Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing port security
Date: 2004-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common ports policy, harbour installation, maritime safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.2.2004
COM(2004) 76 final

2004/0031 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on enhancing port security

(presented by the Commission)

EN

  EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The  communication  on  Maritime  Security  (COM(2003)  229  final)  which  incorporated  a
proposal  for  ship  and  ship/port  interface  security,  currently  going  through  the  legislative
process and referred to in this document as Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…, identified port security
as a necessary second  step  which should secure  both  the port and  the  interface  between  the
port  and  the  hinterland.  The  need  for  protection  extends  to  people  working  in  or  passing
through  ports,  infrastructure  and  equipment,  including  means  of  transport.  This  proposal
builds on to that earlier communication.

WHY ARE PORTS AT RISK?

Ports are an essential link within the total transport chain, linking up maritime with landside
trade and passenger flows. Ports are often the  focal point for shipments of dangerous  cargo,
for  major  chemical  and  petrochemical  production  centres,  and/or  situated  near  cities.  It  is
clear that terrorist attacks in ports can easily result in serious disruptions to transport systems
and trigger knock-on effects on the surrounding industry as well as directly harming people in
the  port  and  the  neighbouring  population.  It  is  within  this  context  that  the  Commission  is
proposing to develop a comprehensive port security policy.

INTERNATIONAL FOCUS

Work  in  the  IMO1  has  led  to  the  development  of  amendments  to  SOLAS2  and  the  ISPS3
Code. The Commission has proposed a regulation aimed at incorporating these measures into
binding  community  law  (COM(2003) 229  final).  The  legislative  process  is  currently  on-
going.

Although an  IMO-ILO4 Working Group is currently working on a Code of  Practice  on  Port
Security, it appears unrealistic to expect results soon. It is to be noted that such a code would
not  be  legally  binding.  In  the  light  of  this  the  Commission  believes  that  the  EU  should  go
ahead with an own port security scheme. This proposal  complements  the  work of the  IMO-
ILO.

NEED FOR A PORT SECURITY DIRECTIVE

The  SOLAS  amendments,  ISPS  Code  and  the  proposed  regulation,  will  enhance  maritime
security by developing security measures on ships and in port facilities5. Regulation (EC) Nr.
…/… stops at that part of the port which represents the ship/port interface, i.e. the terminal.6
There  is  a  dual  purpose  to  this  proposal:  to  enhance  security  in  those  areas  of  ports  not

1

2

3

4

5

6

IMO: International Maritime Organisation.
SOLAS: Safety Of Life At Sea.
ISPS: International Ship and Port Facility Security.
ILO: International Labour Organisation.
In this context “port facility” means a location where the ship/port interface takes place; this includes
areas  such  as  anchorages,  waiting  berths  and  approaches  from  seaward,  as  appropriate”.  “Ship/port
interface” means the interactions that occur when a ship is directly and immediately affected by actions
involving the movement of persons or goods or the provision of port services to or from the ship.
Although it would theoretically be possible for Member States to interpret ‘port facility’ extensively so
as  to  include  the  entire  port,  thus  extending  application  of  the  ISPS  Code  to  the  entire  port,  it  is
understood that such interpretation is unlikely to be given.

2

 
                                                
covered by Regulation (EC) Nr. …/… and  to  ensure that security measures implemented in
application  of  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/…  benefit  from  enhanced  security  in  adjacent  port
areas. This proposal does not create new obligations in areas already covered by Regulation
(EC) Nr. …/….

The Commission therefore considers that this directive achieves the following:

– 

– 

– 

Guaranteeing  and  monitoring  at  Community  level  the  achievement  of  a  sufficient
level  of  port  security,  by  complementing  and  supporting  the  security  measures
applying to the ship/port interface.

Ensuring harmonised implementation and equal conditions throughout the European
Union so as not to create differences for the commercial port users.

Ensuring  that  necessary  security  measures  covering  the  entire  port  can  be
implemented  as  far  as  possible  by  relying  on  already  existing  tools  introduced  by
Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/…,  thereby  achieving  maximum  security  results  through
minimum additional burden for the ports.

Against the background of the significant variety of Community ports (large-small, privately-
publicly  owned,  etc.),  as  well  as  in  view  of  the  diverse  activities  co-existing  within
Community-ports  (cargo  handling,  industry,  warehousing,  transport,  environmental  areas,
conurbations,  and  many  more)  a  directive  is  the  most  appropriate  legal  instrument  to
introduce the required flexibility while establishing the necessary common port security level
throughout the Community.

It is recognised that a number of port security regimes are already being applied in Member
States.  This  directive  allows  existing  security  measures  and  structures  to  be  maintained
provided they comply with the rules of the directive.

Accordingly, the Commission:

– 

Proposes that the European Parliament and the Council should adopt as soon as
possible  this  directive  on  enhancing  Port  Security.  The  proposal  complements
the security measures introduced by the regulation on enhancing ship and port
facility  security  (Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/…)  by  ensuring  that,  as  a  result,  the
entire port is covered by a security regime. This new proposal covers any port
housing one or more of the port facilities which are covered by Regulation (EC)
Nr. …/….

CONTENT OF THE PORT SECURITY DIRECTIVE

The measures required for enhancing port security would follow these principles:

– 

– 

– 

– 

Port security complements maritime and ship/port interface security and ensures that
these security measures are reinforced by security measures in the entire port area;

A port security assessment decides what measures are required, where and when;

Security levels distinguish between normal, heightened or imminent threats;

A port security plan outlines all measures and details for enhancing port security;

3

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

A  port  security  authority  is  responsible  for  the  identifying  and  implementing
appropriate port security measures by means of the above mentioned assessment and
plan;

A  port  security  officer  coordinates  development  and  implementation  of  the  port
security plan;

A port security committee provides advice to the responsible authority;

Training and control will support implementation of the required measures.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE PROPOSAL

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The proposal relies on the same security structures and bodies (security assessments,
officers,  etc.)  as  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/…  so  as  to  ensure  a  comprehensive
security regime for the entire maritime logistics chain from the vessel to the ship/port
interface  to  the  entire  port  to  the  port/hinterland  interface.  This  approach  allows  a
simplification  of  procedures  as  well  as  synergies  in  security.  In  particular,  the
proposed directive:

calls upon Member States to define the boundaries of their ports for the purpose of
this directive;

calls  upon  Member  States  to  ensure  that  proper  port  security  assessments  and  port
security plans are developed;

calls upon Member States to determine  and communicate the security levels in  use
and changes thereto;

calls upon Member States to designate a port security authority for every port or for
groups  of  ports.  This  is  this  public  authority  that  will  be  responsible  for  the
appropriate identification and implementation of port security measures;

establishes  the  need  to  appoint  a  port  security  officer  for  each  individual  port  to
ensure proper coordination when port security assessments and plans are established,
updated and followed up;

establishes  the  general  requirement  of  an  advisory  security  committee,  bringing
together  representatives  of  all  relevant  operational  and  government  functions  in  a
port;

puts forward minimum requirements for security assessments and plans;

calls  for  the  appointment  of  focal  points  in  the  Member  States  to  provide  the
necessary communication both to other member states and to the Commission;

provide  for  inspection  procedures  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  port  security
measures;

lays down a procedure for the adaptation of its provisions.

