Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident
Date: 2002-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coastal pollution, environmental protection, maritime safety, maritime surveillance, oil pollution, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, tanker

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 3.12.2002
COM(2002) 681 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

ON IMPROVING SAFETY AT SEA

IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESTIGE ACCIDENT

Introduction

Contents

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

Initiatives  taken  by  the  Commission  with  a  view  to  earlier  application  of  the

1.
Erika I and Erika II packages

(cid:1)  Earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency

(cid:1)  Closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies

(cid:1)  Establishment  of  a  trans-European  data  exchange  network  for  vessel  traffic

monitoring

(cid:1)  Publication of an indicative list of substandard vessels under Directive 95/21/EC

(cid:1)  Speeding up preparations of the plans to accommodate vessels in places of refuge

2.

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

(cid:1)  Recruit a sufficient number of port State control inspectors

(cid:1)  Take  the  measures  necessary  to  achieve  a  sufficient  level  of  inspections  at  all

ports and anchorage areas in the European Union

(cid:1)  Ratify  the  convention  creating  a  third  level  of  compensation  for  damage  to

complement the IOPC Fund.

II – Part Two: Additional measures

1.

2.

Specific measures for the carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil

Liability and Compensation

(cid:1)  Amendments to the international regime

(cid:1)  Other polluting substances

3.

Penal sanctions

Introduction  of  a  Community-wide  recognition  system  for  certificates  of

4.
competency issued to seafarers outside the European Union

5.

6.

Reporting by pilots

Protecting the coastal waters of the EU

III – Part Three: Action at international level

(cid:1)  Keeping dangerous vessels off the principal shipping routes

2

(cid:1)  Flag State audit procedure

IV - Part Four: Partnership with the industry

ANNEX 1: The Erika I and Erika 2 packages

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

ANNEX 3: Port State control inspections by Member States

3

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

The Commission also reacted extremely swiftly after the Erika accident by proposing, in its
communication of 21 March 2000 on the safety of the seaborne oil trade1, an initial package
of measures designed significantly to reinforce oil tanker safety, which was supplemented, on
6 December 2000, by a second package2 (see Annex I).

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

1

2

COM(2000) 142 final.
COM(2000) 802 final.

4

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

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

Consequently, in this communication the Commission:

(cid:1)  calls on the European Council  in  Copenhagen  on 12 and 13  December to approve,  as an

emergency measure, the lines of action set out in this communication;

(cid:1)  calls on the European Parliament and the Council to examine and support the  action and

measures proposed by the Commission in this communication;

(cid:1)  stresses  the  need  for  the  Member  States  to  apply,  earlier  than  the  scheduled  dates,  the

measures adopted in the Erika I and Erika II packages;

(cid:1)  proposes a number of additional measures, dealing, in particular, with the problems posed
by the carriage by sea of highly polluting products such as the heavy fuel oil on board the
Prestige;

(cid:1)  calls on the Member States to take action within the  International  Maritime  Organisation

with a view to reinforcing safety at sea and preventing pollution from ships.

5

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

The  measures  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  (see  Annex  I)  will  not
start  to  enter  into  force  until  1  January  2003  (when  the  first  single  hull  oil  tankers  will  be
taken  out  of  service3),  22  July  2003  (Directives  on  port  State  control  and  classification
societies) and 5 February 2004 (Directive on vessel traffic monitoring).

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

Initiatives taken by the Commission with a view to earlier application of the Erika I

1.
and Erika II packages

(cid:1)  Earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency

With the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  establishing  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency4,
the European Union decided to acquire a powerful instrument for monitoring the effectiveness
of the Community rules on maritime safety.

