Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the 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),the 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, andthe 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
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: international standard, marine pollution, oil pollution, prevention of pollution, supervisory body, vessel

C 14/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘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)’,

— the ‘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’, and

— the ‘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’

(2001/C 14/04)

On 27 April 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under Article 80
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Retureau and the co-rapporteur was Mrs Bredima-Savopoulou.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000, the Committee adopted the following opinion with
88 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The ESC has been asked to issue an opinion on the
three abovementioned legislative proposals submitted by the
Commission. These proposals address a number of major
aspects of maritime safety relating to the transport of pet-
roleum products and the prevention of accidental pollution
which may occur as a result.

1.2.
These proposals are preceded by a communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (the maritime
safety communication); this communication provides an intro-
duction to the legislative proposals and maps out policies in
the longer term. The ESC, which had decided to issue an own-
initiative opinion on maritime safety, will consider and
comment on the communication before examining the texts
on which it has been asked to issue an opinion.

again, by the sinking of the Erika at the end of December 1999
off the coast of France); the limitations of international rules,
which suffer, in particular, from inadequate checks on their
implementation; the increased use of flags of convenience and
off-shore ‘brass-plate’ companies;
the
system of certification and classification; and, finally, failings
in Member States’ application of current EU rules.

the inadequacies of

The Commission proposes a series of short-term
2.1.2.
measures (two amendments to directives and a proposal for a
regulation) and a number of longer-term measures, for which
proposals are to be issued by the end of the year.

2.1.3.
the longer term measures are to:

The main aims of the Commission’s proposals for

— improve the current compensation scheme for damage

caused by oil spills;

2. Maritime safety communication

— improve the transparency of safety information in mari-

time shipping;

2.1. The main Commission proposals

— set up a European structure for maritime safety; and

2.1.1.
The measures taken at international level to improve
safety and reduce accidental pollution have brought about a
considerable reduction in accidents and oil pollution. The
Commission notes, however, that the maritime safety measures
introduced in the mid-1990s have proved inadequate because
of: the risks posed by older vessels (as demonstrated, once

— improve the surveillance of sea traffic in European coastal

waters.

2.1.4.
be summarised as follows:

The Commission’s arguments and assessment may

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/23

2.1.5.
The current lack of transparency is unacceptable; a
new EQUASIS database is being set up to keep better track of
vessels and to facilitate inspections and the measures to be
taken in response to infringements.

to be held within the institutions and with all interested parties.
In the ESC’s view, however, neither the texts being proposed
the
now nor future projects should be too far-reaching;
approaches pursued should be realistic and pragmatic in order
to bring about effective improvements in maritime safety.

2.1.6.
There is a need to step up checks on potentially
dangerous vessels, and consideration is being given to banning
particularly dangerous vessels from the exclusive economic
zones (EEZ) of the Member States, a measure which, however,
poses legal and technical problems and raises the question
of the practical resources needed. The coastal surveillance,
notification and mandatory reporting system established in
Europe and approved by the IMO will have to be improved.
More generally, the introduction of a world-wide reporting
system will be a priority for the EU.

2.1.7.
Particular problems will be posed by the accession to
the EU of some applicant states, such as Malta and Cyprus
(which have the world’s fourth and fifth largest fleets respect-
ively). The drop in EU maritime safety standards which will
occur if these states join the EU and no counter measures are
taken, is regarded as unacceptable.

2.1.8.
The establishment of a European structure for mari-
time safety is envisaged but will cause serious problems. The
idea of creating a European coastguard along the lines of the
US Coast Guard is mooted; this proposal would, however, run
into a number of practical problems regarding feasibility, type
of equipment and powers.

It is also proposed that the liability of maritime
2.1.9.
transport players be expanded. The limited liability of ship-
owners and non-liability of cargo-owners are a source of
problems. The current definition of damage could be extended
to cover the full actual extent of the damage. The establishment
of a European fund, for providing compensation over and
above the current limits is envisaged. A call
is made for
agreements to be struck with the industry and for sanctions to
be introduced.

2.2. General comments

2.2.1.
Subject to the points made in its specific comments,
the ESC supports the proposed general approach, which
focuses on two key components of maritime safety policy,
namely:

— prevention, and

— effective measures to ensure that rules are implemented

(inspections and sanctions).