4

 
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The  Commission  proposes  to  base  the  directive  on  Article  80(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  without
prejudice to member states' national security legislation and any measures that might be taken
on the basis of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Article 1:

This article sets out the subject-matter of the directive.

Article 2:

This article sets out the scope of the directive.

Article 3:

This article contains the definitions of the main terms used in the directive.

Article 4:

This  article  imposes  upon  Member  States  the  obligation  to  closely  co-ordinate  the  port
security  measures  with  those  taken  in  application  of  the  Regulation  on  maritime  and  port
facility security.

Article 5:

This article imposes upon Member States the obligation to designate a port security authority.
This port security  authority  will  be  responsible  for  the  identification  and  implementation  of
appropriate port security measures.

Article 6:

This article contains the obligation for Member States to ensure that port security assessments
are  performed  for  all  their  ports  covered  by  this  directive.  Such  assessments  will  take  into
account the specificities of different sections of the port, as well as the security assessments
developed  for  port  facilities  within  the  port  boundaries  as  a  result  of  the  provisions  of  the
regulation on maritime security. The detailed requirements of a port security assessment are
contained in Annex I.

Article 7:

This article  contains  the  obligation  for Member States  to  ensure  that  port  security  plans  are
established for all their ports covered by this directive. Such plans will take into account the
specificities of different sections of the port, as well as the security plans in place for the port
facilities within the port boundaries as a result of the provisions of the regulation on maritime
security.  The  detailed  requirements  of  a  port  security  plan  are  contained  in  Annex  II.  This
Article  also  encompasses  the  need  for  adequate  training  and  exercises.  For  this  purpose  it
refers to Annex III, containing basic training requirements.

5

 
Article 8:

The directive imposes the use of three distinct security levels. Member States are required to
introduce  such  system  of  levels  to  their  relevant  ports,  determine  and  communicate  the
security  levels  in  use  in  the  different  parts  of  their  ports  and  any  changes  thereto.
Communication will be based on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.

Article 9:

Article 9 contains the obligation to designate a port security officer for each port covered by
this directive, who should have sufficient local knowledge and authority to adequately ensure
and coordinate the establishment, update and follow up of port security assessments and plans
in their respective ports.

Article 10:

Recognising  the  need  for  optimal  cooperation  between  the  operational  and  public  authority
functions  in  a  port,  this  article  provides  for  the  establishment  of  an  advisory  port  security
committee regrouping these port security stakeholders.

Article 11:

This article contains the requirement to review regularly port security assessments.

Article 12:

Article 12 provides for the possibility for Member States to appoint recognised port security
organisations, provided these organisations comply with the conditions set out in Annex IV.

Article 13:

This  article  provides  for  the  setting  up  of  a  focal  point  for  port  security,  which  will  be  the
Commission’s contact point for implementation of this directive.

Article 14:

This article encompasses the obligation of Member States to establish an adequate and regular
control  system  concerning  port  security  plans  and  their  implementation.  This  article  also
contains the process whereby inspections supervised by  the Commission are  put  in  place  to
check the effectiveness of port security implementation monitoring and measures.

Article 15:

This  article  indicates  that  provisions  may  be  adopted  in  order  to  define  harmonised
procedures  for  the  application  of  the  details  related  to  the  Annexes  to  this  directive.  Such
adaptations will be guided by the Committee procedure, as defined in Article 14.

6

 
Article 16:

The  Commission  is  assisted  by  the  same  committee  set  up  by  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/….
This committee acts in accordance with the regulatory procedure (Articles 5 and 7 of Council
Decision  1999/468/EC  of  28  June  1999  laying  down  the  procedures  for  the  exercise  of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission7).

Article 17:

These  articles  are  concerned  with  the  confidentiality  of  security  related  information,  in
particular of inspection reports and answers of Member States.

Article 18:

This  article  calls  upon  Member  States  to  institute  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive
penalties for infringement of this directive.

Article 19:

This  article  contains  the  obligation  upon  Member  States  to  bring  into  force  the  laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive and this not
later than one year from the date of its entrance into force.

Article 20:

Contains the entry into force details.

Article 21:

Deals with the addressees of this directive.

Annex I:

Contains the detailed requirements for establishing a port security assessment.

Annex II:

Contains the detailed requirements for establishing a port security plan.

Annex III:

Contains the basic training requirements.

Annex IV:

Contains the detailed conditions to be fulfilled by a recognised port security organisation.

7

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

7

 
                                                
2004/0031 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on enhancing port security

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission8,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee9,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions10,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty11,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Unlawful acts and terrorism are among the greatest threats to the ideals of democracy
and freedom and to the values of peace, which are the very essence of the  European
Union.

The security of people, infrastructure and equipment, including means of transport, in
ports  as  well  as  in  relevant  adjacent  areas  should  be  protected  against  unlawful  acts
and  their  devastating  effects.  Such  protection  would  benefit  transport  users,  the
economy and society as a whole.

On Day/Month/2003 the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
adopted  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/….  on  maritime  security.  The  maritime  security
measures imposed by this regulation constitute only part of the measures necessary to
achieve  an  adequate  level  of  security  throughout  maritime  linked  transport  chains.
This  regulation  is  limited  in  scope  to  security  measures  onboard  vessels  and  the
immediate ship/port interface.

8

9

10

11

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

8

 
                                                
(4)

In order to achieve the fullest protection possible for maritime and port industries, port
security  measures  should  be  introduced.  They  should  extend  beyond  the  ship/port
interface and cover the entire port thus both protecting the port areas and ensuring that
security  measures  taken  in  application  of  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.  …/….  benefit  from
enhanced security in adjacent areas. These measures should apply to all those ports in
which one or  more port facilities are  situated  which are covered by  Regulation (EC)
Nr. …/…. .

(5) Without  prejudice  to  the  rules  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  national  security
and  measures  which  might  be  taken  on  the  basis  of  Title VI  of  the  Treaty  on  the
European  Union,  the  security  objective  described  in  recital  2  should  be  achieved  by
adopting appropriate measures  in  the  field  of  port  policy  establishing  joint  standards
for establishing a sufficient port security level throughout Community ports.

(6)

(7)

(8)

Member  States  should  rely  upon  detailed  security  assessments  to  identify  the  exact
boundaries of the security-relevant port area, as well as the different measures required
to ensure appropriate port security. Such measures shall be different according to the
security  level  in  place  and  will  reflect  differences  in  the  risk  profile  of  different
subareas in the port.

Member  States  should  establish  port  security  plans  which  thoroughly  transpose  the
findings  of  the  port  security  assessment.  The  efficient  working  of  security  measures
also  requires  clear  task  divisions  between  all  parties  involved  as  well  as  regular
exercise  of  measures.  The  retention  of  task  divisions  and  exercise  procedures  in  the
format of the port security plan is considered to contribute strongly to the effectiveness
of both preventive and remedial port security measures.

