate  on  their 
effective application. The role of the Community in respect to the latter has been outlined 
in the previous  chapters. 

123.  However,  the need  for  new  rules  in a number  of areas  exists.  It is  dictated  by 
specific problems which call for international solutions, and appear on the agenda of the 
specialised  committees  and  sub-committees  of the  IMO.  There  seems  to  exist  a  large 
consensus  in the competent administrations  and in the industries of the Community1  on 
the need to  deal  with some of these negative factors  as  a matter of urgency. 

Performance standards for nag States 

124.  A  first  area  of  very  high  concern  is  that  of  the  diversity  of  attitude  and 
performance  of flag  States.  It  is  a  fact  that  several  Member  States  of the IMO  have 
severe  difficulties  in  meeting  their  obligations  as  regards  effective  certification  of 
conformity  of vessels  to,  interalia,  the  SOLAS,  MARPOL,  ILO  147  and  Load  Line 
Conventions.  Among  the primary reasons why several States offering registry facilities 
for  sea-going  ships  are  not  able to  perform  as  adequately  as  required one may  recall: 
insufficient infrastructure to properly interpret and support application and enforcement 
of international  conventions;  insufficient trained and  experienced  technical  staff within 
the administrations;  unclear delegation of authority and inadequate regulatory oversight 
when  surveys  and  inspections  are  entrusted  either  to  surveyors  nominated  for  that 
purpose or to  organisations  recognised by  the administration;  and  absence of effective 
monitoring  programmes  to  ensure that consistent and  adequate maritime safety actions 
are taken. 

1 Maritime Industries Forum;  Final  report to the Commission, October 1992. 

65 

It  would  therefore  appear  indispensable  to  set  minimum  requirements  against 
125. 
which their ability to  respond to  their obligations may be measured.  For example, they 
should at least: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

have  a comprehensive body of relevant national laws and regulations  to  enable 
the maritime administrations to implement and enforce the required international 
rules  and standards pertaining to the .operation of a maritime registry; 

maintain an effective system for the promulgation of relevant maritime law and 
regulations with their amendments to all operators of ships under its registration; 

maintain an  effective and adequately staffed maritime administration to  execute 
its  responsibilities for: 

proper and legally correct registration of ships; 
exercise of inspection,  survey  and  control,  in accordance with  relevant 
international  Conventions,  over ships  entered in its  registry; 
conduct of casualty  investigations; 
issuing of Seaman's Identity Books. 

126. 
The  IMO  has  set  up  a  sub-committee  on  flag  State  implementation  (PSI)  to 
examine  this  problem  and  adopt  the  required  standards.  The  policy  and  economic 
implications  of this  initiative are very  far-reaching.  They  are bound to  be opposed  by 
several  States  for  different  reasons,  not least their lack of the  required  capabilities  in 
terms  of financial  resources,  qualifications  and  training.  However,  this  issue needs  to 
find  a rapid and satisfactory answer at international  level  to  prevent further  shifting of 
~e responsibility for safety of construction and maintenance of ships ·from the flag States 
to the port and coastal States, a process already  gradually under way, if it continues for 
too long,  which would risk to  reduce the effectiveness of internal rule-making. 

The Community  should act to  provide the required support to  this  initiative of 
127. 
the IMO not only within the sphere of the regulatory discussions but also in the context 
of its policy of support to third countries, for example in the framework of co-operation 
agreements  such as  those with developing  countries.  Resources  could be channelled to 
provide the required  support to those national  administrations  who  need it most,  to  be 
able to  align themselves  to the standards of performance being developed in the IMO. 

, 

Human element 

128.  The very  high  impact  of human  errors  on  casualties  at' sea  and  a  number  of 
actions  to  reduce  its  effect  have  been  examined  in  sector·  v)  of  chapter  1.  Further 
initiatives are required which by their nature belong to this  chapter. 