2.2.1.1.
As regards the Commission’s longer term ideas, the
ESC does not reject a priori any working hypothesis but rather
regards them all as interesting. However, they need to be
formalised and clarified, and in-depth consultations will have

2.2.2.
In the ESC’s view, it is also important to strengthen
the generally-applicable multilateral rules and adopt EU rules
and measures in fields which are covered only partially — if at
all — by provisions laid down by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) (1); the ESC strongly urges the Commission
and the Member States to pursue these matters, whilst at the
same time coordinating their efforts within the IMO on
tightening maritime safety standards and providing fuller
compensation for victims of pollution caused by ships, which
should also include damage to the environment and to
biodiversity.

2.2.3.
In a global economy in which nine-tenths of the
international trade in goods is carried by sea, the maritime
sector has become a strategic sector for international trade, on
which modern companies are very highly dependent for both
their supplies and exports. These companies cannot, therefore,
remain indifferent to the conditions governing this vital and
constantly expanding area of economic activity.

2.2.4.
The number of vessels lost each year has remained
constant for many years, even though there has been a steady
decline in the tonnage lost; this highlights the limitations of
the existing rules and measures applicable to shipping safety
and necessitates a fresh approach to the problem of safety.

2.2.5.
The measures taken at international level to improve
safety and reduce accidental pollution have, however, brought
about a considerable drop in the incidence of such pollution.
Other measures still have to be taken to tackle deliberate
pollution caused by ships, such as the discharge of waste
or deballasting whilst at sea; one line of approach is the
establishment of appropriate port facilities (2). The ESC recog-
nises that discharges from urban areas and land-based econ-
omic activities account for two-thirds of marine pollution
along coastlines and in estuaries, and that drastic reductions
must be made here, too. Pollution caused by ships is therefore
far from being the only source of maritime pollution; however,
shipping accidents have a much greater media impact and
influence public opinion more.

(1) The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is a specialised
UN body, having its headquarters in London, which has a
membership of 157 states.

(2) The adoption of the Proposal for a Council Directive on port
reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues
(OJ C 271, 31.8.1998, p. 79; ESC opinion: OJ C 138, 18.5.1999,
p. 12) should held to reduce this type of pollution.

C 14/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

2.2.6.
Under the 1982 Montego Bay Convention, which is
now in force, coastal states are granted increased powers of
intervention in the waters within their EEZ (the area within a
radius of 200 nautical miles from the base lines) to protect the
economic resources in that zone which could be seriously
affected by accidental or deliberate pollution. These states are
thus entitled to take protective measures. The EU is a party to
the convention and, for the sake of harmonisation, could
consider introducing legislation covering the whole of the EEZ
of the Member States, within the limits of the powers granted
under the Treaty of Maastricht.

The main conventions governing the safety of oil
2.2.7.
tankers and the prevention of pollution are the 1974 Conven-
tion for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MAR-
POL Convention) (1973/1978) plus various additional proto-
cols. The EU Member States are signatories to these conven-
tions. Flag states which are parties to these conventions are
obliged to penalise infringements. The MARPOL Convention
also provides a legal basis for intervention by the port state in
the event of potential hazards; it is credited with having made
a major contribution to cutting oil pollution caused by
maritime activities, as have EU measures in the fields of
pollution, safety and inspections introduced on the basis of or
in support of the MARPOL Convention.

2.2.8.
Compensation — albeit limited — both for victims
of damage and for damage to the environment brought about
by pollution caused by ships is provided under the CLC
Convention and the IOPC Fund (1). A further source of
compensation — up to a fixed ceiling — is the insurance
which shipowners are required to have.

The Paris Memorandum of Understanding (2) on Port
2.2.9.
State Control was implemented at EU level by Directive
95/21/EC, as amended in 1998. This memorandum lays down
specific obligations for port states in respect of inspections on
vessels calling at their ports. These inspection obligations,
which cover safety, environmental protection and manning
conditions, are, however, not being observed to the same

extent everywhere. Sirenac, operated by the Centre Administra-
tif des Affaires Maritimes in Saint-Malo (France), is a database
covering all vessels inspected in pursuance of the Paris MOU.