Member  States  should  ensure  that  responsibilities  in  port  security  are  clearly
recognised by all parties involved. Member States shall monitor the compliance with
security  rules  and  establish  a  clear  responsible  authority  for  all  its  ports,  approve  all
security  assessments  and  plans  for  its  ports,  set  and  communicate  security  levels,
ensure  that  measures  are  well  communicated,  implemented  and  coordinated,  and
provide for enhancing the effectiveness of security measures and alertness by means of
a platform for advice within the port community.

(9)

Member States should approve assessments and plans and monitor the implementation
in  their  ports.  The  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  monitoring  should  be  the
subject of inspections supervised by the Commission.

(10) Member  States  should  ensure  that  a  focal  point  takes  up  the  role  of  contact  point

between the Commission and Member States.

(11)

This directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

9

 
(12)

(13)

The  measures  needed  to  implement  this  directive  should  be  adopted  in  accordance
with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for
the  exercise  of  implementing  powers  conferred  on  the  Commission12.  A  procedure
should be defined for the adaptation of this directive to take account of developments
in international instruments and, in the light of experience, to adapt or complement the
detailed provisions of the Annexes to this directive, without widening the scope of this
directive.

Since  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action,  namely  the  balanced  introduction  and
application of appropriate measures in the field of maritime transport and port policy,
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of
the  European  scale  of  this  directive,  be  better  achieved  at  Community  level,  the
Community  may  adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  set
out in Article 5 of the Treaty.  In accordance with the principle  of  proportionality set
out  in  that  Article,  this  directive  is  limited  to  the  basic  joint  standards  required  to
achieve the objectives of port security and does not go beyond what is necessary for
that purpose,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1
Subject-matter

1.

The  main  objective  of  this  directive  is  to  introduce  and  implement  Community
measures  aimed  at  enhancing  port  security  in  the  face  of  threats  of  intentional
unlawful acts.

It shall also ensure that security measures taken in application of Regulation (EC) Nr.
…/…. benefit from enhanced security in adjacent port areas.

2.

The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall consist of:

a)

b)

c)

The setting of common basic rules on port security measures;

The setting up of an implementation mechanism for these rules;

The setting up of appropriate compliance monitoring mechanisms.

Article 2
Scope

1.

This  directive  addresses  security  measures  which  need  to  be  observed  by  or  affect
people, infrastructure and equipment, including means of transport, in ports as well
as in adjacent  areas  where  these  have  a  direct  or  indirect  impact  on  security  in  the
port.

12

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

10

 
                                                
2.

3.

4.

The  measures  laid  down  in  this  directive  shall  apply  to  any  port  located  in  the
territory of  a  Member State in  which one or more  port  facilities  are  situated  which
are covered by Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. .

Member  States  shall  identify  for  each  port  the  boundaries  for  the  purposes  of  this
directive,  appropriately  taking  into  account  the  information  from  the  port  security
assessment.

Where  the boundaries  of  a  port  facility  within the meaning of  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.
…/…. have been defined by the Member State as effectively covering the  port, the
relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. take precedence over those of this
directive.

For the purpose of this directive:

Article 3
Definitions

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

“port”  or  “seaport”  means  an  area  of  land  and  water  made  up  of  such  works  and
equipment  as  to  permit  principally,  the  reception  of  ships,  their  loading  and
unloading,  the  storage  of  goods,  the  receipt  and  delivery  of  these  goods,  and  the
embarkation and disembarkation of passengers.

“ship/port  interface”  means  the  interactions  that  occur  when  a  ship  is  directly  and
immediately  affected  by  actions  involving  the  movement  of  persons,  goods  or  the
provisions of port services to or from the ship.

“port  facility”  means  a  location  where  the  ship/port  interface  takes  place;  this
includes areas such as  anchorages, waiting berths and approaches from seaward, as
appropriate.

“focal point for maritime security” means the body designated by each Member State
to  serve  as  contact  point  for  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  and  to
facilitate, follow and inform on the application of the maritime security measures laid
down in this directive, as well as of those laid down in Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. .

“port  security  authority”  means  the  authority  responsible  for  security  matters  in  a
given port.

Article 4
Coordination with measures taken in application of Regulation (EC) Nr. …/….

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  port  security  measures  introduced  by  this  directive  are
closely coordinated with measures taken in application of Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…..

11

 
1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

Article 5
Port security authority

Member States shall designate a port security authority for each port covered by this
directive. A port security authority may be appointed for more than one port.

The  port  security  authority  shall  be  responsible  for  the  identification  and
implementation  of  appropriate  port  security  measures  by  means  of  port  security
assessments and plans.

Member  States  may  appoint  a  ‘competent  authority  for  maritime  security’  under
Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. as port security authority.

Article 6
Port security assessment

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  port  security  assessments  are  made  for  the  ports
covered  by  this  directive.  These  assessments  should  take  due  account  of  the
specificities of different sections of a port and shall take into account the assessments
for port facilities within their boundaries as carried out in application of Regulation
(EC)  Nr.  …/….  .  Port  security  assessments  have  to  be  approved  by  the  Member
State.

Each  port  security  assessment  shall  be  performed  according  to  the  detailed
requirements provided in Annex I to this directive.

Port security assessments may be made by a recognised port security organisation, as
referred to in Article 12.

Article 7
Port security plan

Member States shall ensure that, as a result of port security assessments, port security
plans are developed, maintained and updated. Port security plans should adequately
address the specificities of different sections of a port and shall integrate the security
plans  for  port  facilities  within  their  boundaries  established  in  application  of
Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. . Port security plans must to be approved by the Member
State. They can only be implemented once that approval has been given.

Port security plans shall identify, for each of the different security levels referred to
in Article 8:

a)

b)

c)

the procedures to be followed;

the measures to be put in place;

the actions to be undertaken.

Each  port  security  plan  shall  be  established  in  accordance  with  the  detailed
requirements provided in Annex II to this directive.

12

 
4.

5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

Port  security  plans may be developed by a  recognised  port  security organisation  as
referred to in Article 12.

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  implementation  of  port  security  plans  is
coordinated with other control activities carried out in the port.

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  adequate  training  and  exercises  are  performed,
taking into account the basic training requirements listed in Annex III.

Article 8
Security levels

Member States shall introduce a system of port security levels.

There shall be 3 security levels, as defined in Regulation (EC) Nr. …/….:

– 

– 

– 

Security  level  1  means  the  level  for  which  minimum  appropriate  protective
security measures shall be maintained at all times;

Security  level  2  means  the  level  for  which  appropriate  additional  protective
security  measures  shall  be  maintained  for  a  period  of  time  as  a  result  of
heightened risk of security incident;

Security level 3 means the level  for  which further specific protective security
measures  shall  be  maintained  for  a  limited  period  of  time  when  a  security
incident  is  probable  or  imminent,  although  it  may  not  be  possible  to  identify
the specific target.

Member  States  shall  determine  the  security  levels  in  use.  At  each  security  level,  a
Member State may determine that different security measures are to be implemented
in  different  parts  of  the  port  depending  on  the  outcome  of  the  port  security
assessment.

Member States shall communicate the security level in force for each port as well as
any  changes  thereto.  Security  levels  should  be  made  known  on  a  ‘need-to-know’
basis in accordance with the port security plan.