66 

129. 
The first  one relates  directly  to  the  STCW  Convention.  Its  revision,  which  is 
long  since due,  has just begun  under the joint responsibility  of ILO  and  IMO.  So  far 
much  more attention has  been paid to  scholastic education than  to  problems of training 
and  upgrading  crews,  bearing  in  mind  also  the problems  and  costs  that such upgrading 
courses imply.  Action of the Community  and  its Member States  is  required to speed up 
this process.  Several elements  will  have to  be taken into account with  high priority  an~ 
in particular communication. The ability to communicate in a common language on board 
has become a very serious issue at a time where the multiplication of multilingual  crews 
has become a widely spread operational reality.  This is  more so during emergencies and 
particularly on all  ships  carrying passengers. 

130. 
The  language  problems  are  also  particularly  significant  during  pilotage 
operations.  Not only do  the pilot and  the master have difficulty in  communicating with 
each other,  but the consequences of  misunderstandings  between master/pilot and  crews 
become  inevitably  more  serious  where  there  is  less  margin  for  error,  as  in  berthing 
operations.  Moreover,  incident  analysis  carried  out by  the P&l  clubs  has  shown that 
not only is  it necessary to  improve communications between master and pilot but also  to 
ensure  a  clearer understanding  between them  as  to  who  is  responsible for  well  defined 
tasks  at  each  stage in the manoeuvring of the ship.  The P&l Club's own investigations 
revealed  the  need  for  master  and  pilot to  discuss  each  stage and  to  think  through  areas 
of potential difficulty.  In this  context,  the P&l club concluded  "the shorter the time the 
pilot is  on board the more  likely  the risk of an  expensive accident". 

131.  A  further  area  where  much  effort  is  required  is 
that  of  technological 
development,  particularly  of  ship  handling  equipment.  Remote  steering  positions~ 
integrated  bridge  control  of  engines,  bow  thrusters,  stern  thrusters,  high-lift  rudder, 
automatic  helms  are  now  commonplace.  While  adding  to  the  controls  of those  in 
command,  they  have  also  brought  new  problems.  Automatic  helms  reduced  steering 
expertise  of seamen.  Coupled  with  reduced  manning  this  leads  to  master  or  pilot 
steering the ship  also  on occasions  where their  freedom  of n1ovement  would  have been 
an  advantage.  Other problems  followed  the  advent  of the  controllable pitch  propeller. 
Once more the P&l shows that there is  a good  case to be made for  all  controllable pitch 
propeller ships  to  have the fail-safe position clearly displayed  and  have the rnain  engine 
emergency  stop  control  located  on the bridge. 

132.  Moreover,  facing  an  emergency  situation  on board  a ship  with  a  reduced  crew 
requires  a  special  training  comparable  to  that  of a  plane  crew,  involving  also  a  more 
efficient  ship-land  communication  system  and  adequate  training  tools,  e.g.  simulators 
designed  to  study or to  test  more  efficient ship/crews  interface systems. 

133. 
In  more  general  terms  these  issues  and  several  more  could  be  summed  up  by 
saying that there is  a need to  analyse the conditions under which the various systems for 
ensuring  the  safety  of navigation  are operated.  In  this  connection,  the participants  in 
maritime traffic,  at whatever level of responsibility,  should follow  a prescribed pattern, 
which  is  essential  for  the  integration  of  the  four  basic  components  of  high  quality 
operation:  man,  machine,  methods  and  procedures. 

67 

Some of these matters are being addressed at Community level in the framework 
134. 
of research programmes  such  as  EURET1
in particular project 2.4  "Human factors  in 
, 
the  man/ship  system",  and  by  COST  actions  such  as  COST  311,  on  the  use  of 
stimulation facilities  for  training  of crews,  pilots  and  VTS  operators.  Others will  have 
to  be introduced  in the further  phase of BURET. 

135. 
For a long  time  simulation  methods  have been  identified  for  both research  and 
training  purposes  in  the  maritime  context,  but  it  is  only  in  the  past  four  years  that  a 
search for a common approach to its application at Community level has been undertaken 
in  COST  311.  The results  of the  COST  311  operation  demonstrate  the lack  of a  co 
ordinated plan to promote and implement simulation methods and technology in Europe. 

