Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system {SEC(2005) 1514}
Date: 2005-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: information system, maritime safety, maritime transport, pollution from ships, transport accident, transport of dangerous goods

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.11.2005 
COM(2005) 589 final 

2005/0239 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and 
information system 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2005) 1514} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1) 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

For more than ten years the EU has been pursuing a proactive maritime safety policy 
aimed  at  improving  ship  safety,  safeguarding  human  life  at  sea  and  protecting  the 
marine  environment.  However,  despite  the  efforts  of  all  concerned  in  the  maritime 
transport chain  the  risk  of maritime accidents  cannot  be  ruled  out  entirely.  What  is 
more,  the  consequences  of  accidents  at  sea  very  often  extend  beyond  the  wrecked 
ship itself and affect all coastal activities. Once the fear of seafarers alone, maritime 
accidents  involving  pollution  now  turn  into  national  or  even  international 
emergencies.  The  “prevention”  component  of  the  EU’s  maritime  safety  policy 
therefore  had  to  be  supplemented  with  a  component  permitting  the  operational 
management of maritime risk at Community level. 

the  European  Parliament  and  of 

This  was  the  Commission’s  thinking  in  presenting  the  text  which  became 
the  Council 
Directive 2002/59/EC  of 
of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information 
system.  This  Directive  requires  all  the  ship  monitoring  tools  now  available  to  be 
properly organised and coordinated and sets up a system of deployment of resources 
and coordination between national authorities, to enable Member States to take better 
preventive action or respond better to dangerous situations. 

if 

the  measures 

legislation  by 
However, 
Directive 2002/59/EC are to remain effective a very close watch needs to be kept on 
them  to  ensure  that  they  keep  abreast  of  operational  and  technical  advances  in  the 
maritime world, especially in the area of ship identification and monitoring systems 
and satellite technology. 

into  Community 

introduced 

it  has  become  clear 

Accordingly, in the Commission’s numerous exchanges with the Member States on 
these  matters 
the  provisions  of 
Directive 2002/59/EC will have to be amended. In particular this is to take account of 
the  good  results  obtained  by  novel  equipment  such  as  automatic  identification 
systems  or  to  ensure  cohesion  between  national  policies,  for  example  on  plans  for 
accommodating ships in distress in places of refuge. 

some  of 

that 

•  General background 

The time limit for implementing national measures pursuant to Directive 2002/59/EC 
was  5 February  2004,  but  in  view  of  the  particular  importance  of  some  of  the 
Directive’s provisions the Member States and the Commission worked together from 
the time of its adoption in June 2002 to ensure that it was implemented in good time. 

Thus, for example, with regard to the “places of refuge” provided for in Article 20 of 
the  Directive  the  series  of  inspection  visits  and  meetings  organised  by  the 
Commission  with the assistance of  the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) 
highlighted  common  criteria  and  principles  for  harmonised  and  effective 
implementation of the Directive. Similarly, the proposal to introduce an obligation to 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
carry  an  automatic  identification  system  (AIS)  for  fishing  vessels  of  more 
than 15 metres  is  a  response  to  the  large  number  of  collisions  involving  fishing 
vessels  which  have  evidently  not  been  identified  by  commercial  vessels.  This 
measure 
International  Maritime 
Organisation (IMO),  which  several  years  ago  adopted  the  principle  of  the  carriage 
of AIS on board commercial vessels (Class A AIS) to limit the number of accidents. 

the  work  of 

into  account 

takes 

the 

In  addition,  the  proposed  measure  takes  into  consideration  current  progress  in  the 
common  fisheries  policy  with  regard  to  the  development  of  positioning  and 
communication  systems  to  assist  in  controlling  the  fishing  fleets.  It  has  to  be 
examined,  as  a  joint  effort  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  and 
with EMSA  assistance,  to  what  extent  it  will  be  possible  to  combine  AIS 
functionalities with fisheries monitoring systems, mainly with a view to reducing the 
amount  of  equipment  on  board.  Such  development  work  must  not  compromise  the 
aims  and  respective  requirements  of  each  of  these  systems,  in  particular  the  anti-
collision function for AIS and the need to make possible the secure and confidential 
transmission of fisheries monitoring information. 

The installation by the Member States concerned of mechanisms making it possible 
to  inform  seafarers  as  to  the  ice  conditions  and  the  resulting  sailing  conditions 
should, incidentally, help to prevent accidents in a particularly hostile environment. 