Article 9
Port security officer

A  port  security  officer  shall  be  designated  for  each  port.  Each  port  shall  have  a
different  port  security  officer.  Small  adjacent  ports  may  have  a  shared  security
officer.

The  port  security  officers  shall  fulfil  the  role  of  point  of  contact  for  port  security
related issues and should have sufficient authority and local knowledge to adequately
ensure  and  coordinate  the  establishment,  update  and  follow-up  of  port  security
assessments and port security plans.

13

 
3.

1.

2.

1.

2.

Where  the  port  security  officer  is  not  the  same  as  the  port  facility(ies)  security
officer(s) under Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. , close cooperation between them must
be ensured.

Article 10
Port security committee

Member States shall ensure that port security committees are established to provide
practical advice in the ports covered by this directive, unless the specificity of a port
renders such committees superfluous.

The membership of the port security committee may vary between ports, but should
always  reflect  the  operational  and  public  authority  functions  in  a  port.  It  shall
function on a ‘need to know basis’.

Article 11
Reviews

Member States shall ensure that port security assessments and port security plans are
reviewed every time security-relevant changes occur. They must be reviewed at least
every five years. Upon review the port security assessments and port security  plans
must be approved by the Member State. A reviewed plan can only be implemented
once thate approval has been given.

Reviews of port security assessments and port security plans may be developed by a
recognised port security organisation, as referred to in Article 12.

Article 12
Recognised port security organisation

Member States may appoint recognised port security organisations for the purposes specified
in this directive. Recognised port security  organisations  must  fulfil the conditions  set out in
Annex IV.

Article 13
Focal point for port security

Member  States  shall  appoint  for  port  security  aspects  the  focal  point  appointed  under
Regulation (EC) Nr. …/…. for maritime and port facility security.

The  focal  point  for  port  security  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  list  of  ports
concerned by this directive.

The focal point for port security shall establish and maintain a list of the contact details of the
authorities  for  port  security,  as  well  as  the  port  security  officers.  This  list  shall  be
communicated to the Commission and updated upon changes.

14

 
1.

2.

3.

4.

Article 14
Implementation and conformity checking

Member States shall set up a system ensuring adequate and regular supervision of the
port security plans and their implementation.

Six months after the date referred to in Article 19, the Commission, in co-operation
with  the  focal  points  referred  to  in  Article  13,  shall  start  a  series  of  inspections,
including  inspections  of  a  suitable  sample  of  ports,  to  monitor  the  application  by
Member  States  of  this  directive.  These  inspections  shall  take  account  of  the  data
supplied  by  the  focal  points,  including  monitoring  reports.  The  procedures  for
conducting  such  inspections  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  procedure
referred to in Article 16 (2).

The  officials  mandated  by  the  Commission  to  conduct  such  inspections  in
accordance  with  paragraph  2  shall  exercise  their  powers  upon  production  of  an
authorisation in writing issued by the Commission and specifying the subject-matter,
the purpose of the inspection and the date on which it is to begin. The Commission
shall  in  good  time  before  inspections  inform  the  Member  States  concerned  of  the
inspections.

The Member State concerned shall submit to such inspections and shall ensure that
bodies or persons concerned also submit to those inspections.

The  Commission  shall  communicate  the  inspection  reports  to  the  Member  State
concerned, which within three months of receipt of the report shall indicate sufficient
details  of  the  measures  taken  to  remedy  any  shortcomings.  The  report  and  the
answers shall be communicated to the Committee referred to in Article 16.

Article 15
Adaptations

The provisions of Annexes I to IV may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred
to in Article 16 (2), without broadening the scope of this directive.

Article 16
Committee procedure

1.

2.

The Commission shall be assisted  by  the committee  set  up by  Regulation  (EC)  Nr.
…/….  and  comprising  representatives  of  the  Member  States,  chaired  by  a
Commission representative.

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Articles  5  and  7  of  Decision
1999/468/EC 13 shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The  period  laid  down  in  Article  5(6)  of  Decision  1999/468/EC  shall  be  set  at  one
month.

13

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

15

 
                                                
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Article 17
Confidentiality and dissemination of information

In  applying  this  directive,  the  Commission  shall  take,  in  accordance  with  the
provisions  of  Commission  Decision  2001/844/EC,  ECSC,  Euratom 14,  appropriate
measures  to  protect  information  subject  to  the  requirement  of  confidentiality  to
which it has access or which is communicated to it by Member States.

The  Member  States  shall  take  equivalent  measures  in  accordance  with  relevant
national legislation.

Any personnel carrying out security inspections, or handling confidential information
related  to  this  directive,  must  have  an  appropriate  level  of  security  vetting  by  the
Member State of which the personnel concerned has the nationality.

Without  prejudice  to  the  public  right  of  access  to  documents  as  laid  down  in
Regulation (EC) Nr. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council15, the
inspection reports and the answers of the Member States referred to in Article 14 (4)
shall  be  secret  and  not  be  published.  They  shall  only  be  available  to  the  relevant
authorities,  which  shall  communicate  them  only  to  interested  parties  on  a  need-to-
know  basis,  in  accordance  with  applicable  national  rules  for  dissemination  of
sensitive information.

Member States shall as far as possible and in accordance with applicable national law
treat  as  confidential  information  arising  from  inspection  reports  and  answers  of
Member States when it relates to other Member States.

Unless  it  is  clear  that  the  inspection  reports  and  answers  shall  or  shall  not  be
disclosed,  Member  States  or  the  Commission  shall  consult  with  the  Member  State
concerned.

Article 18
Sanctions

The  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions  are
introduced for infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this directive.

Article 19
Implementation

1.

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative
provisions necessary to comply with this directive not later than […] [one year from
the date of its entry into force]. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

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

14

15

OJ L 317, 3.12.2001, p. 1.
OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

16

 
                                                
2.

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this directive.

Article 20
Entry into force

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

Article 21
Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

17

 
ANNEX I
Port security assessment

The  port  security  assessment  is  the  basis  for  the  work  on  the  port  security  plan  and  its
eventual implementation. The port security  assessment  shall at  least look into  the  following
elements:

– 

– 

– 

– 

Identification and evaluation of important assets and infrastructure it is important to
protect;

Identification of possible threats to the assets and infrastructure and the likelihood of
their occurrence, in order to establish and prioritise security measures;

Identification,  selection  and  prioritisation  of  counter-measures  and  procedural
changes and their level of effectiveness in reducing vulnerability; and

Identification of weaknesses, including  human factors in the infrastructure,  policies
and procedures.