Although  some  countries,  mainly  Denmark,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United 
Kingdom,  have invested heavily  in this field,  many  others  are not using this technology 
to the extent required.  On the other hand,  duplication and redundancy are to  be avoided 
so as not to waste the investment made,  however promising the market could be.  A cost 
effective solution to  this  problem  should be searched  also  within the Community. 

136.  Moreover,  reducing human  error through  international  requirements,  standards 
and  guidelines  is  also  a priority  agreed  to  in IMO to  the  extent that all  committees  and 
sub-committees  have been  recommended  to  review  all  measures  in  the  light of human 
element issue and to bring proposals.  Therefore,  the Commission  proposes that results 
of the  efforts  of both  the  P&l  club  members  and  the  Community  R&D  programmes 
outlined  above be brought to  IMO  as  contributions  of the  Community  and  its  Member 
States to  the work programme of this  organisation. 

137. 
Finally, well co-ordinated action of the Community and its Member States should 
be set up  in  view of securing an effective application of the Safe Management Code also 
at  international  level. 

Introduction of new technologies 

138. 
The  introduction  of new  technologies  for  ship borne  equipment,  systems  for 
automatic transfer of data from  ship  to  shore and  vice versa,  and potentiai  applicatioru: 
of new technologies  are under discussion  in  the IMO.  They are: 

Electronic Chart Display  and  Information  Systems  (ECDIS); 
guidelines  on  the  use  of transponders  on  ships  for  safety  purposes;  optimum 
methods  of radar display  presentation; 
voyage data recorders  and  their mandatory  use. 

1  Council  Decision of 21.12.1990 adopting a specific  research and technological development programme in  the  field  of transport 

(EURE1)  1990 to  1993  (91/11/EEC) O.J.  L  8 p.  16  of 11.1.1991. 

68 

139.  All of these fall  within the area of information and  communication technology. 
Their introduction should considerably modify the balance between shore and ship in the 
navigational  decision-making  process  and  the  respective  roles  of man  and  machine  in 
these processes. 

140. 
Experience with the introduction of high level  information technology  in major 
industrial  activities has  demonstrated that transitional periods require special care in all 
respectS:  social, organisational and technical,  including psychological and physiological 
consideration for  the design of man machine  interfaces. 

141.  In  particular,  two  major  areas  of  concern  always  arise  from  this  type  of 
development: 

i. 

ii. 

the co-existence for a long period of different levels of advancement in technical 
and operational standards; 

the drastic  changes  in skills  and  knowledge needed to  operate the new  systems 
correctly, operators having to retain all the relevant past experience while as far 
as  possible acquiring new  skills,  both being necessary for  the safe operation of 
the newly  implemented  systems. 

142.  These matters  are critical in the shipping industry,  for the following  reasons: 

navigation entails interaction between ships of different flag  and coastal 
States; 

maritime  activities  go  back  a  long  way,  making  them  reliant  on past 
experience  and  resulting  in  a  reluctance  to  accept  changes.  National 
certification,  in the absence of IMO  or EC rules,  is often not mutually 
recognised by other States'  administrations.  This  results  in long delays 
for approval of new technology and thus in limited markets offering few 
incentives for R &  D  investments; 

recruitment  of crews  is  often  driven  by  economic  and  social  criteria 
rather  than  seeking  to  recruit  highly  qualified  crew;  cheap  labour  on 
board  leaves  little  encouragement  for  the  manufacturing  industries  to 
invest in innovative technology  which  would  reduce crew  numbers.  In 
deciding  on  crews  for  ships,  operators  have  to  balance  the  cost  of 
sophisticated equipment with the cost of reduced but well trained crews; 
the  risk  to  valuable  capital  assets  if crews  are  not  as  competent .as 
required;  and the overall  need  to  make profit; 

the reliability of new technology equipment must be ensured to guarantee 
safety and protection of the marine environment. 

69 

143. 
Satisfactory  answers  are  relevant to  Community  policies  on safety  at  sea,  and 
would  contribute  to  the  creation  of  wider  markets  for  the  European  manufacturing 
industries. The Community and  its Member States should therefore provide the required 
support to  the initiatives of the IMO in the above mentioned areas in a well  co-ordinated 
n1anner. 