Finally,  under  the  provisions  of  Directive  2002/59/EC  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  started,  in  2002,  a  project  to  set  up  a  platform  for  data  exchange 
between  the  maritime  administrations  of  the  Union,  with  the  name  of  SafeSeaNet. 
Today  this  system,  managed  by  EMSA  since  October  2004,  has  to  be  established 
expressly as a Community reference system in order to ensure it is fully utilised and 
legally secure. 

•  Provisions in force in the field covered by the proposal 

Directive  2002/59/EC  of  27  June  2002  establishing  a  Community  vessel  traffic 
monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC. 

•  Coherence with other policies and objectives of the Union 

The  enhancement  of  ship  monitoring  by  means  of  SafeSeaNet,  the  laying  down  of 
measures  concerning  navigation  in  ice  conditions  and  the  implementation  of  a 
stronger  framework  for  the  accommodation  of  ships  in  distress  in  places  of  refuge 
will  have  a  direct  environmental  impact  by  reducing  the  risks  of  accidents  and 
pollution  and  by  improving  the  action  taken  by  the  operational  authorities  in  the 
event of pollution or a pollution risk.  

The measure will also bring economic benefits as a result of the reduced accident and 
pollution  risks.  From  the  social  angle,  having  AIS  on  board  fishing  vessels  will 
reduce the risks of accidents and loss of human lives in the fishing industry. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2) 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of the stakeholders 

Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents 

In May 2004 and February 2005 the Commission held a double round of consultative 
meetings with representatives of the Member States and the maritime industry on the 
basis of a detailed list of questions on the amendments envisaged. 

Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account 

These consultations and the impact studies carried out confirmed the need to amend 
Directive  2002/59/EC  in  order  to  flesh  out  in  more  detail  how  it  is  to  be 
implemented.  In  particular  they  committed  the  Commission  to  take  into  account 
developments in international legislation and progress made at the Community level. 
The  parties  consulted  also  wanted  to  see  new  safe  navigation  measures  integrated 
into  the  Directive,  such  as  the  establishment  of  a  regulatory  framework  for 
equipment used for navigation in ice conditions. 

As regards the carriage of AIS on board fishing vessels, the national administrations 
showed an interest in the positive effects which AIS on fishing vessels might have on 
safe navigation but had reservations as to the scope of the measure and in particular 
the  categories  of  vessels  concerned.  The  Commission  had  suggested  applying  the 
measure to fishing vessels of over 12 metres, raised to 15 metres in the proposal in 
order  especially  to  take  account  of  the  thresholds  applied  in  the  common  fisheries 
policy context. 

As  regards  the  places  of  refuge  issue  especially,  with  the  help  of  EMSA  the 
Commission  arranged  three  meetings  with  the  Member  States  and  a  series  of 
fact-finding  missions  to  national  administrations.  This  work  showed  how  useful  it 
would be to clarify what the obligations are regarding places of refuge. The shipping 
industry  stressed  in  particular  the  need  to  improve  the  operational  procedures 
designed  to  respond  effectively  to  emergency  situations  in  which  ships  may  find 
themselves  and  the  importance  of  issues  concerning  guarantees  for  any  economic 
damage related to the accommodation of ships. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

Scientific/expertise domains concerned 

Maritime  safety,  vessel  traffic  monitoring,  anti-collision  devices  and  navigation  in 
ice conditions. 

Methodology used 

With regard to this issue, the Commission’s proposal was prepared on the basis of: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

the technical analysis supplied following the 2 expert groups and the workshop 
organised  by  the  Commission  and  EMSA  for  the  development  of  the 
SafeSeaNet system; 

the  study  report  on  liability  and  compensation  in  connection  with  the 
accommodation  of  ships  in  places  of  refuge  ordered  by  EMSA  from  Oslo 
University at the Commission’s request. 

Main organisations/experts consulted 

–  Work  undertaken  by  the  European  Parliament’s  Temporary  Committee  on 
Improving Safety at Sea following the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker in 2002 
(conclusions of the MARE Committee). 

– 

Results of the evaluation exercise on places of refuge conducted in the national 
administrations by the Commission with the help of EMSA; 

–  Work  undertaken  by  the  IMO  (in  particular  the  resolutions  adopted  by  that 

organisation on the "places of refuge" issue). 