Flag states (3) which have ratified international mari-
2.2.10.
time laws have to fulfil precise obligations relating to inspec-
tions, safety and crew conditions. However, they fulfil these
obligations to a greater or lesser extent for several reasons: the
proliferation of sub-standard flags; many flag states’ failure to
enforce conventions which they have ratified; the constant
drive to bring down costs — particularly labour costs; and the
use of some second registers which have not ratified ILO
Conventions. Because of
the IMO’s decision-making pro-
cedures and limited powers and resources for ensuring that
rules are observed by flag states, no sanctions or appropriate
deterrents are available for tackling infringements of inter-
national standards or other questionable practices. This has led
to the increasing delegation of powers and responsibilities to
the port states, as provided for under, for example, the Paris
MOU, IMO rules and ILO Convention No 147.

2.3. Specific comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission’s pro-
2.3.1.
posals for improving the controls carried out by port states
and classification societies under the existing provisions.

2.3.2. Maritime safety depends on a number of factors:
adherence to standards and rules in respect of vessels and
navigation; effective checks on the observance of these pro-
visions; the competence of inspection staff, pilots and navi-
gation personnel; and the living and working conditions of
crews. The qualifications, status, rights and obligations of port
staff, captains, officers and seamen are therefore key safety
factors. Many accidents occur as a result of human factors,
combined more often than not with other causes (technical,
meteorological). A large number of these matters are governed
by IMO and ILO conventions; regrettably, however, these
conventions are not always applied uniformly or properly by
the signatory states, or even all the EU Member States, some
of which have not ratified all the conventions. The ESC urges
the Member States concerned to ratify the ILO maritime
conventions, such as the protocol to Convention 147 and

(1) CLC Convention = International Convention on Civil Liability
IOPC Fund = International Oil Pollution

for Oil Pollution;
Compensation Fund.

(2) Often referred to as the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ or the

(3) Attempts to introduce an EU registration flag have failed because

‘Paris MOU’.

of disagreements between EU Member States.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/25

Convention 180 (1), and calls for the provisions of the conven-
tions to be implemented in law and in practice so as not to
distort competition and jeopardise safety.

The inadequate implementation or infringement of
2.3.3.
international standards,
in particular standards governing
training, occupational safety and working conditions and the
observance of operational requirements, have an impact on
the performance of crews and expose crews, their vessels and
the environment
to greater risk. Unacceptable economic
pressure on masters and crews who continue to serve on board
substandard ships may have a similar impact.

The EU and the USA are together responsible for
2.3.4.
most oil shipments worldwide. The USA, whose coast guard
service (USCG) has extensive powers and resources at its
disposal, has introduced the Port State Control Initiative to
Target Substandard Ships (2), whilst the Asian states, including
Japan, the leading importer in Asia, have adopted the Tokyo
Memorandum, which has established a system of port state
control along the lines of the European system. The measures
taken by these three regions are bound to help further
international rules as a whole, and it is up to the states
concerned to act as a driving force and set an example within
the IMO on this matter, rather than helping to bring about the
downfall of the multilateral system by adopting divergent
approaches and private initiatives, which would render the
situation uncontrollable, aggravating disparities and heighten-
ing risks.

(1) On 13 December 1999 the Council adopted Directive 1999/95/EC
concerning the enforcement of seafarers’ hours of work on board
ships using Community ports. Article 10 of the Directive provides
that the provisions of the directive should be fully implemented
from 30 June 2002 onwards. The proper implementation of the
directive depends on the ratification of the ILO Convention 180
concerning seafarers’ hours of work and the manning of ships
and the ratification of the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Merchant
Shipping (minimum standards) Convention.
With a view to ensuring that the two conventions are implemented
at the same time and in particular in order to help achieve the
simultaneous implementation of Directive 1999/95/EC by all
Member States, the Commission has also addressed a recommen-
dation to Member States inviting them to ratify Convention 180
and the Protocol to the 1976 Convention.
Under Article 4 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Convention (147)
only a country which has ratified Convention 147, as amended
by the 1996 Protocol, can exercise controls for the working hours
or rest periods on board ships calling at its ports.
It is appropriate therefore that, in the light of the deadline of
30 June 2002 to transpose into national legislation Directive
1999/95/EC, each Member State must ratify in due time the two
ILO instruments in order to avoid inconsistencies with the
provisions of Convention 147.