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

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

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

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

3

4

However,  the  industry  is  already  taking  such  measures  and  it  now  seems  to  be  common  practice  for
vessel charterers and owners no longer to carry crude oil or oil products to EU ports in vessels over 15
years old but to opt for double hull vessels instead. According to the statistics provided by Intertanko,
the proportion of double hull oil tankers rose from 39% in 2000 to 51% at the end of 2002. Intertanko
estimates that by 2007 around 75% of oil tankers will be double hull vessels.
Regulation  (EC)  No 1406/2002  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  June  2002
establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency (OJ No L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1).

6

                                                
(cid:1)  Closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies

The classification societies that can work on behalf of the EU Member States are only those
recognised  at  Community  level  on  the  basis  of  Council  Directive  94/57/EC5.  These
organisations are required to comply with strict quality criteria laid down in the Directive, that
have been further reinforced following the ERIKA accident. The Commission services have
strengthened their assessments of the recognised organisations in order constantly to measure
their compliance with the criteria as well as their quality performance.

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

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

(cid:1)  Publication of an indicative list of substandard vessels under Directive 95/21/EC

The amendments made to Directive 95/21/EC on port State control6 in response to the Erika
accident  introduced  a  procedure  for  banning  vessels  which  have  been  detained  repeatedly
over  the  last  two  or  three  years  and  are  on  the  "black  list"  of  flags  with  an  above  average
number of detentions.

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

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

5

6

Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection
and  survey  organisations  and  for  the  relevant  activities  of  maritime  administrations  (OJ  No  L  319,
12.12.1994, p. 20), as last amended by Directive 2001/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 December 2001 (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 9).
Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control on shipping (OJ No L 157, 7.7.1995,
p.1),  as  last  amended  by  Directive  2001/106/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of
19 December 2001 (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 17).

7

                                                
(cid:1)  Establishment  of  a  trans-European  data  exchange  network  for  vessel  traffic

monitoring

Directive  2002/59/EC7,  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  as  part  of  the
Erika II package, aims at establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information
system.  The  Member  States  must  apply  the  provisions  laid  down  in  the  Directive  by
5 February  2004  at  the  latest.  They  have  longer,  until  the  end  of  2007,  to  complete  their
national network of shore-based infrastructure for monitoring vessels off their coasts.

Without  waiting  until  then,  even  before  final  adoption  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission
started  work  on  putting  into  place  the  Community  vessel  traffic  monitoring  system.  This
system,  known  as  "SafeSeaNet",  includes  establishment  of  a  European  database  and  of  a
network  between  the  Member  States  for  exchanging  real-time  data  from  transponders8  on
board  vessels  so  that  the  authorities  can  know  the  identity,  position  and  cargo  of  vessels
sailing in European waters at any time.

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

(cid:1)  Speeding up preparations of the plans to accommodate vessels in places of refuge

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

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

7

8

Directive  2002/59/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  June  2002  establishing  a
Community  vessel  traffic  monitoring  and  information  system  and  repealing  Council  Directive
93/75/EEC (OJ No L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10).
Transponders or AIS (Automatic Identification Systems) are devices fitted on board vessels capable of
automatic, quasi-continuous transmission of information concerning the identity, position and routing of
a given vessel to other vessels in the vicinity and to coastal stations. At international level, the IMO has
adopted a timetable which was incorporated in the Directive and extended to other vessel categories.

8

                                                
2.

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

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

(cid:1)  To  recruit  a  sufficient  number  of  port  State  control  inspectors,  if  need  be  from
amongst former merchant shipping officers, to be able to meet in time the new obligations
imposed  by  the  amendments  to  Directive  95/21/EC,  particularly  on  tougher  compulsory
inspections, and strictly to meet the minimum inspection rate of 25% set in the Directive.