Summary of advice received and used 

According to the opinions received, the following problems justify the amendments 
made to the Directive: 

The Directive does not adequately reflect the technological developments that have 
taken  place  since  its  adoption.  Since  its  implementation,  the  description  of  the 
system,  the  detailed  responsibilities  of  the  Member  States  and  the  technicalities  of 
data exchange via the network have been defined but have not been incorporated in 
the Directive in force. 

Fishing is one of the most dangerous activities in the maritime world, as can be seen 
from the many accidents in the industry. One of the main causes of collisions with 
other  vessels  stems  from  poor  positioning  and  identification  of  fishing  vessels,  in 
particular by the commercial vessels crossing their path. 

Directive 2002/59/EC introduced provisions requiring the Member States to draw up 
plans  to  accommodate  ships  in  distress  in  places  of  refuge.  The  experience  gained 
with  implementing  the  Directive  has  revealed  differences  of  understanding  and 
implementation  by  the  Member  States  as  regards  the  content  of  the  plans  and  the 
responsibilities of the authorities concerned, which have to be remedied by making 
the existing provisions clearer and more focused. 

Certain sea areas of the European Union, in particular the Baltic Sea, are ice-covered 
for  several  winter  months,  entailing  greater  risks  of  accidents  and  pollution  and 
potentially  disastrous  consequences  for  the  environment.  The  trend  observed  for  a 
number  of  years,  of  a  steady  increase  in  the  transport  of  oil  products  in  the  Baltic, 
calls for more stringent protection and surveillance measures. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Means used to make the expert advice publicly available 

The  data  gathered  and  the  detailed  conclusions  of  the  study  are  contained  in  the 
annexed document SEC .../..., which is summarised below: 

•  Impact analysis 

Option 1 – Do nothing at this stage: this option would allow fundamental differences 
of  interpretation  to  persist  with  regard  to  certain  provisions  of  the  Directive,  in 
particular as regards the extent of Member States’ obligations concerning places of 
refuge. 

Option 2 – Let the Member States act through regional cooperation bodies (such as 
Helcom for the Baltic or the Bonn Agreement for the North Sea). This would mean 
giving  up  the  principle  of  harmonised  application  of  the  Directive  between  the 
different maritime regions of the European Union. For some measures this solution 
would  create  appreciable  differences  of 
treatment  between  ships  without 
justification. 

Option  3  –  Completely  recast  the  Directive  to  take  into  account  the  results  of  the 
work  done  to  set  up  the  Community  maritime  safety  information  exchange  system 
SafeSeaNet,  and  to  merge  in  particular  certain  report  messages.  However, 
considering  the  state  of  progress  with  transposing  Directive  2002/59/EC  and  the 
opinion of most of the Member States, such a drastic review seems premature at this 
stage. 

Option 4 – Carry out a specifically targeted amendment of the Directive. 

After  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  situation  taking  into  account  the  impact  of  the 
proposed  measures  and  in  particular  the  urgent  need  for  harmonisation  of  the 
Member  States’  different  “places  of  refuge”  procedures,  a  targeted  amendment  of 
Directive  2002/59/EC  would  seem  to  be  the  best  way  to  make  sure  that  it  is 
implemented properly. 

This impact analysis is part of the Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme 
and 
website: 
on 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact/index_en.htm. 

Commission’s 

available 

Internet 

the 

is 

3) 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

This amendment is intended to: 

– 

– 

incorporate in Directive 2002/59/EC additional measures for better ship safety 
and environmental protection; 

harmonise  the  implementation  of  the  “places  of  refuge”  plans  to  ensure  they 
are  applied  uniformly  in  the  different  Member  States,  which  will  help  in 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

preventing serious pollution. There is a need, in particular, to clarify the rules 
for applying these principles; 

integrate  in  the  Directive  the  principles  defined  in  the  work  done  by  the 
Member States and the Commission to set up the Community maritime safety 
information exchange system SafeSeaNet. In particular, the principles have to 
be established on the one hand for the systematic exchange of maritime safety 
information  at  Community  level  via  the  SafeSeaNet  system  and  on  the  other 
hand  for  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  on  monitoring  and 
developing  the  system.  All  national  systems  will  have  to  be  compatible  with 
SafeSeaNet  and  any  information  of  Community  interest  will  have  to  be 
presented in a harmonised manner; 

legal 

the  Community 

prepare 
technological 
developments,  especially  the  space  applications  such  as  ship  monitoring 
beacons, imaging systems or Galileo. This progress has to make it possible to 
extend surveillance of maritime traffic into European waters and, in particular, 
provide better coverage of the open sea. 

framework 

future 

for 

•  Legal basis 

Article 80(2) of the Treaty. 