(2) Port State Control initiative to target substandard ships.

2.3.5.
The Commission rightly took account of the inter-
national dimension of maritime transport in its 1993 com-
munication on a common maritime safety policy. This policy
was endorsed by the ESC in earlier opinions and should
continue to inspire future EU action. The ESC stated that the
root of the problem was not so much the development of
international standards as ensuring that they were universally
applied.

2.3.6.
EU rules on maritime safety and protection of the
maritime environment should be based on the following
principles:

— they should help to make maritime transport in EU

waters as safe as possible;

— they should take account of the fact that EU waters must
remain open, without discrimination, to all vessels which
meet international standards.

In addition to seeking to amend or supplement EU
2.3.7.
law, the Commission proposals should also seek to strengthen
the market position of enterprises which observe standards.
Enterprises and organisations which do not fully meet their
safety or environmental responsibility should not be allowed
to benefit or profit from this.

40 % of the world’s maritime traffic and most oil
2.3.8.
shipments in Europe (only 10 % of which are transported
through pipelines or by road or canal) pass through the
English Channel and the waters off Brittany (a total of some
300 000 vessels per year). The remaining oil shipments pass
mainly through the Mediterranean — a particularly vulnerable
sea, which has no EEZs — on route from, in particular, the
Suez Canal and, in a very few cases, the Black Sea. Most oil
tanker disasters concern vessels which are sub-standard or are
over 18 years old (3), or which run aground. Prevailing winds
and currents tend to carry the resultant pollution — be it
caused by discharges or accidents — towards the shores of
western Europe.

2.3.9.
Regrettably, maritime disasters are not completely
avoidable and the proposed measures must be realistic,
proportionate and targeted at the main causes of such disasters.
The ESC deplores the fact that not all EU Member States have
yet ratified the International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC Convention)
(1990), under which signatory states are obliged to establish
national systems for responding rapidly and effectively to
accidental pollution.

(3) Institute of London Underwriters, Statistics for Ships Lost 1989-

1998.

C 14/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

2.3.10.
The ESC draws attention to the European Parlia-
ment resolution of 20 January 2000 highlighting the urgent
need to establish optimal conditions for managing crises
resulting from oil pollution and deploring the inadequacies of
the techniques available for combating pollution caused by
heavy fuel oil. In this context the ESC endorses the calls for the
introduction of a coastal state scheme which would pinpoint
ports of refuge that have the necessary equipment and
capability to deal with accidents; the proposed scheme would
enable the authorities to provide pro-active assistance to
vessels in distress, particularly in cases where the crew or the
owner/operator fails to respond adequately and where human
lives and the environment are at risk.

2.3.11.
The ESC endorses the Commission’s legislative
proposals which it views as an initial emergency package. The
proposed measures will also have to be read and implemented
in conjunction with the future framework directive on environ-
mental liability. This directive is to be drawn up in the wake of
the white paper on the same subject, on which the ESC is
issuing a separate opinion. The draft regulation on double
hulls does, however, raise a number of important technical
and economic questions which the ESC will address below.

2.3.12.
The need for stricter and more effective rules is
heightened by the cut-throat competition at the moment in
maritime transport in general, and oil transport in particular.
Such competition develops where costs are being put under
undue pressure and ports are engaging in fierce rivalry; this
situation is prejudicial to good practices with regard to vessel
safety and manning conditions and furthers bad practices,
which are unacceptable from the point of view of both safety
and fair competition.

The relatively low cost of transporting oil benefits
2.3.13.
oil companies — which are playing a key role in deregulation
— but is detrimental to safety. This is a situation which
both public opinion and all responsible shipping-industry
professionals can no longer tolerate. Safety costs must be taken
out of the competition equation. At present fleets are getting
older and if they are to be renewed it is essential to have prices
which enable companies to make a profit. Shipping-industry
professionals are endeavouring to develop a self-regulation
scheme; such a step is vital but it also serves to demonstrate
the unsuitability of the current rules and procedures and
highlights the need for them to be amended in order to make
them more effective and to restore healthy competition. The
aim must be to stem and reverse the shift to sub-standard flags
and establish, wherever possible, effective rules and inspections
which are universally applicable since this is an international
industry.