The Torremolinos  Convention 

144. 
The IMO Maritime Safety Committee has decided to undertake a revision of the 
Torremolinos  Convention  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the  new  SOLAS  provisions.  The 
original  Convention  in fact  never  came  into  force.  The revision  will  be completed  by 
a diplomatic Conference to be held in Torremolinos in spring 1993.  The entry into force 
of this  Convention through the adoption of a Protocol would satisfy requirements of the 
Community  to  a certain extent only.  This would  apply .particularly to the requirements 
of Community  policies  on safety  of fishing  vessels,  on achieving  the objectives  of the 
internal  market  and  on  fisheries  where  different  construction  standards  may  cause 
distortions of competition.  As  recommended  by the Commission  in its Communication 
to  the  Council  on  the  principle  of  subsidiarity, 1  Member  States'  and  Community's 
accession to the Torremolinos Protocol would be the most adequate response to the above 
requirements  instead  of an  internal  Community  measure. 

145.  Community  accession would  in fact  ensure that the Convention is  brought into 
application within the Community  at the same time.  The Commission  stresses that any 
other approach would not provide the required guarantee that uniform and simultaneous 
application  will  occur  in the Community.  To  this  end  the  Commission  has  transmitted 
to  the  Council  a  Recommendation  for  a  Council  Decision  giving  the  Commission 
In  accordance  with  the  agreement  reached  in  the  Council 
negotiating  directives. 
framework  on  3  February  1993,  the  Commission  and  1\.fember  States  will  attend  the 
Conference and will  co-ordinate with the view of defending common positions.  To this 
end  consensus  has  been  reached  on  the  main  objectives  to  be  achieved  during  the 
negotiations,  to  safeguard  a uniform high  level of safety for  the European fishing  fleet; 
to  preserve the right to  adopt appropriate rules  at Community  level for vessels between 
24 and  45  meters  and  the possibility for  the Cor.rununity  to  become  a  contracting party 
to  the Protocol,  if the Council  so  decides. 

The Community's role in support of the IMO 

146. 
The four  specific  areas  examined  show  the  importance of action  in the  IMO  in 
the search  for  solutions  to  the problems  identified.  The Community  has  an  important 
role to  play, both within and  in support of the IMO to ensure that the IMO rule-making 
process  does  indeed  reach  its  objectives  and  is  not  unnecessarily  stretched  over  such  a 
long period  of time that  it  is  no  longer  credible or effective. 

. 

1  SEC(92)  1992  fmal,  27.10.92. 

70 

It follows  that the Community  needs to take action so that co-ordinated positions 
14 7. 
can  be taken  favouring  the  adoption of necessary  new  rules  or the modification  of old 
ones. 

148. 
So  far  it  has  proved  difficult  to  develop  this  Community  role.  For  example, 
Member  States  have on occasion resisted  this  effort to  co-ordinate,  introducing friction 
and  inefficiency  into· the task of ensuring that work in the IMO takes proper account of 
the Community's  requirements.  They have also  opposed the natural  development of the 
Community's  current  status  as  an  observer  in  IMO  to  keep  pace  with  developing 
Community  competence.  The end  result of these attitudes  can be to  limit unacceptably 
the role of the Community's  institutions  in setting and  implell)enting standards ha\'ing a 
direct effect on the proper functioning  of the internal market, the safety of ships, life and 
the protection of the marine environment. 

149. 
It is the Commission's belief that this state of affairs should be rapidly remedied. 
The Commission sees positive prospects in common action by the Community to support 
and to promote further and more coordinated and firm action in the IMO as urged by the 
Extraordinary  Council  of 25.1.1993,  aimed  at  : 

identifying jointly priority problem  areas; 
bringing  proposals to  IMO  and 
providing  well  co-ordinated  support during  the negotiations  phase. 

In  this  context specific attention  should  be given to joint action  aimed  at  promoting the 
adoption by  IMO  - thus on  an  international  scale - of those measures  the application  of 
which has been enhanced by the Community provisions outlined in the previous chapters 
of this  communication. 