For this purpose the assessment shall at least cover the following aspects:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

identify all areas which are relevant for  port security,  thus  also identifying  the  port
boundaries.  This  includes  port  facilities  which  are  already  covered  by  Regulation
(EC) Nr. …/…. and whose risk assessment will serve as a basis;

identify  security  issues  deriving  from  the  interface  between  port  facility  and  other
port security measures;

identify risk groups among personnel working in a port;

subdivide,  if  useful,  the  port  according  to  the  likelihood  of  becoming  a  target  of
intentional unlawful acts. Areas will not only be judged upon their direct profile as a
potential  target,  but  also  upon  their  potential  role  of  passage  when  neighbouring
areas are targeted;

identify risk variations, e.g. those based on seasonality;

identify  the  specific  characteristics  of  each  sub-area,  such  as  location,  accesses,
power  supply,  communication  system,  ownership  and  users  and  other  elements
considered security-relevant;

identify  potential  threat  scenarios  for  each  identified  sub-area.  A  sub-area,
infrastructure, cargo, baggage, people or transport equipment within this area can be
a direct target of an identified threat, or it can be part of a wider area developed in the
threat scenario;

identify the specific consequences of a threat scenario. Consequences can impact on
one  or  more  sub-areas.  Both  direct  and  indirect  consequences  should  be  identified.
Special attention should be given to the risk of human casualties;

identify the possibility of cluster effects of acts of unlawful interference;

identify the vulnerabilities of each sub-area;

18

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

identify  all  organisational  aspects  relevant  to  overall  port  security,  including  the
division of all security-related authorities, existing rules and procedures;

identify  vulnerabilities  of  the  overarching  port  security  related  to  organisational,
legislative and procedural aspects;

identify measures, procedures and actions aimed  at  reducing  critical  vulnerabilities.
Specific attention should be paid to the need for, and the means of, access control or
restrictions to the entire port or to specific parts of a port, including identification of
passengers, port employees or other workers, visitors and ship crews, area or activity
monitoring  requirements,  cargo  and  luggage  control.  Measures,  procedures  and
actions should be in line with the perceived risk, which may vary between port areas;

identify an organisational structure supporting the enhancement of port security;

identify how measures, procedures and actions should be reinforced in the event of
an increase of security level;

identify specific requirements for dealing with established security concerns, such as
‘suspect’  cargo,  luggage,  bunker,  provisions  or  persons,  unknown  parcels,  known
dangers  (e.g.  bomb).  These  requirements  should  analyse  desirability  conditions  for
either clearing it on site or clearing it upon transport towards a secure area;

identify  measures,  procedures  and  actions  aimed  at  limiting  and  mitigating
consequences;

identify task divisions allowing for the appropriate and correct implementation of the
measures, procedures and actions identified;

pay specific attention, where appropriate, to the relationship with other security plans
(e.g.  port  facility  security  plans)  and  other  already  existing  security  measures.
Attention should also be paid to the relationship with other response  plans (e.g. oil
spill response plan, port contingency plan, medical intervention plan, nuclear disaster
plan, etc.);

identify  communication  requirements  for  the  implementation  of  the  measures  and
procedures;

pay  specific  attention  to  measures  to  protect  security-sensitive  information  from
disclosure. Identify the need-to-know requirements of all those directly  involved as
well as, where appropriate, the general public.

19

 
ANNEX II
Port security plan

The  port  security  plan  sets  out  the  port’s  security  arrangements.  It  will  be  based  on  the
findings  of  the  port  security  assessment.  It  will  clearly  set  out  detailed  measures.  It  will
contain a control mechanism allowing, where necessary, for appropriate corrective measures
to be taken.

The port security plan will be based on the following general aspects:

– 

– 

– 

Define  all  areas  relevant  for  port  security.  Depending  on  the  port  security
assessment,  measures,  procedures  and  actions  may  vary  from  sub-area  to  sub-area.
Indeed,  some  sub-areas  may  require  stronger  preventive  measures  than  others.
Special attention should be paid to the interfaces between sub-areas, as identified in
the port security assessment;

Ensure  coordination  between  security  measures  for  areas  with  different  security
characteristics;

Provide, where necessary, for varying measures both with regard to different parts of
the port, changing security levels, and specific intelligence.

Based  on  these  general  aspects  the  port  security  plan  shall  attribute  tasks  and  specify  work
plans in the following fields:

– 

– 

– 

– 

access  requirements.  For  some  areas,  requirements  will  only  enter  into  force  when
security levels exceed minimal thresholds. All requirements and thresholds should be
comprehensively included in the port security plan;

ID, luggage and cargo control requirements. Requirements may or may not apply to
sub-areas; requirements may or may not apply in full to different sub-areas. Persons
entering  or  within  a  sub-area  may  be  liable  to  control.  The  port  security  plan  will
appropriately  respond  to  the  findings  of  the  port  security  assessment,  which  is  the
tool by which the security requirements of  each sub-area  and  at each security  level
will  be  identified.  When  dedicated  identification  cards  are  developed  for  port
security  purposes,  clear  procedures  should  be  established  for  the  issue,  the  use-
control and the return of such documents. Such procedures should take into account
the  specificities  of  certain  groups  of  port  users  allowing  for  dedicated  measures  in
order to limit the negative impact of access control requirements. Categories should
at least include seafarers, authority officials, people permanently working in the port,
people regularly working or visiting the port, residents living in the port and people
occasionally working or visiting the port;

liaison  with  cargo  control,  baggage  and  passenger  control  authorities.  Where
necessary, the plan is to provide for the linking up of the information and clearance
systems of these authorities, including possible pre-arrival clearance systems.

procedures and measures for dealing with suspect cargo, luggage, bunker, provisions
or  persons,  including  identification  of  a  secure  area;  as  well  as  for  other  security
concerns and breaches of port security;

20

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

monitoring requirements  for sub-areas  or  activities  within  sub-areas.  Both  the  need
for  and  possible  technical  solutions  will  be  derived  from  the  port  security
assessment;

signposting. Areas with any requirements (access and/or control), should be properly
signposted. Control and access requirements shall appropriately take into account all
relevant existing law and practices. Monitoring of activities should be appropriately
indicated if national legislation so requires;

communication  and  security  clearance.  All  relevant  security  information  must  be
properly  communicated  according  to  security  clearance  standards  included  in  the
plan. In view of the sensitivity of some information, communication will be based on
a  need-to-know  basis,  but  it  will  include  where  necessary  procedures  for
communications  addressed  to  the  general  public.  Security  clearance  standards  will
form  part  of  the  plan  and  are  aimed  at  protecting  security  sensitive  information
against unauthorised disclosure.

reporting  of  security  incidents.  With  a  view  to  ensure  a  rapid  response  the  port
security plan should set out clear reporting requirements to the port security officer
of all security incidents and/or to the competent authority for port security.

integration with other preventive plans or activities. The plan should specifically deal
with integration with other preventive and control activities in force in the port.

integration with other response plans and/or inclusion of specific response measures,
procedures and actions. The plan should detail the interaction and coordination with
other  response  and  emergency  plans.  Where  necessary  conflicts  and  shortcomings
should be resolved.

training and exercise requirements.

operational port security organisation and working procedures. The port security plan
will detail the port security organisation, its task division and working procedures. It
will  also  detail  the  coordination  with  port  facility  and  ship  security  officers,  where
appropriate. It will delineate the tasks of the port security committee, if this exists.

– 

procedures for adapting and updating the port security plan.

21

 
ANNEX III
Basic training requirements

Various types of exercises which may include participation of port facility security officers, in
conjunction  with  relevant  authorities  of  Member  States,  company  security  officers,  or  ship
security officers, if available, should be carried out at least once each calendar  year with no
more  than  18  months  between  the  exercises.  Requests  for  the  participation  of  company
security officers or ships security officers in joint exercises should be made bearing in mind
the security and work implications for the ship. These exercises should test communication,
coordination, resource availability and response. These exercises may be:

(1) 

full scale or live;

(2) 

tabletop simulation or seminar; or

(3) 

combined  with  other  exercises  held  such  as  emergency  response  or  other  port  State
authority exercises.