•  The principle of subsidiarity 

The subsidiarity principle applies since the proposal does not affect an area of sole 
Community competence. 

The  proposal’s  objectives  cannot  be  attained  satisfactorily  by  Member  State  action 
for the following reasons: 

– 

– 

the  proposed  action  seeks  to  bolster  the  Community  vessel  traffic  monitoring 
system  with  a  scheme  requiring  close  cooperation  on  the  exchange  of 
information, in particular on the nature of ships’ cargoes or the management of 
places of refuge; 

insufficient  coordination  and  piecemeal  management  of  ship  information 
increase the risks of accidents and pollution. To allow differences to persist in 
the  implementation  of  "places  of  refuge"  plans  would  be  detrimental  to  the 
safety of human life at sea or the protection of the environment. 

The  proposal’s  objectives  can  be  best  achieved  by  Community  action  for  the 
following reasons: 

– 

– 

the  specific  function  of  the  proposed  measures  is  to  allow  Member  States 
access  to  accurate  knowledge  of  the  vessels  in  the  waters  under  their 
jurisdiction,  enabling  them  to  take  more  effective  action  to  prevent  the 
potential risks where necessary. Sharing the information will help improve the 
quality of the data and make processing easier; 

implementing the “places of refuge” plans will make a decisive contribution to 
raising the present level of maritime safety in the European Union; 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

reducing  the  number  of  collisions  involving  fishing  vessels,  which  are  not 
currently required to be fitted with an AIS, will make possible better protection 
of fishermen; 

the new harmonised rules for winter navigation in the Baltic are necessary for 
reducing the very high accident risk in that area; 

improving  the  exchange  of  information  on  dangerous  goods  being  carried  by 
ships  will  enable  all  Member  States  to  improve  their  ability  to  anticipate  and 
prevent risks. 

The principle of subsidiarity is maintained since the proposal complements existing 
Community measures so as to guarantee that they are put into effect in a harmonised 
way. 

The proposal is therefore consistent with the subsidiarity principle. 

•  The principle of proportionality 

The  proposal  complies  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  for  the  following 
reasons: 

– 

– 

in fleshing out the existing provisions in more detail the proposal is in line with 
the  proportionality  principle.  Accordingly,  the  Member  States  have  for  the 
most  part  already  committed  the  resources  and  expenditure  necessary  for 
implementing  measures  under  Directive  2002/59/EC  or 
international 
instruments which they have themselves ratified within the IMO; 

the  proposal  does  not  involve  financial  and/or  administrative  burdens  for 
economic  operators  (e.g.  certain  adaptations  will  be  necessary  for  certain 
vessels  sailing  in  the  Baltic  in  winter).  At  the  level  of  the  national 
administrations,  the  infrastructure  necessary  for  implementing  the  new 
measures is (or should be) already in place due to the existing legislation. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument(s): directive. 

Other instruments would not have been appropriate for the following reasons: 

– 

the proposal is for an amendment to an existing directive. 

4) 

BUDGETARY IMPACT 

The proposal has no implications for the Community budget. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
5) 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

•  Simulation, pilot phase and transition period 

The proposal has been, or will be, the subject of a transition period. 

•  Review/revision/sunset clause 

The proposal includes a revision clause. 

•  Correlation table 

The  Member  States  are  required  to  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of 
national  provisions  transposing  the  Directive  as  well  as  a  correlation  table  between 
those provisions and this Directive. 

•  European Economic Area 

This  draft  instrument  concerns  an  area  covered  by  the  EEA  Agreement  and  must 
therefore be extended to the European Economic Area. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2005/0239 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

of […] 

amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and 
information system 

(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 Commission1, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee2, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions3, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty4, 

Whereas: 

traffic  monitoring  and 

(1)  With the adoption of Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community 
vessel 
repealing  Council 
information 
Directive 93/75/EEC5,  the  European  Union  reinforced  its  capacity  for  preventing 
situations posing a threat to the safety of human life at sea and the  protection of  the 
marine environment. 

system  and 

(2) 

Under  this  Directive  Member  States,  as  coastal  States,  should  be  able  to  exchange 
information  which  they  gather  in  the  course  of  maritime  traffic  monitoring  missions 
which  they  carry  out  in  their  areas  of  competence.  The  Community  information 
exchange  system  SafeSeaNet,  developed  by  the  Commission  in  agreement  with  the 
Member States, comprises, on the one hand, a data exchange network and, on the other 
hand,  a  standardisation  of  the  main  information  available  on  ships  and  their  cargo 
(advance  notice  and  reporting).  It  thus  makes  it  possible  to  locate  at  source  and 
communicate  to  any  authority  accurate  and  up-to-date  information  on  ships  in 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

European waters, their movements and their dangerous or polluting cargoes, as well as 
marine incidents. 

