Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the safety of the seaborne oil trade
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: international standard, marine pollution, maritime safety, oil pollution, pollution from ships, supervisory body, tanker

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 21.3.2000
COM(2000) 142 final

2000/0065 (COD)
2000/0066 (COD)
2000/0067 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

ON THE SAFETY OF THE SEABORNE OIL TRADE

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of
shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the
Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship
inspection and survey organisations
and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements
for single hull oil tankers

(presented by the Commission)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

ON THE SAFETY OF THE SEABORNE OIL TRADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I.

BACKGROUND

A : SEABORNE OIL TRADE

1

2.

3.

Importance of oil transport

Oil tanker fleets

Tanker casualties

B : TANKER SAFETY

1.

Developments in tanker safety

2. Weaknesses in the present system

II.

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

A : PROPOSALS FOR IMMEDIATE LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

1.

2.

3.

Port State control

Classification societies

Single and double hull oil tankers

B : PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE MEASURES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Increased transparency

Surveillance of navigation

Enlargement of the European Union

Towards a European structure for Maritime Safety

Liability of the maritime players

C : VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH INDUSTRY

CONCLUSION

2

ANNEXES

I-A

Tanker accidents

I-B

Double hull or equivalent design tankers

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

I.
amending Directive 95/21/EC on port State control of shipping

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

II.
amending Directive 94/57/EC on classification societies

III.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull
oil tankers

3

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

On 12 December 1999 the 25-year old, Maltese-registered, single hull oil tanker
Erika chartered by Total-Fina broke in two some 40 nautical miles off the southern
tip of Brittany. More than 10 000 tonnes of the 30 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil it was
carrying were spilt. About 400 kilometres of coastline were polluted by the oil,
causing serious damage to fauna, flora, fisheries and tourism, as well as potential
public health consequences.

This was not the first accident of its kind in European Union waters. The wreck of
the oil tankers Torrey Canyon, Olympic Bravery, Boehlen, Amoco Cadiz, Tanio,
Aegean Sea and Braer in particular come to mind.

Some 70% of the European Union's oil imports are transported along the Brittany
coast and through the English Channel, hence the fact that the same regions are hit
again and again. If such an accident were to occur in the Mediterranean, the effects
would be equally disastrous.

As the scale of reaction to the sinking of the Erika shows, public opinion is no longer
prepared to tolerate such accidents. There have been calls for rigorous action at
least from the European Parliament1 and the Council of
Community level, not
Ministers.2

It has become clear that the normal framework for international action on maritime
safety under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) falls
short of what is needed to tackle the causes of such disasters effectively. The IMO
suffers from a major handicap: the lack of proper means to verify how its regulations
are applied throughout the world. As a result, IMO regulations are not applied
everywhere with the same rigour. The evolution of maritime transport over the last
few decades and in particular the emergence of "flags of convenience", some of
which fail to live up to their obligations under the international conventions, is
tending to aggravate this phenomenon.

It was for this reason that the European Council called on the Commission, following
the 1978 Amoco Cadiz disaster, to come forward with proposals to control and
reduce pollution caused by oil spills. An ambitious programme of proposals was
presented which resulted, in the end, simply in a number of formal declarations or
resolutions, encouraging Member States to ratify the IMO and ILO Conventions.
One directive establishing minimum requirements for certain tankers was, however,
adopted.

Once the "momentum" generated by a tanker accident subsided, Member States
tended to avoid binding measures at Community level, more particularly since
unanimity was required for decision-taking.

1

2

European Parliament resolutions of 20 January 2000 and 2 March 2000.
Council meeting on General Affairs, 24 January 2000.

4

3.

It was not until the middle of the 1990s and the advent of qualified majority voting
that the Council adopted the first building blocks of a common maritime safety
policy including:

–

–

organisation at Community level of stricter application of
conventions,

international

adoption of specific Community provisions where IMO standards are lacking
or inadequate.

The Erika disaster demonstrates, firstly,
the risk presented by old ships and,
secondly, the need to tighten up the existing Community regulatory framework -
which, incidentally, Member States are not applying properly, particularly as regards
the number of inspections in ports - beyond the level of the IMO standards. This was
also the tendency in the USA, where the regulatory framework was tightened up at
federal level following the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.

The Commission therefore proposes a number of measures that could be taken
immediately, and longer-term, more complex measures which will be the subject of a
second series of proposals towards the end of the year.

4.

With regard to the short-term regulatory measures, the Commission is presenting
three sets of measures to the Parliament and the Council of Ministers with this
communication:

• Firstly, more rigorous inspection of ships using Community ports, which should
be reflected in tougher measures against ships that are manifestly sub-standard. It
is proposed to ban from all ports of the Union ships older than fifteen years
that have been detained more than twice in the course of the two preceding
years, on the basis of a "black list" which the Commission will publish every
six months. In addition, inspections of all ships will have to be stepped up in line
with the age of the vessel and will systematically have to target one of the ballast
tanks. Ships will be required to communicate certain information before entering
ports to enable inspections to be properly prepared. Member States will have to
undertake to inspect vessels more frequently and more thoroughly, notably by
increased recruitment and training of inspectors, in order to avoid the creation of
"ports of convenience".

• Secondly, there must be stricter monitoring of the classification societies to
which Member States delegate power to inspect
the quality of ships. The
Commission reserves the right to suspend or withdraw the societies' recognition
by means of a simplified procedure, and the societies must be held fully liable in
the event of negligence. Good safety and pollution prevention performance of
the classification societies will become essential in order to obtain and maintain
recognition at Community level. In addition, more stringent quality criteria
must be met by the recognised organisations, including the obligation to follow
certain procedures when a ship changes class, such as the transmission of the
complete history file of the ship to the new classification society.

• Finally, it is proposed to generalise the ban on single hull oil tankers according
to a timetable similar to that applied by the USA (2005, 2010 and 2015,
depending on tonnage).

5

The three proposals form a coherent whole and the first two apply not only to oil
tankers, but to any ships transporting dangerous or pollutant substances. In particular,
the information gathered in the course of inspections in each port and of surveys by
the classification societies will be widely publicised, notably through the EQUASIS
the condition of a vessel will systematically be known and
database, so that
individual liability will be clearly established in the event of an accident.

5.

In a second stage, the Commission plans to make additional proposals in the
following areas:

• Systematic exchanges of information between all the actors in the maritime
community by further developing the EQUASIS system in particular. It is
important in this context to ascertain which professions (shipowners, insurers,
classification societies) are willing or otherwise to ensure maximum transparency.

• Improved surveillance of navigation, particularly in those areas where oil
tanker traffic is most dense. In addition to the obligation to "report", as already
provided for in a Commission proposal of December 1993 not yet adopted by the
Council,
the arrangements for monitoring the most hazardous ships outside
territorial waters must be examined. These are issues on which Member States
have always been reserved, on grounds of potential conflicts with the international
law of the sea.

• The possible establishment of a European structure for maritime safety ,
whose prime task would be to monitor the organisation and effectiveness of
national inspections in order to ensure greater uniformity.

• Development of the liability of the various players in the seaborne oil trade.
The liability regime is currently governed by international conventions. The
Commission intends, firstly, to seek to increase compensation available under
collective compensation schemes of the IOPCF type and, secondly, to establish
the principle of responsibility of the carrier and owner of the cargo.

6.

Enhanced safety of maritime transport cannot be decreed. It will be achieved by
developing often highly technical rules and reconciling the Union's obligations to
protect its environment with its industrial interests - the capacity to renew its fleet -
and international considerations. The European Union, the world's leading trading
power, cannot discount the consequences of unilateral measures that might conflict
with its activities in the rest of the world, given that most of the European fleet trades
exclusively between non-Community ports.

Before proposing new Community legislation in the social field in particular
(training of seafarers, etc.),
the Commission wishes to draw attention in this
communication to the fact that several of the existing measures have still not been
correctly implemented. Some of the texts already adopted have either not been
infringement
transposed or are not being properly applied, with the result
proceedings are in progress in several cases.

that

Furthermore, while deploring the widespread recourse to flags of convenience, the
Commission would also point out that most of the vessels controlled by European
companies have been flagged out to third countries for tax reasons. Having said that,
the Commission considers that it should be a condition of the accession negotiations

6

7.

8.

9.

with Cyprus and Malta that these countries apply the existing Community legislation
on maritime safety as soon as possible but not later than by by the date of their to
accession.

In order to act as speedily as possibly and to avoid further disasters like the Erika, the
Commission proposes that the oil companies, without awaiting the adoption of the
first package of directives, should undertake by voluntary agreement to refrain in
future from chartering tankers older than 15 years (unless appropriate inspections
show them to be in a satisfactory condition) and to take any other measures
necessary to improve safety. The discussions on this voluntary agreement should also
be reflected in improvements to the reform of
liability
arrangements.

the oil companies'

The package of measures proposed is designed to improve prevention of accidents of
the Erika type and in this way to enhance protection of the marine and coastal
environment. The Commission would point out that measures to combat pollution
are planned in the common position adopted by the Council on 16 December 1999
concerning the European Parliament and Council Decision setting up a Community
framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or intentional marine pollution
(2000-2006).

In addition to the measures proposed in this communication,
the Commission
considers that the proliferation of operational pollution by all types of ships and the
risk of serious pollution by bunker oil in the event of accidents are also cause for
concern. It therefore plans to examine preventive Community initiatives that could
be taken in this respect.

7

I: BACKGROUND

A: SEABORNE OIL TRADE

1. Importance of oil transport

(a) World oil movements

More oil than any other commodity is shipped globally. In 1998 the total crude oil and refined
products transported by sea amounted to more than 2 000 million tonnes3 which in weight
terms represented 40% of the total cargoes shipped by sea.

World Oil Trade

The principal sea routes for crude oil are from the main natural oil sources: Middle East/Gulf
to Southeast Asia, Japan/South Korea, Europe and the USA; from North Africa to Europe and
from the Caribbean to the USA.

The EU oil trade is the largest in the world, with crude oil imports representing about 27% of
the total world trade while US imports amount to 25% of the world total. The oil trade is
broadly divided into crude oil and refined products. In tonnage terms, crude oil amounts to
around three quarters of the global trade (1 590 million tonnes), with products representing
about one quarter (430 million tonnes).

90% of the total oil trade with the European Union (intra- and extra-EU) is seaborne. The
remainder is shipped by pipeline, land transport and by inland waterways.

In the coming years a continuing increase in tanker trade can be expected due to an increase in
the demand for petroleum products following the expected growth of economic markets.

(b) EU oil movements

The EU seaborne oil trade is particularly important. Oil demand in the EU is around
640 million tonnes, but approximately 800 million tonnes p.a. is transported to, from and
between Community ports. This does not include domestic trade within individual States.

3

EUROSTAT and OECD/IEA statistics, Journal de la Marine Marchande.

8

Approximately 70% of tanker trade in the EU is concentrated off its Atlantic and northern
coasts and the remaining 30% in the Mediterranean. Within these two zones, the split between
crude oil and product trades is approximately 2/3 to 1/3.

There is also an additional volume of tanker traffic passing through EU waters but not calling
at European ports, for example in the Mediterranean from the Middle East passing through
the Strait of Gibraltar.

(c) EU seaborne trade patterns – crude oil

EU imports of crude oil are mainly from the Middle East and North Africa, while exports
from the North Sea oil fields are mostly to North America.

Trade patterns are essentially governed by port and refinery locations, as the refineries receive
all incoming crude oil and deliver the oil products. The largest EU oil ports are Rotterdam
(which handles 100.8 million tonnes of crude oil p.a.), Marseilles (48.3 m tonnes), Le Havre
(37.0 m tonnes), Trieste (35.7 m tonnes) and Wilhelmshaven (32.6 m tonnes).

The larger tankers dominate the crude oil trade. Oil to Europe from the Middle East is
normally carried on Very Large Crude Carriers4 (VLCC) with a tonnage of +200 000 tonnes
deadweight (tdwt)5 routed around Africa, or through the Suez Canal using “Suezmax” tankers
of between 120-140 000 tdwt.

(d) EU seaborne trade patterns – oil products

The product trade is more complex, comprising EU imports and exports, intra-EU and
domestic trades. The total product trade is about 205 million tonnes p.a.

Imports and exports to/from the EU total 135 million tonnes while trade within the EU
amounts to 70 million tonnes. The oil product trade in the North Sea region is particularly
intense. The type of tankers used are usually of a smaller size range (5-50 000 tdwt handysize
product tankers.)

The number of product tankers operating within EU waters at any given time is difficult to
quantify because it varies to such a large extent. However, a rough estimate is about 1 500 to
2 000 vessels, the majority being of a smaller size. This sector plays an essential role in the
distribution of oil products in the EU.

The product tanker trade is further divided into so-called “black products” (bitumen, heavy
fuel oil, etc.) and “white products” (kerosene, petrol, etc.). Many white products are of a
highly flammable nature and are carried in modern, state-of-the-art tankers. Black oils pose a
far smaller risk of fire and explosion and are regularly carried in older tankers nearing the end
of their economic lives.

4

5

Or Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC) of +300 000 tdwt.
Deadweight is the tonnes of cargo, fuel and stores carried on a ship.

9

Although it is true that black oils are intrinsically less hazardous, they can be much more
polluting when spilled into the sea than white products or even crude oil, which to a large
extent may disperse by evaporation.6

Erika was a 35 000 tonne product tanker engaged in the carriage of heavy fuel oil (black
product cargo).

2. Oil Tanker fleets

The world fleet

Having established the importance of the oil trades both at a global level and within the
Community, it is necessary to look more closely at the actual tanker fleet.7

The world tanker fleet can be roughly divided into oil tankers (crude and products), chemical
tankers and liquid gas tankers. In tonnage terms the oil tanker fleet is by far the greatest.
Indeed, this sector is the largest of all shipping sectors and includes the world’s largest ships.

The world oil tanker fleet on 1 January 1999 comprised 7 030 ships8 totalling 289 million
tdwt. This represented 38.5% of world merchant tonnage.

The average age of the world tanker fleet in 1999 was 18 years (compared to 16.7 years in
1995). Of the total 1999 fleet, 41% (2 939 ships) were built before 1979, i.e. are now over
20 years old. In tonnage terms these represent 36% of the total tanker tonnage.

The world's 15 largest oil tanker fleets, representing 85% of the total tonnage, are shown in
the following graph.

WORLD OIL TANKER FLEET - 15 LARGEST FLEETS BY FLAG
(ISL 1999)

t

w
d
0
0
0
1

60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0

Liberia

Greece

Malta
Singapore

MarshallIs

Cyprus

India

Bermuda

6

Accidental spills can result from ships other than tankers which often carry large quantities of heavy
fuel as bunkers. This aspect is not addressed in this Communication; however it is an important risk
which has already been flagged up within the IMO.

10

The European fleet

The EU registered oil tanker fleet of 855 tankers9 totalling 43.2 million tonnes dwt represents
14.9% of the world total. However it is estimated that companies established within the EU
control10 about 35% of the world’s oil tanker fleet. Flags frequently used by EU interests
include Liberia, Panama, Cyprus, Malta and Bahamas.

3 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

0

E U - F L A G G E D O I L T A N K E R F L E E T ( P L U S N O R W A Y )
( 1 0 0 0 t d w t )

I S L 1 9 9 9

R
G

K
U

F

I

K
D

E

P

S

N
F

I

L
N

X
U
L

E
D

B

L
R

I

A

)

R
O
N

(

The average age of the EU registered oil tanker fleet was 19.1 years in 1999 (18.9 in 1995),
which is above the world average. More than 45% of the EU registered fleet is over 20 years
old (in terms of numbers of vessels.)

Many EU flagged and controlled tankers are engaged in “cross-trades”, meaning that they
trade between countries other than those in which they are registered, for example between
the Middle East and Japan, and may seldom or never visit EU ports.

It should also be noted that the world’s sixth largest tanker fleet is registered in Norway
(18 million tonnes), which means that the EEA-flagged tanker fleet represents over 20% of
the world total.

3. Tanker casualties

Between January 1992 and March 1999 a total of 593 merchant ships were lost (about
8 million tdwt). 77 of these losses were tankers which, although accounting for only 13% of
the total number, represent 31% in terms of tonnage.

When compared to the share of tankers in the world fleet (18.2% in terms of numbers of ships
and 38.5% in tonnage), it would appear that they have a relatively good safety record.
Annex 1 contains a summary of major tanker casualties in EU waters. Although the majority
of the accidents mentioned occurred off northern and western EU coasts, it must be stressed

7

8

9

10

Sources of data: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) Bremen, Yearbook and various
issues of FOCUS 1999, ISL Merchant Fleet Data Base (aggregates based on quarterly updates from
LMIS); Institute of Shipping Analysis (ISA), Gothenburg; DG TREN Statistics Pocket Book.
Ships of 300 gt and over.
Denmark includes: DOR, DIS, Faeroes and Greenland. France includes: Kerguelen, New Caledonia,
French Polynesia, Martinique, Guadaloupe, St. Pierre et Miquelon, Mayotte, Reunion, Wallis and
Fortuna Is, French Guyana. Netherlands includes Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Portugal includes
Madeira (and Macao). Spain includes Canary Is. UK includes Isle of Man, Channel Is., Br.Virgin Is.,
Montserrat, St.Helena, Turks & Caicos Is., Anguilla and Falkland Is.
Control: the country of domicile of the company owning the controlling interest in the fleet.

11

that tanker accidents in the Mediterranean have the potential to pose an exceptional risk to the
environment and commerce. Accidents are often attributed to human error (e.g. faulty
navigation or pilotage). Other causes are structural failure, fire and explosion.

There is a general correlation between age and accidents to ships. The following table shows
the percentage of all ships lost between 1989 and 1998 according to age group:

SHIPS LOST 1989-1998 AS % OF TOTAL
(Source: Institute of London Underwriters)

S
E
S
S
O
L
L
A
T
O
T
%

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

>25

AGE GROUPS (years)

Moreover, figures in Annex 1 show that 60 out of the 77 tanker casualties between 1992 and
1999 were over 20 years of age. However, several of the tankers involved in major pollution
incidents in Europe resulting from grounding were comparatively young.11

Structural failure is the other major cause of major pollution accidents over which there is
increasing concern.

There have been several instances of serious structural failure, the worst being the Betelgeuse
explosion caused by the hull fracturing in Bantry Bay, Ireland, in 1979 which killed 50
people. The Nakhodka suffered a similar fate to Erika off Japan in 1997 when she broke in
two while carrying heavy fuel oil, causing extensive pollution.

11

Although this Communication addresses tanker casualties and the resulting pollution, it should be noted
that the greatest source of tanker pollution is operational, such as cleaning of tanks and disposing of
cargo residues. A number of measures have been taken by the IMO which have resulted in a reduction
of this type of pollution, and the provision of adequate reception facilities in all tanker ports will result
in further reductions. The proposed Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and
cargo residues addresses this problem in Europe – Common position (EC) No 2/2000.

12

In these accidents, serious corrosion in ballast tanks was seen as a contributing factor. In the
same month as the Erika disaster the Russian tanker Volgoneft 248, also carrying heavy fuel
oil, ran aground in bad weather and broke up off Istanbul causing major pollution.

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

ANNUAL QUANTITY OF OIL LOST WORLD-WIDE AS A
RESULT OF ACCIDENTAL SPILLS

GROUNDING

COLLISION

TOTAL

(Note: "Total" graph shows
all oil spills including those
caused by structural failure,
fire and explosion.)

l

b
b
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

Year

(Source INTERTANKO)

The measures taken to improve safety and lessen pollution as a result of these accidents has
resulted in a significant decrease in both accidents and oil pollution. However, there is no
room for complacency. Since the Torrey Canyon disaster the reaction of European citizens
has sharply swung from being one of grudging acceptance that pollution is a price we have to
pay for economic development, to one of intolerance and outrage. It has to be emphasised that
no other type of marine disaster has ever resulted in damaging such huge areas of the marine
environment and impacting on the lives and businesses of such a large number of people.
Consequently, while welcoming the improving trend in tanker safety, there is clearly
more that can and must be done to try and eliminate accidents of this nature.

B – TANKER SAFETY

1. Developments in tanker safety

Following a number of very serious oil spills caused by tanker accidents, various strict
measures were taken at international level to improve safety standards. The impact of these
measures is reflected in recent casualty statistics.

(a) IMO legislation

Following the Torrey Canyon disaster in 1967 the real environmental threat posed by the
rapid growth in tanker traffic and ship size became apparent. It was clear that further
measures were needed to prevent oil pollution from tankers and also to improve the system
for compensation following such accidents.

The plan of action drawn up at IMO following Torrey Canyon resulted in a series of
conventions covering the legal and operational problems exposed by the accident. As well as
addressing accidental pollution, the important issue of operational pollution was also covered.

13

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)12 was
adopted in 1973. The Convention aims to cover all vessel-sourced pollution, not only oil, but
also chemicals, sewage, garbage and other harmful substances. The latest annex to be adopted
covers air pollution from ships.

Among the measures adopted under MARPOL was Crude Oil Washing, which eliminated the
need for washing cargo tanks with sea water. Inert gas systems were introduced on crude oil
carriers to prevent ignition within cargo spaces. Another measure was the introduction of
Segregated Ballast Tanks (SBTs). The measures were incorporated in the 1978 Protocol to the
1974 Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1978 SOLAS Protocol) and the 1978 Protocol
to the 1973 MARPOL Convention.

More recently, following the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989, further requirements have been
introduced in MARPOL to phase out single hull tankers and replace them by those with
double hulls or equivalent design. (For further details see Part II, A.3)

(b) Measures taken within the EU

A number of measures have also been taken at Community level in the fields of safety and
pollution as well as the inspection of ships. These to a great extent build on or complement
international IMO legislation. The Directive on port State control13 covers the inspection of
all ships and includes specific requirements relating to the inspection of tankers. Directive
94/57/EC establishes common rules and standards for ship inspection and classification
societies and for the relevant activities of Administrations.14

The IMO Resolution relating to tonnage measurement of segregated ballast tanks (SBTs) is
implemented in a Regulation15 which provides for ships with SBTs to receive a reduction in
port dues.

Vessels carrying dangerous or polluting goods to and from EU ports are required to report
details of their cargoes under Directive 93/75/EEC.16

The proposed Directive on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo
residues17 aims to ensure compliance with the provision under MARPOL that ports have to
provide reception facilities.

(c) Operational measures

A number of important measures have been taken within the IMO framework which help to
reduce the chance of vessels grounding or colliding whilst on passage. Traffic Separation
Schemes (TSSs) have been adopted in areas of heavy traffic. These schemes provide one-way
traffic lanes greatly reducing the chance of ships meeting head-on (e.g. Dover Strait). They
also ensure that traffic is kept well away from the coast (e.g. Ushant). The introduction of
TSSs has greatly reduced the incidence of collisions in areas where they have been
established.

12

13

14

15

16

17

The IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as amended by the
1978 Protocol (MARPOL 73/78).
Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995.
Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994.
Council Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993.
Common position (EC) No 2/2000.

14

Navigational equipment has become more reliable and accurate. Radars now have the ability
automatically to plot other ships and the navigator can assess the collision threat far more
easily. Precision navigation using satellite technology (GNSS) provides a continuous accurate
plot of the ship’s position. This greatly reduces the chance of grounding whilst on passage.

Further improvements in the technical field are being introduced. Accuracy of navigation will
be further improved for example through the introduction of Electronic Chart and Information
Systems (ECDIS) and the development of the GALILEO global navigation system. The
fitting of transponders on ships (AIS) will enable ships to be identified from the shore and
will also provide navigators with improved information to determine risk of collision with
more precision. The accuracy of meteorological forecasting has improved and weather-
routing of ships can result in reduced damage and economic savings.

(d) Training and the human element

In many accidents the “human element” has been a substantial contributory factor. Training
and competence of crews was recognised as being an essential part of improving safety at sea
and the adoption of the 1978 IMO Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW 78) was adopted. Its limitations though were soon
recognised and a rigorous overhaul of the Convention resulted in the revised STCW
Convention which came into force in 1997.

Development of technical
effectiveness of training schemes for seafarers.

training aids such as simulators has helped to improve the

A series of ILO regulations concerning the working and living conditions on board ships has
also been adopted. The most recent, covering the regulation of working hours on board,
addresses the issue of fatigue, which is seen as an increasingly important contributory factor
in marine accidents. The Commission will continue to follow with great
the
proceedings of the International Labour Office with a view to enable the expeditious
conclusion of the negotiations on the abandoning, the dead and the harm to seafarers.

interest

Another important instrument, the International Safety Management Code (ISM), became
mandatory from 1998. The ISM Code provides for safe practices in ship operations, a safe
working environment and requires safeguards against identified risks. It also provides for
continuous improvement in management skills of personnel, especially in safety and response
to emergencies.