22

 
ANNEX IV
Conditions to be fulfilled by a recognised port security organisation

A recognised port security organisation should be able to demonstrate:

(1) 

expertise in relevant aspects of port security;

(2) 

(3) 

an appropriate knowledge of port operations, including knowledge of port design and
construction;

an  appropriate  knowledge  of  other  security  relevant  operations  potentially  affecting
port security;

(4) 

the capability to assess the likely port security risks;

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

the ability to maintain and improve the port security expertise of its personnel;

the ability to monitor the continuing trustworthiness of its personnel;

the  ability  to  maintain  appropriate  measures  to  avoid  unauthorised  disclosure  of,  or
access to, security-sensitive material;

the  knowledge  of  relevant  national  and  international  legislation  and  security
requirements;

(9) 

the knowledge of current security threats and patterns;

(10) 

(11) 

the  knowledge  of  recognition  and  detection  of  weapons,  dangerous  substances  and
devices;

the  knowledge  of  recognition,  on  a  non-discriminatory  basis,  of  characteristics  and
behavioural patterns of persons who are likely to threaten port security;

(12) 

the knowledge of techniques used to circumvent security measures;

(13) 

the  knowledge  of  security  and  surveillance  equipment  and  systems  and  their
operational limitations.

(4) 

A recognised port security organisation which has made a port security assessment or
review of such an assessment for a port is not allowed to establish or review the port
security plan for the same port.

23

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Policy area(s): Inland, air and maritime transport policy

Activit(y/ies): Implementation of port security measures and the monitoring thereof

TITLE  OF  ACTION:  DIRECTIVE  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  ON

ENHANCING PORT SECURITY

1.

BUDGET LINE(S) + HEADING(S)

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

(a)

06 02 03 02 Transport security
06 02 11 03 Committees

OVERALL FIGURES

Total allocation for action (Part B): See point 6.1

Period of application:

Indefinite, starting in 2006

Overall multi-annual estimate of expenditure

Schedule of commitment appropriations/payment appropriations (financial intervention)
(see point 6.1.1)

€ million (to three decimal places)

Year
2004

0

0

Commitments

Payments

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009
and
subs.
years

Total

0

0

0.142

0.126

0.276

0.126

0.670

0.142

0.126

0.276

0.126

0.670

b)

Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure (see point 6.1.2)

Commitments

Payments

Subtotal a+b

Commitments

Payments

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.142

0.126

0.276

0.126

0.670

0.142

0.126

0.276

0.126

0.670

24

 
(c)

Overall financial impact of human resources and other administrative expenditure (see
points 7.2 and 7.3)

Commitments/
payments

TOTAL a+b+c

Commitments

Payments

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.028

0.991

0.991

0.991

4.001

1.170

1.117

1.267

1.117

1.170

1.117

1.267

1.117

4.671

4.671

2.4

Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective

New action

[X] Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming.

[...] Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial

perspective.

[...] Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Interinstitutional

Agreement.

2.5

Financial impact on revenue16

[X] Proposal  has  no  financial  implications  (involves  technical  aspects  regarding

implementation of a measure).

3.

BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS

Type of expenditure

New

EFTA
contribution

Contributions
from
candidate
countries

Heading in
financial
perspective

NCE

NDA

NO

NO

NO

No 3

4.

LEGAL BASIS

Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty

16

For further information, see separate explanatory note.

25

 
                                                
5.

5.1

DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS

Need for Community intervention17

5.1.1

Objectives pursued

After the events of September 11th 2001, the European Union reiterated its support to the global
community in developing all necessary means of dealing with the terrorist threat. Consequently,
the EU developed legislation on aviation security and turned to the problem of terrorist gateways
through  international  maritime  transport.  A  recent  document  of  the  OECD18  summarises  the
terrorist threat to which maritime transport, including ports, is exposed.

The  IMO  Diplomatic  Conference  on  12  December  2002  adopted  amendments  to  the  SOLAS
Convention and the related ISPS-Code on a security regime for international maritime shipping
and the ship/port interface.

The results of the IMO Diplomatic Conference are in the process of being incorporated into EU
legislation  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  to  ensure  a  uniform  application.  Parts  of  the  non-
mandatory elements of the ISPS Code will be made mandatory and there will be fine-tuning of
the IMO texts to address the specific conditions in the EU.

However, the scope of IMO rules limits the field of application to international shipping and the
ship/port  interface.  Although  already  a  significant  breakthrough,  this  limited  scope  leaves  an
unwanted void in security since the areas beyond the ship/port interface fall outside the coverage.
This is the inevitable consequence of the way these new security rules were adopted: they were
tailored  as  amendments  to  an  existing  international  convention.  It  was  equally  recognised  that
considerable  additional  work  was  required  to  address  the  issue  of  port  security  beyond  the
ship/port  interface.  A  joint  IMO/ILO  working  group  is  working  on  detailed  guidance  on  port
security; it may take time to develop. Elsewhere this temporary void is already being addressed.
This  is  done  by  applying  all  new  IMO  rules  to  the  entire  port  (US  approach),  or  by  adopting
additional  security  measures  with  a  direct  or  indirect  impact  on  ports  (national  port  security
measures  in  EU  Member  States,  the  US  rules  like  the  Container  Security  Initiative-CSI,
Container Trade Partnership-CTPAT, 24 hour advance notification rule, etc.).

In view of the above, a community directive on port security is considered necessary to:

– 

– 

– 

– 

17

18

provide the Member States with a uniform framework to enhance security in ports;

establish a uniform approach to integrate key maritime and non-maritime port areas in
an overarching port security framework;

support Member States in developing secure ports both towards maritime transport and
towards landside population, as well as vis-à-vis the marine and land environment;

ensure uniform conditions throughout the European Union for access to and control of
markets and activities associated with the port sector.

For further information, see separate explanatory note.
OECD,  Directorate  for  Science,  Technology  and  Industry,  Maritime  Transport  Committee,  Security  in
Maritime Transport: Risk Factors and Economic Impact, July 2003.

26

 
                                                
5.1.2 Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluation

Between February and December 2002 the Member States and the Commission participated in
three IMO technical sessions and a diplomatic conference devoted to urgent consideration of the
security of international maritime transport. The community considers that this requires priority
action.

During this lead period it became clear that security does not start or end in the vicinity of the
ship  (the  ship/port  interface).  For  optimal  effectiveness,  transport  security  should  ultimately
cover the entire supply chain from seller to purchaser. Within this supply chain port security has
been  repeatedly  emphasised  as  being  critical  to  overall  transport  security  (Commission
communication  on  enhancing  maritime  transport  security,  WCO,  US  Maritime  Security  Bill,
CTPAT). Most notably:

– 

– 

Without  security  in  the  port  area  adjacent  to  the  ship/port  interface,  the  risk  of
‘contamination’ of the secured port facility is considered to be high. Therefore, one can
consider  that  saving  on  costs  for  basic  preventive  port  security  measures  would  be
strongly outweighed by the cost of having to add costly additional security checks at the
ship/port interface.