Accordingly, in order to guarantee operational use of the information gathered in this 
way,  it  is  essential  that  the  infrastructure  necessary  for  the  data  collection  and 
exchange referred to in this Directive and implemented by the national administrations 
be integrated into the Community information exchange system SafeSeaNet. 

Of  the  information  notified  and  exchanged  pursuant  to  Directive  2002/59/EC,  that 
concerning the precise characteristics of dangerous or polluting goods carried by sea is 
particularly important. Accordingly, and in the light of recent maritime accidents, the 
coastal  authorities  should  be  allowed  easier  access  to  the  characteristics  of  the 
hydrocarbons  being  carried  by  sea,  an  essential  factor  in  choosing  the  most  suitable 
control  techniques,  and,  in  an  emergency,  provided  with  a  direct  link  with  those 
operators who have the best knowledge of the goods being carried. 

The  automatic  ship  identification  systems  (AIS  –  Automatic  Identification  System) 
referred  to  in  the  SOLAS  Convention  make  it  possible  not  only  to  improve  the 
possibilities  of  monitoring  these  ships  but  above  all  to  make  them  safer  in  close 
navigation situations. They have accordingly been integrated into the enacting terms of 
Directive  2002/59/EC.  Considering  the  large  number  of  collisions  involving  fishing 
vessels that have clearly not been seen by merchant ships or which have not seen the 
merchant ships around them, extension of this measure to include fishing vessels with 
a length of more than 15 metres is very much to be desired. 

It  would  be  useful  to  study  what  synergies  might  be  possible  between  AIS  and  the 
positioning and communication systems used in the context of the common fisheries 
policy,  such  as  the  satellite-based  vessel  monitoring  system  (VMS).  Investigation  of 
the  possibilities  of  integrating  these  systems  should  take  account  of  the  needs  and 
requirements  of  controlling  fishing  fleets,  particularly  as  regards  the  security  and 
confidentiality of the data transmitted. 

Article 16 of Directive 2002/59/EC provides that Member States are to adopt special 
measures  in  respect  of  ships  posing  a  potential  hazard  due  to  their  behaviour  or 
condition. It therefore seems desirable to add to the list of these ships those which do 
not  have  satisfactory  insurance  cover  or  financial  guarantees  or  which  have  been 
reported by pilots or port authorities as having deficiencies which may prejudice their 
safe navigation or create a risk for the environment. 

In accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2002/59/EC concerning the risks posed by 
exceptionally bad weather, it seems necessary to take into account the potential danger 
to shipping from ice formation. Therefore, where a competent authority designated by 
a  Member  State  considers,  on  the  basis  of  an  ice  forecast  provided  by  a  qualified 
information  service,  that  the  sailing  conditions  are  creating  a  serious  threat  to  the 
safety of human life or of pollution, it should inform the masters of the ships present in 
its  area  of  competence  or  intending  to  enter  or  leave  the  port  or  ports  in  the  area 
concerned.  The  authority  concerned  should  be  able  to  take  any  appropriate  steps  to 
ensure the safety of human life at sea and to protect the environment. 

(9) 

Article 20 of Directive 2002/59/EC provides in particular that the Member States must 
draw  up  plans  to  accommodate,  if  the  situation  so  requires,  ships  in  distress  in  their 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ports or in any other protected place in the best possible conditions, in order to limit 
the consequences of accidents at sea. 

(10)  However, in the light of the guidelines on places of refuge adopted by the IMO after 
Directive 2002/59/EC was adopted and following the work carried out jointly by the 
Commission, the European Maritime Safety Agency and the Member States, it seems 
necessary to lay down precisely the basic provisions that the “place of refuge” plans 
must  contain  in  order  to  ensure  a  harmonised  and  effective  implementation  of  this 
measure and clarify the scope of obligations incumbent on the Member States. 