(cid:1)  To take the measures necessary to achieve a sufficient inspection rate at all ports and
anchorage areas in the Union to avoid undermining the deterrent effect of the Directive
on  substandard  vessels.  In  particular,  it  would  be  incompatible  with  the  effectiveness  of
Directive 95/21/EC and with the principles of fair competition if some ports or anchorage
areas  were  to  become  literal  "ports  of  convenience"  inside  the  European  Union  itself,
because no inspections or insufficient inspections were carried out there. In this context, it
must be pointed out that a large number of vessels in transit off Europe's coasts call into
European  ports  only  for  refuelling  and  are  therefore  not  subject  to  the  same  degree  of
control  as  vessels  making  a  full  commercial  call.  In  some  cases,  these  calls  are  the  only
opportunity to exercise any effective control over such vessels. It is therefore indispensable
that the port control authorities pay the same attention to these vessels as they do to vessels
making "normal" commercial calls. To remedy such anomalies in inspection practice and
prevent  the  emergence  of  "ports  of  convenience",  the  Commission  will  propose  new
measures to produce a more even level of inspections in ports in the European Union.

(cid:1)  To  ratify  without  delay  the  Protocol  establishing  a  Supplementary  Fund  for
compensation  for  oil  pollution  incidents  and  to  ensure  that  the  fund  covers  damage
up to EUR 1 billion and is fully operational before the end of 2003. It is of fundamental
importance that victims of oil spills are adequately compensated. Therefore, in the Erika II
package  the  Commission  proposed  to  raise  considerably  the  compensation  available  to
victims  of  an  oil  pollution  incident.  through  the  establishment  of  a  Fund  for  the
Compensation of Oil Pollution damage in European waters (the COPE Fund), which would
raise  the  overall  compensation  to  EUR  1  billion  instead  of  the  current  international
maximum limit of EUR 185 million9. Such a measure  would ensure that all victims  who
have a legitimate claim for compensation will be fully compensated in case of an oil spill
in EU waters and would also serve to speed up the compensation of victims. However, the
Council decided not to proceed with the proposal, but instead to promote the establishment
of  a  similar  fund  at  international  level.  Given  the  unquestionable  benefits  for  European
citizens, the Commission is very concerned about the lack of progress in this area. As the
Commission  has  repeatedly  insisted,  the  international  supplementary  fund  can  only  be
accepted as an alternative to the COPE Fund if its overall limit is set at no less than EUR 1
billion and if all coastal Member States participate in it from the start. Should this not be
the  case,  rapid  adoption  of  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  COPE  Fund,  as  amended
following the support of the European Parliament, is essential.

9

COM(2000)802 final of 6 December 2000.

9

                                                
II – Part Two: Additional measures

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

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

1.

Specific measures for the carriage of heavy fuel oil

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

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

2.

Liability and compensation

(cid:1)  Amendments to the international regime

The  Commission  also  considers  that  certain  aspects  of  the  international  regime  for  liability
and  compensation  for  oil  pollution  need  to  be  revised.  There  is  a  need  for  a  better  balance
between  the  responsibility  of  the  players  involved  in  the  transport  of  oil  by  sea  and  their
exposure to liability and for stricter application of the polluter pays principle. Since action at
international level is the only way to  achieve such  amendments,  Member States’  action and
support  is  essential  in  achieving  this.  In  this  regard,  Member  States  should  in  particular
support  proposals  aimed  at  restricting  the  right  of  shipowners  to  limit  their  financial
liability if the accident is due to their actual fault and proposals aimed at removing the
de facto immunity of other key players, in particular the charterer, operator or manager of
the ship from compensation claims (other than from recourse claims by the registered owner).

10

Moreover, as it stands, the international regime does not provide for adequate compensation
for damage to the environment as such (ecological restoration).

(cid:1)  Other polluting substances

The Commission is concerned that a number of international conventions aimed at improving
liability  and  compensation  for  maritime  pollution  are  not  yet  widely  ratified  by  Member
States and thus not applicable in the EU. The Commission therefore considers that Member
States  should  immediately  take  measures  to  ratify  in  the  interest  of  the  European
Community the Bunkers and HNS Conventions, as foreseen in recent Council Decisions to
this effect10.

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

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

3.