Industry  has  indicated  on  several  occasions  that  it  will  have  invested  considerable
amounts  by  July  2004  in  the  development  of  ship  and  port  facility  security  measures.
Consequently  there  is  a  wish  to  eliminate  clear  security  voids  (such  as  insufficient  or
non-existing  port  security  measures)  which  could  lessen  the  effectiveness  of  these
investments. In view of the geographic mix of facilities and non ship/shore areas within
ports, voids in general  port  security  could  indeed pose problems  to  the security of the
ship/port interfaces.

In  other  parts  of  the  world  satisfactory  port  security  is  already  considered  to  be  part  of  the
requirements for securing maritime trade. Satisfactory levels of port security may, in addition to
compliance  with  the  ISPS  Code,  develop  into  preconditions  for  unrestricted  trade  flows  from
these ports.

Irrespective  of  the  negative  signal  the  EU  would  send  out  if  it  were  to  neglect  its  own  ports’
security  beyond  the  ship/port  interface,  the  costs  of  ‘doing  nothing’  may  well,  in  case  of  a
successful terrorist attack, rise to alarming levels. Firstly, the preservation of human lives is an
aim  in  itself.  Secondly,  the  terrorist  threat  and  the  resulting  fear  directly  impacts  on  the
efficiency  of  the  global  economy.  Thirdly,  in  case  of  a  successful  attack  it  is  likely  that,  as  a
reaction, many ports could be closed temporarily to reassess their security level and  the  actual
threat.  The  port  in  which  an  attack  was  carried  out  may  obviously  incur  enormous  damage  to
installations and trade image.

The economic costs strictu senso can be illustrated by a few examples given by the OECD:19

A  labour  dispute  in  US  western  coast  ports  resulted  in  a  10  day  lock  out  in  these  ports.  A
moderate  estimate  calculated  the  resulting  costs  at  US$  467  million.Shippers  indicated  their
intent to change their entire logistic chains, with rocketing costs, had the lock out continued.

19

OECD, op.cit.

27

 
                                                
– 

– 

US  average  stock  levels  have  been  reduced  over  the  1990s  from  1.57  months  to  1.36
months  in  2001.  In  2002  average  stocks  rose  to  1.43  months.  This  evolution,  due  to
uncertainty  and  fear  for  supply  stability,  has  eliminated  the  progress  of  half  a  decade
and represents for the US an extra capital cost of US$ 50-80 bn.20

A full scale simulation of container bombs entering the US, partly caught in port, partly
slipping through in the logistic chain, resulted in a total estimated cost of US$ 58 bn.21
It would also take up to 92 days before port backlogs were completely eliminated. This
estimate  takes  only  into  account  costs  arising  in  the  US,  and  therefore  neglects  the
resulting costs elsewhere.

A  uniform  port  security  framework  in  all  EU  ports  will  reduce  security  related  inter-port
competition  within  EU  boundaries.  As  regards  third  countries,  it  will  remove  any  incentive  to
compare  EU ports with regard to their respective  security.  Hence  a  port  security  directive  will
minimise or eliminate undesirable competitive distortions.

Finally,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  additional  labour  can  be  expected.  The  bulk  of  this
additional labour will be related to implementing the ISPS Code. However also in port security,
new labour opportunities might arise.

5.1.3 Measures taken following ex post evaluation

None/Not applicable.

5.2

Actions envisaged and budget intervention arrangements

The directive requires each Member State to identify the boundaries of the ports subject to the
directive. Member States should outline a security policy for these areas and ensure that security
assessments  and  appropriate  security  plans  are  established  and  updated.  The  introduction  and
implementation of each national port’s security policy must be monitored by  a national central
authority. For the purposes of reaching a desired common level of implementation, the directive
includes priority issues in its Annex for the port security assessment and the port security plan.

As the overall scheme must be consistent to ensure its reliability at EU level the Commission is
called on to carry out inspections to verify implementation of the national plans adopted pursuant
to this directive.

5.3

Methods of implementation

Direct management by the Commission using regular or outside staff.

Since any compliance monitoring would begin only 18 months after the compliance monitoring
carried  out  under  the  maritime  security  regulation,  and  given  the  inevitable  link  between  the
monitoring of maritime security and of port security, it is proposed to use the expertise gained by
the compliance monitors to carry out the monitoring under this Directive.

However, in order to introduce into the monitoring process the necessary element of specific port
security expertise, eight additional port security inspectors would be required (see 7.1 below).

20

21

The  Friction  Economy,  in:  Fortune,  February  2003;  Bowserbox,  D  and  Closs,  D.,  Supply  Chain
Sustainability and Cost in the New War Economy, in: Traffic World, April 2002.
Conference Board, Booz Allen Hamilton, October 2002.

28

 
                                                
6.

6.1

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Total financial impact on Part B (over the entire programming period)

The  cost  of  this  scheme  is  calculated  by  adding  up  the  individual  costs  on  an  annual  basis,
starting  in  2006,  when  the  proposed  Community  action  is  estimated  to  have  fully  become
operational.

6.1.1 Financial intervention

The  directive  provides  for  a  monitoring  and  inspection  exercise  to  be  carried  out  by  the
Commission. It is expected that, as from 2006, approximately 84 inspection visits will be carried
out  each  year  (5  days  per  port  *  €1500).  Monitoring  and  inspection  will  be  accompanied  by
meetings of experts. A study on implementation and possible future initiatives should be carried
out in 2008 (i.e. two years after the directive has become operational).

The Commission also intends to commission a study to evaluate the impact and the effectiveness
of the measures adopted. Such a study should be conducted in 2008, and then every three years.
Such  regular  evaluation  is  necessary  to  enable  the  Commission  to  propose,  via  the  committee
procedure, any adjustments to the proposed system which might prove necessary. The unit cost
of each study is estimated at €150 000.

Inspection visits: for the calculation of the number of inspection visits, see 7.1. In the first year
an additional cost for on-site working equipment (laptop PCs) is expected.

6.1.1

Financial intervention

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Total

2009 and
subsequen
t years

(a) Studies

(b) Meetings of experts

(c) Inspection visits

(d) Working equipment

0

0

0

0

TOTAL 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.150

Every 

3

0.150

years

0

0

0

0.126

0.126

0.126

0.126

0.504

0.016

0

0

Upon

0.016

depreciation

0.142

0.126

0.276

0.126

0.654

 (If necessary, explain the method of calculation.)

29

 
6.1.2

Technical  and  administrative  assistance,  support  expenditure  and  IT  expenditure
(commitment appropriations)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Total

2009
and
subsequ
ent
years

(a) none

(b) none

0

TOTAL 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 (If necessary, explain the method of calculation.)

7.

7.1

IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

Impact on human resources

This directive requires compliance monitoring. It is proposed that this be based on the experience
gained from similar monitoring carried out pursuant to the maritime security regulation.