150. 
This approach should not only speed up the international decision-making proce..;;;s 
but also,  in turn,  facilitate,  the convergent application of such rules  in the Community. 

151. 
Finally,  the  Community's  participation  in  the  IMO  should  be  kept  under 
examination  with  a view to  ensuring  that  it  can participate as  effectively  as  possible  in 
work  on  matters  falling  within  jts  competence,  in  the  light  of the  completion  of the 
internal market, of t.,e development of the Common Transport Policy and the Community 
Environment Policy.  In the light of the experience of the conunon  action,  if necessary, 
the possibilities  and modalities  for  the  Community  to  become a member  of IMO should 
be expiore.d with  a view to  achieving the most effective participation of the Community. 

Committee on Safe Seas 

71 

152. 
The  Commission  intends  to  propose  to  the  Council  a  Decision  setting  up  a 
Committee  on  Safe  Seas  (COSS),  in  conformity  with  Council  Decision  87/373/EC  of 
13  July  1987,1  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  exercise  of implementing  powers 
conferred  on the Commission. 

153.  COSS  could  be  the  forum  for  identifying  and  evaluating  subjects  of priority 
importance,  including  those  for  which  solutions  are  best  searched  for  at  international 
level,  and  to  co-ordinate the  Member  States'  contribution to  these subjects  in  IMO. 

154.  Guidelines for  such  co-ordination should  be set to  ensure effective action  while 
respecting  the  IMO's  methods  of working  and  the  technical  character  of much  of its 
activity.  This  should  also  take  due  account  of the  need  to  minimise  possible  negative 
reactions  to  the development  of regional  voices  within the organisation. 

155.  COSS  could  also  be  the  forum  where,  following  decisions  taken  at  IMO,  their 
convergent  and  timely  application  in  the  Community,  including  the  accompanying 
measures  needed,  would  be considered. 

The  setting  up  of  COSS  could  also  be  used  to  avoid  the  proliferation  of 
156. 
committees  by taking upon COSS  work entrusted to ad hoc committies under the specitic 
measures  outlined  in the previous  chapters  or under future  measures. 

157.  During tl-te  interim period required for the Council  and the European Parliament 
to  examine  the proposal  of setting  up  COSS,  the  Commission  and  the  1.1ember  States 
should  co-ordinate  action  in  the  lMO  on priority  issues  such  as  those  outlined  in  this 
chapter.  The experience gained through such co-ordination would provide further inputs 
to the definition of the guidelines  of COSS. 

1  Council  Decision of 13  July  1982 laying  down  the  procedurea  for  the  exercise of implementing powers conferred on  the 

Commission. 

ANNEX 1 

THE ACTION PROGRAMME 

A.  COUNCIL DIRECTIVES/DECISIONS 

List of measures  proposed 

1. 

Proposals to  be adopted by  the Commission  in  1993. 

Carriage  of dangerous  and  polluting  goods  by  sea.  Minimum  requirements  for  vessels 
bound  for  or  leaving  Community  sea  ports,.  designed  to  ensure  that  the  authorities  are 
properly  informed  and  can take  appropriate  action·  (EC  directive on  a  reporting  system, 
2nd  phase)  (Chapter  3,  section ii). 

Control  of ships  by  the port State:  tighter  measures  (EC  directive on the establishment 
of common  criteria for  the  intensification of inspection of certain ships)  (Chapter  2, 
section  i ). 

International  rules  and  certain  Resolutions  of the  IMO:  convergent  application  in  the 
Community  of certain IMO  Resolutions  (e.g.  tankers,  bulk  carriers,  passenger  vessels) 
(Chapter  1,  section  iii  ). 

Introduction of common  safety  rules  for: 

marine  equipment  used  on board  of commercial  and  passenger  vessels  (Chapter  1, 
section  ii ) . 

training  of seafarers  (minimum  level  of training  for  certain  maritime  professions) 
(Chapter  1,  section v ) . 

Introduction of common rules and standards for classification societies and technical safety 
standards  for  ships  (Chapter  1,  section i). 