3. Directive on maritime safety: port state controls

3.1. Purpose of and reasons for the revision of Council Directive

95/21/EC

The purpose of the draft directive is to tighten up
3.1.1.
inspections on vessels visiting EU ports and to introduce
tougher measures against ‘manifestly sub-standard’ vessels.

3.1.2.
The directive sets out requirements and uniform
inspection procedures for all vessels calling at European (both
EU and EEA) ports so as to ensure that they comply with
international standards relating to maritime safety, pollution
prevention and on-board living conditions (port state control).
The aim is to make inspection procedures more effective.

The

directive

3.1.3.
unevenly
implemented, and there has sometimes been a failure to carry
out adequate inspections on vessels posing a serious safety and
environmental risk when they call at EU ports:

however,

been

has,

— several states have failed to comply with the directive’s
requirement that 25 % of individual vessels must be
inspected;

— the system involving ‘target factors’, as provided for under
the Paris MOU and made mandatory by the directive, has
not been properly implemented;

— the tougher inspection measures stipulated by the direc-
tive are not always implemented with the desired rigour;
in particular, vessels having the highest ‘target factor’ are
not being systematically inspected.

In the Commission’s view, the sinking of the ERIKA
3.1.4.
demonstrated shortcomings in the systems of checks since
none of the inspections carried out on the vessel managed to
detect
the defects which are considered to have caused
the disaster. These systems of checks cover: checks on the
construction of vessels and monitoring of their condition,
carried out in accordance with the rules drawn up by the
classification societies; regular checks and inspections carried
out by classification societies on behalf of others; and
additional checks carried out by port states. The Commission
is thus putting forward a series of measures to improve and
strengthen the inspection arrangements laid down by the
directive on port state control.

3.2. Comments by the ESC

The ESC would draw attention to its earlier opin-
3.2.1.
ion (1) on Directive 95/21/EC (amended on a number of
occasions) concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping
using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the

(1) OJ C 393, 31.12.1994, p. 50.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/27

jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards
for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and
working conditions (port state control). The ESC would
reiterate, in particular, its view that the criteria to be observed
when inspecting and detaining vessels needed to be sufficiently
strict to ensure that all vessels operating in European waters
met all aspects of recognised international standards, whilst at
the same time not penalising vessels which were properly
operated and maintained or imposing excessive burdens on
them.

(HNS Convention) and the IMO guidelines on liability
insurance should be put into effect.

3.2.6.
The number of inspectors should be raised to an
adequate level commensurate with both the number and type
it is also absolutely
of vessels using the respective ports;
essential to appoint specialised inspectors to carry out structur-
al and technical inspections and other specialised inspections
with regard to manning conditions and labour standards.

3.2.2.
The OECD believes that maritime safety standards
have fallen to a critical level. It is estimated that 15 % of oil
tankers are sub-standard.

3.2.3.
The ESC therefore endorses both the spirit and
essence of the proposed amendments. It strongly supports the
demand for transparency in order to enable the EU authorities,
the various parties concerned and the general public to identify
sub-standard registers and ‘brass-plate’ ship-owning companies
and ports which have failed to enforce standards, with a view
to stamping out their ‘dumping’ practices. Greater transparency
will also make it possible to identify owners of bulk cargoes
who, by chartering sub-standard vessels, engage in unfair
competition, endangering the lives of others and jeopardising
both economic resources and activities and the environment.

3.2.4.
The ESC welcomes the introduction of stricter con-
trols in respect of ‘manifestly sub-standard ships’ and their
possible banning from EU ports, though in its view any ship
detained more than twice in the course of the preceding
24 months should be banned. The ESC regards as ‘manifestly
sub-standard’ any vessel banned under Article 7a) — with the
deletion of the age criterion of 15 years — which is carrying
passengers, dangerous products or potentially polluting prod-
ucts and which should be banned from entering the whole of
the exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Europe because
of the potential threat to human lives and economic resources
in that zone, until such time as the required modifications and
repairs have been carried out and inspected. These vessels
should be banned for ever if they fail to comply with the
requisite standards by set deadlines.