In order to identify the required number of Inspectors six parameters are relevant:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Inspections should be performed by two inspectors together;

Compliance  monitoring  should  include  the  inspection  of  national  security  monitoring
systems  at  a  rate  of  one  third  per  annum.  Since  ports  are  operated  in  a  maximum  of
20 Member  States  (present  and  accession  countries),  the  present  estimate  is  foreseen
7 inspections per year;

A  study  on  port  security  measures  in  EU  ports  identifies  769  ports  in  the  EU  and
Accession  countries,  based  upon  Lloyds  Fairplay  data.  Compliance  monitoring  of  the
application of this directive should be performed by means of spot checks in ports at a
rate of 10% p.a. of all identified ports;

Compliance  monitoring,  preparation,  travel  and  follow-up  is  expected  to  represent  a
workload of 1 working week per inspection;

Inspectors will perform their inspections every second week

This results in about 20 inspections per year per inspector (assuming 40 working weeks a year).
For  inspections,  teams  of  2  inspectors  are  required  thus  resulting  in  2  inspectors  performing
20 inspections  per  annum.  10%  of  769  ports  is  about  77  ports  a  year.  1/3rd  of  all  national
security  systems  represents  7  inspections  a  year;  bringing  the  total  to  at  least  84  inspections  a
year. As a consequence 8 inspectors are required for these inspections. As working equipment,
8 laptops are required, at a unit price of € 2000.

One administrator will be in charge of the entire process.

30

 
Staff to be assigned to management of the
action using existing and/or additional
resources

Description of tasks deriving from the
action

Types of post

Number of
permanent posts

Number of
temporary posts22

Total

A

B

C

1

0

0

1

Officials 
temporary staff

or

Total

8

0

0

8

9

Principal administrator (existing)

Administrator

Security inspectors

Administrator’s assistant

Secretaries of the inspectorate

7.2

Overall financial impact of human resources

Type of human resources

Amount (€)

Method of calculation *

Officials

Temporary staff

108 000

864 000

Average  cost  of  Commission  officials,
overheads
including 
(€108 000/year/official)

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

Total

972 000

22

These figures are based on the assumption that the European Maritime Safety Agency has sufficient staff to
perform the tasks assigned to it by Article 10(7) of the proposal for a Regulation.

31

 
                                                
7.3

Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

Committee  of  experts:  one-day  meetings  with  experts  from  the  sector  concerned  to  enable  the
Commission to draw up the adaptations to the rules provided for in Article 15 of the proposal for
a Directive. It is expected that in the first year three meetings would be required and afterwards
one meeting a year should suffice.

Budget line

(number and heading)

Overall allocation

Amount (€)

Method of calculation

3  meetings  of  the  maritime  security
representatives  committee  in  the  first
year

in 

subsequent 

1  meeting 
years
Reimbursement  of  national  experts’
travel  expenses,  estimated  at  25  times
an average of €750/expert

01  02  11  03  –  Compulsory  committees  (COSS
27C730)(1)

56 250 (first year)

18 750 (subsequent)

Total

56 250 (first
year)18 750
(subsequent)

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

(1) Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.

I.

Annual total (7.2 + 7.3)

II.

III.

Duration of action

Total cost of action (I x II)

€ 1 028 250
(first year)

€ 990 750

(subsequent
years)

Indefinite

Indefinite

The needs in terms of human and administrative resources will be covered within the allocation
granted to the managing DG in the framework of the annual allocation procedure.

32

 
8.

8.1

FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

Follow-up arrangements

Follow-up  arrangements  will  be  adopted  involving  inspections  in  the  Member  States  and
periodic impact studies.

8.2

Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation

The  Commission  intends  to  launch  a  study  to  evaluate  the  impact  and  the  effectiveness  of  the
measures adopted. Such a study should be conducted in year N+2, and then every three years.

Six  months  after  the  date  of  application  of  the  proposed  directive,  the  Commission,  in
cooperation with the national authorities, will start a series of inspections to verify the means of
monitoring  implementation  of  the  national  plans  adopted  pursuant  to  the  directive.  These
inspections  will  take  account  of  the  data  supplied  by  the  national  authorities,  including  the
monitoring reports.

9.

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

The  activities  of  the  commission’s  maritime  security  inspectors  will  be  subject  to  the
commission’s normal audit procedures.

33

 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM

THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES( SMEs)

TITLE OF PROPOSAL

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhancing port security

DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER

COM (2003) XXXX

THE PROPOSAL

1.

Taking  account  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  why  is  Community  legislation
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

Community legislation has already been developed for ship and port facility security,
which is intended to be complemented by this Directive on port security. Hence, also
the  measures  covered  by  this  proposal  must  be  applied  consistently  throughout  the
Community in order not to offset the EU wide consistency of the measures it intends
to complement. Moreover, uniform application avoids security related distortions of
competition.

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS

2.

Who will be affected by the proposal?

–  Which business sectors?

Shippers, agents, port managers, companies set up within the port boundaries.

–  What sizes of company (share of small and medium-sized businesses)?

All sizes of company active in these sectors.

– 

Are  there  particular  geographical  areas  of  the  Community  where  these
businesses are found?

No,  thirteen  Member  States  are  concerned  as  port  states.  Upon  accession  of  the
accession countries this further increases to 20.

3.

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

Where  not  already  in  place,  introduce  appropriate  security  procedures  and,  where
appropriate,  acquire  the  necessary  equipment.  Ensure  that  staff  receive  training  on
security requirements. Additional staff may be needed.

34

 
4.

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have:

– 

on employment?

Jobs  may  be  created  to  perform  port  related  security  tasks,  and  probably  also  at
specialised security firms.

– 

on investment and the creation of new businesses?

Companies  active  in  the  port  may  have  to  acquire  security  equipment.  Specialised
security firms may expand.

– 

on the competitiveness of businesses?

None, in that all will be subject to the same requirements.

5.

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small
and medium-sized enterprises (reduced or different requirements, etc.)?

Not  directly,  but  requirements  are  based  upon  a  case  by  case  assessment  and  will
therefore have optimal adaptation to specific concern, within the limits of a minimal
security threshold.

CONSULTATION

6.

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their
main views.

– 

– 

The Commission has consulted all Member States and candidate countries, and
all interested industry representatives. The replies clearly show that the sector
is  wide
recognises 
acknowledgement  for  a  Community  approach,  provided  that  the  measures
sufficiently  take  into  account  the  various  structures  of  and  in  ports  (on
organisational level, in terms of risk level).

security  measures.  There 

the  need 

for  port 

All European organisations representing this sector participated as observers in
the  work  of  the  IMO  on  maritime  security.  Employers,  employees  and
government representatives are participating in the work of the joint IMO-ILO
Working Group developing detailed guidance for port security.

The  Commission  has  commissioned  a  study  of  the  impact  of  these  measures.  The
consultant associated the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), the Federation of
European  Private  Port  Operators  (FEPORT)  and  the  European  Community
Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) with its work.

While  the  industry  has  to  invest  in  developing  ship  and  port  facility  security
measures, there is concern of eliminating clear security voids (such as minor or non-
existing port security measures) which may render these investments idle. In view of
the  geographic  mix  of  facilities  and  non  ship/shore  areas  security  voids  in  general
port security may indeed pose problems to the security of the ship/port interfaces.

35