15

(e) Structural improvements

Close monitoring of ships’ structures and the stresses on hulls has led to reductions of losses
due to structural failure. Improved stress monitoring equipment and accurate loading
computers have helped ensure that stresses are kept within allowable limits. As a further
check on the condition of ageing tankers, MARPOL requires (from 1993) an Enhanced
Survey Programme (ESP) of inspections to be carried out for crude oil tankers above 20 000
tonnes and product carriers over 30 000 tonnes. This requires a much more rigorous
inspection of a tanker’s hull than was previously the case. IMO Guidelines specify the detail
of such surveys, which become more stringent as the ship’s age increases. The scope was later
expanded so that from 1996 onwards, the ESP provisions have applied to all tankers over
in reducing losses and incidents causing
500 tonnes. ESP has had a significant effect
pollution. This is clearly shown in the following graph

l

b
b
0
0
0
1

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

ESP

Nakhodka

Erika

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

year

(Source INTERTANKO)

Oil spills – Annual quantities of oil lost as a result of structural failures, fires and
explosions

(f) New tanker designs18

Tankers constructed since 1996 are required under MARPOL to be built with double hulls or
equivalent designs and single-hulled tankers will be phased out. Double-hulled ships will
greatly reduce the chances of pollution in cases of low-impact collisions or grounding in

18

The Key Action within the Fifth Framework Programme on “Land transport and marine technologies"
will target improvements in efficiency, safety and environmental aspects of ships.

16

particular. The maintenance of structural integrity, especially in the ballast spaces of these
ships, will be essential. The use of modern effective coatings and corrosion protection
systems in ballast spaces will help prevent the rapid deterioration which was evident in older
tanker designs. It will be essential to monitor the integrity of the coating and systems closely
as these new designs of ship age.

Tanker fleet on 1.1.2000 – proportion of Double-Hull vessels (source INTERTANKO)

Size segment (tdwt.)

No. of tankers

Double Hull

% Double Hull

< 5 000

5 – 20 000

20 – 80 000

80 – 200 000

> 200 000

TOTAL

2249

1155

1538

975

493

6410

32

296

424

417

164

1333

1.4%

25.6%

27.5%

42.8%

33.3%

20.8%

2. Weaknesses in the present system

(a) Ownership and chartering practices

All the technical improvements achieved cannot hide the fact that there are certain trends in
the market which give serious grounds for concern. Oil companies have largely disposed of
their tanker fleets. Many small independent tanker owners have entered the market. Oil
companies now control only a quarter of the world fleet while independent tanker owners
control three quarters.

In addition there is a trend towards “atomisation” amongst independent tanker owners. By
splitting their fleet into single-ship companies, often in the form of “brass-plate” companies
registered in offshore locations, owners can reduce their financial risk. It is often difficult to
determine who are the financial interests concealed by these structures and who are the true
decision makers responsible for the safe operation of the ships.

Charterers also show a somewhat similar trend. The major oil production companies are in
competition with oil trading companies, which can be subdivided into globally operating big
players and niche operators. New oil-trading companies regularly emerge, while others
disappear or merge. The oil trading and charter market is highly competitive. Finding the
cheapest tanker capacity available on the market is an essential part of the business. The
volatile character of the market is also reflected in a shift away from long-term contracts
between charterers and carriers towards short-term charters (the so-called “spot market”), as is
illustrated in the following table.

Fleet controlled by oil companies

Long-term charter
company and carrier

between

oil

Short-term charter/spot market

1999

25%

25%

50%

(Source: INTERTANKO)

1974

40%

50%

10%

17

Price competition on the spot market is fierce. Market observations show that there is no
significant difference between freight rates for young and old tankers, with prices apparently
often dictated by the cheapest, oldest tonnage available. In such a market it is therefore
difficult to make quality pay, resulting in small, low-cost operators gaining market share at
the expense of companies with long-standing reputations. This entails a risk for safety.

(b) Rule enforcement

The economic reality described above calls for strengthened inspection regimes to ensure that
safety will not be compromised and used as a means to compete unfairly with operators
applying high quality standards.

Primary responsibility for ensuring ships comply with international standards lies with the
flag State (with which the ship is registered.) Regrettably, not all flag States are seen to carry
out this task to a sufficient level of responsibility. Although flag States are bound by the
regulations contained in the international conventions to which they are parties, the IMO does
they abide by them. This enables less
not possess the policing powers to ensure that
scrupulous operators to register their ships under flags which they know will not require full
compliance with international rules. It is for this reason that port States have established a line
of defence against sub-standard shipping through inspections carried out under port State
control regimes (PSC). Under PSC, a proportion of the ships calling at a State’s ports are
inspected to ensure compliance with international safety, pollution and manning standards.
PSC does not specifically focus on structural matters. As PSC is carried out during port calls,
normally involving loading or discharging operations, the ability to inspect cargo and ballast
spaces is limited, and inspection of the underwater hull structure is practically impossible.

Ship's structures are inspected and monitored by classification societies. These are highly
specialised private organisations with extensive experience in the shipping sector, employing
hundreds and in some cases thousands of technical staff and supported by powerful research
and computer centres. The classification societies assess the condition of a ship against
technical standards set by each society in order to issue the certificate of class. In addition,
they are often authorised to act on behalf of flag States to verify the ship’s compliance with
safety and environmental requirements laid down in the international conventions and issue
the relevant statutory certificates.

In recent years, the increasingly commercial character of classification societies has led to
strong competition by societies in attracting clients. At the same time there has been a
worrying trend towards a proliferation of societies of varying standards and an increasing
tendency for owners to switch class (“class-hopping”).

To ensure the structural integrity of the tanker fleet, it is absolutely essential that classification
societies apply the highest possible standards in carrying out their tasks. Although the ten
members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) aim to set
appropriate standards and ensure that they are maintained, there are still serious doubts as to
whether enough is being done throughout the entire class system to achieve the necessary
levels of quality. Many in the industry consider that not all IACS members meet the requisite
high standards. There seem to be variations both between performance of individual IACS
members and also within classification societies, where differing standards are reported
depending upon the flag administration and/or the client.

18

The Commission shares the concerns often expressed in various sectors of the maritime
industry that the performance of classification societies does not always meet the standards
required.

(c) Industry response

The Community recognises that action is already being taken by industry to address the
problems highlighted by the Erika accident. In particular, IACS has perceived the urgent
need to improve the detection and monitoring of the structures of ageing ships, particularly
regarding degradation of steelwork in ballast tanks.

IACS, at a special meeting of its board in Hamburg on 16 February, examined the specific
question of oil tanker safety in depth and announced a number of measures. These include an
improvement in class surveys for tankers over 15 years old. Class records, including thickness
measurement reports, will be maintained in computerised format and transferred to the society
taking over a ship’s classification. Specific measures include annual checks on ballast tanks
adjacent to heated cargo tanks and an enhanced intermediate survey regime. Transparency
will improve through increased sharing of information. The proper implementation of the
measures adopted by the IACS members will be closely monitored by the Commission and
the Member States in the framework of the inspections of the classification societies
recognised on the basis of Council Directive 94/57/EC.

The oil industry has also reacted to the accident. Working in the framework of the Oil
Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) the industry is discussing how the
effectiveness of the private inspection schemes used by members of OCIMF can be enhanced.
Most major oil companies have their own in-house inspection schemes. The commercial
department will only charter tankers which have been inspected by their technical department.
The inspection procedures and reports are harmonised to a certain extent and the data
maintained in a common OCIMF database (SIRE), which covers some 4 000 tankers and
annually produces some 10 000 tanker inspection reports. As a first step, OCIMF has agreed
that the private inspection reports stored in the SIRE database will be made available to PSC
inspectors in the framework of the EQUASIS project (see II-B-1), which should help to
optimise available PSC resources more efficiently.

19

The need for action…

Erika was a 25 year old product tanker with segregated ballast tanks carrying heavy fuel oil.
Her statutory certification was in order and she had successfully completed a five year survey
the year before the accident. An enhanced port State control inspection had been carried out in
May and no deficiencies were found. She had undergone the charterer’s inspection and had
been found suitable for her trade. How, therefore, is it possible that the ship could have
broken in two and caused such an environmental catastrophe?

Erika therefore poses a serious challenge to all concerned in the tanker industry. It clearly
shows that action is necessary to look beyond the mere verification of certification and the
conducting of superficial inspections if we are to prevent a repetition of such tanker accidents.
Responsibility for ensuring that tankers meet the required safety and environmental standards
lies with the owner and flag State. It is clear, though, that some States and owners are less
conscientious than others. There is, moreover, a marked lack of transparency in this complex
industry, often resulting in the identity of those persons responsible for an individual tanker
being obscured behind the doors of “brass plate” companies in offshore locations. Because of
this, there is a clear need for port States and responsible industry bodies to take a stronger
line, particularly with respect to older tankers, to ensure that structural defects and sub-
standard tonnage are identified well before they pose a threat to the environment. The fact that
the average age of the world and EU tanker fleet is relatively high and still increasing is also
of great concern. This trend has to be reversed by the introduction of newer, more
environmentally friendly, tonnage.

What is needed all-in-all is a package of measures which will bring about a change in
culture in the tanker industry. There should be stronger incentives for quality-minded
carriers, charterers, classification societies and other key bodies. At the same time, the
net should be tightened around those who seek short-term personal economic gain at the
expense of safety and the marine environment.

20

2 : PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

In drafting its proposals, the Commission adopted an approach designed in particular to:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

make inspection procedures and practices more uniform;

increase "cross-fertilisation" between Community instruments, in particular the
directives on port State control and classification societies;

increase the sanctions for ships potentially posing a major environment hazard,
while rewarding operators of ships of a more environment-friendly quality or
design;

endeavour to eliminate the confusion created by the proliferation of different
controls and inspections: each party (shipowner, charterer,
flag State,
classification society and port State control authority) should respect the limits
of its own role and powers;

engage the liability of all the actors in the industry involved in the operation of
sub-standard ships;

combat the lack of transparency in maritime transport by introducing stricter
obligations to publish information relating to inspections and ship detentions
and by developing the EQUASIS database on the quality of ships;

improve the monitoring of correct application of Community legislation by
providing the Commission with the necessary resources to accomplish this
task.

The Commission proposes two types of measure:

• As a first step,

the Commission is presenting regulatory measures. Three
proposals for legal acts are annexed to this communication. They concern the
amendment of
the
amendment of the Classification Societies Directive (Directive 94/57/EC) and a
Regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design
standards (Part A).

the Port State Control Directive (Directive 95/21/EC),

• The second part of the communication sets out the broad lines of future action
the
concerning the transparency of
surveillance of navigation, the possibility of setting up a European structure for
maritime safety and above all action to ensure the liability of the various players
in the shipping community (Part B).

information on the quality of ships,

21

A - PROPOSALS FOR IMMEDIATE LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

1.

Port State control

Port State control of ships developed as a reaction to the lax or negligent behaviour of some
ship operators or flag States that showed little concern for compliance with the IMO safety
regulations. It is based on the principle of verification of compliance with these international
regulations by inspecting ships calling at ports.

In Europe19 an administrative agreement, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
was concluded in 1982 in order to establish harmonised inspection procedures. In 1995, the
Council adopted Directive 95/21/EC which makes the MOU mandatory and significantly
strengthens its provisions. This Directive constitutes the main pillar of Community action in
its battle against ships that fall short of international safety standards. In parallel with the
legislative initiative, training for inspectors is important in order to achieve harmonised
implementation of
inspection practices in ports. The Commission has financed the
development of an advanced training course and plans on this basis to organise courses in
2000 and 2001 for inspectors from the various national maritime administrations of the MOU
member countries.

The Port State Control Directive has been amended on several occasions to increase the
uniformity and efficiency of procedures. However,
the Erika accident revealed certain
shortcomings in the way port State control works, particularly as regards the inspection of
ships that statistically present greater risks, by virtue either of their age or the pollutant nature
of their cargo. It is also clear in the Commission's view that the current lack of transparency of
inspectors,
the shipping community and the lack of synergy between the actors (port
classification societies, etc.) considerably reduce the efficiency of port State control.

The Commission therefore attaches to this Communication a first legislative proposal to
amend Directive 95/21/EC on the basis of the following principles:

a)

Tougher measures against manifestly sub-standard ships

• Banning of ships over 15 years old that have been detained more than twice in the
preceding two years and figure on the "black list" of flags with an above-average
number of detentions. This measure has the character of a sanction against
"recidivist" shipowners and Flag States that have given proof of persistently
neglecting the follow-up of ships flying their flag. The Commission will publish
the list of banned ships every six months.

• Systematic inspection in ports of ships whose "target factor" is particularly high.20

19

20

The region covered by the Paris MOU actually extends far beyond the borders of the European Union,
as it includes countries such as Canada, Russia and Croatia.
The "target factor" works on the following principle: a certain number of points is allocated to ships on
the basis of various criteria, such as age, flag, previous detentions, etc. Ships with the highest number of
points must be inspected as a priority. This tool permits the targeting of vessels posing a high risk and
the harmonisation of procedures for selection of the ships to be inspected, thereby reducing the risk of
divergent practices depending on the port.

22

b)

Increased inspection of oil tankers and other vessels posing a risk

• The optional provisions in the existing Directive concerning potentially hazardous
ships21 will become mandatory:
to
mandatory expanded inspection every year on entering a Community port. An
advance notification obligation prior to entry into ports has been introduced to
facilitate the preparation of inspections.

these ships will henceforth be subject

• The measures for oil tankers are even tougher: they will be subject

to the
expanded inspection regime from the age of 15 onwards, rather than 20 and 25 as
in the current Directive. In addition, inspectors will have to examine at least one
of the ballast tanks in order to detect any corrosion problems.

c)

Increased information obligations

• Greater efficiency: inspectors will have more information on the ships to be
inspected via mandatory consultation of the EQUASIS database on ship quality.
In addition, inspectors will be required to state in their reports the nature of the
inspections carried out: this will help to avoid the same inspection being repeated
by the inspector in the next port of call.

• "Cross-fertilisation": the flag State and the classification society will be informed
of the results of inspections, enabling them to intervene more rapidly in the case
of a deterioration in the condition of a ship.

• Greater transparency: additional items have been added to the list of information
in particular the name of the

to be published on inspections and detention,
charterer.

d)

Improved monitoring of the application of the Directive

Member States will be required to provide detailed information to the Commission to
enable it to evaluate better the effectiveness of the Directive and to verify Member
States' compliance with its provisions. This will make it easier to detect cases where
the Directive is incorrectly applied and to institute infringement proceedings on the
basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

2.

Classification societies

Classification societies22 are key players in the maritime safety field. It would be difficult to
imagine a shipping world without the technical expertise provided by these organisations.
However, largely due to the commercial pressure exercised on the classification societies, and
to the growing number of organisations operating in the field without having sufficient
the shipping community in these
expertise and professionalism,
organisations has declined in the recent decades.

the confidence of

21

22

Ships presenting a risk, according to an Annex to the Directive, are oil tankers, gas and chemical
tankers and bulk carriers above a certain age, and passenger ships.
See I-B, Paragraph 2 (b).

23

A first response to these problems was provided at Community level by the adoption, in 1994,
of Council Directive 94/57/EC, which introduced a system for Community-wide recognition
of classification societies. This Directive addressed the overall issue of the quality of the
classification societies to be authorised to work on behalf of the maritime administrations of
the Member States. The qualitative criteria of the Annex to the Directive aimed to ensure that
only highly reliable and professionally competent bodies be authorised to work on behalf of
the EU Member States. The overall provisions of this legal instrument were designed to
ensure that the relevant safety requirements were applied in a harmonised and scrupulous
the Directive introduced obligations to control
manner on board ships. Furthermore,
classification societies working on behalf of the Member States, both to ensure that the
recognised organisations continued to meet the provisions of the Directive and to assess their
quality performance.

This Directive represented one of the first steps on the road to the establishment of a
Community policy on maritime safety. Its transposition into the national laws of the Member
States constituted a long and complicated process, with twelve infringement procedures
launched by the Commission for failure to comply with the transposition time-limit laid down
in the Directive and with the last Member State transposing the Directive only in 1998. The
Commission also launched a number of infringement procedures – some of which are still
the working
pending – for non-compliance, mainly related to the establishment of
relationships between the maritime administrations and the organisations authorised to work
on their behalf.

The Directive suffered, on a number of issues, from some shortcomings that appeared
following its implementation. The procedure for the recognition of the classification societies,
for example, was completely left to individual Member States without ex ante harmonised and
centralised control of the fulfilment of the criteria of the Directive by the organisation wishing
to be recognised. The same lack of harmonised and centralised approach applied to the
periodic ex post controls of the recognised organisations. The safety and pollution prevention
performance record of the organisations – measured in respect of all their classed ships,
irrespective of the flag they fly – was not regarded as a conditio sine qua non to recognise the
classification societies or to maintain their recognition.

The lessons learned from the practical implementation of the Directive have led to the
identification of a number of areas where the provisions of the Directive can be further
strengthened. Hence the proposed amendments, which are described in detail in the second
legislative proposal attached to this Communication.

The main content of the proposed amendments is the following:

• The granting and the withdrawal of the recognition of the classification societies are
decided by the Commission on the basis of the Comitology procedure. The periodic
inspections of the recognised organisations are carried out by the Commission together
with the Member State proposing the recognition.

• A new sanction for the recognised organisation is introduced: the suspension of recognition
for one year, which leads to the withdrawal of the recognition if the shortcomings causing
the suspension are not removed.

• A good record of safety and pollution prevention performance of the recognised
organisations – measured in respect of all the ships they have in class, irrespective of the
flag they fly – becomes a conditio sine qua non to grant and maintain the recognition.

24

• The conditions of the financial

liability of the recognised organisation carrying out
statutory tasks on behalf of the Member States are harmonised at Community level. The
financial liability is unlimited or can be limited to different levels in accordance with the
seriousness of the negligent act of the classification society.

• More stringent qualitative criteria have to be met by the recognised organisations,
including the need to respect certain procedures when ships change class and the need to
communicate more information about the ships they have in class to the port State control
authorities. In order to ensure in particular that the gaining organisation has a full picture of
the condition of a ship when it changes class, the complete file on the history of the vessel
must be transferred by the losing society to the gaining society.

• The obligations of the Member States as flag States are reinforced in the field of maritime

safety.

3

a)

Single and double hull oil tankers

Current situation and problem

Most of the oil tankers currently in service are of the "single hull" design. In such
ships, the oil is separated from seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the
hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks
will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective
means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at
a sufficient distance from the outer shell. Such a "double hull" design protects the
cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk.

the USA, dissatisfied with the
Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident
ineffectiveness of the international standards on the prevention of pollution from
ships, in 1990 adopted the Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90).

Under this law, they unilaterally imposed double hull requirements for both new and
existing oil tankers in the form of age limits (between 23 and 30 years from 2005)
and deadlines (2010 and 2015) for the phasing-out of single hull tankers.

The IMO, faced with this unilateral measure by the USA, was forced to follow suit
and in 1992 established double-hull standards in the International Convention on the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). This Convention requires all oil
tankers delivered after July 1996 to have a double hull. Hence no single hull oil
tankers have been built since that date.

Single hull oil tankers from 20 000 deadweight tonnes, delivered before 6 July 1996,
are required by the Convention to comply with the double hull requirements from the
age of 25 or 30, depending on whether or not they have segregated ballast tanks.23

23

The objective of segregated ballast tanks is to reduce the risks of operational pollution by ensuring that
ballast water never comes into contact with oil. In addition, they are sited in a protective location to
minimise the impact of grounding or collision.

25

Consequently, three categories of single hull oil tankers must be distinguished:
• Category 1: Single hull oil tankers without protective ballast tanks around the
cargo tanks. This category will finally be phased out between 2007 and 2012 with
the implementation of the double hull requirements.

• Category 2: Single hull oil tankers in which the cargo tank area is partly
protected by segregated ballast tanks. Phasing out of this category through the
implementation of the double hull requirements will only be completed in 2026
(instead of 2010 and 2015 as in OPA 90).

• Category 3: Single hull oil tankers below the "MARPOL" size limits that are not

affected by the double hull requirements.

Given that it is practically impossible to convert a single hull oil tanker to a double
hull construction and as the age limits specified are close to the end of a ship's
commercial life, both the American system and the MARPOL Convention lead to the
phasing out of single hull oil tankers.

However, because of the differences between the American and the international
system, single hull tankers banned from American waters because of their age will
begin, from 2005 onwards, to operate in other regions of the world, including the
European Union, and lead to an increased risk of pollution in those areas.

b)

Proposed Community response

The situation described is of concern to the Commission, since the statistics show
increasing accident rates for older ships. An appropriate Community response is
necessary and must take effect before 2005, a key date from which single hull
tankers banned from American waters will begin to operate in European waters.

The Commission therefore proposes speeding up in the Community the replacement
of single hull tankers by oil tankers complying with double hull or equivalent safety
standards.

This system must be aligned to the age limits and end-dates provided for in OPA 90,
in order to prevent oil tankers banned from US waters from shifting their trades to
Europe. The proposal will also reverse the ageing trend in the tanker fleet: new,
double hull tonnage will replace the old single hull ships, thus ensuring better
protection overall against the risk of accidental pollution.

26

The attached Commission proposal for a regulation provides for the following
timetable for the gradual phasing out of single hull oil tankers:

Category 1:
Single hull oil tankers, MARPOL size,
without tanks in protective locations

Category 2:
Single hull oil tankers; MARPOL size, with
partial protection of the cargo tank area

Category 3:
Single hull oil tankers below the MARPOL
size limit

USA
(OPA 90)

International
(MARPOL)

EU
(PROPOSAL)

2010

2007/2012

2005

2010/2015

2026

2010

2015

No
deadline

2015

The proposal for a regulation concerns all single hull oil tankers of 600 tonnes
deadweight and above flying the flag of a Member State, and is a condition of entry
into Member States' ports, regardless of the flag the ship is flying.

Finally, to encourage the use of double hull tankers, the Commission is proposing a
system of financial incentives in the form of a reduction in port and pilotage dues.
Conversely, the use of single hull oil tankers will be discouraged by the increase in
these dues in line with ship age.

The Commission is aware of the economic and social impact this proposal will have
on the industry, and intends to examine it more in depth. Nevertheless, it is important
to give an impetus to the ongoing phasing-out of single hull tankers, by proposing to
apply in the European Community a phasing-out calendar similar with the American
one and by strongly supporting any endeavours aimed at achieving this accelerated
calendar at international level as well (IMO).

The Commission is conscious of the fact that the accelerated phasing-out of single
hull tankers by new double hull tonnage will have some impact on the price of oil
products. An assessment study on the Oil Pollution Act published by the USA
National Research Council in 1998, concluded that the impact of OPA90 on the cost
of the oil products was estimated to be approximately 10 US cents per barrel or about
one tenth of the cost of transportation, which in itself only represents between 5 to
10% of the total product cost. The final impact on the price of the oil products will
thus be less than 1%. Compared to the costs for cleaning up the consequences of a
major oil spill arising from accidents such as that of the ERIKA, which order of
magnitude is estimated to be around 200 million EURO, the Commission esteems
that this additional cost does not outweigh the benefits if with the measures proposed
the re-occurrence of such accidents in Community waters can be prevented. It
considers therefore that this is a reasonable price to be paid to ensure an effective
reduction in the risks of pollution.

The Commission further wants that the signal given to the Industry be clear and
quick, to avoid uncertainty and unnecessarily delayed decisions to invest in new
double hull tonnage. It is recognised between the major shipbuilding associations

27

that for the foreseeable future there is sufficient excess building capacity to cope with
tankers that will emerge from this
the increased demand for new double hull
proposal.

B: PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE MEASURES

Apart from the immediate legislative follow-up measures presented above, a number of other
actions will be proposed by the Commission within the foreseeable future. These proposals
will cover a variety of matters,
including improvements to the existing regime of
compensating damage caused by oil spills, measures to achieve increased transparency of
safety-related information in shipping, the setting-up of a European structure for maritime
safety and improved coastal control of sea traffic in European waters. An outline of the
envisaged measures is given below.

1.

Increased transparency

The lack of availability of information on matters of relevance to ship safety is a serious
concern for the Commission. While a great amount of information on ships is being collected
by various bodies, it is scattered in many different places and often difficult to access, even
for the maritime industry at large. The Commission considers that all sectors of the maritime
industry have a responsibility to exercise care in the safety and quality of ships with which
they are dealing. Furthermore,
their safety
management and operation, inspections performed, etc. should not be reserved only for those
most directly involved. The current lack of transparency in shipping is therefore unacceptable
and does not serve the interests of either the industry itself or the wider public.

information on the basic details of ships,

In order to remedy the transparency problem in shipping, the Commission, in co-operation
with the maritime administration of France, has initiated the creation of a new ship safety
database, EQUASIS, which will collect
information relating to the safety and quality
performance of ships and their operators and make it easily accessible on the Internet
(www.EQUASIS.org). EQUASIS will be an important tool for anybody with an interest in or
responsibility for maritime safety, most notably for charterers determined to select ships of
high quality and for port State control inspectors. A first version of the EQUASIS database
will become operational in May 2000, but the development and enlargement of the system
will no doubt continue after that.

In its first stage, EQUASIS will contain details of the type, flag, age and ownership on all
merchant ships of the world. Inspection information from the port State control regions of
Europe, Asia-Pacific and the USA will also be available. In addition, it will contain some
basic data on the classification and insurance of the ships. Negotiations are underway to
widen this data with further information from industry inspection schemes, flag States and
more detailed classification data. All data in EQUASIS will be factual in nature and the
database will not make any judgement or ranking of ships. Its purpose is to allow each user to
form its own opinion on the quality and safety of the ship, based on the information provided.