Decision setting up  a Committee  on Safe Seas  (Chapter ·4,  last section). 

2. 

Proposals  in  the pipeline for  adoption by the  Commission  in  1994-1995. 

Further meac;ures  on convergent application of IMO Resolution  (Chapter  1 ~  section  iii  ). 

Directive  on  safety  requirements  for  vessels  not  subject  to  international  Conventions. 
(Passenger  vessels  on  domestic  voyages,  fishing  vessels  below  45  meters,  cargo  vessels 
below Torremolinos  Convention size ),  (Chapter  1,  section  i ). 

Further rules  on maritime  equipment  (of mandatory  carriage)  (Chapter  1 ,Section ii ) and 
on  minimum  level  of training for  captain  and  officer  (Chapter  1,  section v  ). 

Control  of ships  by  State  of port:  harmonisation  of detention  rules,  and  mechanism  to 
control  effectiveness of port State inspections  (Chapter 2,  section  ii ). 

Measure  on  traffic  surveillance  and  aid,  including  identification  of  environmentally 
sensitive  areas  (Chapter  3,  section  i  ),  harmonisation  of procedures  for  vessel  traffic 
services  (Chapter  3,  section  iii  a  )  and  mechanism  on  recovery  of  costs  for  traffic 
surveillance/aid  infrastructure  (Chapter  3, section  iii  b  ). 

I 

' 

•  ~ 

Measures  on  vapour  emission  controls,  on  the  reduction  of operational  and  accidental 
pollution by small boats and on sulphur content of liquified fuels  and toxins in tanker fuels 
(Chapter  3,  section  iv ). 

Measure on  the ratification of the Protocol to  the Torremolinos  Convention (Chapter 4). 

B.  OTHER  ACTIONS 

Training  programmes  for  crews,  surveyors, VTS  operators,  port State control  inspectors 
(Chapter  2,3  and  4). 

Traffic  surveillance  and  aid  infrastructure:  VTS  development  including  emergency 
facilities,  demonstration projects of automatic ship tracking using transponders,  European 
permanent traffic observatory, European radionavigation plan, development of LORAN-C 
in  the  Mediterranean Area (Chapter  3, section iii ) . 
. Development  and use of reception facilities  (Chapter  3,  section  iv  ). 

Studies on: 

Assessment of scrapping requirements  and  facilities 
Co-ordination of availability of salvage capacities 
Risk  evaluation and  prevention 
Financial  responsibility  for  cargo  owners  using  substandard  ships 
Responsibility  of shipowners  for  the safety  of crew  and  passengers 
Feasibility of a  civil  liability system for  damage to  the environment 
Evaluation of results  of accidents  reports,  particularly on  bulk carriers. 

R  &  D:  directing of the research  and  development programme on transport  in  support to 
priority requirements  of the Common  Policy on Safe Seas  as  identified e.g.  hun1an  factor 
in  maritime  casualties,  environment friendly  tankers  designs. 

ANNEX2 

LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS  AND  EXPLANATIONS. 

Assembly 

The Assembly  of the International  Maritime  Organization. 

BCH 

Classification 
Societies 

Code  for  Construction  and  Equipment  of  Ships  Carrying  Dangerous 
Chemicals  in  Bulk,  adopted by IMO. 

Private or public organisations  which  execute inspections  on board vessels 
related  to  the  seaworthiness,  the  safety,  the  pollution  prevention  and  the 
equipment of (seagoing) vessels. 

COST  (301)  (311) 

Research  programme  to  investigate  into  the  possibilities  to  establish  a 
Community  vessel  traffic  management  system. 

EC  coastal  State 

One of the States of the European Community  with a coastal area open to the 
sea. 

ECDIS 

Electronic  Chart  Display  and  Information  System,  a  new 
technical 
development to  replace the common printed geographical charts of sea-areas 
with  computer  assisted  displays  on board vessels  to  manoeuvre the ship. 

EC  rule 

Legal  instrume.nt  adopted  in  the framework  of the European Community. 

EEC Treaty  (Treaty)  The Treaty on the institutionalisation of the European Economic Community, 

(freaty of Rome  1957). 