3.2.7.
The ESC notes the disparities in the performances of
the Member States in meeting their obligations under the port
state control directive and, in particular, in achieving the target
of inspecting at least 25 % of vessels entering their ports. Even
where the 25 % target per Member State is met, that may not
in itself be sufficient — if,
for example, the inspections
have been concentrated on the best operated ships where
deficiencies are unlikely to be encountered. The ESC therefore
welcomes the provisions proposed, within the framework of
the Paris MOU, to remedy the situation by introducing an
improved, more effective method of targeting manifestly sub-
standard vessels and by dispensing with the need for high-
standard vessels to undergo unjustified inspections. The new
provisions must not, however, provide an excuse for halting
all efforts to ensure that adequate human resources are
made available. Failure to meet the quality requirements for
inspections and failure to provide an adequate number of
qualified inspectors in the various fields should, at all events,
constitute grounds on which the Commission can instigate
proceedings against port states for failing to meet
their
obligations.

3.2.8. With a view to the proposed introduction of a wider
range of
inspections, measures to enhance the operating
capacity of authorised ship-inspection bodies should be con-
sidered.

Specific measures also need to be taken to bring the
3.2.9.
number of ship inspectors into line with requirements and to
provide more basic training courses and specialist courses in
this field,
in order to ensure adequate technical capacity,
operational continuity and uniform operating procedures.

4. Directive on the classification of vessels

3.2.5.
The obligation to provide guarantees or to take out
liability insurance for damage to the environment should be
extended to all vessels carrying dangerous or polluting prod-
ucts irrespective of
in order to maintain
their tonnage,
consistency with the provisions laid down in respect of the
safety of vessels and prevention of pollution. With this aim
in view, EU Member States should ratify the international
convention for the carriage of hazardous, noxious substances

4.1. Objectives of the draft directive and reasons for its introduction

The draft directive

4.1.1.
amends Council Directive
94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection
and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
maritime administrations.

C 14/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

4.1.2.

The following amendments are proposed:

— EU recognition to be required for classification societies,

particularly as regards inspections and sanctions;

— more stringent requirements to be met by the recognised

organisations.

4.2. General comments

4.2.1.
There are about 60 private classification societies in
the world, some ten of which are members of the International
Association of Classification Societies (IACS). These societies
class vessels at the request of ship-owners — a private activity
— and issue certificates on behalf of the flag states. The latter
have delegated this public service task to the classification
societies because of their technical expertise. The classification
societies carry out all or part of the technical inspections and
exercise powers under the authority of the state in which the
vessel is registered. The societies are generally entitled to issue
or withdraw certificates of conformity for the vessels which
they are charged with verifying. The inspections carried
out when the vessel is first commissioned and periodically
thereafter cover technical standards, safety rules and environ-
mental protection rules.

4.2.2.
Flag states are responsible for drawing up the various
safety and other certificates, defining the inspection procedures
to be followed and specifying the bodies to carry out the
inspections, either on the basis of multilateral conventions to
which they are signatories or unilaterally. Apart from ensuring
compliance in this way with national and international stan-
dards, classification societies apply their own rules when
classing vessels.

The ESC endorses the proposed measures which are
4.2.3.
designed to improve the inspections by providing for: stricter
checks on classification societies and their work; more stringent
criteria governing the recognition of classification societies;
and transparency in this sector of activity, which plays a vital
role in the safety field. In its opinion on the Commission’s
communication on maritime safety (1), the ESC supported both
the general objective of
the Commission and its overall
approach in incorporating international provisions in EU
instruments.