The Commission and France have been involved in the development of this database since
1998. More recently, the maritime administrations of Japan, Spain, Singapore, the United
Kingdom, the United States Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organisation have

28

indicated their preparedness to participate in the supervision of the system. The daily
management of EQUASIS will be carried out by a Management Unit to be created by the
French Maritime Administration.

industry bodies,

insurers and
A number of important
classification societies, have already agreed to provide information to the system and to
participate in the EQUASIS Editorial Board, which is the advisory body for information
providers improving the information provided through EQUASIS. The first orientation
meeting of the Editorial Board was held in Brussels on 15 February 2000.

including shipowners, charterers,

The Commission will make continuous efforts to improve the EQUASIS database. EQUASIS
will within the foreseeable future become a comprehensive database, where all sectors of the
maritime industry, whether public or private, easily can access a wide range of detailed
safety-related information on the world’s entire merchant fleet. The quality and extent of
information will be such that no charterer, insurer, financier, etc. of a sub-standard ship will
be able to claim not to have known about its poor condition. In order to achieve this aim,
particular efforts need to be placed on increasing the contribution to EQUASIS by flag and
port State control authorities as well as by classification societies.

2.

Surveillance of navigation

Following the Erika accident, proposals were made for improving the surveillance of
potentially dangerous ships navigating off Europe's coastline. It was stressed in particular that
the inspections carried out in the framework of port State control of ships are not always an
adequate solution, as particularly dangerous ships may sail along the coast of one or more
Member States before the problem is detected in port.

Radical measures have also been proposed, such as inspecting ships outside territorial waters,
or even restricting or prohibiting navigation by certain particularly dangerous ships in
Member States' exclusive economic zone. However, imposing restrictions or bans on shipping
outside territorial waters and a fortiori outside the exclusive economic zone, poses problems
not only of compatibility with international law of the EC but also of the practical feasibility
of monitoring compliance with these measures.

By contrast, the Commission considers it the perfectly legitimate right of a State, particularly
one that is a frequent victim of shipping accidents, to be better informed of and monitor more
closely the passage off its coastline of ships transporting pollutant substances, or presenting a
major hazard in any other respect.24 It is also essential to have advance knowledge of the
cargo in the event of an accident involving a ship transporting pollutant substances, in order to
be able to intervene effectively against a risk of pollution or a pollution incident.

There is already a Community legal framework obliging ships transporting pollutant and
dangerous substances to report to the competent authorities of the Member States: Directive
93/75/EEC. However, this measure concerns only ships bound for or leaving Community

24

For example, where it can be concluded from the information received, e.g. inspections carried out in
ports in other regions of the world, that a ship presents a major hazard to safety and the marine
environment before it even enters the port of a Member State. Another example would be a ship
authorised to sail to a repair yard after having been detained, where the authority concerned wishes to
monitor its behaviour.

29

ports. A proposal for a directive, known as Eurorep,25 was adopted in December 1993 with a
view to extending the reporting obligations of Directive 93/75/EEC to ships in transit off the
Community coast. Despite having been welcomed by the European Parliament, the Council
failed to reach agreement on this proposal.

The Commission intends to produce new proposals on the safety of maritime transport as
soon as possible. The following factors will be taken into account in this context:

The international legal context has evolved considerably since 1993. In March 1998
a)
the European Community ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In
addition, a new Regulation was introduced in the SOLAS Convention (Regulation V/8-1)
giving coastal States the possibility of establishing mandatory reporting systems applicable to
all ships, including ships in transit.

b)
The IMO has approved several mandatory reporting systems along the European
coastline, e.g. in the Strait of Gibraltar, off Cape Finisterre, Ushant and in the Strait of Dover.
There is therefore in practice a "potential" chain of coastal reporting systems extending from
the Strait of Gibraltar up to the entrance to the North Sea. These systems also ensure the
surveillance of ships navigating in their particular area.

There have been several significant developments in the field of communication

c)
technologies:

–

–

The most important is undoubtedly the advent of automatic ship identification
systems or transponders. The IMO has approved the specifications and drawn
up a provisional timetable providing for the mandatory installation of such
systems on board all ships above 300 tons with effect from 2002.

It

is worth pointing out

Another notable development is the growing use of telematics networks for
data transmission.
the
Commission has initiated a memorandum of understanding between several
Member States concerning the introduction of an electronic data exchange
network (EDI) between Member States' administrations for the implementation
of Directive 93/75/EEC (at present five Member States plus Norway are party
to this agreement and others may join shortly).

in this connection that

Construction of

d)
the global navigation and positioning infrastructure is now a
European Union priority through the GALILEO project. This initiative will lead to a reliable
and highly accurate service (3 metres on the high seas and 1 metre in port areas), which
should serve as a reference for positioning systems applicable to ships in or near Community
waters. Together with ECDIS26, GALILEO offers a unique level of service in contributing to
improved conditions of navigability and safety. The system, based on a satellite array, will
also permit the relay of distress signals as provided for by the GMDSS concept.27 The
Commission also plans to use satellite images to detect polluting ships. The shipping

25

26

27

(COM(93) 647 final)
ECDIS or Electronic Chart Display and Information System, which gives a continuous plot of the ship
in its nautical environment, including its immediate position, on an on-board computer.
GMDSS or Global Maritime Distress and Safety System consists of a radio communication system
designed primarily for rapid alert of the shore-based search and rescue authorities and any ships in the
vicinity in the event of an emergency.

30

community is closely involved in the design of the GALILEO services and will thus be able
to identify other possible applications for the system.

All of these elements will lead the Commission to propose a general overhaul of the reporting
system as described in Directive 93/75/EEC and in the proposed Eurorep Directive.28 The
new proposal should help render more efficient and simplify the monitoring of ships in
Community waters, in conditions compatible with the international law of the sea.

3.

The enlargement process

The Luxembourg European Council decided in December 1997 to start negotiations with six
candidate countries for accession to the European Union: Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia,
Czech Republic and Slovenia. The Helsinki European Council increased in December 1999
this number by deciding to start negotiations with Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and
Malta. In addition the Helsinki European Council recognised the application of Turkey.

From the point of view of maritime safety, the accession negotiations present a challenge. If
the 13 candidate countries were to join the European Union today, the average number of
ships detained flying the European flag would increase to 13.26% compared with 5.73% in
1998. This high percentage is due to the very sub-standard performance of ships flying the
flag of certain applicant countries, notably Malta and Cyprus, which have the fourth and fifth
largest fleets in the world.

Such a fall in the level of safety of EU shipping is unacceptable and cannot be justified by
enlargement. It is therefore essential that the candidate countries undertake to apply the
international and European maritime safety standards scrupulously as soon as possible but not
later than by the date of their accession.

The Commission has already notified them of its serious concerns in this area and has entered
the
into specific discussions to help them remedy this situation. More particularly,
Commission has focussed on the transposition by Cyprus of the existing Community
legislation. In its consolidated report on enlargement to the Helsinki European Council, the
Commission stated that Cyprus and Malta will have to make substantial efforts to reach the
level of the other Member States. Specific measures to this effect have already been adopted
by the Cypriot authorities, and the Commission is currently verifying their application. Other
measures will have to follow.

In view of the insufficient safety standards of the fleets of most candidate countries and the
particular need to strengthen both their flag State Administrations and their port State control
systems, the EU has identified alignment of legislation on "maritime safety" as a short-term
priority in the revised 1999 Accession Partnerships for most acceding countries, including
Cyprus and Malta.

Improving the performance of the candidate countries as flag States is of crucial importance
to the Commission in the context of the accession negotiations. The Commission will provide

28

Another issue related to marine accidents is the availability of ports of refuge for ships which get into
difficulties. There is often a reluctance by local authorities to admit a vessel which is perceived to be
unsafe or a pollution threat, while sending it further out to sea could increase the danger or result in
more widespread pollution. This is another problem which could be addressed in this context.

31

these countries with all the necessary aid and expertise, but will not cease to insist that they
must apply all the relevant Community legislation at the date of their accession.

4.

Towards a European structure for Maritime Safety

As a result of the questions raised about the effectiveness of safety inspections in Community
ports following the Erika accident, a great deal of support was voiced for creating a European
coastguard or a European Maritime Safety Agency.

Such a debate would have been unthinkable ten years ago. The situation today has evolved
considerably. Some of the Member States' national competencies in the field of maritime
safety have been transferred to the Community level. The body of Community legislation
covers the key aspects of the IMO Conventions in force, its main objective being to ensure
efficient and uniform application of the international safety rules in the European Union.

A European structure, whatever form it takes29, should be limited to supporting the action of
Member States and the Commission in applying and monitoring Community legislation and
in evaluating the effectiveness of the measures in place. To this end, such a structure should
have the task of collecting and analysing factual or statistical information without being
empowered to take decisions. It could be entrusted with ad hoc evaluations or audit missions
(e.g. assessing classification societies on the basis of the criteria in the Annex to Directive
94/57/EC). It would be up to the Member States, and in particular the Commission in its
capacity as executor or guardian of Community legislation, to perform the necessary follow-
up.

It would be somewhat unrealistic, or at least very premature, to envisage setting up an
integrated European operational structure or coastguard that would take over the role of the
national maritime administrations.

The administrative structures involved in maritime safety differ considerably from one
Member State to another: some are civil, others military and they perform very different tasks,
from ship inspection as port State or flag State to fisheries protection, customs, combating
drug trafficking or immigration controls. Unlike certain countries such as the USA, which
have a unitary structure and thus the ability to impose uniform procedures and verify
compliance, the European Union has to work with the diverse administrative traditions of its
Member States.

The Commission therefore believes that
Maritime Safety should be considered, which could be entrusted with the following tasks:

the establishment of a European structure for

–

–

assessment and audit of classification societies,

on-the-spot inspection of the conditions under which Member States carry out
port State control of ships,

29

Any decision on this issue shall be made in the light of the outcome of the general debate on the
externalisation of Commission tasks.

32

–

–

–

–

contribution to European training courses for port State control inspectors or
flag State inspectors,

fact-finding missions in the applicant countries, in order to assess the manner
in which their maritime administrations comply with their obligations as flag
States and port States,

information gathering and processing of statistics,

operation of Commission databases (e.g.: database on inspection of passenger
ships under Directive 1999/35/EC).

All of these tasks should be performed exclusively by personnel highly qualified in the area of
maritime safety who have both comprehensive technical knowledge and are fully familiar
with European and international maritime safety and pollution prevention regulations. In the
longer term, the possibility should be examined of assigning broader tasks to this structure,
e.g. relating to the control of shipping, because of the possibilities offered by the new
positioning technologies.

5.

a)

Liability of the maritime players

The civil liability system in force for damage caused by oil pollution

The existing maritime liability regime has developed over centuries and is consequently a
complex one. It consists of a patchwork of international conventions relating to specific types
of liability and a variety of rules on limitation of liability, insurance and jurisdiction, often
governed by national laws which depend on whether - and if so, what version of - the
conventions have been ratified by the States concerned. Generally speaking, the regime
emphasises the responsibility of the shipowner, as opposed to that of the other players
involved (such as the ship operator, manager, cargo owner, charterer, intermediaries or the
classification society). On the other hand, shipowners have a right to limit their financial
liability at a maximum amount, which normally is relatively low.

In the case of oil pollution, however, the international liability system is tailor-made for the
purpose and comparatively straightforward. All EU coastal States are either parties to, or in
the process of ratifying, the 1992 Protocols to the International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution (CLC) and the International Convention setting up the Oil Pollution
Compensation Fund (Fund Convention). These two conventions establish a two-tier liability
system, which cover pollution damage, including preventive measures and to a limited extent
environmental damage per se for accidents occurring in the coastal waters (up to 200 miles)
of the States.

The first tier consists of the liability of the shipowner, which is governed by the CLC. The
shipowner’s liability is strict and thus not depending on fault or negligence on his part. The
owner is normally allowed to limit his liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of
the ship, presently maximum EUR 80 million for the biggest ships, in the case of Erika only
around EUR 13 million. The shipowner loses the right to limit his liability only if it is proved
that the pollution damage resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the
intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably

33

result. The CLC also requires shipowners to have liability insurance and gives claimants the
right of direct action against the insurer.

The CLC regime is supplemented by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
(IOPC Fund), which was established through the Fund Convention in order to compensate
victims when the shipowner’s liability is insufficient to cover the damage. The Fund is
financed by contributions from companies receiving oil and recourse to the Fund may take
place in three cases. The most common is where the damage exceeds the shipowner’s
maximum liability. The second case is where the shipowner can invoke any of the (few)
defences allowed in the CLC. The last case is where the shipowner is financially incapable of
meeting
around
EUR 185 million.

his obligations. The maximum compensation by the Fund

is

Victims of oil spills may present their claims directly against the Fund and, to the extent
claims are justified and meet the relevant criteria, the Fund will compensate the claimant
directly. If the total of approved claims exceeds the maximum limit of the Fund all claims will
be reduced proportionately. If the claimant and the Fund cannot reach agreement, the claimant
can pursue his claim against the Fund before the courts of the State where the damage
occurred. Since it was first established in 1978, the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund has
dealt with some 90 cases, most of which have been settled directly with the Fund, outside
courts.

Generally speaking, this dual regime has proved to be workable. Particularly when compared
to other areas of pollution liability which are currently unregulated (such as accidents
involving hazardous and noxious substances other than oil, or bunker oil from ships other
than oil tankers), the regime is very advanced. Therefore the Commission believes that the
existing oil pollution compensation regime should provide the basis for future measures. A
general environmental liability regime, as outlined in the recent Commission White Paper on
environmental liability,30 is the appropriate tool for developing areas of liability which are not
yet harmonised at a European level. However, liability and compensation for oil pollution
from ships is already subject to a uniform world-wide regime. The existing system provides
the legislative framework and the internationally recognised concepts upon which European
measures could and should build.

b)

Measures proposed to improve the existing regime

At least the following three criteria have to be examined when considering whether a liability
and compensation system is fully satisfactory:

(1)

(2)

It should provide prompt compensation to victims without having to rely on extensive
and lengthy judicial procedures.

The maximum compensation limit should be set at a sufficiently high level to cover
admissible claims from any potential disaster occurring as a result of an oil tanker
accident.

30

COM(2000) 66 final, 9 February 2000.

34

(3)

The regime should discourage tanker operators and cargo interests from transporting
oil in anything other than tankers of an impeccable quality.

The Commission considers that on the first point the mechanism provided by the CLC and
Fund Convention is satisfactory. Generally speaking, claims have been handled promptly and
without lengthy legal battles.

On the second point action is needed. As long as the maximum limits are not high enough to
cover any potential disaster, victims of an oil disaster with very extensive damage will receive
less compensation than victims of a smaller-scale accident. This is questionable from a point
of view of principle and some recent oil spills have indicated that even comparatively small
amounts of oil may raise doubts as to the sufficiency of the current limit.

On the third point, the existing system also fails. The right of the shipowner to limit his
liability is at present practically unbreakable. Cargo interests, on their part, have no individual
responsibility at all. The fact that ships of an appalling condition continue to be employed for
transportation of oil shows that charterers do not have sufficient disincentives to give up their
intolerable practice of deliberately selecting low-quality tonnage.

For these reasons the Commission proposes the following actions.

i) Strengthening the international regime

As a first step, the immediate raising of the limits of both the CLC and the Fund conventions
is important. Provided that the necessary majority is achieved, the limits can be increased
through the simplified tacit acceptance procedure which was introduced in the 1992
Protocols.31 This measure would considerably raise (by some 50%) the compensation
available and would share the financial burden between shipowners and oil receivers.

In the meantime, the need for a more fundamental revision of the CLC and Fund conventions
shall be examined. In particular, it has to be questioned whether the current threshold for loss
of limitation right for the shipowner is acceptable. Another question that needs to be given
serious consideration is whether the current definition of pollution damage should be
extended.

The Commission urges the Member States to do their utmost to support any effort to improve
the existing oil pollution liability regime at an international level.

ii) A European third tier Fund

The Commission is aware that the international procedures that have to be followed to
achieve concrete results are lengthy and that there is no guarantee of success. Therefore, it
takes the view that complementary action at a European level is needed in order to ensure
adequate compensation for victims of an oil spill occurring in European waters.

31

Article 15 of the 1992 Protocol to the CLC and Article 33 of the 1992 Protocol to the Fund Convention.
Any amendment made under these articles will enter into force at the earliest 36 months after its
adoption by the IMO Legal Committee.

35

Adequate compensation of victims of a European oil spill can be ensured through the creation
of a European third liability tier, which would compensate internationally eligible claims
relating to oil spills in European waters exceeding the maximum limitation limits. Liability
under such a European third tier could be based on the same principles and rules as the
current IOPC Fund system, but subject to a ceiling which is deemed to be sufficient for any
potential disaster and financed by European oil importers, in the same way as they contribute
to the IOPC Fund. It is considered that an overall ceiling of EUR 1 billion would provide the
necessary safeguard of coverage for any potential disaster. This limit corresponds both to the
ceiling of the oil spill compensation fund established under federal laws in the United States
and to existing insurance practices as regards shipowners’ third party liability cover for oil
pollution.

An international agreement between the EU/EEA Member States on the additional
contributions for the European Fund would seem the appropriate way forward.

iii) Liability for damage

The Commission will also consider the introduction of rules, at EU level, under which any
party who has caused or contributed to oil pollution damage, should be made strictly liable for
the damage caused; this can concern parties both on the carriers and the chartering side, to the
extent that they are exercising control of the shipment concerned. This would enhance the
implementation of the polluter pays principle and thus be in line with the Commission’s
White Paper on Environmental Liability of 9 February 2000 (COM(2000) 66 final).

iv) Sanctions for gross negligence

The Commission finally considers that any party who has caused or contributed to the oil
pollution incident by grossly negligent behaviour should be subject to a deterrent sanction.

Such a fault-based sanction could apply to shipowners as well as charterers and other cargo
interests. Making the sanctions payable to the State where the pollution occurred would seem
appropriate in this context, as the national government normally is the party responsible for
clean-up and rescue operations. Such sanctions could further be subject to a number of
common principles, depending on,
the response and co-operation by the
responsible party after the accident, and could thus contribute to significant preventive effects.

inter alia,

The Commission accordingly considers that it should be examined, having regard to the
principles of the Treaty, how such a fault-based sanction regime could be put in place in the
Community. A Community legal instrument laying down the common principles for the
implementation of appropriate sanction mechanisms at Member State level would seem to be
a way forward.

36

C :

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WITH INDUSTRY

Without awaiting the entry into force of the legal measures proposed above and without
awaiting the results of the measures to be undertaken in the second phase, the Commission
proposes, in support of its "Quality Shipping" initiative, to discuss with the oil companies
possible terms of a voluntary agreement. Such an agreement would establish certain
principles according to which the oil companies would agree to operate, such as:

• not to transport oil in vessels above 15 years of age, unless their safety has been

proven through adequate inspection;

• to exercise more transparency relating to their ship chartering practices;

• to contribute to the third layer European compensation Fund for the benefit of

victims of oil spills;

• to improve the effectiveness of their private inspection schemes; and

• to define their responsibilities in chartering oil tankers.

The Commission will report on the outcome of such discussions to the Council meeting of
Transport Ministers in October 2000.

CONCLUSION

The Commission proposes to the European Parliament and the Council that they:

• adopt the three proposals for legislative measures attached to this communication as soon

as possible,

• approve the main guidelines described in the second set of measures,

• take note that the Commission will enter into discussions with a view to conclusion of

voluntary agreements with the oil industry, and report on the outcome.

37

ANNEX 1 A

TANKER ACCIDENTS

This Annex firstly provides details of the Erika accident and then gives a short account of
significant tanker accidents in EU waters and some others which are seen as relevant to the
case of Erika.

A. ERIKA disaster - summary of events

1. The accident

Erika sailed from Dunkerque on 10 December 1999 loaded with approximately

30 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, bound for Livorno in Italy. The ship was chartered by the
Total-Fina oil company. On the afternoon of 11 December, when approaching the Ushant
traffic Separation Scheme, the ship developed a large starboard list, thought to be because of
leakage of cargo into a ballast tank. The Captain transmitted a distress message, which was
subsequently cancelled after transferring ballast to correct the list. The ship altered course for
the oil port of Donges (France), as a port of refuge.

By the evening of 11 December cracks had begun to appear on the main deck above no.2
ballast tank, and the list had worsened. In deteriorating weather attempts were once again
made by the crew to correct the list by transferring ballast and cargo.

In the early hours of 12 December a second distress message was sent informing that some
hull plating had washed away. The French authorities immediately initiated a search and
rescue operation. By 0645 the helicopter evacuation of the crew had begun. Shortly after 0800
the hull fractured in the way of No. 2 ballast tank and broke in two in a position 40 nautical
miles south of Pointe de Penmarc’h. The whole crew was safely rescued.

Salvage tugs began the operation of towing the two hull sections further away from the coast.
However both sections sank on 13 December.

2. Details of the ship:

Erika was a 37 000 tonne deadweight single-hulled tanker built in Japan in 1975, registered
in Malta since 1993 and classed with the Italian Classification Society RINA, having
transferred from Bureau Veritas in June 1998. The ship was owned by the Tevere Shipping
Company of Malta. The tanker was converted in 1997 by designating Segregated Ballast
tanks.

During her 25-year life the ship had changed name seven times and had been classed by four
different Classification societies. She had flown the flags of Liberia and Japan before
becoming registered in Malta.

The SIRENAC database of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control
shows that Erika was subjected to four inspections since November 1997. Although revealing
certain deficiencies no major structural problems were noted.

38

In 1998 the ship underwent a special survey by RINA in Montenegro, where 100 tonnes of
steel was renewed in the ship’s tanks. In November 1999 (just before the accident,) a RINA
surveyor recommended that thickness measurements be carried out on longitudinal stiffeners
in the ballast tanks. The ship was permitted to sail on condition that the checks were
completed in January 2000.

3. Preliminary conclusions

The preliminary report of the French accident investigation32 concluded that the ship suffered
major structural failure, initially causing cargo to leak between cargo and ballast tanks
requiring transfer of weight on board to correct the resulting list. Later, in deteriorating
weather conditions, the hull completely fractured in the way on no.2 ballast tank resulting in
the ship breaking in two.

4. Consequences of the accident

On being informed of the break-up and sinking of Erika and the ensuing pollution threat, the
European Commission immediately activated its emergency team and offered the French
authorities the services of the Community Oil Pollution Task Force experts, costs being borne
by the Commission. The Commission provided a liaison officer between the French
authorities and assisting foreign vessels. The estimated initial spill was 10000 tonnes of heavy
fuel situated about 60 km off the French coast (South Brittany).

The two halves of the vessel lie in about 120 metres of water and are thought to contain about
15 000 tonnes of oil. Since the sinking more oil has been reported as leaking from the wreck.
Since the accident Total Fina SA, the owner of the cargo, has entered into an agreement with
the French Government to take action to prevent further escape of oil from the two halves and
directly finance all related inspections and, if feasible, oil removal operations from the wreck.

The cost of the total damage caused by the accident is not yet known, however a number of
claims have already been received by the Claims Handling Office established in Lorient by
the vessel underwriters (Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd.) and the
IOPC 1992 Fund. 33

32

33

NAUFRAGE DU PETROLIER “ERIKA” published by Ministère de l’Equipement des Transports et du
Logement, 13.01.2000
See chapter 2 paragraph 5 for details of liability and compensation regimes.

39

B. Other tanker accidents

Between January 1992 and March 1999 the world total losses, all ship types, was reported to
be 593 merchant vessels of 8.0 million tdwt.

Ship type

0-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

15-19 years

20-24 years

25+

TOTAL

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

N°
ships

1000
dwt

Tankers
(all)

-

-

2

280

2

42

13

985

35

1032

25

188

77

2527

All ships

10

100

11

343

50

611

114

2083

202

3424

206

1477

593

8037

Tanker losses compared to total ship losses (over 500 gt.)

During the same period the world total of reported tanker (all categories) losses amounted to
77 vessels with 2.5 million tdwt. Tankers account for only 13% of the number of ships of total
losses. However in terms of tonnage lost the impact is bigger as accidents involving tankers
account for 31% in deadweight terms of the world total tonnage lost.

Since the Torrey Canyon ran aground on the Seven Stones’ Reef off Lands End in 1967
there have been a number of major tanker accidents in EU waters resulting in severe oil
pollution. All these except one involved large tankers carrying crude oil. The one exception,
Erika, was carrying heavy fuel oil.

CAUSES

Tanker accidents falling into three main categories:

–

–

–

–

–

–

Grounding, because of navigational or pilotage errors (Sea Empress, Torrey Canyon,
Aegean Sea)

Grounding because of mechanical failure, (Amoco Cadiz, Braer)

Fire and explosion caused during on-board operations, (Haven)

Collision with another vessel, followed by fire / explosion. (British Trent)

Collision with another vessel, resulting in pollution. (No fire.)

Structural failure. (Betelgeuse, Mimosa, Erika).

40

MAJOR TANKER ACCIDENTS IN EU WATERS CAUSING POLLUTION

NAME

DATE

PLACE

FLAG

DWT.(t)

SPILL34
(T)

TYPE

CAUSE

TORREY
CANYON

1967

URQUIOLA

1976

Off
Lands
End

La
Coruña

AMOCO
CADIZ

1978

Off
Britanny

BETELGEUSE

1979

HAVEN

1991

AEGEAN
SEA

1992

Bantry
Bay
(IRE)

Off
Genoa

La
Coruña

LIB

120000

119000

Crude

Navigational error-

SPA

110000

100000

Crude

Grounded

Navigational
Grounded

error

–

LIB

220000

223000

Crude

Steering gear failure-

FRA

115000

44000

Crude

Grounded

Hull
while
failure
discharging cargo. Corroded
ballast tanks

CYP

232163

144000

Crude

Fire & explosion

GR

114000

74000

Crude

Grounded & explosion

Human error

BRAER

1993

Shetland
Is.