Penal sanctions

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

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

The  Commission  also  draws  the  attention  to  its  proposal  for  a  directive  of  the  European
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law11
and  an  initiative  of  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  for  a  framework  decision  on  environmental
crime,12 neither of which is adopted by the Council. Without prejudice to these proposals, the
Commission will introduce a proposal for a directive on illegal discharges from ships. This
proposal  relates  to  operational  (deliberate)  discharges  from  ships  and  will  be  coupled  with
provisions on the gathering of evidence and the prosecution of offenders.

10

11

Council  Decision  2002/762  of  19  September  authorising  the  Member  States,  in  the  interest  of  the
Community, to sign, ratify or accede to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil
Pollution Damage, 2001 (the Bunkers Convention). A similar decision for the International Convention
on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious
Substances by Sea, 1996 (the HNS Convention) was adopted on 18 November 2002.
COM (2001) 139 final of 13 March 2001. An amended proposal  was adopted on 30 September 2002

[COM (2002) 544 final].
12

OJ C 39/4 of 11.2.2000.

11

                                                
Introduction of a Community-wide recognition system for certificates of competency

4.
issued to seafarers outside the European Union

In  order  to  ensure  that  seafarers  holding  certificates  of  competency  issued  outside  the
European  Union  have  a  level  of  competence  which  is  at  least  equivalent  to  all  the
requirements  of  the  STCW  Convention,  the  Commission  will  very  shortly  propose  a  new
legal text revising the provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC13, aiming, in particular, to reinforce
the  existing  procedure  for  the  recognition  of  certificates  issued  by  third  countries.  The
purpose of this revision is the introduction of a Community-wide assessment and recognition
system  for  third  countries  complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  Convention.  This
amendment  will  ensure  systematic  use  of  English  as  the  language  for  communications
between vessels and the authorities on shore.

5.

Reporting by pilots

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

6.

Protecting the coastal waters of the EU

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

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

13

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

12

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

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

(cid:1)  The  adoption  of  an  administrative  agreement  between  the  maritime  administrations  of
Member  States,  candidate  countries  and  neighbouring  States  providing  for  a  ban  on  the
use of single hull oil tankers for carrying heavy fuel oil;

(cid:1)  The  adoption  of  some  key  amendments  to  the  international  conventions  governing

liability and compensation for oil pollution damage;

(cid:1)  The  adoption  of  a  legislative  measure  on  penal  sanctions  for  parties  that  have  caused

maritime pollution by grossly negligent behaviour;

(cid:1)  A  proposal  for  the  setting-up  of  an  EU  agreement  for  the  recognition  of  seafarers’

certificates of competency issued by third countries;

(cid:1)  Review of the Paris MoU provisions relating to the obligation on pilots to report ships in

doubtful condition;

(cid:1)  A review of measures to improve the protection of EU coastal waters from ships that pose

a threat to the marine environment.

13

III – Part Three: Action at international level

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

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

(cid:1)  Keeping dangerous vessels off the principal shipping routes

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

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

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

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

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

(cid:1)  Flag State audit procedure

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

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

14

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

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

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

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

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

15

IV – Part Four: Partnership with the industry

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

This agreement could include commitments by the industry:

(cid:1)  no longer to charter single hull oil tankers over 23 years old, as the Commission originally

proposed in 2000;

(cid:1)  no longer to carry heavy fuel oil in single hull oil tankers, whether directly or indirectly via

traders;

(cid:1)  to exchange information on substandard vessels;

(cid:1)  to collaborate with the Commission on analyses with a view to a more balanced approach
between chartering huge oil tankers to carry the EU's oil supplies and the development of
an  integrated  trans-European  oil  pipeline  network  linking  the  EU  to  neighbouring  oil-
producing countries.

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

16

Annex 1

The Erika I and Erika II packages

1.

Erika I

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

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

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

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

2.