4.2.4.
The ESC thinks that the classification societies must
lose no time in reviewing their work and making the necessary
changes, in consultation with the authorities and the industry,
with a view to ensuring that they are in a position to furnish a
credible professional service at all times. In order to improve
transparency, the classification societies should be obliged to
provide all relevant information to third parties on matters
such as the transferring of vessels to different classes, change
of ownership, the extension of certificates and appropriate
technical information. The rules governing inspections, the
integrity and resistance of hulls to corrosion and the transfer

(1) See OJ C 34, 2.2.1994, p. 14.

of class from one recognised organisation to another need to
be given special attention by the classification societies and
also by the IMO and the Commission.

4.2.5.
Classification societies are responsible for the safety
of shipping and the environment to a high degree. It follows
that they should also accept legal responsibility for inadequate
performance. The Committee therefore calls for the introduc-
tion of appropriate contractual liability of classification societi-
es towards their clients and appropriate legal liability towards
third parties, thus making them answerable for any errors.
Inasmuch as classification societies have acted under the
sovereign authority of a flag state, provision should be made
for a government liability clause under the relevant legal
regime.

5. Regulation concerning double hulls

5.1. Objectives of the draft regulation and reasons for its introduc-

tion

The aim of

5.1.1.
this regulation is to speed up the
replacement of single hulled tankers by vessels with double
hulls or an equivalent construction, a process which has been
taking place since 1996. Tankers of the latter type are safer in
the event of collision or grounding.

5.1.2.
The draft regulation is largely comparable with the
US authorities’ unilateral provisions requiring tankers to have
double hulls (these provisions will come into effect in 2005,
2010 or 2015, depending on the tonnage of the vessel). The
Commission takes the view that, were the EU to fail to pursue
a similar policy, there would be a strong likelihood that, from
2005, vessels banned from operating in US waters would
switch to European waters, thereby increasing the level of risk
at a time when the world’s tanker fleet is generally ageing. In
the face of the US initiative, the IMO has adopted provisions
for the replacement of single hulled tankers, albeit with longer
deadlines. The IMO’s alternative involving hydrostatic balance
loading would no longer be accepted. As an additional measure
to accelerate the replacement of single-hulled tankers, the
Commission proposes the application of a differential port
and pilotage dues charging system penalising such ships.

5.2. Comments by the ESC

5.2.1.
The ESC thinks that technical arguments need to be
put forward in support of the Commission’s proposal. Serious
consideration should be given to the implications of the
proposal. Double hulls do not constitute a panacea; although
they may be effective in the case of minor collisions and
groundings, they are not an effective remedy in the event of
major accidents. There must be sufficient space between the
two hulls to enable inspections to be carried out without risk
to the personnel involved.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/29

5.2.2.
The regime for phasing out single hull tankers was
agreed internationally in IMO in 1992 within the framework
of the MARPOL Convention, and the ESC believes that a
review of the provisions should take place in IMO as soon as
possible. Therefore, the ESC urges the Commission to coordi-
nate the position of Member States within IMO with a view to
achieving the revision of the MARPOL Convention so as to
introduce a realistic and practicable acceleration of the current
phasing-out schedule prescribed in regulation 13G of Annex 1
of the Convention. The ESC realises that should such an
agreement be unattainable in IMO in a reasonable delay, a
regional EU solution would be unavoidable and necessary.

The ESC also realises that single hulled tankers are
5.2.3.
bound to be phased out by market
forces, such as the
preference for double hulled or newer single hulled tankers,
earlier than anticipated under the MARPOL Convention.
Therefore, the ESC takes the view that the proposed system of
differential charges would be both of limited influence in
practical terms and unfair since until their withdrawal dates,
single hulled tankers will be deemed to comply with the
applicable international regulations.

The ESC firmly believes that specific conditions and
5.2.4.
procedures need to be laid down for persistent, heavy fuel oils,
given that the current techniques for dealing with them are
inadequate.

5.2.5.
The Commission recognises the economic and social
impact which its proposal will have on the industry and states,
and it intends to give more detailed consideration to this
impact. The ESC believes that the nature and importance of
the proposal is such that prior consideration should be given
to its impact before a realistic timetable is set out. Accelerated
replacement of the tanker fleet should not have an effect on
continuity of supply.