LIB

84700

85000

Crude

Engine failure- grounded

Crew competence

SEA
EMPRESS

ERIKA

1999

1996 Milford

LIB

147000

72000

Crude

Navigation error-

Haven

Off
Britanny

Grounded

MAL

37000

10000+

Heavy
Fuel

Broke in two – sank.

34 Source of pollution figures: ITOPF

41

Major tanker accidents causing pollution in EU waters

TORREY CANYON

Torrey Canyon was a 120 000 tonne deadweight Liberian-flagged tanker which ran aground
on the Seven Stones’ reef between Land’s End and the Isles of Scilly on 18 March 1967. This
resulted in 119 000 tonnes of crude oil being spilled causing severe pollution along the coasts
of south west England and northern France. The cause of the grounding was primarily human
error in the form of bad navigation. The accident led to the establishment of much more
stringent regulations specifically for tankers in the form of the IMO International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

URQUIOLA

On 12 May 1976 the tanker Urquiola struck a submerged object when entering La Coruña.
As the cargo was leaking from the ship it was ordered out of the harbour because of the
danger of fire and explosion. While being assisted out of the harbour it grounded again
causing further damage. The ship exploded two hours later killing the captain. A total of 100
000 tonnes of oil was spilled. The initial cause of the accident was a navigational error, which
was compounded during the attempt to tow the ship away from the port.

BETELGEUSE

On 8 January 1979 the French tanker Betelgeuse, owned by Total, exploded while
discharging crude oil in Bantry Bay, Ireland. The official enquiry concluded that the cause of
the explosion was hull fracture caused by stressing the hull during cargo operations. A major
contributing factor was serious steel wastage due to corrosion in the ballast tanks. The owners
were censured for deciding not to renew badly corroded longitudinal stiffeners at her second
special survey. The ship was classed with Bureau Veritas.

AMOCO CADIZ

On 17 March 1978 the Liberian-flagged Amoco Cadiz ran aground on the north-west coast of
Brittany and lost its entire cargo of 223 000 tonnes of crude oil. The tanker had lost its ability
to steer in heavy weather and ran aground while attempts were being made to take it in tow.
The ship subsequently broke up in heavy weather. Again the human element was a major
factor as well as technical failure. Amendments to the regulations on steering gear have since
been adopted.

HAVEN

On 11 April 1991 the Cyprus-flagged 232 163 tonne tanker Haven, part-loaded with crude oil
exploded off Genoa reportedly during pumping operations. The explosion caused the ship to
break into three parts and resulted in a major fire and about 74 000 tonnes of crude oil spilled,
much of which was consumed in the fire. Lives were lost in the accident.

AEGEAN SEA

On 3 December 1992 the 114 000 tonne Greek-flagged ore-bulk-oil (OBO) carrier Aegean
Sea, carrying 80 000 tonnes of crude oil, grounded on rocks in bad weather while entering La
Coruña, Spain. The pilot was just about to board the ship when she grounded. The impact

42

fractured the hull spilling about 74 000 tonnes of oil which subsequently caught fire and the
ship exploded. Being an OBO ship Aegean Sea had a double hull. The cause of the accident
was again human error caused by faulty navigation in bad weather conditions.

BRAER

The Liberian-flagged Braer was en-route from Norway to Montreal in January 1993 when
her engine failed 10 miles south of the Shetland Islands, UK. The reason for the breakdown
was water contamination of the fuel, caused by seawater entering air vents to fuel tanks,
which had fractured on deck because of improperly secured spare steel piping. The vessel ran
aground on Shetland in bad weather on 5 January losing her entire cargo of 84 700 tonnes of
crude oil. Attempts to take the tanker in tow before she grounded were unsuccessful.

SEA EMPRESS

The Liberian-flagged Sea Empress also ran aground at the entrance to Milford Haven on 15
February 1996 while under pilotage. She was carrying 131 000 tonnes of crude oil. She was a
single-hulled three-year old ship. Severe hull damage resulted in about 72 000 tonnes of oil
being spilled causing serious pollution to the South Wales coastline.

The cause of the accident was primarily navigational errors made while piloting the ship into
the harbour, combined with a lack of information on the prevailing tidal streams and currents.
The enquiry also highlighted shortfalls in the management of the port and the aftermath of the
grounding.

Other significant tanker accidents

EXXON VALDEZ

The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on 24 March 1989.

37 000 tonnes of crude oil were spilled. Although not the largest of oil spills it is considered
to be one of the most environmentally damaging spills because of the nature of the area. The
principal cause of the grounding was attributed to faulty navigation. This accident led to the
1990 US Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) which imposed far stricter requirements on tankers
operating in US waters.

BRITISH TRENT

On 3 June 1993 the 25 147 tonne Bermudan-registered product tanker British Trent collided
off the Belgian coast with the Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier Western Winner in thick fog.
The tanker caught fire and her cargo of unleaded petrol exploded. Most of the spilled cargo
was consumed by fire and lives were lost. No pollution resulted. The collision was caused by
navigational errors in reduced visibility.

BORGA

Borga was a new tanker constructed with a double hull. On 29 October 1995 she ran aground
whilst under pilotage entering Milford Haven (UK). She was loaded with 112 180 tonnes of
crude oil. Although the ship suffered hull damage there was no pollution and after discharging
8 500 tonnes into a lightering ship she was refloated.

43

The prime cause of the accident was a navigational error while the ship was turning in a
narrow channel.

This incident has been cited to underline the argument that double-hulled tankers present a
reduced pollution threat, although it has to be remembered that Aegean Sea was also a double
hulled ship, but caught fire and exploded after grounding.

MIMOSA

On 11 January 1995 the 300 000 tonne deadweight Liberian flagged ULCC Mimosa suffered
serious structural failure whilst on loaded passage off Scotland. A large section of the hull
shell plating fell off in moderate weather leaving a large hole in the fore peak ballast tank.

The 18-year-old ship was classed with DNV and had passed the charterer’s vetting
procedures. The cargo was eventually off-loaded to another tanker and the ship proceeded to
Portugal for repairs. No pollution resulted.

NAKHODKA

In January 1997 the 20 471 tonne deadweight Russian tanker Nakhodka broke up off the
Japanese coast in heavy weather. She was carrying a cargo of heavy fuel oil which caused
Japan’s worst oil pollution incident. The enquiry found that
the cause was poor hull
maintenance and old age, with the hull steelwork severely wasted. The accident led to Japan
proposing that IMO should bring forward the dates for phasing out single hulled tankers.
Recently at IMO Japan has remarked upon the similarity between this incident and Erika.

VOLGONEFT 248

On 29 December 1999 the Russian tanker Volgoneft 248 ran aground in bad weather and
broke up off Istanbul spilling 1 300 tonnes of heavy fuel. The ship was 25 years old and was
apparently limited to seasonal trading in light weather.

44

ANNEXE 1-B

Double hull or equivalent design tankers

There are many tanker design concepts, which have been proposed to reduce the risk of
pollution in the event of an accident. International attention is increasingly focused on three
main types: the Double Hull tanker, the Mid-deck tanker and the Coulombi Egg tanker. A
typical cross-section for each of these types is shown below.

The Double Hull Tanker

This type of vessel derives its defence against oil spillage, in the event of grounding or
collision, by surrounding the entire cargo tank length by a 2 or 3 metre wide void space which
separates the cargo tanks from the outer skin of the vessel. In order for an oil spillage to occur
the damage has to rupture two skins.

The Mid-deck Tanker

As an alternative to the double hull design, tankers may incorporate the "mid-deck" concept
under which the pressure within the cargo tank does not exceed the external hydrostatic water
pressure. Tankers built to this design have double sides along the entire cargo tank length
providing a 4 to 5 metres wide void space which separates the cargo tanks from the outer side
skin of the vessel. They have no double bottom and the cargo is in direct contact with the
bottom shell. However, the cargo tanks are split horizontally by an oil-tight deck. The height
of the oil-tight horizontal deck is chosen so that in the event of bottom damage the external
water pressure should exceed the head of oil in the lower cargo tanks thus forcing the oil to be
retained within the vessel.

45

The Coulombi Egg design

At first sight this configuration appears to be a variant of the mid-deck tanker but it differs in
three important respects from that type. Firstly the width of the wing tanks is about 50%
greater, secondly the wing tanks are divided horizontally into upper and lower tanks with the
lower wing tanks dedicated to cargo, and thirdly the upper wing tanks are not only dedicated
segregated ballast tanks but also perform the function of "rescue tanks". The Coulombi Egg
tanker has an emergency cargo transfer system which allows oil from damaged cargo tanks to
be directed into the sound empty upper wing tanks, thus minimising the oil lost to the sea in
the event of a collision or grounding. The system utilises the fact that the external pressure
from the sea due to the vessel's laden draught will be greater than that due to the head of oil in
the damaged cargo tanks, thus the oil in the damaged cargo tanks will be forced into the
"rescue tanks".

Note: The United States does not consider the Coulombi Egg tanker design as equivalent to
the double hull design and tankers meeting the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in
United States ports.

46

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

47

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL I

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of
shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the
Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)

48

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The wreck of the Erika focused attention on several weaknesses in the current system of port
State control. None of the many inspections of the Erika over the last few years in the
framework of port State control, by the classification societies or by the oil companies' private
inspection systems had detected the shortcomings judged to be at the origin of this accident.

Since Directive 95/21/EC was adopted, substantial efforts have been made - particularly
under the auspices of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control - to
improve the uniformity and efficiency of
important
disparities still remain within the Community and ships that pose a high risk to the
environment are not inspected with sufficient rigour when they call at European ports.

inspection procedures. However,

The reasons that have led the Commission to propose amending the Directive include the
following:

- several Member States are still failing to comply with the 25% threshold laid down in the
Directive for inspections of individual ships;

- the target factor system developed in the framework of the Paris MOU and made mandatory
by the Directive is not being applied in a satisfactory manner;

- examination of the reports on the inspections carried out before the sinking of the Erika
seem to show that the expanded inspections conducted in application of the Directive were
not always performed with the necessary rigour. Furthermore, it has not been possible from
this examination to verify the extent to which the guidelines in Annex V were followed and
what checks were made.

The Commission therefore proposes a number of measures designed to improve and
strengthen the inspection regime laid down in the Port State Control Directive.

The following amendments are proposed:

1.

Banning manifestly sub-standard ships from European waters

The Commission considers it unacceptable that certain ships with a history of posing a
manifest danger
in
Community waters. The general public can only interpret
this as demonstrating the
ineffectiveness of the on-board inspection of ships performed by the port States.

to maritime safety and the marine environment continue to sail

It considers that a clear and strong message must be sent to the ships' operators and to all
those - in particular the flag States or the classification societies - who, by their behaviour or
inaction, contribute to the considerable risks to safety and the marine environment.

The Commission therefore proposes banning such ships from the European Union. This
concerns ships in the risk categories referred to in Article 7 and Annex V to the Directive.35
Ships of this category that are old (more than 15 years), that may be considered as "past
offenders" (detained more than twice over the last two years), and that fly the flag of a State

35

Annex V to the Directive provides for a system of expanded inspection for certain categories of ship
(oil tankers, gas and chemical tankers and bulk carriers above a certain age, and passenger ships).

49

on the "black list" of detentions established by the Paris MOU should no longer be admitted
to Community ports.

The Commission has drawn up guidelines for the application of this measure, setting out the
procedures to be followed in imposing a ban and also providing the possibility to lift the ban
if it can be shown that
the ship is no longer a safety or environmental hazard. The
Commission will publish the list of banned ships every six months.

Obligation to inspect ships posing a high risk to maritime safety and the marine

2.
environment

Directive 95/21/EC, as it stands, does not stipulate an obligation to inspect a ship. Whatever
the potential hazard posed by a ship, the decision to inspect is always initially based on a prior
selection made by a port State inspector on the basis of his professional judgement. The target
factor introduced by an amendment to the Directive on 19 June 1998 is an important step
towards harmonising the selection criteria. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the
inspector's margin of discretion in selecting the ships to be inspected should in certain cases
be considerably reduced in the interests of achieving truly uniform and efficient practices.

The Commission therefore proposes making inspection obligatory in the following cases:

(a) –If the target factor exceeds a certain limit

The targeting system established by the Directive and the Paris MOU is not working
entirely satisfactorily. Ships with the highest
in practice
systematically assigned the highest priority.

target factor are not

The Commission proposes including in Article 5 a specific obligation to inspect
systematically any ships whose target factor exceeds 50, according to the procedure
laid down in the Paris MOU, each time they call at a port of the European Union.
The figure of 50 corresponds to ships posing a high risk. However, according to the
estimates made in the context of the Paris MOU based on the number of ships
inspected in 1999, the percentage of ships affected is likely to be less than 2.5% of
the vessels recorded in the Sirenac database of the Paris MOU.36

(b) – If the ships concerned are classed in a category justifying expanded inspection

The provisions of the Directive relating to the expanded inspection regime for "high
risk" ships gives inspectors too wide a margin of discretion to decide which ships to
inspect and what is to be included in the inspection. Furthermore, recent events have
shown that the structural defects affecting certain types of ships and oil tankers in
particular may lead to accidents with dramatic consequences for the environment.
Without questioning the basic responsibility of the classification societies to detect
such faults, it is important that the port State authorities equip themselves with the
means to assess the satisfactory structural condition of a ship (particularly as regards
corrosion of the tanks).

The Commission therefore proposes changing the expanded inspection regime for
ships referred to in Article 7 and in Annex V to the Directive as follows:

36

Sirenac, operated by the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes in Saint-Malo (France), is a
database of information relating to inspections carried out by the member countries of the Paris MOU.

50

–

–

Article 7 is amended to establish a clear obligation to inspect the ships in
question. Consequently, whenever one of these ships calls at a port of the
European Union after a period of 12 months, it must without exemption
be subjected to an expanded inspection. The existing rule, according to
which the ship may in the intervening period be subject to a normal
inspection or a more detailed inspection, is maintained. However, the
25% threshold stipulated in Annex V is applicable to expanded
inspections carried out in the framework of Article 7 (and to any other
inspections provided for by the Directive).

The optional guidelines in the Directive are made mandatory:
the
inspection must at least cover the general or specific checks for the
the
categories of ship concerned. However,
possibility of not carrying out certain checks if they are not practically
feasible (e.g. inspection of the tanks on a loaded oil tanker) or if they are
likely to create particular hazards (e.g. explosion) for the ship, its crew or
the port.

the proposal allows

– With regard to oil tankers (item 2 of the current Annex V-B), structural
matters are addressed only in the form of a check of the survey report.
The Commission believes it is essential that the structural inspection
should encompass more than a check of the documents on board and be
based on a direct, visual examination by the inspector of the structural
condition of the ship. However, as cargo tanks are not normally
accessible during a port call,
the inspector must carry out a visual
examination of at least one of the ballast tanks in order to gain a general
impression of its possible degree of corrosion. If the ship does not have
segregated ballast tanks, the inspector should attempt to carry out such an
assessment on the basis of any tank or empty space normally accessible.

–

–

An advance notification obligation is introduced (new section B of
Annex V) to facilitate the subsequent conduct of the inspection once the
ship enters port. In principle, an expanded inspection must be prepared in
advance. The shipowner or ship's master will be obliged to communicate
certain operational information (e.g. duration of the call, state of the
ballast and cargo tanks, operations planned during the call, etc.) directly
to the inspector 48 hours before arrival at the port (or from the port of
departure).

Specifically with regard to oil tankers, the age from which expanded
inspections have to be carried out will be reduced to 15 years (currently
20 or 25 years depending on the type of tanker in accordance with the
progressive phase-out dates laid down in Regulation 13G of
the
MARPOL Convention). The vessels concerned are single hull tankers,
whether or not they have segregated ballast tanks.

3.

Follow-up to the result of inspections

The follow-up of inspections between ports is not ideal. Above all, it is extremely difficult to
ascertain, from the information in the Sirenac system, which parts of the ship inspected were
checked in the previous port or ports. As a result, there is a risk that the inspection authority in
a given port will inspect again the parts of the ship that have already been checked in the

51

previous port. In order to avoid the possibility of such duplications and to optimise the overall
cost-effectiveness ratio of the port State control system, the Commission proposes making it
obligatory to state which parts of the ship have been inspected in the inspection report (a copy
of which is kept on board and must be examined by the inspector of the following inspection
port).

4.

Informing the flag State and the classification societies

Under Directive 95/21/EC as it stands, the flag State and the classification societies are
informed only of the detention of a ship by the port State inspection authorities. However,
information on completion of each inspection would be extremely useful in permitting more
efficient monitoring of the evolution (and possible deterioration) of the condition of a ship by
the administration of the flag State, or by the classification society acting on its behalf.
Consequently, the Commission proposes amending Article 8 of the Directive to stipulate the
transmission of a copy of the inspection report to the flag State and to the classification
society concerned.

5.

Verification of the financial guarantee covering pollution risk

As the Erika accident has shown, oil tankers can cause considerable damage in the event of an
oil spill, so that appropriate cover of these risks is extremely important. The 1969
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1992 Protocol
relating thereto, stipulates that
the owner of a ship registered in a State party to the
Convention and carrying more than 2 000 tonnes of oil in bulk must take out an insurance or
other financial guarantee to cover its liability for pollution damage. The Commission
proposes adding these documents to the list of certificates in Annex II to the Directive to be
verified by the inspectors. Their absence should be taken as justifying a more detailed
inspection of the ship and constitutes a ground for detention.

Transparency of information on the ships inspected or detained in accordance with the

6.
Directive

The aim of Article 15 is to publish certain information on the ships detained in the ports of the
European Union and in this way to punish operators who bear part of the responsibility for
failure to comply with safety standards. The existing Directive provides for publishing the
name of the ship's operator and the classification society. However, other players are
implicated in the phenomenon of sub-standard shipping,
in particular the cargo owners
deciding to charter a particular ship: shipowners of "convenience" exist because there are
charterers who care little about the quality of the ships they charter.

The other objective is to give those who take the decisions (charterers, insurers, etc.) and the
European public a fuller and more user-friendly picture of the inspections carried out in
Community ports. To this end, it is important that additional information on more detailed
inspections should be made available both by the port State authorities (expanded inspections
within the meaning of Article 7) and by the classification societies (special surveys). There is
also a need for information to be made available regarding the follow-up by the port State
authorities or the classification societies to a detention ordered under the Directive.

52

Consequently, publication of the following information is proposed:

–

–

–

the identity of the charterer and the type of charter (voyage or time
charter). This obligation will concern only ships carrying bulk liquid or
solid cargo. In the case of packaged goods, identification of the many lots
concerned would pose major practical problems;

information on the most recent expanded inspection performed in the
context of port State control, and the most recent "special survey" carried
out by a classification society;

list of measures taken following a detention (deadlines set for repairs,
etc.), whether by the port authorities or by the classification societies.

Monitoring application of the Directive and assessing the performance of Member

7.
States

Article 17 of Directive 95/21/EC stipulates that Member States must provide certain
information on the number of inspectors allocated to port State control and the number of
individual ships entering their ports in a representative calendar year.

This information enables the Commission to verify the compliance with the 25% threshold for
inspections laid down in Article 5(1), but is not enough to enable it to carry out a detailed
examination of the proper application of the Directive's provisions, which is its duty under the
Treaty, and to initiate, where necessary, infringement proceedings against defaulting Member
States. Consequently, possible lax practices in certain Community ports are not detected and
the risks of varying safety standards and distortion of competition between ports persist.

The Commission therefore proposes increasing the frequency for transmission of this data
(annually rather than every three years as at present) and adding new items to the list of
information to be transmitted to the Commission. A new Annex to the Directive is added,
requiring Member States to provide detailed information to the Commission on the
movements of ships in ports, classified according to various criteria (age, flag, size, etc.).

53

2000/0065 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of
shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the
Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,37

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,38

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,39

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty,40

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Directive 95/21/EC establishes a system of port State control of shipping in the
European Community based on uniform inspection and detention procedures.

It is necessary to take account of the changes that have been made to the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions and of
developments in the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment
because of their age, flag and history. They should therefore be refused access to
Community ports, unless it can be demonstrated that they can be operated safely in
Community waters. Guidelines must be established setting out
the procedures
applicable in the event of imposition of an access ban and of the lifting of such a ban.
The list of ships refused access to Community ports must be published and displayed
by the Sirenac information system.

(4)

Ships with a high target factor present a particularly serious accident or pollution risk,
justifying the need to inspect them at every Community port of call.

37

38

39

40

OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .

54

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

The categories of ships listed in Annex V also present a major accident or pollution
hazard when they reach a certain age. The broad discretionary power of the inspection
authority as to whether to select such ships for expanded inspection prevents the
achievement of uniform practices within the Community. It is therefore necessary to
make inspection of these ships mandatory.

The content of the expanded inspections for which guidelines have been laid down in
Annex V, section B is likely to vary considerably at the discretion of the inspection
authority. These guidelines must therefore be made mandatory. However, there must
be provision for making an exception when the conduct of an inspection of such ships,
in particular in view of the state of the ships' cargo tanks or of operational constraints
relating to loading or unloading activities, is impossible or would involve excessive
risks for the safety of the ship and its crew and for the safety of the port area.

Structural defects in a ship are likely to increase the risk of an accident at sea. In the
case of a ship carrying a bulk cargo of oil, such accidents can have disastrous
consequences for the environment. The inspection authority should carry out a visual
examination of the accessible parts of the ship in order to detect any serious corrosion
and take whatever follow-up action may be necessary, in particular vis-à-vis the
classification societies responsible for the structural quality of ships.

Expanded inspection based on mandatory verification of certain aspects of the ship
takes a considerable amount of time and organisation. The task of preparing the
inspection should be facilitated, which in turn will improve its effectiveness. To this
end, the master or operator of any ship entering a Community port must notify certain
information of an operational nature.

Given the risks of major pollution caused by oil tankers and in view of the fact that the
great majority of deficiencies leading to detention concern ships older than 15 years,
the expanded inspection regime should be applied to oil tankers from the age of
fifteen.

The growing importance of port State control in the battle against sub-standard
practices is resulting in an overall increase in inspectors' tasks. A particular effort
inspections and to improve the
should therefore be made to avoid redundant
information available to inspectors on the content of inspections performed in previous
ports. Consequently, the inspection report produced by the inspector on completion of
an inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection must also state
which parts of the ship have already been inspected. The inspector at the following
port of call will thus be able to take this information into account and, where
appropriate, decide to refrain from inspecting a part of the ship if no deficiency was
detected during the previous inspection.

(11)

The administration of the flag State of a ship inspected or the classification society
concerned must be informed of the result of inspection in order to ensure more
effective monitoring of the development and, where appropriate, the deterioration in
the state of the ship in order to take the necessary remedial action while there is still
time.

(12) Accidental pollution by oil is likely to cause considerable damage to the environment
and the economy of the region concerned. It is therefore necessary to verify whether
oil tankers calling at European Union ports have appropriate cover for such risks.

55

(13)

(14)

Whenever an oil tanker carrying more than 2 000 tonnes of oil in bulk is inspected, the
inspector must check the presence on board of an insurance or other financial
guarantee covering pollution damage,
in conformity with the 1969 International
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, as amended by its 1992
Protocol.

The transparency of information relating to ships inspected and detained is a key
element of any policy designed to deter the use of ships that fall short of the safety
standards. It is necessary in this context to include the identity of the ship's charterer in
the list of information published. The public must also be given fuller and clearer
information on the inspections and detentions carried out in European Union ports.
This concerns in particular information on the more extensive inspections performed
on board ships, both by the port State authorities and by the classification societies,
and an explanation of the measures taken by the port State authorities or the
classification societies concerned following a detention order under the Directive.

The detection of cases where the Directive has not been properly applied or of lax
practices in certain Community ports is essential in order to avoid the risk of varying
levels of safety and distortion of competition between ports and regions of the
European Union. The Commission must therefore have more detailed information,
particularly on the movements of ships in ports, in order to be able to carry out a
detailed examination of the conditions under which the Directive is being applied.
Such information must be provided to the Commission on an annual basis to enable it
to intervene more rapidly whenever anomalies are found in the application of the
Directive.

(15)

The provisions of Directive 95/21/EC concerning the committee procedure must be
amended to take account of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying
down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the
Commission.41

(16) As the measures required to implement this Directive are measures of general scope
within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC, they should be
adopted according to the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of that Decision,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Council Directive 95/21/EC is hereby amended as follows:

1)

The title is replaced by the following:

"Directive 95/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 June 1995
on port State control of shipping".

41

OJ L 184, 17.07.1999, p. 23.

56

2)

Article 2 is amended as follows:

a)

point 1 is amended as follows:

(i) the following subparagraph is added:

« - the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution

Damage, 1969, and the 1992 Protocol relating thereto."

(ii) the date 1 July 1999 is replaced by the date 1 July 2000;

b)

in point 2, the date 1 July 1999 is replaced by the date 1 July 2000.

3)

Article 5 is amended as follows:

a)

paragraph (1) is replaced by the following:

"1. The total number of inspections of the ships referred to in Article 5(2), Article
6 and Article 7 to be carried out annually by the competent authority of each
Member State shall correspond to at least 25% of the number of individual
ships which entered its ports during the past calendar year.";

b)

paragraph (2) is replaced by the following:

"2. The competent authority shall ensure that an inspection in accordance with

Article 6 is carried out on any ship not subject to an expanded inspection with a
target factor greater than 50 in the Sirenac information system.