EEZ 

EFT A 

EPTO 

EURET 

EWTIS 

Exclusive Economic Zone;  a zone in the high seas  established by the coastal 
State under  the provisions of the Law  of the Sea (UNCLOS). 

European Fre.e Trade Association. 

European Parliament Traffic Observatory. 

Research  and  Develop1nent programmes  on Transport. 

Research  and  Development  project  on  exchange  of  information  between 
Member  States. 

Flag State 

A State under  whose flag  a vessel  is  entitled  to  sail. 

GGEMS 

GMDS 

Group of Governmental Experts on Maritime Safety to assist the Commission 
in developing  measures  for  maritime safety. 

Global  Maritime  Distress  and  Safety  System,  the  new  satellite distress  and 
safety communication  for  shipping. 

IACS 

International  Association of Classification Societies. 

IALA 

IAPH 

ILO 

International  Association  of  Lighthouse  Authorities,  an 
organisation of Governments  and  Industries. 

international 

International  Association on Port and  Harbours. 

International Labour Organisation, one of the Specialised Organisations of the 
United  Nations. 

ILO  147 

Convention  147  of the International  Labour Organisation. 

IMDG-code 

International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, a Resolution of the Assembly 
of IMO  adopted  on  6  November  1991,  as  Resolution  A.  716(17). 

IOPP  certificate 

International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate; a certificate to be issued by 
the flag State or on its behalf after inspections have been carried out on board 
the  vessel. 

IMO 

International  Maritime  Organization,  one of the  specialised  organisations of 
the United  Nations. 

IMO  Resolution 

Decision  taken  by  the  Assembly  of IMO,  the  main  bodies  of IMO,  or  a 
conference convened  by  IMO. 

Loran-C 

Existing  radiopositioning  system  for  use  in  shipping. 

Maastricht Treaty 

Treaty  on  the  European  Union  (1992).  An  agreement  between  the  EC 
Member  States  to  amend  the EEC  Treaty. 

MARPOL. 

International  Convention  for  the  Prevention of Pollution  from  Ships,  1973, 
amended  by  its  Protocol  in  1978. 

Member  State 

One of the  States  of the European  Community. 

MIF 

MOU 

Maritime Industries Forum,  composed of representatives from  the European 
maritime  industries,  trade  unions,  ministries  of  the  EC  and  Scandinavian 
EFTA countries, European Parliamentarians and various EC Conunissioners. 

Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control,  an agreement between 
various European States to  execute control on board ships visiting their ports 
under  the  aegis  of international  Conventions. 

P &  I clubs 

Private organisations on the insurance market,  which  act together in  insuring 
ships  and  their cargo. 

Pon State 

A State where the port is  situated  which  is  visited  by  a vessel. 

PSC 

R&D 

Port State Control,  an agreement between various European States to  execute 
control  on  board  ships  which  visit  their  harbours  under  the  aegis  of 
international  Conventions. 

Research  and  Development  undertaken  or  supported  by  the  European 
Community. 

RTIS 

SBT 

SOLAS 

STCW 

Research  and  Development  project  on  Transport  (Regional  Traftic 
Information Service). 

Segregated Ballast Tanker; tanker with dedicated cargo tanks which are solely 
used  for  carrying ballast,  no  ballast in  oil  cargo  tanks  permitted. 

International  Convention  for  the Safety of Life at Sea,  1974,  as  amended. 

International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and 
Watchkeeping for  Seafarers,  1978. 

Torremolinos 

Torremolinos  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of Fishing  Vessels, 
1977. 

Treaty 

UN CL OS 

VTS 

The Treaty on the institutionalisation of the European Economic Community 
(Treaty of Rome,  1957).  See also  EEC Treaty. 

United  Nations  Convention  on the  Law  of the  Sea,  as  adopted  during  the 
Third  United  Nations  Conference on the Law  of the Sea,  ~lontego-Bay, 10 
December  1982. 

Vessel  Traffic  Services,  system  to  guide  and  instruct  maritime  traffic  from 
shore,  using· modern observation and  communication  technology.