Erika II

The Erika II package:

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

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

The Agency will work closely with the Member States. It will assist them with the practical
implementation of Community measures and  will  organise  appropriate  training  activities  on

17

port State control and flag State related issues. In that way the Agency will favour cooperation
between the Member States and disseminate best practices in the Community;

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

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

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

18

Annex 2

INDICATIVE BLACK LIST OF SHIPS

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

1.         Summary of data collected.

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

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

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

either

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19

–  Number of ships per flag:

Turkey

St. Vincent & Grenadines

Cambodia

Algeria

Panama

Sao Tome and Principe

Bolivia

Egypt

Romania

Honduras

Lebanon

Morocco

Syrian Arab Republic

–  Number of ships per type of vessel:

Bulk carriers

Chemical tankers

Oil tankers

Passenger vessels

26

12

9

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

49

8

8

1

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

5 detentions in 3 years

4 detentions in 3 years

3 detentions in 3 years

3 detentions in 2 years

2 detentions in 3 years

3

4

13

3

43

20

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

Name of vessel

IMO
number

Type of vessel Age

Number of
detentions/ period
of reference

Flag

Flag State
performance

PAZAR 8871003

Chemical
Tanker

11

5 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

LEGENT 1 7223132 Bulkcarrier

30

5 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

ALEX C 7346623 Bulkcarrier

28

5 detentions/3 years

Romania

very high risk

SHIVA 7512076 Bulkcarrier

26

4 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

JOHANNA
KATHRINA

7368293

Chemical
Tanker

28

4 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

GULSER ANA 8418289 Bulkcarrier

17

4 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

SALIH KALKAVAN 7401514 Oil Tanker

26

4 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

AIN TEMOUCHENT
EX BARON MINTO

8110447 Bulkcarrier

20

3 detentions/3 years

Algeria

very high risk

NEDROMA 7708182 Bulkcarrier

24

3 detentions/3 years

Algeria

very high risk

TAM GOUT 9120425

Chemical
Tanker

7

3 detentions/3 years

Algeria

very high risk

EUROBULKER II 6926282 Bulkcarrier

32

3 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

21

PAULA K 7617967 Bulkcarrier

24

3 detentions/3 years

Lebanon

very high risk

TANIA 7806908 Bulkcarrier

24

3 detentions/3 years

Romania

very high risk

HURANCAN 7106657 Oil Tanker

31

3 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

ANASTASIOS IV 7509108 Oil Tanker

25

3 detentions/3 years

Sao Tome &
Principe

very high risk

CAFER KALKAVAN 8913332 Bulkcarrier

18

3 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

KAPTAN NEVZAT
KACAR

8325896 Bulkcarrier

18

3 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

KURUOGLU III 8512047 Bulkcarrier

12

3 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

ORAS 7526534 Bulkcarrier

25

3 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

YALAZ 7507186 Bulkcarrier

26

3 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

AGIOS DIMITRIOS 7409097 Bulkcarrier

27

3 detentions/2 years

Panama medium risk

GREEN TRADER 7530418 Bulkcarrier

25

3 detentions/2 years

Panama medium risk

MATRIX 7930474 Bulkcarrier

22

3 detentions/2 years

Panama medium risk

22

GABRIELLE 6500296

Passenger
Ship

37

2 detentions/3 years

Bolivia

very high risk

CAPE GEORJEAN 7118882 Oil Tanker

31

2 detentions/3 years

Bolivia

very high risk

KHULLA 7363619 Bulkcarrier

28

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

MED BULKER I 7433323 Bulkcarrier

24

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

MED GENERAL IV 7108681 Bulkcarrier

31

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

MED GENERAL VI 7385825 Bulkcarrier

27

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

RONGA 7223144 Bulkcarrier

30