In selecting other ships for inspection, the competent authorities shall
determine the order of priority as follows:

–

–

absolute priority shall be given to the ships listed in Annex I, Part I,
irrespective of their target factor;

the ships listed in Annex I, Part II shall be selected in decreasing order,
depending on the order of priority resulting from the value of their target
factor."

4)

Article 7 is replaced by the following:

"Article 7

Mandatory expanded inspection of certain ships

1. Member States shall ensure that the ships classed in one of the categories of
Annex V, section A are subject to an expanded inspection in the first port
visited after a period of twelve months since the last expanded inspection
carried out in a port of a Member State. However, these ships may be subject to
the inspection provided for in Article 6(1) and (2) in the period between two
expanded inspections.

2.

The operator or the master of a ship referred to in the preceding paragraph shall
communicate all the information listed in Annex V, section B, to the competent

57

authority of the Member State concerned at least 2 working days before the
expected time of arrival in a port of a Member State, or before leaving the port
of departure if the voyage is expected to take fewer than 2 working days.

Any ship failing to communicate the above information to the competent
authority concerned shall be subject
to an inspection in conformity with
Article 6 on arrival at its port of destination.

3.

Annex V, section C shall contain mandatory guidelines on expanded
inspection."

5)

The following Article 7a is inserted:

"Article 7a

Access refusal measures concerning certain ships subject to expanded
inspection

1. Member States shall ensure that ships older than 15 years classed in one of the
categories of Annex V, section A are refused access to all Community ports,
except in the situations described in Article 11(6), if these ships:

–

–

have been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding
24 months in a port of a Member State, and

fly the flag of a State listed in the table (rolling three-year average) of
above-average detentions and delays, published in the annual report of
the MOU.

The refusal of access shall become applicable immediately the ship has been
authorised to leave the port where it has been the subject of a third detention.

2.

3.

For the purposes of applying paragraph (1), Member States shall comply with
the procedures laid down in Annex V, section D.

The Commission shall publish every six months the information relating to
ships that have been refused access to Community ports in application of this
Article."

6)

Article 8 is replaced by the following text:

"Article 8

Inspection report

1.

On completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded
the
the inspector shall draw up a report containing at
inspection,
information listed in Annex X, giving the results of the inspection, the parts or
elements of the ship that have been inspected in the case of a more detailed or
an expanded inspection, the details of any decisions taken by the inspector and
of the corrective action to be taken by the master, owner or operator.

least

58

2.

A copy of the inspection report shall be provided to the ship's master, the flag
State administration and the organisation responsible for ship surveys and for
the issue of class certificates or certificates issued on behalf of the flag State in
accordance with the international conventions. In the case of deficiencies
warranting the detention of a ship, the document to be given to the master in
accordance with paragraph 1 shall
the future
publication of the detention order in accordance with the provisions of this
Directive."

include information about

In Article 9(5) the words "or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of the
ship's certificates shall also be notified where relevant" are replaced by the words "or
recognised organisations responsible for the issue of class certificates or certificates
issued on behalf of the flag State in accordance with the international conventions
shall also be notified where relevant."

In Article 10(1) the words "or refusal of access" are inserted after the words "against
a detention decision".

Article 14(2) is amended as follows:

a)

b)

the words "Sirenac E" are replaced by the word "Sirenac",

the following subparagraph is added:

7)

8)

9)

"For the purposes of carrying out the inspections referred to in Articles 6 and 7,
inspectors shall consult the public and private databases relating to ship inspection
accessible through the EQUASIS information system, as soon as it becomes
operational".

10)

Article 15(2) is replaced by the following:

The information listed in Annex VIII, Parts I and II, and the information on
"2.
changes, suspensions and withdrawals of class referred to in Article 15(3) of
Directive 94/57/EC, shall be available in the Sirenac system. It shall be made public
through the EQUASIS information system, when the latter becomes operational, as
soon as possible after the inspection has been completed or the detention has been
lifted."

11)

Articles 17 and 18 are replaced by the following:

"Article 17

Data to monitor implementation

Member States shall provide the Commission with the information listed in Annex X
at the intervals stated in that Annex."

"Article 18

Regulatory Committee

1.

The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee set up pursuant
Article 12 of Directive 93/75/EEC.

to

59

2. Where reference is made to this provision, the regulatory procedure laid down
in Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in conformity with the
provisions of Article 8 of the Decision.

3.

The period stipulated in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be three
months."

12)

Article 19(a) is replaced by the following:

"a)

adapt the obligations referred to in Article 5, except the figure of 25% referred
to in paragraph 1 thereof, in Articles 6, 7, 8, 15 and 17, and in the Annexes to
which these Articles refer, on the basis of the experience gained from the
implementation of this Directive and taking into account developments in the
MOU;"

Annex I, Part II is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Directive.

In Annex II, the following item 35 is added:

"35.
International insurance certificate or any other financial guarantee relating to
tankers covered by the International
the cover of pollution damage (for oil
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the 1992 Protocol
relating thereto)."

In Annex III, item 1, the words "II-8 and II-11" are replaced by the words "and II-8."

Annex V is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Directive.

Annex VI is amended as follows:

a)

In item 3.1 the words "The lack of valid certificates" are replaced by the words
"The lack of valid certificates and documents".

b)

The following is added to item 3.2:

"15. Failure to carry out the enhanced survey programme in accordance with IMO
resolution A.744(18)."

c)

The following is added to item 3.6:

"5.

Survey report file missing or not in conformity with Regulation 13G(3)(b) of
the MARPOL Convention."

Annex VIII is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Directive.

Annexes IX and X are added, the text of which is in Annex IV to this Directive.

13)

14)

15)

16)

17)

18)

19)

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive no later than . They shall forthwith inform the
Commission thereof.

60

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

61

ANNEX I

Annex I, Part II is replaced by the following:

II.

Overall targeting factor

The following ships shall be considered as priority for inspection.

Ships visiting a port of a Member State for the first time or after an absence of twelve
1.
months or more. In applying these criteria Member States shall also take into account those
inspections which have been carried out by members of the MOU. In the absence of
appropriate data for this purpose, Member States shall rely upon the available Sirenac data
and inspect those ships which have not been registered in the Sirenac following the entry into
force of that database on 1 January 1993.

2.

Ships not inspected by any Member State within the previous six months.

3.
Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship's construction and equipment, issued in
accordance with the conventions, and the classification certificates, have been issued by
organisations which are not recognised under the terms of Council Directive 94/57/EC of
22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average table of

4.
above-average detentions and delays published in the annual report of the MOU.

Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a Member State on certain

5.
conditions, such as:

(a) deficiencies to be rectified before departure;

(b) deficiencies to be rectified at the next port;

(c) deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days;

(d) deficiencies for which other conditions have been specified.

If appropriate action has been taken and all deficiencies have been rectified, this is taken into
account.

Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous inspection,

6.
according to the number of deficiencies.

7.

Ships which have been detained in a previous port.

Ships flying the flag of a country which has not ratified all relevant international

8.
conventions referred to in Article 2 of this Directive.

9.

10.

11.

Ships flying the flag of a country with a deficiency ratio above average.

Ships flying the flag of a country with class deficiency above average.

Ships above 13 years old.

62

In determining the order of priority for the inspection of the ships listed above, the competent
authority shall take into account the overall target factor displayed on the Sirenac information
system, according to Annex I, Section 1 of the MOU. A higher target factor is indicative of a
higher priority. The overall target factor is the sum of the applicable target factor values as
defined within the framework of the MOU. Items 5, 6 and 7 shall only apply to inspections
carried out in the last 12 months. The overall target factor shall not be less than the sum of the
values established for items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

If, within three months from the introduction in the framework of the MOU of new target
factor values, the Commission is of the view that these values are inappropriate, it may
decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19 of Directive 95/21/EC, that
these values shall not apply for the purposes of this Directive."

63

ANNEX II

Annex V is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX V

A. CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO EXPANDED INSPECTION (as referred to
in Article 7(1))

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age, as determined on the basis of
the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

Bulk carriers older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of
construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

Single hull oil tankers older than 15 years of age, as determined on the basis of the
date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

Passenger ships older than 15 years of age other than the passenger ships referred to
in Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 1999/35/EC.

B. INFORMATION TO BE NOTIFIED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (as
referred to in Article 7(2))

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

A. name,

B. flag,

C. IMO identification number, if any,

D. deadweight tonnage,

E. date of construction of the ship,

F. for tankers:

F.a. configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull,

F.b. condition of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted,

F.c. volume and nature of the cargo,

G. probable time of arrival at the port of destination or pilot station, as
required by the competent authority,

H. planned duration of the call,

I. planned operations at
other),

the port of destination (loading, unloading,

J. date and place of the last inspection carried out in the framework of
port State control.

64

C. PROCEDURES RELATING TO EXPANDED INSPECTION OF CERTAIN
CATEGORIES OF SHIPS (as referred to in Article 7(3))

Subject to their practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the
least must be part of an expanded inspection.
ship or the port, the following items at
Inspectors must be aware that it may jeopardise the safe execution of certain on-board
operations, e.g. cargo handling, if tests having a direct effect thereon are required to be carried
out during such operations.

1.

SHIPS IN GENERAL (Categories in section A)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Black-out and start of emergency generator,

Inspection of emergency lighting,

Operation of emergency fire-pump with two fire hoses connected to the fire
main-line,

Operation of bilge pumps,

Closing of watertight doors,

Lowering of one lifeboat to the water,

Test of remote emergency stop for, e.g., boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps,

Testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear,

Inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations,

Inspection and, to the extent possible, test of engine room separator.

2.

GAS AND CHEMICAL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part
of the expanded inspection for gas and chemical tankers:

–

–

–

–

Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure and
ullage,

Oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including their calibration. Availability
of chemical detection equipment (bellows) with an appropriate number of suitable
gas detection tubes for the specific cargo being carried,

Cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye protection for every person on
board (if required by the products listed on the International Certificate of Fitness or
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied
Gases in Bulk, as applicable),

Check that the product being carried is listed in the International Certificate of
Fitness or Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or
Liquefied Gases in Bulk, as applicable,

65

–

3.

The fixed fire-fighting installations on deck, whether they be foam or dry chemical
or other as required by the product carried.

BULK CARRIERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part
of the expanded inspection for bulk carriers:

–

–

–

–

–

Possible corrosion of deck machinery mountings,

Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers,

Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads,

Access to cargo holds,

Assessment of the safety of the structure on the basis of the reports of structural
surveys, the condition evaluation reports, the thickness measurement reports and the
descriptive document referred to by IMO resolution A.744(18).

4.

OIL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part
of an expanded inspection of oil tankers:

–

–

–

–

–

–

Fixed deck foam system,

Fire-fighting equipment in general,

Inspection of fire dampers in engine room, pump room and accommodation,

Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof,

Examination of the appearance of and any signs of corrosion of at least one of the
ballast tanks,

Assessment of the safety of the structure on the basis of the reports of structural
surveys, the condition evaluation reports, the thickness measurement reports and the
descriptive document referred to by IMO resolution A.744(18).

5.

PASSENGER SHIPS NOT COVERED BY DIRECTIVE 1999/35/EC

In addition to the items listed under section C 1, the following items may also be considered
as part of the expanded inspection for passenger ships:

–

–

–

–

Testing of fire detection and alarm system,

Testing of proper closing of fire doors,

Test of public address system,

Fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemen's outfits must be demonstrated and
part of the catering crew take part,

66

–

Demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the damage control plan.

If deemed appropriate, the inspection may be continued while the ship is on passage to or
from the port in the Member State, with the consent of the ship's master or the operator.
Inspectors must not obstruct the operation of the ship, nor must they induce situations that, in
the master's judgement, could endanger the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship.

MANDATORY GUIDELINES RELATING TO REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO

D.
COMMUNITY PORTS (as referred to in Article 7a(2))

1.

If the conditions described in Article 7a are met, the competent authority of the
port in which the ship is detained for the third time must inform the captain and
the owner or the operator of the ship in writing of the access refusal order
served on the ship.

The competent authority must also inform the flag State administration, the
the European
classification society concerned,
Commission, the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes and the MOU
Secretariat.

the other Member States,

The access refusal order will take effect as soon as the ship has been authorised
to leave the port after remediation of the deficiencies leading to the detention.

The access refusal order may be lifted if the owner or the operator of the ship is
able to show to the satisfaction of the competent authority of the port of
destination that the ship can be operated without danger to the safety of
passengers or crew, or without risk to other ships, or without presenting an
unreasonable threat to the marine environment.

To this end, the owner or the operator must address a formal request for the
lifting of the access refusal order to the Member State of the Community port
of destination. This request must be accompanied by a certificate from the flag
State administration or from the classification society acting on its behalf,
showing that
the ship fully conforms to the applicable provisions of the
international conventions and satisfies the conditions mentioned in paragraph
2. The request for the lifting of the access refusal order must also be
accompanied, where appropriate, by a certificate from the classification society
which has the ship in class showing that
the ship conforms to the class
standards stipulated by that society.

If the request for a lifting of the access refusal order is presented in accordance
with paragraph 3, the Member State of the port of destination must, on the
basis of the information provided by the owner or the operator of the ship,
authorise the ship to proceed to the port of destination in question, for the sole
purpose of verifying that the ship meets the conditions specified in paragraph
2.

2.

3.

4.

On arrival at the port of destination, the ship must be subjected to an expanded
inspection, the cost of which will be borne by the owner or the operator. The
items of Annex V,
expanded inspection must cover at
section C, and the items that were inspected in the course of the last detention
in a port of a Member State.

the relevant

least

67

The expanded inspection referred to in the previous subparagraph must be
performed by the inspectors of the Member State of the port of destination,
assisted by inspectors of a recognised organisation within the meaning of
Directive 94/57/EC, who have no commercial interest in the ship inspected.

5.

6.

If the results of the expanded inspection satisfy the Member State in
accordance with paragraph 2, the access refusal order must be lifted. The
owner or the operator of the ship must be informed thereof in writing.

The competent authority must also notify its decision in writing to the flag
State administration, the classification society concerned, the other Member
States,
the Centre Administratif des Affaires
the European Commission,
Maritimes and the MOU Secretariat.

Information relating to ships that have been refused access to Community ports
must be made available in the Sirenac system and published in conformity with
the provisions of Article 15 and of Annex VIII."

68

ANNEX III

Annex VIII is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX VIII

Publication of information related to detentions and inspections in ports of Member
States

(As referred to in Article 15)

I. - Information published in accordance with Article 15(1) must include the following:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

name of the ship,

IMO number,

type of ship,

tonnage (gt),

year of construction,

name and address of the shipowner or operator of the ship,

in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of
the charterer and the type of charter (voyage charter or time charter),

flag State,

the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have
issued to this ship the class certificates, if any,

the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which
has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions
on behalf of the flag State, stating the certificates delivered,

port and date of the last expanded inspection stating, where appropriate, whether a
detention was ordered,

port and date of the last special survey and the name of the organisation which
carried out the survey,

number of detentions during the 24 previous months,

country and port of detention,

date when the detention was lifted,

duration of detention, in days,

number of deficiencies found and the reasons for detention, in clear and explicit
terms,

69

–

–

–

–

description of the measures taken by the competent authority and, where relevant, by
the classification society as a follow-up to detention,

if the ship has been refused access to any port within the Community, the reasons for
such measure in clear and explicit terms,

indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private
body that carried out the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies
which, alone or in combination, led to detention,

description of the measures taken in the case of a ship which has been allowed to
proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard, or which has been refused access to a
Community port.

II – Information concerning ships inspected made public in accordance with Article 15(2)
must include the following:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

name of the ship,

IMO number,

type of ship,

tonnage (gt),

year of construction,

name and address of shipowner or operator of the ship,

in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of
the charterer and the type of charter (voyage charter or time charter),

flag State,

the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have
issued to this ship the class certificates, if any,

the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which
has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions
on behalf of the flag State, stating the certificates delivered,

country, port and date of inspection,

number of deficiencies, by category of deficiency."

70

ANNEX IV

The following Annexes IX and X are added:

"ANNEX IX

Inspection report drawn up in accordance with Article 8

The inspection report must contain at least the following items.

I- General

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

II -

1.

2.

Competent authority that wrote the report

Date and place of inspection

Name of the ship inspected

Flag

Type of ship

IMO number

Call sign

Tonnage (gt)

Deadweight tonnage (where relevant)

Year of construction

The classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have
issued to this ship the class certificates, if any

The classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which
has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions
on behalf of the flag State

Name and address of the ship's owner or the operator

Name and address of the charterer and type of charter (voyage charter or time
charter) in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk

Final date of writing the inspection report.

Information relating to inspection

Certificates issued in application of the relevant international conventions, authority
or organisation that issued the certificate(s) in question, including the date of issue
and expiry

Parts or elements of the ship that were inspected (in the case of more detailed or
expanded inspection)

71

3.

4.

5.

Type of inspection (inspection, more detailed inspection, expanded inspection)

Nature of the deficiencies

Measures taken.

III -

Additional information in the event of detention

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Date of the detention order

Date of lifting the detention order

Nature of the deficiencies warranting the detention order

Information on the last intermediate or annual survey

Indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private
body that carried out the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies
which, alone or in combination, led to detention

Measures taken.

ANNEX X

Data to be provided in the context of monitoring implementation

Member States must communicate the following information to the Commission in
application of Article 17, using the model tables below.

1.

Data to be provided annually

Every year Member States must provide the Commission with the following data for the
preceding year by 1 April at the latest.

Number of inspectors acting on their behalf in the framework of port State control of

1.1.
shipping.

This information must be communicated to the Commission using the following model table.

Port/Area

Number of
inspectors

full-time

Number of part-time
inspectors42

Conversion
time

to

full

Port X…….

Port Y…….

TOTAL

42

Where the inspections carried out in the context of port State control represent only part of the
inspectors' work, the total number of inspectors must be converted to a number equivalent to full-time
inspectors.

72

This information must be provided at national level and for each port of the Member State
concerned. For the purposes of this Annex, a port is taken to mean an individual port and the
geographical area covered by an inspector or team of inspectors, comprising several
individual ports where appropriate. The same inspector may work in more than one
port/geographical area.

1.2.

Total number of individual ships that entered their ports at national level.

2.

Data to be provided on a quarterly basis

Member States must provide the Commission every three months with a detailed list of
movements of individual ships that entered their ports, using the following model.

Port X

Date of
arrival

IMO
No

../../2…

../../2…

Name Flag

Type GT

Year of
construction

Classification
society

Date of
departure

../../2…

../../2…

73

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL II

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards
for ship inspection and survey organisations
and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

74

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The proposed amendments to Council Directive 94/57/EC can be divided in two categories:
the fine-tuning of the Community-wide recognition of classification societies,
including
controls and sanctions, and the more stringent requirements to be met by the recognised
organisations.

1.

THE FINE-TUNING OF THE COMMUNITY-WIDE RECOGNITION OF CLASSIFICATION
SOCIETIES

The proposed amendments to Council Directive 94/57/EC will thoroughly change
the present system of Community-wide recognition of the classification societies to
be authorised to work on behalf on the Member States.

1.1

The granting of the recognition

The proposed system is for the Commission to inspect the organisation prior to the
granting of the recognition on the basis of the Commitology procedure. The need to
assess the good safety and pollution prevention performance of the organisation is
proposed as a conditio sine qua non to grant the recognition. This procedure will
apply both to “big” and “small” (not fulfilling the quantitative requirements of the
Annex to the Directive) organisations.

This new procedure will ensure that compliance with the provisions of the Directive
by the organisations seeking recognition as well as their good record of safety and
pollution prevention performance – measured in respect of all their classed ships,
irrespective of the flag they fly – are assessed in a centralised and harmonised
manner. This will apply to the forthcoming requests for recognition, particularly
likely in view of the enlargement of the European Union.

1.2

The suspension of the recognition

In addition to the authority of Member States to suspend recognition of an
organisation working on its behalf, a similar authority shall apply at Community
level. It is therefore proposed to insert a new system by which the Commission, on
the basis of the Commitology procedure, may suspend the recognition of an
organisation for a limited period of time. This suspension shall apply when an
organisation whose safety and pollution prevention performance is worsening fails to
take the appropriate corrective measures as requested by the Commission.

1.3

The withdrawal of the recognition

The proposed system provides for the Commission, on the basis of the Commitology
procedure, to decide on the withdrawal of the recognition. This decision shall be
based on the failure to fulfil the provisions set out in the Directive, as well as on
unsatisfactory safety and pollution prevention performance.

75

1.4

A positive side effect of the proposed amendments: the simplification and
enhancement of the procedure for monitoring the recognised organisations

the organisations they authorise. This is in order to verify (i)

The system of inspections to be carried out on the recognised organisations pursuant
to Council Directive 94/57/EC obliges all Member States to carry out assessments on
all
that such
organisations effectively carry out the tasks delegated to them and (ii) that the
organisations comply with the criteria of the Annex to the Directive. While the first
type of assessment has to remain the responsibility of each Member State, the second
one can be carried out more effectively in a harmonised and centralised manner. It is
therefore proposed that the inspections of the recognised organisations to verify
compliance with the Directive be carried out by the Commission together with the
Member State proposing the recognition. This new system of inspections will
remove the burden at present imposed on the Member States to inspect all the
organisations working on their behalf and to draft and distribute the reports of such
inspections.

Member States will still maintain a close control on the recognised organisation. The
proposed amendments deeply involve the Committee set up under the Directive in
the decisions on the recognition of an organisation and on the possible sanctions
against those failing to meet the required provisions.

The constant monitoring of the recognised organisations, through the evaluation of
their safety and pollution prevention performance and through the inspections carried
out in a centralised and harmonised manner, will ensure a better control of the
recognised classification societies. As the evaluation of the performance of these
organisations will be carried out with respect to their classed fleet, irrespective of the
flag their ships fly,
if necessary sanction,
it will be possible to monitor and,
unacceptable cases of differing performance of the recognised organisations when
working on behalf of different flags.

It is proposed that all unnecessary duplication of provisions with the Directive on
Port State Control (PSC) concerning the reporting obligations of Member States be
deleted by the present text of the Directive. However, it is considered important to
maintain the obligation for Member States to report all cases of negligent acts by the
recognised organisations which they may discover when carrying out their PSC
inspections.

1.5

The liability of the classification societies

The establishment of the working relationship between the Member States and the
organisations authorised to work on their behalf, and more precisely the limitation of
the financial liability of the classification societies for minor negligence, represented
the primary reason of delay for a proper implementation of the Directive. It is felt
necessary now to harmonise this issue at Community level by laying down common
provisions to be applied by all Member States. The proposed text is in line with what
has already been agreed by the majority of Member States and it is also acceptable to
the recognised organisations. The proposed text fixes the following principles for the
limitation of the financial liability of the classification societies:

–

for a wilful act or omission or gross negligence: unlimitted liability;

76

–

–

for personal injury or death, caused by any negligent or reckless act or
omission of the recognised organisation:

5 million;

€

for loss or damage to property, caused by any negligent or reckless act or
omission of the recognised organisation:

2.5 million.

€

2.

THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY THE RECOGNISED
ORGANISATIONS

the

classification societies members of

The
International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS) have adopted and implemented a so-called “Transfer
of Class (TOC) Agreement”, aimed at avoiding the unacceptable practice of ships
changing class in order to avoid carrying out the requested repairs (“class hopping”).
It is felt necessary to make the main provisions of this Agreement compulsory at
Community level, and therefore for all the organisations recognised on the basis of
the Directive, whether they are members of IACS or not. The relevant provisions of
the TOC Agreement to be transposed into the Directive are those stating that the
certificates of a ship changing class can be issued by the gaining organisation only
after all overdue surveys, overdue recommendations, conditions of class, operating
conditions or operating restrictions issued against
the vessel by the losing
classification society have been properly dealt with. To make sure that the gaining
organisation have a full picture of the condition of the ship, on transfer the complete
history file of the vessel has to be transferred by the losing to the gaining society.

in order to enhance transparency,

Moreover,
the recognised organisations shall
disclose more information on their classed fleet, and on changes, suspensions and
withdrawals of class. In an attempt to tighten the net around substandard ships, the
recognised organisations are required to communicate to the Port State Control
authorities all overdue surveys, overdue recommendations, conditions of class,
operating conditions or operating restrictions issued against a ship.

In order to meet the common concern that sometimes the classification societies do
not exercise sufficient control on their regional offices, the proposed amendments
foresee the obligation for the recognised organisations to establish clear and direct
lines of responsibility and control between their central and regional offices, as well
as the possibility to visit their regional branches during the periodic inspections of
the organisations.

It is proposed that recognised organisations be required to define targets and methods
to measure their own safety and pollution prevention performance. They are also
required to establish an internal system to measure the quality of their services, both
in relation to the statutory tasks they carry out on behalf of the flag administrations
and in relation to their private activity (class certificates).

Last but not least, it is proposed that the recognised organisations no longer be able
to make use of non-exclusive surveyors to carry out statutory tasks. The exclusive
surveyors shall only be authorised to operate on board those types of ships of which
they have an extensive knowledge.

The new requirements aim to strengthen the working procedures of the classification
societies in order to enhance their quality performance and, in turn, maritime safety

77

and pollution prevention in general. The proper implementation of these stringent
provisions will be monitored by the Commission and the Member States in the
framework of the inspections of the recognised organisations to be carried out on the
basis of the Directive.