5.2.6.
The ESC urges that the renewal of the tanker fleet
should also go hand-in-hand with the installation of state-of-
the-art onboard navigational instruments, including satellite
navigation receivers (1), and a state-of-the-art ship-identifi-
cation system, the provision of adequate crew training and
compliance with ILO maritime standards. In particular, the EU
should require its Member States and the applicant states to
ratify the six most recent standards adopted by the Inter-
national Labour Conference at its maritime sessions and all of
the main ILO and IMO maritime standards.

implemented for all vessels sailing in European waters and
using European ports; such a policy will be an effective way of
averting the risks of maritime catastrophes with their very
grave consequences in terms of human and material losses and
damage to the environment and biodiversity resulting from
marine and coastal pollution.

6.2.
The Committee believes that all conventional maritime
law governing vessel safety and manning conditions and
involving flag states, port states and coastal states should
be fully implemented.
It also believes that the European
Commission should shortly draw up new legislative proposals
covering the transport by sea of dangerous or potentially
polluting products. These proposals should apply to all states
and other players.

6.3.
Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle should
render liable not only the owner of the vessel but also the
owner of the dangerous cargo. The flag state should also be
rendered liable under appropriate forms and procedures
governed by international law, which needs to be expanded in
this field. Furthermore, coastal states should have the right not
to recognise certificates of ships issued by or on behalf of sub-
standard flags or classification societies, categorised as such
under an IMO procedure.

The Committee is particularly concerned about the
6.4.
sizeable and growing number of vessels — registered not only
under well-known flags of convenience but also under the
flags of countries moving towards a market economy and
applicant states — which are detained in European ports
following inspections.

6.5.
Particular attention should therefore be paid to mari-
time safety in the accession negotiations and to the exemptions
granted by the second registers of the EU and EEA Member
States; European flag states — just like port states — should
meet their obligations in full under the international instru-
ments of the UN, IMO and ILO.

6. Conclusions

6.1.
The Committee trusts that — unlike in the past —
an overall maritime safety policy will now be properly

(1) See the Communication entitled ‘Involving Europe in a New

Generation of Satellite Services — Galileo’.

6.6.
Public opinion and maritime-industry and tourism-
industry professionals are entitled to information and trans-
parency as regards the preventive safety measures implemented
and, in the event of disasters, as regards the risks posed by
polluting products discharged into the sea and onto coastlines
and the immediate and longer-term risks posed to public
health, food, the environment and biodiversity. There is a need
to reexamine the issue of compensation so as to take account
of the full catalogue of damage caused, including long-term
damage and the cost of restoration work.

C 14/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

6.7.
Prevention policy should include: technical and legal
measures to enable vessels sailing in EU waters to be identified
and tracked; sanctions of a deterrent nature in the event of
deliberate pollution (degassing); and the exclusion from the
EEZ of sub-standard vessels.

6.8.
An ambitious maritime safety policy — for which the
current proposals represent merely a start — should rehabili-
tate the maritime transport environment and ensure that safety
benefits not only maritime-industry professionals but also
shipbuilders and equipment-manufacturers in terms of the

work and skilled jobs it creates. Working conditions and terms
of employment on board vessels should be such that vessels
can operate with maximum safety. There should also be
sufficient qualified inspectors to carry out onboard inspections
of vessel structures, safety equipment, modern navigation
instruments and crew conditions.

The adoption of tougher rules clearly requires a real
6.9.
political commitment on the part of Member States and the
earmarking of appropriate funding, so as to ensure that these
rules are properly implemented as soon as possible.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions: Priorities in EU road safety — progress report and ranking of actions’

(2001/C 14/05)

On 20 March 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Ghigonis.

At its 376th plenary session on 19 October 2000 the Committee adopted the following opinion
unanimously.

1.

Introduction

In this new Communication on road safety,

1.1.
the
Commission assesses the progress made since the Communi-
cation of April 1997 (1). It points out that the decline in the
number of road accident victims is levelling off and proposes,
with a view to further promotion of road safety:

— six short and medium-term priorities for action:

— continue to work with and develop the European
New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP):

— campaigns and legislation on seat belts and child

restraints;

— recommendation to the Member

States on

maximum blood/alcohol levels in traffic;

(1) Promoting road safety in the EU, COM(1997) 131 final; ESC

— legislation on speed limiters for light commercial

opinion — OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.

vehicles;