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

SAMBOR 7724368 Bulkcarrier

22

2 detentions/3 years

Cambodia

very high risk

DOMIAT 8203397 Bulkcarrier

17

2 detentions/3 years

Egypt

very high risk

QENA 8203402 Bulkcarrier

16

2 detentions/3 years

Egypt

high risk

CEMENTINA 5067077 Bulkcarrier

42

2 detentions/3 years

Honduras

very high risk

ARRAZI 7925704

Chemical
Tanker

20

2 detentions/3 years

Morocco

very high risk

23

ARIEL 8857069 Bulkcarrier

27

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

ARCHON 7012480 Oil Tanker

32

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

EDOIL 7501429

Chemical
Tanker

27

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vicent &
Grenadines

high risk

HECTOR 7531448 Bulkcarrier

25

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

NESTOR C 7739985 Bulkcarrier

23

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

NOTOS 7435216 Bulkcarrier

24

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

OGARAMBA
DIUGWU

7636810 Oil Tanker

24

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

SULANDA 7521376 Bulkcarrier

26

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

TAMAR 7302823

Chemical
Tanker

29

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

VALENTINA 7211347 Bulkcarrier

30

2 detentions/3 years

St. Vincent &
Grenadines

high risk

FECTO 6707985 Oil Tanker

35

2 detentions/3 years

Sao Tome &
Principe

very high risk

SHANTI I 6805579 Bulkcarrier

34

2 detentions/3 years

Sao Tome &
Principe

very high risk

24

MAI-S 7501807 Bulkcarrier

26

2 detentions/3 years

Syrian Arab
Republic

very high risk

ALAATIN BEY 7000243

Chemical
Tanker

32

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

ALEMDAR 1 EX
DEMET
AKBASOGLU

8836986 Oil Tanker

12

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

ARIZONA DREAM 7930058 Bulkcarrier

22

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

AYHAN ASLAN 7418347

Chemical
Tanker

26

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

BERRAK N 7632541 Bulkcarrier

25

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

ECE AKAT 7501261 Bulkcarrier

27

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

FEYZA EX URSUYA 8118566 Bulkcarrier

18

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

GOKHAN KIRAN 7433696 Bulkcarrier

17

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

HACI HILMI BEY 7702798 Bulkcarrier

25

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

HACI RESIT
KALKAVAN EX
STAHOLM

HATIME ANA EX
CAPTAIN JIM

7640316 Bulkcarrier

24

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

7375454 Bulkcarrier

26

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

25

ISPARTA 7328683 Bulkcarrier

29

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

ORHAN EKINCI 8016988 Bulkcarrier

20

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

OSMAN METE 7380485 Bulkcarrier

27

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

SALIH C EX OCEAN
VOYAGER

SERRA DEVAL EX
BEHRAM KAPTAN

7314589 Bulkcarrier

29

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

7433426 Bulkcarrier

22

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

TAHIR KIRAN 7433713 Bulkcarrier

15

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

TRANSBORA 7206419 Bulkcarrier

30

2 detentions/3 years

Turkey

very high risk

26

PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTIONS BY EU/EEA MEMBER STATES14

Annexe 3

Member State

2001

Ship Calls

Nº of
inspections

% of
inspections

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

5789

2400

1311

5792

6745

2670

323

1330

5850

5645

1800

2830

5594

2850

6457

1679

612

426

558

1469

751

114

280

2547

1325

464

805

1694

658

1801

29.00%

25.50%

32.49%

9.63%

21.78%

28.13%

35.29%

21.05%

43.54%

23.47%

25.78%

28.45%

30.28%

23.09%

27.89%

PO RT  ST AT E CONT ROL INSPECT ION PERCENT AGE BY
 M EM BER ST AT ES

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

f
o
%

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

 Year 2000
 Year 2001

m

elgiu

B

ark
m
n
e
D

d
n

Finla

e
c
n
Fra

y
n
a

erm
G

e
c
e

Gre

d
n
ela
Ic

d
n

Irela

Italy

s
d
n

erla
eth
e N
h
T

y
a

orw
N

al
g
ortu
P

ain
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

m
o
d
g

d Kin
nite
U

M ember States

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

27