Before concluding this chapter, it is important to mention the fact that through the
amendments to Directive 94/57/EC – and particularly by the means of the provisions
stating that Member States are bound to apply the international conventions to which
they are contracting parties – the Commission has better specified the content of the
‘acquis communautaire’ to be applied by the Member States in the field of maritime
safety. This
is particularly important because the forthcoming
enlargement of the Community includes Malta and Cyprus, whose fleets are
respectively the fourth and sixth largest in the world.

requirement

78

2000/0066 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Council Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship
inspection and survey organisations
and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission43,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee44,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions45,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty46,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

43

44

45

46

47

48

Safety and pollution prevention at sea may be enhanced by a proper and compulsory
implementation by Flag States of the existing relevant conventions in force at
international level.

Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for
ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime
administrations47, as amended by Commission Directive 97/58/EC48, established a
system of Community-wide recognition of technical organisations that, in compliance
with the international conventions, may be authorised to a various extent to inspect
ships and issue the relevant safety certificates on behalf of the Member States.

The practical implementation of that Directive showed that some adjustments to the
Community-wide recognition of technical organisations might have highly contributed
towards the strengthening of such a system while simplifying the monitoring and
reporting obligations imposed on Member States.

OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p.20.
OJ L 274, 07.10.1997, p. 8.

79

(4)

(5)

Since the adoption of Directive 94/57/EC some developments have occurred in the
level requesting that further
relevant
adjustments to Directive 94/57/EC be made.

legislation at Community and international

In particular, for the purposes of Directive 94/57/EC, it is appropriate to apply the
amendments to the international conventions together with the protocols and related
codes of mandatory status, referred to in Article 2 (d) of Directive 94/57/EC, which
entered into force after the adoption of the Directive as well as the relevant
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolutions.

(6) With a view to promoting an effective implementation of the obligations of the flag
States laid down in the international conventions,
the IMO Assembly adopted
Resolution A.847 (20) on Guidelines to assist Flag States in the implementation of
IMO instruments at its twentieth session.

(7)

IMO adopted the International Safety Management (ISM) Code through Assembly
Resolution A.741 (18) of 4 November 1993 which was made mandatory through the new
Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
Convention.

(8) With a view to ensuring a uniform implementation of the ISM Code, guidelines on the
implementation of the ISM Code by administrations were adopted on 23 November 1995
by IMO through Resolution A.788 (19).

(9) With a view to harmonising the statutory surveys and inspections to be carried out by
to the international conventions, IMO adopted
the

the flag administrations pursuant
Resolution A.746 (18) of 4 November 1993 on Survey Guidelines under
Harmonised System of Survey and Certification.

(10) A good record of safety and pollution prevention performance – measured in respect
of all ships classed by an organisation, irrespective of the flag they fly – shall become
essential to grant the initial recognition and to maintain such a recognition.

(11)

(12)

(13)

In order to grant the initial recognition to the technical organisations wishing to be
authorised to work on behalf of the Member States, compliance with the provisions of
Directive 94/57/EC can be assessed more effectively in a harmonised and centralised
manner by the European Commission.

Similarly, the continuous ex post monitoring of the recognised organisations to assess
their compliance with the provisions of Directive 94/57/EC can be carried out more
effectively in a harmonised and centralised manner. Therefore it is appropriate that the
Commission, together with the Member State proposing the recognition, be entrusted
with this task on behalf of the whole Community.

In addition to the authority of Member States to suspend the recognition of an
organisation working on its behalf, a similar authority should apply at Community
level, the Commission being allowed, on the basis of the Committee procedure, to
suspend the recognition of an organisation for a limited period of time in the case
where the safety and pollution prevention performance of
the organisation is
worsening and it fails to take the appropriate corrective measures as requested.

80

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

The decision on the withdrawal of the recognition of an organisation that fails to fulfil
the provisions set out in the Directive, or whose safety and pollution prevention
performance becomes unsatisfactory, has to be taken at Community level, and
therefore by the Commission, on the basis of the Committee procedure.

Since Directive 94/57/EC ensures freedom to provide services in the Union, the
Community should negotiate with those third Countries where some of the recognised
organisations are located an equal treatment for the recognised organisations located in
the Community.

The limitation of the financial liability of the organisations working on behalf of the
Member States represented a major obstacle to the proper implementation of Directive
94/57/EC. Its harmonisation at Community level will contribute to solve this problem.

Provisions of Directive 94/57/EC concerning the Committee procedure should be
amended and adapted to take account of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June
1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred
on the Commission49.

Since transparency and exchange of information between interested parties is a
fundamental tool to prevent accidents at sea,
the recognised organisations shall
provide all relevant information concerning the conditions of the ships in their class to
the Port State Control authorities.

In an attempt to prevent ships from changing class in order to avoid carrying out
necessary repairs, the recognised organisations shall exchange all relevant information
among themselves concerning the conditions of ships changing class.

The qualitative criteria to be met by the technical organisations in order to be
recognised at Community level and to maintain such a recognition shall include
provisions to ensure that only exclusive surveyors can carry out the statutory tasks for
which the organisation is authorised. The organisation must have a tight control on all
its personnel and offices, including the regional ones and it must establish its own
safety and pollution prevention performance targets and indicators. The organisation
must put in place a system to measure the quality of its services. Directive 94/57/EC
should be amended accordingly.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Council Directive 94/57/EC is hereby amended as follows:

1.

Article 2 shall be amended as follows:

a)

in point (b), the words “including ships registered in Euros once that register is
approved by the Council” shall be deleted;

49

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

81

b)

in point (d), the words “in force at the date of adoption of this Directive” shall
be replaced by “in force on 1st July 2000”.

2.

Article 3, paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows:

The following sentence shall be added at the end of the paragraph: “Member
States shall act
in accordance with the provisions of the Annex and the
Appendix to IMO Resolution A.847 (20) on Guidelines to assist Flag States in
the implementation of IMO instruments”.

3.

Article 4 shall be replaced by the following:

“1. Member States may submit to the Commission a request for a recognition for
organisations which fulfil the criteria set out in the Annex and the provisions of
Article 14, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5. Member States shall submit
to the
Commission complete information concerning, and evidence of, compliance
with such requirements. The Commission shall carry out an inspection of the
organisations for which the request of recognition was received in order to
verify that
the above mentioned requirements. A
decision on the recognition shall take into account the safety and pollution
prevention performance records of the organisation, referred to in article 9. The
recognition shall be granted by the Commission in accordance with the
procedure referred to in Article 7.

the organisations meet

2. Member States may submit

to the Commission a request for a limited
recognition of three years for organisations which meet all the criteria of the
Annex other than those set out under paragraph 2 and 3 of the section ‘General’
of the Annex. The same procedure referred to in paragraph 1 will apply with
the exception that the criteria of the Annex for which compliance has to be
assessed during the inspection carried out by the Commission are all the
criteria other than those set out under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the section
‘General’. The effects of this recognition shall be limited to the Member States
which have submitted a request for such recognition.

3.

4.

5.

All the organisations which are granted recognition shall be closely monitored
by the committee set up under Article 7, also in view of deciding about
extension of the limited recognition of organisations referred to in paragraph 2.
A decision on the extension of such recognition shall not take into account the
criteria set out under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the section ‘General’ of the Annex
while it shall take into account the safety and pollution prevention performance
records of the organisation, referred to in article 9. The decision on the
extension of the limited recognition shall specify under which conditions such
extension is granted, particularly in respect of the limitation of the effects of
the recognition provided for in paragraph 2.

The Commission shall draw up and update a list of the organisations
recognised in compliance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. The list shall be
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

The organisations which, at the date of the entry into force of this Directive, are
already recognised on the basis of Council Directive 94/57/EC continue to be
recognised. Their compliance with the new provisions laid down in this

82

Directive shall be assessed during the first inspections referred to in Article
11.”

4.

Article 5 shall be amended as follows:

a)

b)

c)

In paragraph 1, the reference to “Article 3 (2) (i)” shall be replaced by “Article
3 (2)” and the words “located in the Community” shall be deleted.

Paragraph 2 shall be deleted.

Paragraph 3 shall become paragraph 2, the words “reciprocal recognition” shall
be replaced by “reciprocal treatment” and the following sentence shall be
added at the end of the paragraph: “In addition, the European Community may
request that the third State where a recognised organisation is located grant a
reciprocal treatment for those recognised organisations which are located in the
Community”.

5.

Article 6 shall be amended as follows:

a)

Paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:

“2. The working relationship shall be regulated by a formalised written and non-
discriminatory agreement or equivalent
legal arrangements setting out the
specific duties and functions assumed by the organisations and including at
least:

-

-

the provisions set out in Appendix II of IMO Resolution A.739 (18) on
guidelines for the authorisation of organisations acting on behalf of the
administration, as specified in the Annex, Appendixes and Attachment to
IMO MSC/Circular 710 and MEPC/Circular 307 on model agreement for
the authorisation of recognised organisations acting on behalf of the
administration,

the following provisions concerning the limitation of the financial
liability:

(i)

(ii)

if liability arising out of any incident
is finally and definitely
imposed by a court of law on the Administration for loss or damage
to property or personal injury or death, which is proved in that
court of law to have been caused by a wilful act or omission or
gross negligence of
its bodies,
employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised
to
organisation,
indemnification from the recognised organisation to the extent said
loss, damage, injury or death is, as decided by that court, caused by
the recognised organisation;

the recognised organisation,

the Administration

entitled

shall

be

if liability arising out of any incident
is finally and definitely
imposed by a court of law on the Administration for personal injury
or death, which is proved in that court of law to have been caused
by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the recognised
organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on behalf of
the recognised organisation, the Administration shall be entitled to

83

indemnification from the recognised organisation, to the extent said
personal injury or death is, as decided by that court, caused by the
recognised organisation, up to but not exceeding an amount of
5
million;

€

(iii)

if liability arising out of any incident
is finally and definitely
imposed by a court of law on the Administration for loss or damage
to property, which is proved in that court of law to have been
caused by any negligent or reckless act or omission of the
recognised organisation, its employees, agents or others who act on
behalf of the recognised organisation, the Administration shall be
entitled to indemnification from the recognised organisation, to the
extent said loss or damage is, as decided by that court, caused by
the recognised organisation, up to but not exceeding an amount of
€

2.5 million;

(iv) neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, indirect or
consequential losses or damages resulting from or arising out of
services performed under
including without
limitation loss of profit, loss of production, loss of contract, loss of
use, business
indirect or
consequential losses suffered or incurred by any party howsoever
caused;

interruption or any other

the agreement,

special,

(v) without prejudice to what is stated above, for any claim arising out
of the recognised organisation’s performance or non-performance
its officers,
under this Agreement, the recognised organisation,
employees, agents or others who act on behalf of the recognised
organisation, shall be entitled to the same defences (including but
not limited to any immunity from or limitation of liability) as
would be available to the Administration’s own personnel if they
had themselves performed the work;”

provisions for a periodical audit by the administration or by an impartial
external body appointed by the administration into the duties the
organisations are undertaking on its behalf, as referred to in article 11,
paragraph 1,

the possibility for random and detailed inspections of ships,

provisions for reporting essential information about their classed fleet,
changes suspensions and withdrawals of class, irrespective of the flag the
vessels fly, as referred to in article 14, paragraph 3”.

-

-

-

b)

Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

“4. Each Member State shall provide the Commission and the other Member
States with precise information on the working relationship established in
accordance with this Article.”

6.

Article 7 shall be replaced by the following:

84

“The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of representatives of
the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.

Where reference is made to this Article, the regulatory procedure laid down in
Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in compliance with Article 7(3) and
Article 8 thereof.

The period provided for in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be three
months.

This committee shall be called by the Commission at least once a year and whenever
required in the case of suspension of authorisation of an organisation by a Member
State or in the case of suspension of recognition by the Commission under the
provisions of Article 10. The Committee shall draw up its rules of procedure.”

7.

Article 8, paragraph 1, first indent, shall be replaced by the following:

“-

apply, for the purposes of this Directive, subsequent amendments to the
international conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions related thereto
mentioned in Articles 2 (d) and 6 (2) , which have entered into force,”

8.

Article 9 shall be replaced by the following:

“1. The recognition of organisations referred to in Article 4 which no longer fulfil
the criteria set out in the Annex or which fail to meet the safety and pollution
prevention performance records mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be withdrawn.
The withdrawal of the recognition shall be decided by the Commission in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7, after the organisation
concerned has been given the opportunity to submit its observations.

2.

In preparing drafts for a decision relating to the matters referred to in paragraph
1, the Commission shall take into account the outcome of the inspections of the
recognised organisations referred to in Article 11 as well as the safety and
pollution prevention performance records of the organisations, measured for all
the ships they have in class irrespective of the flag the ships fly.

Indication of the safety and pollution prevention performance records of the
organisations shall be derived from the statistics produced by the Paris Memorandum
of Understanding on Port State Control and/or by similar schemes. Other indications
may be derived from an analysis of the casualties involving ships classed by the
recognised organisations.

Reports produced by Member States on the basis of Article 12 shall also be taken
into consideration to assess the safety and pollution prevention performance records
of the organisations.

The Committee set up under Article 7 shall determine the criteria to be followed in
order to decide, on the basis of the information referred to in this paragraph, when
the performance of an organisation acting on behalf of a flag State can be considered
an unacceptable threat to safety and environment. Draft decisions relating to the
matters referred to in paragraph 1 shall be submitted to the committee by the
Commission upon its own initiative or at the request of a Member State.”

85

9.

Article 10 shall be amended as follows:

a)

The first two sentences shall become paragraph 1 and shall be replaced by the
following:

“1. Notwithstanding the criteria specified in the Annex, where a Member
State considers that a recognised organisation can no longer be
authorised to carry out on its behalf the tasks specified in Article 3 it may
suspend such authorisation on the basis of the following procedure:”.

b)

The following paragraphs shall be added:

“2. Whenever

the Commission considers that

the safety and pollution
prevention performance records of a recognised organisation worsen
without however justifying the withdrawal of its recognition on the basis
of the criteria referred to in article 9, paragraph 2, it may decide to inform
the recognised organisation accordingly and request it to take appropriate
measures to improve its safety and pollution prevention performance
records. Should the recognised organisation fail
to provide the
Commission with an appropriate answer or should the Commission
consider that the measures taken by the recognised organisation failed to
improve its safety and pollution prevention performance records, the
Commission may decide to suspend the recognition of the organisation
for a period of one year in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Article 7 after the organisation concerned has been given the opportunity
to submit
recognised
organisation will not be allowed to issue or renew any certificate to ships
flying the flag of the Member States while the certificates issued or
renewed in the past by the organisation will remain valid.

its observations. During that period,

the

3.

4.

The procedure referred to in paragraph 2 shall apply also in the case
where the Commission has evidence that a recognised organisation failed
to fulfil the provisions of article 14, paragraphs 3, 4, or 5.

One year after the adoption of the decision of the Commission to suspend
the recognition of an organisation, the Commission shall assess whether
the shortcomings referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 which lead to the
suspension have been removed. In the case where such shortcomings are
still present, the recognition shall be withdrawn in accordance with the
procedure referred to in Article 7.”

10.

Article 11 shall be amended as follows:

a)

In paragraph 1, the following text shall be deleted: “and that such organisations
fulfil the criteria specified in the Annex. It may do so by having the recognised
organisations directly monitored by its competent administration or, in the case
of organisations located in another Member State, by relying upon the
corresponding monitoring of such organisations by the administration of
another Member State.”

86

b)

c)

d)

In paragraph 2, the words “Each Member State shall carry out this task on a
biennial basis” shall be replaced by “Each Member State shall carry out this
task at least on a biennial basis”.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be deleted.

A new paragraph 3 shall be inserted as follows:

“3. All the recognised organisations shall be inspected by the Commission,
together with the Member State which submitted the relevant request for
recognition, on a regular basis and at least every three years to verify that
they fulfil the criteria of the Annex. In selecting the organisations for
inspection, the Commission shall pay particular attention to the safety
and pollution prevention performance records of the organisation, to the
casualty records and to the reports produced by Member States as per
Article 12. The inspection may include a visit to regional branches of the
organisation as well as random and detailed inspection of ships. The
Commission shall provide the Member States with a report of the results
of the inspection.”

11.

Article 12 shall be replaced by the following:

“In exercising their inspection rights and obligations as port states Member States
shall report to the Commission and to other Member States the discovery of issue of
valid certificates by organisations acting on behalf of a flag State to a ship which
does not fulfil the relevant requirements of the international conventions, or any
failure of a ship carrying a valid class certificate and relating to items covered by that
to safety and
certificate. Only cases of ships representing a serious threat
environment or proving a particularly negligent behaviour of the organisations shall
be reported for the purposes of this Article.”

12.

13.

14.

Article 13 shall be deleted.

Articles 14, 15, 16 and 17 shall become Articles 13, 14, 15 and 16 respectively.

Article 14, paragraphs 3 and 4, shall be replaced by the following:

“3. The recognised organisations shall provide all relevant information to the
administration and to the Commission about their classed fleet, changes,
suspensions and withdrawals of class, irrespective of the flag the vessels
fly. Information on changes, suspensions, and withdrawals of class,
including information on all overdue surveys, overdue recommendations,
conditions of class, operating conditions or operating restrictions issued
against their classed vessels - irrespective of the flag the vessels fly -
shall also be communicated to the Sirenac information system for Port
State Control inspections.”

“4. The recognised organisations shall not

issue certificates to a ship,
irrespective of its flag, declassed or changing class for safety reasons
before informing the competent administration of the flag State to
determine whether a full inspection is necessary.”

c)

The following paragraph 5 shall be added:

87

“5.

In cases of transfer of class from one recognised organisation to another,
inform the gaining organisation of all
the losing organisation shall
overdue surveys, overdue recommendations,
conditions of class,
operating conditions or operating restrictions issued against the vessel.
On transfer, the losing organisation shall provide the gaining organisation
with the complete history file of the vessel. The certificates of the ship
can be issued by the gaining organisation only after all overdue surveys
have been satisfactorily completed and all overdue recommendations or
the vessel have been
conditions of class previously issued against
completed as specified by the losing organisation. Prior to the issuance of
the certificates,
the gaining organisation must advise the losing
organisation of the date of issuing of the certificates and confirm the date,
location and action taken to satisfy each overdue survey, overdue
recommendation and overdue condition of class. The recognised
organisations shall co-operate with each other to properly implement the
provisions of this paragraph.”

15.

Article 15, paragraph 3, shall be replaced by the following:

“3. The Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission and to
the other Member States the text of all the provisions of domestic law which
they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.”

16.

The Annex to the Directive shall be amended as follows:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” in paragraph 2 of
Section ‘A. GENERAL’.

The words “would be” shall be replaced by the word “are” in the second
sentence of paragraph 3 of Section ‘A. GENERAL’.

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” in paragraph 4 of
Section ‘A. GENERAL’.

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” in paragraph 5 of
Section ‘A. GENERAL’. The following words shall be addedat the end of the
paragraph: “or maintained in an electronic data base accessible to interested
parties”.

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” both in the first and in
the second sentence of paragraph 6 of Section ‘A. GENERAL’.

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” in paragraph 7 of
Section ‘A. GENERAL’.

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 4 of Section ‘B.
SPECIFIC’: “and to the Commission”.

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 5 of Section ‘B.
SPECIFIC’: “The organisation’s policy must refer to safety and pollution
prevention performance targets and indicators”.

88

i)

j)

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 6 (b) of Section ‘B.
SPECIFIC’: “and an internal system to measure the quality of service in
relation to these rules and regulations is put in place”.

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph 6 (c) of Section ‘B.
SPECIFIC’: “and an internal system to measure the quality of service in
relation to the compliance with the international conventions is put in place”.

k)

Paragraph 6 (g) of Section ‘B. SPECIFIC’ shall be replaced by the following:

“(g)

the requirements of the statutory work for which the organisation is
authorised are only carried out by its exclusive surveyors or by exclusive
surveyors of other recognised organisations; in all cases, the exclusive
surveyors must have an extensive knowledge of the particular type of
ship on which they carry out the statutory work and of the relevant
applicable requirements;”.

l)

The word “and” at the end of paragraph 6 (i) of Section ‘B. SPECIFIC’ shall be
deleted.

m)

Paragraph 6 (j) of Section ‘B. SPECIFIC’ shall be replaced by the following:

“(j)

a comprehensive system of planned and documented internal audits of
the quality related activities is maintained in all locations”.

n)

The following two paragraphs shall be added to paragraph 6 of Section ‘B.
SPECIFIC’:

“(k)

the statutory surveys and inspections required by the Harmonised System
of Survey and Certification for which the organisation is authorised are
carried out in accordance with the provision set out in the Annex and
Appendix to IMO Resolution A.746 (18) on Survey Guidelines under the
Harmonised System of Survey and Certification;

(l)

clear and direct
between the central and the regional offices of the society.”

lines of responsibility and control are established

o)

Paragraph 7 (b) of Section ‘B. SPECIFIC’ shall be replaced by the following:

“(b)

to carry out all inspections and surveys required by the international
conventions for the issue of certificates, including the means of assessing
– through the use of qualified professional staff and in accordance with
the provisions set out in the Annex to “IMO Resolution A.788 (19) on
guidelines on implementation of the International Safety Management
(ISM) Code by administrations” – the application and maintenance of the
safety management system, both shore-based and on board ships,
intended to be covered in the certification.”

p)

The word “should” shall be replaced by the word “must” in paragraph 9 of
Section ‘B. SPECIFIC’.

89

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive no later than twelve months after the date of adoption
of this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive
or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member
States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

90

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL III

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

ON THE ACCELERATED PHASING-IN OF DOUBLE HULL OR EQUIVALENT DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR SINGLE HULL OIL TANKERS

91

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.

Actual situation and problems:

The major consequences of accidental oil spills caused by oil tankers, as recently
demonstrated with the structural failure of the ERIKA off the French coast, remain
an issue of major concern for the European Commission.

In a follow-up to the pollution accidents with the oil tankers "Aegean Sea" off la
Coruña in December 1992 and the "Braer" off the Shetland Islands in January 1993,
the Commission issued its Communication “a common policy on safe seas”50. This
communication took stock of the existing situation with regard to maritime safety
and the prevention of pollution of the marine environment. It underlined in particular
the request of the extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport of 25 January
1993 to support the action in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the
reduction of the safety gap between new and existing ships by upgrading and/or
phasing-out existing ships, built to earlier standards, after a reasonable period of
operation. This request stressed the need of paying particular attention to oil tankers
not meeting the international standards on segregated ballast
tanks and their
protective location as laid down in the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973 and the Protocol of 1978 related thereto (MARPOL
73/78).

A first, regional decision concerning the phasing-out of single hull oil tankers was
taken in 1990 by the United States, when they promulgated the Oil Pollution Act
(OPA 90) in which double hull requirements both for new and existing tank vessels
have been established. The application of the OPA 90 double hull requirement to
existing tank vessels is dependent on the age, the size in gross tons and hull
configuration of the vessel. Basically two main categories can be distinguished.

The first category of tankers will not be allowed under OPA 90 to operate in US
waters after 1 January 2010 unless they comply with the double hull requirements.
This category includes all existing single hull oil tankers above 5000 GT without
double bottom or double sides. In the period from 2005 to 2010, such single hull oil
tankers will not be longer allowed to operate in US waters when they reach an age of
25 years, or 23 years for tankers above 30000 GT, unless they comply with the
double hull requirements.

The second category of tankers will not be allowed under OPA 90 to operate in US
waters after 1 January 2015 unless they comply with the double hull requirements.
This category includes existing single hull oil tankers above 5000 GT fitted with
double bottom or double sides, and all existing single hull oil tankers below 5000
GT. In the 10 years preceding the deadline of 2015, tankers above 5000 GT are
phased out when they reach the age of 30 years, and 28 years for tankers above
30000 GT. For tankers below 5000 GT, no phasing-out age limits are specified.

50 COM(93)66 final of 24.02.1993

92

Faced with the unilateral decision by the USA, the IMO had to take action to also
reduce at international level the safety gap between new and existing oil tankers,
resulting in July 1993 in the entry into force of important amendments to the
MARPOL 73/78 Convention. More rigorous measures concerning the design and
construction standards for new and existing oil tankers were included in these
amendments. These design and construction standards aimed at providing a better
protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding. They require
that oil tankers delivered on or after 6 July 1996 comply with the double hull or
equivalent design requirements laid down in Regulation 13F of Annex I of the
MARPOL 73/78 Convention.

In addition, the amendments to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention included also a
phasing-in scheme for single hull oil tankers above 20000 tons deadweight, delivered
before 6 July 1996. According to Regulation 13G, such tankers have to comply with
the double hull or equivalent design standards of Regulation 13F of Annex I of the
MARPOL 73/78 Convention not later than 25 years, or in some cases 30 years, after
their date of delivery. As a consequence, existing single hull oil tankers that do not
meet
tanks and their protective
location will, at international level, no longer be allowed to operate beyond 2007, or
in some cases 2012, unless they comply with the double hull or equivalent design
requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. For
existing single hull oil tankers complying with these requirements on segregated
ballast tanks and their protective location this deadline will be reached at the latest in
2026.

the requirements concerning segregated ballast

level

international

The differences in age limits and end-dates between the OPA 90 phasing-out scheme
through the amendments to the
and the one established at
MARPOL 73/78 Convention will, from 2005 onwards, have as a consequence that
single hull oil tankers not longer allowed to operate in US waters because of their
age, may shift their trading patterns to other regions in the world, including the
European Union, and continue operating until they have to comply with the double
hull requirements in accordance with the age limits provided for in the MARPOL
73/78 Convention. This changing trading patterns will result into a situation where
the oldest single hull oil tankers which under the MARPOL 73/78 Convention are
allowed to continue operating, will become more dominantly present in the oil trades
to and from and within the European Union.

A study on the environmental impact of single hull oil tankers carried out in 1999 for
the Commission services addressed the effects of OPA 90 on the tanker fleet
operating outside the USA. The study's estimations show that during the period 2000
to 2025 on average 15% of the crude oil tankers will be banned from US waters but
still allowed to operate under the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. It also noted that
there will be in 2010 a distinct maximum in the number of crude oil tankers of less
than 20000 tons DWT banned from the USA, due to the end date limit of 2010 in
OPA 90. For crude oil tankers in excess of this size the maximum increase in
numbers diverted to Europe will be reached in 2015. The study estimates further that
OPA 90 will have less pronounced effects for oil product tankers. For oil products
tankers in the 5000 to 30000 tons deadweight category, the maximum of diverted
ships will be reached in 2015, whilst for the larger size category this maximum will
be reached in 2005.

93

2.

Proposed action at Community level:

The Commission is of the opinion that the situation described above should give rise
to concern, since accident statistics reveal increasing accident rates for older ships.
An appropriate Community response to this situation is considered necessary, in
particular in view of the nearing of the year 2005, the first important cut-off date
under OPA 90 at which certain single hull oil tankers will be banned from US
waters. In order to avoid that such tankers start or continue trading to European ports,
an accelerated application in the Community of the phasing-in scheme of the double
hull or equivalent design requirements of Regulation 13 F of Annex I of MARPOL
73/78 is proposed. This accelerated phasing-in scheme has to be aligned with the age
limits and end-date limits provided for in OPA 90, to avoid that oil tankers banned
from the US under the OPA 90 regime, could shift their trading patterns to Europe.

As regards to size and hull configuration criteria,
the proposal maintains the
distinction made in the MARPOL 73/78 Convention between three main categories.
Category 1: so-called "pre-MARPOL" single hull oil tankers, being crude oil tankers
of 20000 tons deadweight and above and oil product carriers of 30000 tons
deadweight and above having no segregated ballast tanks in protective locations
(SBT/PL). Category 2 is including "MARPOL" single hull tankers, being of the same
size as category 1, but which are equipped with SBT/PL. Category 3 contains single
hull oil tankers below the size limits of categories 1 and 2, delivered before 6 July
1996, and therefore not subject
to the phasing-in scheme for the double hull
requirements laid down in Regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

The Commission proposes the following approach for each of these categories.

For category 1 the proposal envisages to lower the age limits of 25 or 30 years
provided for in the MARPOL 73/78 Convention to one single age limit of 23 years.
Since these single hull oil tankers were delivered before the date the SBT/PL
requirements of MARPOL 73/78 started to apply (1982), a final deadline in 2005 is
specified to prevent that they would continue operating beyond the proposed age
limit of 23 years. In addition, the waiver possibility provided for in Regulation
I/13G(7) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 to accept other structural or operational
arrangements, such as hydrostatic balanced loading, as an alternative to the double
hull requirements, should not be allowed. This limitation is necessary to avoid that
tankers that have reached their age limit can continue operating beyond this age limit
by using other arrangements than the double hull or equivalent design configuration.

For category 2 the proposal specifies compliance with the double hull or equivalent
design requirements not later than when they reach the age of 28 years or on 1
January 2010, whichever of these dates comes first.

Finally for category 3, the Commission proposes to introduce an age limit of 25 years
when the tankers are not equipped with SBT/PL and 30 years when they are,
combined with an end date limit of 1 January 2015 beyond which no single hull oil
tanker of that category will be allowed to trade to European ports.

Since this proposal for an accelerated phasing-in scheme at Community level is
aligned with the age and end-date limits in OPA 90, single hull oil tankers banned
from US waters will not be able to shift their trading patterns to Europe.

94

By applying the same end-date limits as in OPA 90, the EU system will result into a
considerable shorter phasing-in period, having an important, but at this stage not
quantified in detail, impact on the rate at which single hull oil tankers will have to be
replaced by double hull tonnage. First estimates, based on available statistics on the
composition of the world tanker fleet today, indicate that the impact for categories 2
and 3 will be considerable.

Category 2 contains today about 2000 single hull ships (worldwide). In addition,
1000 double hulled tankers are available in this size category. In the proposed EU
system, about 70% of these 2000 ships will have to be phased out on age limit (28
years) before 2010, and about 30% of them (+/- 600 ships) on deadline in 2010.

Category 3 totals today about 3000 single hull tankers. In this size category only 300
double hull tankers are available today, due to the lack of any age or deadline limit in
the MARPOL 73/78 Convention for replacing the existing single hulls by double
hulls. The proposed EU system, combining age limits (25 or 30 years) with the
deadline of 2015, will have the following impact: 70% (+/- 2000 ships) will have to
be phased out before 2015 on age limit, whilst the remainder 30% (+/- 1000 ships)
will have to be phased out on deadline in 2015. In view of the large number of ships
that will have to be phased out on deadline in 2010 and 2015, the continuity of oil
supply and distribution in Europe could be temporary disturbed if there were no
sufficient double hull
is recognised between the major
shipbuilding associations (AWES in Europe, SAJ in Japan and KSA in South Korea)
that for the foreseeable future supply of merchant vessels will exceed demand. Today
this excess capacity is estimated to be ca. 3-4 Mio cgt, which if it were used for the
construction of double hull tankers, would represent ca. 10,42-13,89 million tons
deadweight and be able to cope with the increased demand arising from this
proposal.

tonnage. However

it

The attached proposal provides that compliance with the accelerated phasing-in of
the double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers should be
imposed to oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above, flying the flag of a Member
State and as a condition for access to EU ports, irrespective of the flag the ships fly.

3.

Accompanying measures:

As an accompanying measure to the phasing-in of the double hull or equivalent
design standards for single hull oil tankers, a system of financial incentives and
disincentives is proposed to encourage the trade of double hull oil tankers to and
from and between ports in the Community, and to discourage the trade of single hull
oil tankers. This system should be based upon the principles established in Council
Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 on the implementation of IMO
Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in
tankers51 (SBT Regulation). These principles foresee the
segregated ballast oil
application of reduced port and pilotage dues for the most environmentally friendly
oil tankers as opposed to those offering less protection against oil pollution.

However,
the higher level of
protection against accidental oil pollution that double hull oil tankers offer as

the SBT Regulation does not

take into account

51

OJ L 319, 12.121994, p. 1.

95

compared to single hull oil tankers, and does not differentiate between double hull oil
tankers and single hull oil tankers with regard to the reduction of port and pilotage
dues. Moreover, in view of the proposed deadline of 2005 for single hull oil tankers
not complying with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 on segregated ballast tanks
and their protective location, there are no justified reasons to maintain any longer the
differential financial treatment system the SBT Regulation provides between such oil
tankers and tankers that do comply with the SBT/PL requirements of MARPOL
73/78.

The attached proposal therefore foresees revoking the SBT Regulation and to
incorporate a new financial incentive system that during the period of the accelerated
phasing-in scheme encourages the operation of oil tankers complying with the double
hull or equivalent design requirements and to discourage the operation of oil tankers
not complying yet with these requirements. This new system should be a combined
system providing a reduction on port and pilotage dues for oil tankers complying
with the double hull or equivalent design standards and applying a surcharge on the
port and pilotage dues for oil tankers not yet complying with these standards.

In establishing this combined incentive/disincentive system, a fair balance should be
aimed at to avoid loss of revenues for the providers of port and pilotage services and
to avoid that such losses would be at the detriment of the quality of these services or
need to be compensated by raising port and pilotage dues for ships unconnected with
the transport of oil and oil products. In view of the progressive increase of the
number of double hull or equivalent design oil tankers and the decrease of the
number of single hull oil tankers over the period of the envisaged accelerated
phasing-in scheme, the balance in revenues for port and pilotage service providers
has to be achieved by making the reduction on port and pilotage dues for double hull
or equivalent design oil tankers regressive with their age and the surcharge on port
and pilotage dues for single hull oil tankers progressive with the ship's age.

The percentages of these reductions and surcharges laid down in the proposal should
be adaptable through Comitology procedure to take account of the rate at which
single hull oil tankers are replaced by double hull tonnage may change over the
period of the accelerated phasing in. Finally the proposal provides that
the
differential charging will cease to be applied when the accelerated-phasing in scheme
for the double hull or equivalent design standards has been fully accomplished.

A second accompanying measure provided for in the proposal is to notify to the IMO
the Community legislation on the accelerated phasing-in of the double hull or
equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers, once it is adopted. Such a
notification would comply with the provisions of Article 211 of UNCLOS.
Paragraph 3 of UNCLOS article 211 provides the right to coastal states for imposing
particular requirements as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports
or internal waters or for a call at their off-shore terminals. It stipulates further that
they shall be
due publicity to such requirements shall be given and that
this
that
communicated to the
communication should mention the States which are applying the same requirements
in the context of a co-operative arrangements.

international organisation and

competent

96

JUSTIFICATION FOR A REGULATION

4.

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

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

To this end, the main objective of the envisaged action is to implement
in the
Community, in a harmonised way, an accelerated phasing-in of the double hull or
equivalent design standards of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention for single hull oil
tankers. A harmonised and advanced implementation at Community level of these
standards is considered necessary to ensure that oil tankers trading to and from and
between ports of the Member States comply as quickly as possible with the double
hull or equivalent design standards in order to reduce the risks of accidental oil
pollution and its consequences in European waters.

Although not all Member States are concerned with the conditions of access for oil
tankers due to their lack of coastline and ports, the Regulation will affect all Member
States to a certain extent, since all Member States may have oil tankers flying their
flag.

Is the envisaged action solely the responsibility of the Community or is the

b)
responsibility shared with the Member States?

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

c) What is the most efficient solution taking into account the resources of the
Community and the Member States?

In view of the internal market dimension of maritime transport, an action at
Community level is the only possible way to ensure that the same level of safety and
marine pollution prevention is guaranteed by oil tankers trading to and from and
between European ports, while reducing the risks of distortion of competition
between ports due to the application of divergent principles for charging port and
pilotage dues.

5.

6.

7.

d) What is the concrete added value of the action envisaged by the Community
and what would be the cost of inaction?

The Community has a major interest in ensuring that the transport by sea of oil and
oil products necessary for its economy is carried out
in the safest and most
environmentally friendly way, to avoid the detrimental consequences of oil pollution.
A harmonised action is necessary to avoid distortion of competition between oil
tankers already complying with the latest
international requirements concerning
accidental oil pollution prevention and those tankers, which do not do so yet. These
standards have been internationally agreed but the relevant international Convention
in which they are embedded does not ensure for their harmonised and simultaneous
application. Their implementation in the Community can only be assured through the
establishment of an enforceable and harmonised Community framework.

97

The cost of inaction would be that the rate of pollution accidents and the seriousness
of their consequences caused by the structural failure or damage of single hull oil
tankers would remain unacceptably high. Furthermore,
if no harmonised and
accelerated phasing-in of the double hull or equivalent design standards for these oil
tankers is established within the Community, the risk of substandard and over-aged
oil tanker tonnage shifting its trade patterns from areas such as the United States,
where stricter safety policies are applied, to Europe cannot be deterred.

Also, inaction could entail a risk of distortion of competition between ports through
the application of diverging criteria for charging port and pilotage dues to oil tankers,
without giving due consideration to the enhanced protection against accidental oil
pollution double hull or equivalent designs are offering as opposed to single hull oil
tankers.

8.

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

Since the internationally agreed requirements for single hull oil tankers to comply
with the double hull or equivalent design standards are providing to a large extent
freedom of interpretation and application to the flag State administration and also
exclude a considerable number of existing oil tankers from their scope of application,
they are not enforceable in a unified and harmonised way ensuring a fast replacement
of all single hull oil tankers by double hull oil tankers. In addition, the possibilities
for waivers leading to a lack of or a divergence in implementing these international
standards could result in a distortion of competition. Hence it is necessary to ensure a
harmonised and accelerated application of these internationally agreed standards, in
the form of a Regulation.

9.

Is uniform legislation necessary or does a Directive setting the general

f)
objectives and leaving the execution to the Member States suffice?

Uniform legislation in the form of a regulation is necessary for the reasons set out
above. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, the proposed Regulation
will establish at Community level the age and dates at which single hull oil tankers
have to comply with the internationally agreed double hull or equivalent design
standards, as well as a uniform approach for a differential charging system for port
and pilotage dues to be applied to single and double hull oil tankers visiting
European ports.

The actual differential charging system for port and pilotage dues embedded in
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 on the implementation
of IMO Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast
spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers52 cannot longer be continued since it makes
no distinction between single hull and double hull oil tankers having both segregated
ballast tanks. The most appropriate approach is to revoke this Regulation and replace
it by a new one, in which also the accelerated phasing-in scheme is incorporated and
linked with a new differential charging system. Acting by way of a Directive would,
in addition, require for an additional period for transposing its provisions in the
national
resulting in a further delay for
implementing the accelerated phasing-in scheme.

the Member States,

legislation of

52

OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p.1.

98

CONTENT OF THE REGULATION

10.

11.

12.

13.

The proposed Regulation specifies the age limits and end-dates by which single hull
oil tankers have to comply with the double hull or equivalent design requirements of
Regulation 13F of Annex I of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. The age limits
proposed are either lower than the ones specified in Regulation 13G of Annex I of
MARPOL 73/78 or apply to categories of tankers which because of their size are not
covered by that Regulation. The end-date limits specified aim at avoiding that single
hull oil tankers can continue or start trading to European ports after the end-date
limits beyond which they are not longer allowed to operate in the waters falling
under the jurisdiction of the United Sates. Compliance of these requirements will be
imposed as a condition of access to ports of the Member States for all oil tankers of
600 tons deadweight and above, irrespective of the flag they fly. Further, all oil
tankers of that size category, flying the flag of a Member State will have to comply
with the accelerated phasing-in scheme of the double hull or equivalent design
standards.

In addition, and as a complementary measure, the proposal foresees the replacement
of the actual differential charging system for port and pilotage dues as laid down in
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94. The existing system has to be abolished, since
it does not provide for a differentiation in the charging of port and pilotage dues
between single hull and double hull oil tankers both equipped with segregated ballast
tanks. Moreover, the accelerated phasing-in system will lead to the disappearance of
single hull oil tankers without segregated ballast tanks as soon as in 2005, and
therefore there will be no reasons to prolong the actual system beyond that date. The
new financial system for differential charging of port and pilotage dues proposed
foresees a reduction of these dues for double hull oil tankers, but the reduction
should be regressive with the ship's age. For single hull oil tankers a surcharge on the
dues is applied, progressive with ship's age. The proposal specifies that
this
differential charging system should cease to be applied, once the phasing-in of the
tankers is fully
double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil
accomplished.

Finally, the proposed Regulation provides for its notification to IMO, once it has
been adopted. The purpose of this notification is to inform the international maritime
community about the new rules of play in the Community for trading with oil tankers
to and from and between ports of the Member States.

The proposal provides also for a mandate to the Commission, subject to Comitology,
for amending the Regulation to take account of amendments to the relevant
international instruments, as well as for adjusting the percentages of the reductions
to take account of possible
and surcharges in the differential charging system,
fluctuations in the rate at which the replacement of single hull tonnage by double
tonnage is taking place over the phasing-in period.

99

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Article 1

The purpose of the Regulation: to raise the safety and pollution prevention standards for oil
tankers operating to and from and between ports of the Member States to reduce the risks of
accidental oil pollution due to collision or grounding.

The way to achieve this objective is through accelerating the timing by which single hull oil
tankers have to comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards of Regulation 13F
of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. As an accompanying measure the Regulation also provides
fore a differential charging system for port and pilotage dues between single hull and double
hull or equivalent design tankers.

Article 2

This Article defines the scope of application of the Regulation. It covers all oil tankers of 600
tons deadweight and above, irrespective of the flag they fly, when calling at Community ports
and all oil tankers of that size flying the flag of a Member State.

Article 3

This Article contains the definitions of the key concepts of the Regulation, which are mainly
derived from the relevant definitions in the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

Article 4

Article 4 lays down the age limits and date limits by which single hull oil tankers have to
comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards of the MARPOL 73/78
Convention. Depending on the size and configuration of the tankers, the age limits vary
between 23 to 30 years and the end-date limits between 2005 and 2015. In addition, paragraph
2 of this article specifies that for the purpose of complying with this article, the waiver
possibility provided for in Regulation 13G(7) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 to accept other
structural or operational arrangements as alternatives for compliance with the double hull or
equivalent design requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, shall not be
accepted.

Article 5

This article establishes the differential charging system for port and pilotage dues between
single hull and double hull or equivalent design tankers, based upon the application of a
reduction of these dues for double hull or equivalent design tankers, which is regressive with
the age of the ship. For single hull oil tankers, not yet complying with the double hull or
equivalent design standards, a surcharge on the port and pilotage dues has to be applied which
is progressive with the ship's age. Where charging systems for port and pilotage dues are
based upon another criterion than deadweight, they have to ensure that at least the same
percentage for the reductions and surcharges is applied as in the system based upon
deadweight. Finally, the article specifies that the differential charging system shall cease to be
applied once the accelerated phasing-in of the double hull or equivalent design standards has
been fully accomplished.

100

Article 6

Article 6 provides for the notification to IMO of the adoption of this Regulation. This
notification aims at providing the international maritime community with information on the
new rules of play for trading with oil tankers to and from and between ports of the
Community.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides in its Article 211,
concerning pollution from vessels, the right to coastal states to impose particular requirements
as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at
their off-shore terminals. It stipulates further that due publicity to such requirements shall be
given and that they shall be communicated to the competent international organisation and
that this communication should mention the States which are applying the same requirements
in the context of a co-operative arrangements. The notification to the IMO of the adoption of
this Regulation aims at meeting this provision of UNCLOS.

Article 7

Article 7 contains provisions on monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the
Regulation. It provides that Member States regularly verify that port and pilotage authorities
correctly apply the differential charging system for port and pilotage dues as provided for in
Article 5. Member States are required to report annually to the Commission on the results of
their verification, and this within 4 months after each year upon which is reported.

Article 8

The establishment of a regulatory Committee is incorporated in this article, including also a
reference to the procedures of article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC53, in accordance
with which it has to act. The article also fixes the period for the Council to act in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 6 of that article to 3 months.

Article 9

This Article provides the right for the Commission to amend the Regulation and its Annex, in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8, to update the references to the relevant
Regulations of MARPOL 73/78 in line with any subsequent amendments that may be adopted
to these Regulations.

It also provides under the same procedure for the adjustment of the percentage of reductions
and surcharges on port and pilotage dues to be applied, to take into account variations in the
rate at which the replacement of single hull oil tankers by double hull or equivalent design
tankers will take place during the phasing-in period.

53

Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission, OJ L 184 , 17.07.1999, p. 23.

101

Article 10

In view of the new differential charging system for port and pilotage dues established in
Article 5, the existing differential charging system laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No
2978/94 has to be abolished. The existing system provides for differential port and pilotage
dues between oil tankers equipped with segregated ballast
tanks in protective locations
(SBT/PL) and those without. However, by using only the SBT/PL criterion, it does not
provide for any differentiation between single hull and double hull or equivalent design
tankers.

Articles 11 and 12

No comments

Annex

The annex to the regulation specifies the percentages of the reductions and surcharges on port
and pilotage dues to be applied in function of the ship's age.

102

2000/0067 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements
for single hull oil tankers

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission54,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee55,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions56,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty57,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

within the framework of the common transport policy further measures must be taken
to enhance safety and prevent pollution in maritime transport ;

the Community is seriously concerned by the shipping accidents involving oil tankers
and the associated pollution of its coast-lines and harm to its fauna and flora and other
maritime resources;

the Commission underlined in its Communication “a common policy on safe seas”58
the request of the extraordinary Council on Environment and Transport of 25 January
1993 to support the action in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the
reduction of the safety gap between new and existing ships by upgrading and/or
phasing-out existing ships, built to earlier standards, after a reasonable period of
operation, paying particular attention to oil tankers not meeting the amendments of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and the
Protocol of 1978 related thereto (MARPOL 73/78) which entered into force in 1982;

(4)

in its Resolution on a common policy on safe seas59
the European Parliament
welcomed the Commission Communication and called in particular for action to be
taken to improve tanker safety standards;

54

55

56

57

58

59

OJ C […], […], p. […].
OJ C […], […], p. […].
OJ C […], […], p. […].
OJ C […], […], p. […].
COM(93)66 final of 24.02.1993.
OJ C 91, 28.031994, p.301.

103

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

the Council, by its Resolution of 8 June 199360, fully supported the objectives of the
Commission Communication;

at international level, the International Maritime Organisation has established in the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and the
Protocol of 1978 related thereto (MARPOL 73/78) internationally agreed pollution
prevention rules affecting the design and operation of oil tankers;

important amendments to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention containing more rigorous
measures concerning the design and construction standards for oil tankers have been
adopted by the IMO on 6 March 1992, which entered into force on 6 July 1993. These
measures impose double hull or equivalent design requirements for oil
tankers
delivered on or after 6 July 1996 aimed at preventing oil pollution in the event of
collision or stranding. Within these amendments a phasing-in scheme for single hull
oil tankers delivered before that date took effect from 6 July 1995 onwards requiring
such tankers to comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards not later
than 25 years and in some cases 30 years after their date of delivery. As a consequence
of these measures existing single hull oil tankers not complying with the requirements
of MARPOL 73/78 concerning segregated ballast tanks and their protective location
will no longer, at international level, be allowed to operate beyond 2007, and in some
case 2012, unless they comply with the double hull or equivalent design requirements
of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. For existing single hull oil tankers
that do comply with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 on segregated ballast tanks
and their protective location this deadline will be reached at the latest in 2026;

prior to the adoption of these amendments to MARPOL 73/78, the United States
already adopted in 1990 the Oil Pollution Act establishing double hull requirements
both for new and existing tank vessels. These requirements provide that after 1
January 2010 single hull oil tankers without double bottom or double sides will not be
allowed to operate to and from US ports unless they comply with the double hull
requirements. In addition, in the period preceding this final deadline such single hull
oil tankers will not be longer allowed to operate to and from US ports from 2005
onwards when they reach an age of 25 years, and in some cases 23 years, unless they
comply with the double hull requirements. For single hull oil tankers fitted with
double bottom or double sides this final deadline is fixed on 1 January 2015 and the
ship's age limit in the preceding period between 2005 and 2015 is 30 years and in
some cases 28 years;

it can be expected that the differences between the international regime and the one
established by the United States concerning age limits and end-date limits for the
application of the double hull requirements to existing single hull oil tankers will
result, from 2005 onwards, that single hull oil tankers not longer allowed to operate to
and from US ports because of their age, and particularly after the end-date limits of
2010 and 2015, will shift their trading patterns to other regions in the world, including
the European Union, and continue operating until they have to comply with the double
hull requirements in accordance with the age limits provided for in the MARPOL
73/78 Convention;

60

OJ C 271, 07.10.1993, p.1.

104

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

It has been internationally agreed that

comparison of tanker age and accident statistics show increasing accident rates for
the adoption of the 1992
older ships.
amendments to MARPOL 73/78 requiring the application of the double hull or
equivalent design standards to existing single hull oil tankers when they reach a
certain age will provide these tankers with a higher degree of protection against
accidental oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding;

it is in the interest of the Community to adopt measures to avoid that single hull oil
tankers that due to their advanced age, or after the end-date limits, are no longer
allowed under the Oil Pollution Act 1990 to operate to and from US ports, will start or
continue operating to and from European ports and thereby maintain or increase the
risk of accidental oil pollution in European waters;

these measures should be based upon the principles of
the MARPOL 73/78
Convention that existing single hull oil tankers have to comply with the double hull or
equivalent design requirements not later than when they reach a certain age. The age
limits in these measures should be aligned with those of the Oil Pollution Act 1990
and for that purpose an accelerated phasing in of the double hull or equivalent design
standards of MARPOL 73/78 should be established for existing single hull oil tankers
by lowering the age limit and specifying end-date limits in line with those of the Oil
Pollution Act 1990, beyond which these ships have to comply with these standards as
a condition for entering into a port or the internal waters of a Member State of the
Community;

the requirements of Regulation 13G of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 for existing single
hull oil tankers to comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards apply
only to crude oil tankers of 20000 tons deadweight and above and to product carriers
of 30000 tons deadweight and above. The double hull or equivalent design
requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 apply to oil tankers of
600 tons deadweight and above delivered after 6 July 1996. This difference in size
limits in the scope leaves the category of single hull crude oil tankers delivered before
6 July 1996 and having a deadweight between 600 and 20000 tons deadweight as well
as product carriers delivered before 6 July 1996 with a deadweight between 600 and
30000 tons unaffected. In view of the importance of this lower tonnage category of oil
tankers for the intra-Community trade similar measures should be adopted to ensure
that these tankers will also have to comply with the double hull or equivalent design
standards of MARPOL 73/78. For that purpose a phasing-in of the double hull or
equivalent design standards of MARPOL 73/78 should be established for this category
of single hull oil tankers as a condition for entering into a port or the internal waters of
a Member State of the Community;

the European Parliament, in its Resolution on the oil slick off the French coast adopted
on 20 January 200061, welcomed any efforts by the Commission to bring forward the
date by which oil tankers will all be obliged to have a double-hull construction;

the accelerated phasing in of the double hull or equivalent design requirements for
single hull oil tankers should be accompanied by complementary measures aimed at
encouraging the trading with double hull or equivalent design oil tankers in advance of
the accelerated phasing-in scheme. These complementary measures should consist of
providing financial incentives for double hull or equivalent design oil tankers and

61

OJ C […], […], p. […].

105

disincentives for single hull oil tankers operating to or from ports of the Member
States in the Community;

(16)

these complementary measures should be based upon the principles established in
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 on the implementation of
IMO Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast
spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers62. These principles foresee the application of
reduced port and pilotage dues for the most environmentally friendly oil tankers as
opposed to those offering less protection against oil pollution;

(17) Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 does not take into account the higher level of
protection against accidental oil pollution offered by double hull or equivalent design
oil tankers as compared to single hull oil tankers. Therefore the Regulation does not
differentiate between double hull oil tankers and single hull oil tankers fitted with
segregated ballast tanks with regard to the reduction of port and pilotage dues;

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

in view of the nearing deadline for single hull oil tankers not complying with the
requirements of MARPOL 73/78 on segregated ballast tanks and their protective
location there are no reasons to maintain any longer the differential charging system
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 provides between such oil tankers and tankers
that comply with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78 on segregated ballast tanks and
their protective location;

in view of aiming at promoting the trading to European ports of double hull or
equivalent design oil tankers, the financial incentive system of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2978/94 should be replaced by a system that during the period of the
accelerated phasing-in scheme encourages the operation of oil tankers complying with
the double hull or equivalent design requirements and discourages the operation of oil
tankers not complying yet with these requirements. For
that purpose Council
Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 should be repealed;

the financial incentives for oil tankers complying with the double hull or equivalent
design standards and financial disincentives for oil tankers not yet complying with
these standards should be based upon a combined system providing a reduction of port
and pilotage dues for oil tankers complying with the double hull or equivalent design
standards and applying a surcharge on the port and pilotage dues for oil tankers not yet
complying with these standards;

Port and pilotage dues should be proportionate with the services rendered and be
calculated in a non-discriminatory manner.

this combined system of reductions and surcharges on port and pilotage dues should
be balanced to avoid loss of revenues for the providers of port and pilotage services
and to avoid that such losses would be at the detriment of the quality of these services
or need to be compensated by raising port and pilotage dues for ships unconnected
with the transport of oil and oil products;

(23)

in view of the progressive increase of the number of double hull or equivalent design
oil tankers and the decrease of the number of single hull oil tankers over the period of
the accelerated phasing in scheme the balance in revenues for port and pilotage service

62

OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p.1.

106

providers should be achieved by making the reduction on port and pilotage dues for
double hull or equivalent design oil tankers regressive with their age and the surcharge
on port and pilotage dues for single hull oil tankers progressive with the ship's age.
This differential charging system should cease to be applied when the replacement of
single hull oil tankers by double hull or equivalent design oil tankers has been fully
accomplished;

(24)

(25)

since the measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation are measures
of general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of
28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission63, they should be adopted by use of the regulatory
procedure provided for in Article 5 of that Decision;

certain provisions of this Regulation containing references to the regulations of the
MARPOL 73/78 Convention may be amended by the Commission, assisted by the
Committee, to bring them in line with amendments to these regulations adopted or
entered into force. Also the percentages of the reductions and surcharges on port and
pilotage dues in the Annex may be amended by that Committee to ensure that the
revenues for port and pilotage service providers are kept in balance in view of the pace
and extent at which single hull oil tankers are replaced by double hull or equivalent
design oil tankers during the phasing-in period;

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Purpose

The purpose of this Regulation is to establish:

– an accelerated phasing-in scheme for the application of the double hull or equivalent

design requirements of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention to single hull oil tankers, and

– a system of financial incentives and disincentives, providing for a reduction on port and
pilotage dues for oil tankers complying with the double hull or equivalent design standards
and a surcharge on these dues for oil tankers not yet complying with these standards.

Article 2

Scope

This Regulation shall apply to all oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above,

– when entering into a port or the internal waters of a Member State, irrespective of their

flag, or

– flying the flag of a Member State.

63

O.J. L 184, 17.07.99, p.23

107

Article 3

Definitions

For the purpose of this Regulation,

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

“MARPOL 73/78” shall mean the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto
together with the amendments thereto, in force;

“oil tanker” shall mean an oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (4) of Annex I of
MARPOL 73/78;

“deadweight (DW)” shall mean deadweight as defined in Regulation 1 (22) of Annex I
of MARPOL 73/78;

“new oil tanker” shall mean a new oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (26) of Annex
I of MARPOL 73/78;

“crude oil tanker” shall mean a crude oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (29) of
Annex I of MARPOL 73/78;

“product carrier” shall mean a product carrier as defined in Regulation 1 (30) of
Annex I of MARPOL 73/78;

“single hull oil tanker” shall mean an oil tanker not meeting the double hull or
equivalent design requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78;

“double hull oil tanker” shall mean an oil tanker meeting the double hull or equivalent
design requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78;

“age” shall mean the age of a ship, expressed in number of years after the date of its
delivery;

“port and harbour authority” shall mean a public or private person which charges fees
to ships for providing facilities and services to shipping;

“pilotage authority” shall mean a public or private person entitled to render pilotage
services to shipping;

Compliance with the double hull or equivalent design requirements by single hull oil tankers

Article 4

1.

Member States shall not allow single hull oil tankers to enter into their ports or
internal waters after the earliest of the dates specified hereafter, unless such tankers
comply not later than the earliest of those dates with the double hull or equivalent
design requirements of Regulation 13F of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78:

(1)

for crude oil tankers of 20000 tons deadweight and above and product carriers
of 30000 tons deadweight and above not meeting the requirements for a new
oil tanker in Regulations 13, 13B, 13E and 18(4) of Annex I of MARPOL
73/78: when they reach the age of 23 years or 1 June 2005.

108

(2)

(3)

(4)

for crude oil tankers of 20000 tons deadweight and above and product carriers
of 30000 tons deadweight and above meeting the requirements for a new oil
tanker in Regulations 13, 13B, 13E and 18(4) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78:
when they reach the age of 28 years or 1 January 2010.

for crude oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above but less than 20000
tons and product carriers of 600 tons deadweight and above but less than
30000 tons not meeting the requirements for a new oil tanker in Regulations
13, 13B, 13E and 18(4) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78: when they reach the
age of 25 years or 1 January 2015.

for crude oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above but less than 20000
tons and product carriers of 600 tons deadweight and above but less than
30000 tons meeting the requirements for a new oil tanker in Regulations 13,
13B, 13E and 18(4) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78:
when they reach the age of 30 years or 1 January 2015.

Other structural or operational arrangements such as hydrostatically balanced loading
as referred to in Regulation 13G(7) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 shall not be
accepted as alternatives for compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1.

Article 5

Differential charging of port and pilotage dues
for double hull and single hull oil tankers

Member States shall ensure that port and harbour authorities and pilotage authorities,
when charging port and pilotage dues to oil tankers, apply a differential charging
system to the effect that:

–

–

the fees for double hull oil tankers are at least reduced with the percentages
mentioned in the Annex in comparison with the fees applied to single hull oil
tankers of the same deadweight having an age of less than 5 years, and

the fees for single hull oil tankers are at least increased with the percentages
mentioned in the Annex in comparison with the fees applied to single hull oil
tankers of the same deadweight having an age of less than 5 years.

Where the fees for port and pilotage dues are charged on another basis than
deadweight, Member States shall ensure that the charging system applied by port and
harbour authorities and pilotage authorities provides at least the same percentages of
reduction in fees for double hull oil tankers and increase in fees for single hull oil
tankers as mentioned in paragraph 1.

The differential charging system for port and pilotage dues shall cease to apply on
the latest of the dates referred to in Article 4.

2.

1.

2.

3.

109

Article 6

Notification to the IMO

The Presidency of the Council and the Commission shall inform the International Maritime
Organisation of the adoption of this Regulation, whereby reference shall be made to
article 211, paragraph 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

64

Article 7

Monitoring and reporting

Member States shall regularly verify that port and harbour authorities and pilotage
authorities apply correctly the differential charging system specified in article 5.

The Member States shall send to the Commission annually a report on the results of
this verification, including breaches committed by their port and harbour authorities
and pilotage authorities. The report shall be provided at the latest by 30 April of the
year following the year upon which it reports.

Article 8

Committee procedure

The Commission shall be assisted by the committee instituted by Article 12,
paragraph 1, of Council Directive 93/75/EEC64.

Where reference is made to this paragraph, the regulatory procedure laid down in
in compliance with
Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply,
Article 7(3) and Article 8 thereof.

The period provided for in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be three
months.

Article 9

Amendment procedure

The references in the Articles to the regulations of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 may
be amended, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8, in order to
bring them in line with amendments to these regulations adopted by the IMO.

The percentages for the reductions and surcharges of the differential charging system
for port and pilotage dues in the Annex may be amended in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 8, to take account of the pace and extent of the
replacement of single hull oil tankers by double hull oil tankers during the phasing in
period.

Council Directive concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports
and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, OJ L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19.

110

Article 10

Repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94

Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 on the implementation of IMO
Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in
segregated ballast oil tankers65 is repealed as from [12 months after the entry into force of this
Regulation].

Article 11

Implementation

1.

2.

3.

Member States shall, in due time, but before the date of application referred to in
Article 12, adopt such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be
necessary for the implementation of this Regulation.

When Member States adopt measures as referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain
a reference to this Regulation or shall be accompanied by such reference on the
occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be
laid down by Member States.

The Member States shall
provisions of domestic law which they adopt
Regulation. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.

immediately communicate to the Commission all
in the field governed by this

Article 12

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall be applicable on [12 months after
its entry into force date].

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

65

OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 1.

111

ANNEX

Differential charging of port and pilotage dues
for double hull or equivalent design oil tankers and single hull oil tankers

Minimum percentages of reductions and surcharges
to be applied as referred to in Article 5.

Ship’s age

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

>25

Reduction for double
hull or equivalent
design oil tankers

Surcharge for single
hull oil tankers

- 25%

- 20%

- 15%

- 10%

- 5%

None

none

+ 10% + 15% + 20% + 25% + 30%

112

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1.

TITLE OF OPERATION

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull
oil tankers

2.

BUDGET HEADING(S) INVOLVED

Part A (see § 10)
Part B (see § 7) - budget-heading B2-702 : Preparation, evaluation and promotion of
transport safety

3.

LEGAL BASIS

Safety in maritime transport: Article 80(2) of the Treaty

4.

4.1

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION

General objective

Protecting the marine environment from accidental oil pollution caused by oil tankers
through an accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for
single hull oil tankers.

4.2

Period covered and arrangements for renewal

Indefinite

5.

5.1

5.2

5.3

CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE

Non-compulsory expenditure

differentiated appropriations

Type of revenue involved: none

6.

TYPE OF EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE

Operational and administrative expenses for the follow-up and monitoring of the
implementation of the Regulation.

The operational expenses are to cover the holding once a year of meetings with
experts of the industry involved and the carrying out every third year of an
assessment study on the impact, implementation and effectiveness of the measure.
The appropriations for these operational expenses are detailed in table 7.2. and will
be covered by budget heading B2-702

113

The administrative expenses are to cover the holding once a year of a meeting of the
regulatory Committee to be established under the proposed Community measure.
Details of the associated costs are specified in table 10.3.

7.

7.1

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Method of calculating total cost of operation (relation between individual and
total costs)

The total cost of operation is calculated by totalling the individual costs on a yearly
basis, starting with the year n at which the proposed Community measure will have
entered into force (see table 7.2).

€

These individual costs consist of a yearly returning amount of 5.000
for organising
once a year a 1 day meeting with experts of the industry involved. In addition, every
third year, the Commission services intend to contract an assessment study on the
impact, implementation and effectiveness of the measures adopted. This regular
assessment of the measure over the entire phasing-in period is necessary for the
Commission to be able to propose under Comitology procedure eventually necessary
amendments to the accompanying incentive/disincentive system for the acceleration
of the phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards in the Community.
The cost for such an assessment study is estimated to be 100.000

€

.

It is envisaged that the commitment and payment appropriations for each of the
individual costs will be made in the same year (see table 7.3)

7.2

Operational expenditure for studies, experts etc. included in Part B of the
budget

Commitment appropriations EUR million (at current prices)

year n

n+1

n+2

n+3

n+4

Total

n+5
and
subs.
years

– Studies

0,1

0,1

0,2

– Meetings of experts66

0,005

0,005

0,005

0,005

0,005

0,025

– Information and
publications

Total

0,005

0,005

0,105

0,005

0,105

0,225

66

Costs satisfying the criteria in the Commission communication of 22.4.1992 (SEC(92) 769).

114

7.3

Schedule of commitment and payment appropriations

year n

n+1

n+2

n+3

n+4

EUR million

Total

n+5
and
subs.
years

Commitment appropriations

0,005

0,005

0,105

0,005

0,105

0,225

Payment appropriations

year n
n+1
n+2
n+3
n+4
n+5
and subs. years

Total

0,005

0,005

0,105

0,005

0,105

0,005
0,005
0,105
0,005
0,105

0,005

0,005

0,105

0,005

0,105

0,225

8.

FRAUD PREVENTION MEASURES

–

Control of adherence to the procedures for inviting Member States’ experts to
the Regulatory Committee meetings.

9.

9.1

ELEMENTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Specific and quantified objectives; target population

–

Specific objectives: links with general objective

Establishment of an accelerated phasing-in scheme for single hull oil tankers to
comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

–

Target population: distinguish for any individual objectives; indicate the end-
beneficiaries of the Community's financial contribution and the intermediaries
involved.

No financial contribution is provided for in this proposal.

The differential charging system proposed for port and pilotage dues is
balanced by compensating the reduction in dues awarded to double hull tankers
by surcharges on dues to be paid by single hull oil tankers.

9.2

Grounds for the operation

–

Need for Community financial aid, with particular regard for the principle of
subsidiarity.

No Community financial aid is foreseen in this proposal.

115

–

Choice of ways and means

* advantages over possible alternatives (comparative advantages)

The advantage of establishing at Community level an accelerated phasing-in of
the double hull or equivalent design standards to single hull oil tankers,
compared to individual action by Member States will be that distortion of
competition and divergence in safety levels can be avoided. It will also ensure
that all oil tankers trading to the European Union will have to comply with one
common set of standards and procedures to be respected in all ports established
in the Community, providing more clarity and ensuring a uniform treatment.

* explanatory reference to similar Community or national operations

There are no similar Community or national operations to be referred to in this
context.

* spin-off and multiplier effects expected

the Community
The spin-off and multiplier effects expected are that
framework could be recognised world-wide and serve as a trigger for action at
international level to phase out single hull oil tankers more expeditiously than
provided now under MARPOL 73/78.

–

Main factors of uncertainty which could affect the specific results of the
operation

The main factor of uncertainty is the rate at which single hull oil tankers will
be replaced by double hull oil tankers over the phasing-in period. The proposal
therefore foresees the possibility to adapt, through Comitology procedure, the
percentages of reductions and surcharges to be applied in the differential
charging system for port and pilotage dues, in order to ensure that revenues for
providers of port and pilotage services can be kept in equilibrium, and to avoid
that compensation for loss in revenues is made by reducing the quality of these
services or by raising port and pilotage dues for ships unconnected with the
transport of oil or oil products.

9.3

Monitoring and evaluation of the operation

–

Performance indicators selected

* output indicators (measurement of resources employed)

The output indicators will be provided by Member States when reporting on
the implementation of the Regulation's provisions at national level, and more in
particular on the application of the differential charging systems for port and
pilotage dues.

* impact indicators (measurement of performance against objectives)

indicators the above reporting by Member States should be
As impact
considered, together with port State control data,
in particular concerning
deficiencies and detentions reported on oil tankers. Also the number and extent
of accidental oil pollution due to structural damage or failure of oil tankers,
will be an indicator for the impact of the proposed measure. Further, article 7
of the draft proposal requires reporting by the Member States on the
application of the differential charging system.

116

–

Details and frequency of planned evaluations

The frequency at which evaluations are planned is annual. These evaluations
will be done by Member States and will consist of
reporting on the
implementation of the differential charging system for port and pilotage dues in
the navigable waters and ports in their territory.

–

Assessment of the results obtained (where the operation is to be continued or
renewed)

The information contained in the Member States’ reports will be used for the
assessment of the need for adjusting the percentages for reductions and
surcharging in the differential charging system. For that purpose an evaluation
study in the 3rd year, i.e. after each 2nd reporting year, is budgeted (see table
7.3).

10.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (SECTION III, PART A OF THE BUDGET)

10.1

Effect on the number of posts

Type of post

Staff to be assigned to managing
the operation

Source

Duration

Permanent
posts

Temporary
posts

A
B
C

Officials or
temporary staff

Other resources

Total

0,5
-
-

-

0,5

-
-
-

-

-

Additional
resources

Existing
resources in
the DG or
department
concerned

0,5
-
-

-

0,5

-
-
-

-

-

10.3

Increase in other administrative expenditure as a result of the operation

Budget heading

Amounts

Method of calculation

Indefinite
-
-

-

indefinite

EUR

A 7031 (obligatory

committees)

Total

€
9.750

€
9.750

The regulatory Committee established for
this
Regulation is expected to meet on average once in a year for 1 day to
discuss particular
its
provisions. Reimbursement of travel expenses for governmental
experts to attend this meeting is estimated at an average of
650

issues related to the implementation of

the purpose of

/expert x 15.

€

The above expenditure set out under heading A 7 will be covered by credits within DG TREN
global envelope.

117

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs)

TITLE OF PROPOSAL

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated
phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers

DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER

COM(….)……final of

THE PROPOSAL

1.

Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

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

To this end, the main objective of the envisaged action is to apply in the Community,
in a harmonised way, an accelerated phasing-in scheme for single hull oil tankers to
comply with the double hull or equivalent design standards of the International
Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). A
harmonised and accelerated implementation at Community level of
these
international
is necessary to reduce considerably the risks and
consequences of accidental oil pollution in case of collision or grounding of these
types of ships. It is also necessary to avoid that distortion of competition between
ports is created due to the application of divergent charging systems for port and
pilotage dues for single hull and double hull or equivalent design oil tankers.

standards

The Community has a major interest in ensuring that the transport of oil and oil
products by sea is carried in safe and acceptable conditions, with a minimum risk of
oil pollution in case of accidents. A harmonised action is necessary to avoid re-
occurrence of important oil pollution of European coasts, fauna and flora and harm to
the marine environment, as in the case of the sinking of the oil tanker ERIKA off the
French coast in December 1999.

In view of the internal market dimension of maritime transport, an action at
Community level is the only possible way to ensure that the same level of protection
against oil pollution due to collision or grounding accidents is guaranteed for all oil
tankers trading to and from and between European ports, while reducing the risks of
distortion of competition between ports due to the application of divergent principles
governing the charging of port and pilotage dues for environmentally friendly oil
tankers.

118

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS

2.

Who will be affected by the proposal?
– which sectors of business
– which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized

–

firms)
are there particular geographical areas of the Community where these businesses
are found

The business sectors affected by this proposal are shipping companies operating oil
tankers trading to and from and between the ports of the European Community for
the import and export and distribution of oil and oil products within the Community.

The Regulation addresses all oil tankers above 600 tons deadweight, regardless of
their flag, when operating to and from and between ports of the Member States.
There is no differentiation between the size of shipping companies operating such oil
tankers and the ports receiving them for loading or unloading their cargo, as all sea-
borne trade of oil and oil products transported by oil tankers to and from and between
Community ports is affected by the Regulation. The total number of oil tankers
operating world-wide is estimated to be above 7000. In view of the important share
of the EU seaborne imports and exports of oil and oil products, which on average can
be estimated to be around one third of the world seaborne trade67, a considerable part
of this oil tanker fleet is calling at Community ports for the loading or unloading of
oil and oil products. As to the ports concerned most of them are large ports as are the
companies operating the terminals. Indeed many of the oil terminals are the property
or are managed by the major oil companies. As regards the operators of the tanker
fleet involved, they may be or belong to large companies, but also a large number of
mostly smaller sized tankers are operated by small and medium sized enterprises.

There is no special geographical area within the Community where these businesses
are found: all except the two land-locked Member States have seaports catering for
commercial ships. Austria and Luxembourg are thus excluded from applying the
provisions of the Regulation related to ports. However, as both these countries are
maritime flag States, their ships are affected by it.

The expected reduction in oil pollution accidents with single hull oil tankers will
have a beneficial effect for the marine environment and considerably reduce the risk
and consequences of European coastlines being heavily polluted due to such
accidents and the associated financial, social and industrial costs. It will also avoid
disturbance of maritime traffic that may be caused by such accidents and the
associated cost and time for salvage of the ships and their cargoes, or in the worst
case, for wreck removal and recovery of the polluting cargoes, and the need for
carrying accident investigations to establish the causes of the loss.

67

See figures on the importance of oil trade for the Community in the Communication to which this
proposal is attached.

119

3.

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

Oil tanker operating companies and oil loading and unloading ports will have to
ensure that single hull oil tankers are gradually replaced by more environmentally
friendly double hull or equivalent design tankers, in accordance with the accelerated
calendar specified in the proposal, which is based upon a combination of ship's age
limits and end-date limits. In addition port and pilotage authorities rendering services
to oil tankers will have to apply a differential charging system for port and pilotage
dues between single hull and double hull or equivalent design oil tankers.

4.

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?
–
–
–

on employment
on investment and the creation of new businesses
on the competitiveness of businesses

The proposal is expected to have a beneficial effect on employment, since the
accelerated replacement of old single hull oil tankers by new double hull tonnage
will increase the demand for newbuildings. This is expected to have a positive effect
for the shipbuilding industry and the associated marine equipment manufacturing and
supply industry. However, it should be noted that due to the large shipbuilding
capacity available in the Far East and the fierce and aggressive pricing policy of that
industry, the major part of new shipbuilding orders arising from the accelerated
phasing-in scheme would not be secured by European shipyards. The positive impact
on employment for the European shipbuilding industry may be therefore rather
limited. On the other hand, the European marine equipment manufacturers may
benefit from this increased demand for newbuildings, as they will receive more
orders, also for ships to be built outside the Community. Finally the measure may
have a beneficial impact on the employment opportunities for European seafarers. It
can be expected that the demand for highly qualified crewmembers may increase due
to the replacement of old single hull oil tanker tonnage by new double hull tonnage.
As these new ships will be equipped with state of the art equipment, better-qualified
crew will be necessary to safely operate them. It can also be expected that owners of
new tonnage, as opposed to them operating old and low value tonnage, will prefer to
rely upon qualified crew for the operation of their investments.

The accelerated phasing-in of the double hull or equivalent design standards for
single hull oil tankers is expected to have a beneficial effect on the competitiveness
of quality operators trading with modern and environmentally friendly oil tankers.
Today they are suffering from unfair competition by sub-standard operators
exploiting sub-standard and over-aged tonnage, which are cutting corners on safety
and marine pollution prevention to offer bottom price for the transport of oil and oil
products. These low market prices do not allow quality operators to obtain a return
on their investments.

5.

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small
and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?

For the reasons explained above and for the sake of safety and oil pollution
prevention, no distinction is made in the scope of application of this Regulation as
regards the size of ships or ports, or companies operating them. Considering that the
replacement of single hull oil tonnage by new double hull tonnage is agreed at
international level as a measure necessary to reduce the risks of accidental oil
pollution, such a distinction is considered not to be necessary nor desirable. On the

120

contrary, making such distinctions would create a two-tier safety regime and would
entail risks for distortion of competition.

However, the proposal aims at balancing the revenues of port and pilotage authorities
which are rendering services to oil
tankers trading to and from and between
European ports. This balance will be achieved by compensating the reduction in port
and pilotage dues granted to double hull oil tankers with surcharges on port and
pilotage dues for single hull oil tankers.

CONSULTATION

6.

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their
main views.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

European Shippers' Council (ESC)

Federation of European Private Port Operators (FEPORT)

European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)

European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA)

European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)

Committee of EU shipbuilders' associations (CESA)

Comité européen des Assurances (CEA)

International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)

International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners(Intertanko)

Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)

International Underwriters Association (UIA)

Industry and professional organisations have been consulted on the main objectives
and principles of the proposal. In general the industry and professional organisations
consider the proposed phasing-in scheme as very stringent, whilst appreciating the
need for taking measures to enhance considerably the prevention of accidental oil
pollution. Some of these organisations have not awaited this proposal to announce
that they will take voluntary measures to contribute to this enhancement. All these
ideas for voluntary actions by some parts of the maritime industry emerged after the
sinking of the ERIKA and aim at providing a reasoned reply to the justified public
and political concern about the safety of oil transport by sea. This proposal is
considered by the industry as a stringent but unavoidable measure to ensure that a
level playing field is created for all players involved, in particular for those which for
the time being are not (yet) prepared to commit themselves to similar voluntary
actions.

121