(11) 

In the event of a situation of distress at sea, that is to say, a situation that could give 
rise  to  loss  of  a  vessel  or  an  environmental  or  navigational  hazard,  a  decision  may 
have  to  be  taken  as  regards  the  accommodation  of  a  ship  in  distress  in  a  place  of 
refuge. To this end, the authority concerned should make a preliminary evaluation of 
the situation on the basis of the information contained in the relevant “place of refuge” 
plan. 

(12)  Plans  for  accommodating  ships  in  distress  should  describe  precisely  the  decision-
making chain with regard to alerting and dealing with the situations in question. The 
authorities concerned and their remits should be clearly described, as should the means 
of  communication  between  the  parties  involved.  The  applicable  procedures  should 
ensure that decisions can be taken quickly on the basis of specific maritime expertise. 
To this end, the competent authority responsible for determining the appropriate place 
of refuge for accommodating a ship in distress should offer the necessary guarantees 
of independence and be fully capable of enforcing its decisions. 

(13)  When  drawing  up  the  plans  the  Member  States  should  also  make  an  inventory  of 
potential  places of  refuge on the coast so as to allow the competent authority, in the 
event of an accident or incident at sea, to identify clearly and quickly the most suitable 
areas  for  accommodating  ships  in  distress.  Such  an  inventory  should  contain  all  the 
relevant  information  in  particular  on  the  physical,  environmental  and  economic 
characteristics  of  the  sites  under  consideration  and  the  equipment  and  installations 
available  to  make  it  easier  to  accommodate  ships  in  distress  or  deal  with  the 
consequences of an accident or pollution. 

(14) 

It is important for the list of competent authorities responsible for deciding whether to 
accommodate  a  ship  in  a  place  of  refuge,  and  the  list  of  authorities  responsible  for 
receiving  and  handling  alerts,  to  be  published  appropriately.  The  Member  States 
should  give  the  Commission  an  inventory  of  potential  places  of  refuge.  It  may  also 
prove  useful  for  the  parties  involved  in  a  maritime  assistance  operation  and  the 
authorities  of  neighbouring  Member  States  likely  to  be  affected  by  an  emergency  at 
sea to have access to appropriate information on the plans and places of refuge. 

(15)  The  accommodation  of  a  ship  in  distress  can  cause  substantial  damage  to  goods, 
persons  and  the  environment.  Accordingly,  before  taking  a  decision  the  authorities 
concerned should be able to verify whether the ship is covered by insurance or some 
other  financial  guarantee  permitting  appropriate  compensation  for  costs  and  damage 
associated with its accommodation in a place of refuge. Even where there is no such 
insurance  or  financial  guarantee,  the  authorities  should  make  an  assessment  of  the 
factors and risks attached to accommodating or refusing to accommodate the ship. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(16)  The specific function of the vessel traffic monitoring and ship’s routing measures is to 
allow Member States to obtain a true knowledge of the ships using the waters under 
their jurisdiction and thus enable them to take more effective action against potential 
risks  if  necessary.  Sharing  the  information  gathered  helps  to  improve  its  quality  and 
makes it easier to process. 

(17) 

In  accordance  with  Directive  2002/59/EC  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission 
have  made  substantial  progress  towards  harmonising  electronic  data  exchange,  in 
particular  as  regards  the  transport  of  dangerous  or  polluting  goods.  The  Community 
information exchange system SafeSeaNet, in development since 2002, should now be 
established as the reference network at Community level. 

(18)  The  progress  made  in  the  new  technologies  and  in  particular  in  their  space 
applications,  such  as  beacon-based  ship  monitoring  systems,  imaging  systems  or 
Galileo,  now  makes  it  possible  to  extend  traffic  monitoring  further  offshore  and 
thereby  to  ensure  better  coverage  of  European  waters.  Furthermore,  discussions  are 
going on now in the International Maritime Organisation on the development of long-
range  traffic  monitoring  systems.  There  will  have  to  be  full  cooperation  within  the 
Community on this work if these tools are to become an integral part of the maritime 
traffic monitoring system established by Directive 2002/59/EC. 

(19) 

(20) 

In  order  to  guarantee  the  best  possible  use,  harmonised  at  Community  level,  of  the 
information  gathered  under  this  Directive  or  other  instruments  concerning  maritime 
safety, the Commission should be able , if necessary, to process and use these data and 
disseminate them to the authorities designated by the Member States. 

In this context, the development of the “Equasis” system has shown how important it 
is to encourage a “safe seas” culture, especially in maritime transport operators. The 
Commission  should  be  able  to  contribute  to  the  dissemination,  particularly  via  this 
system,  of  any  information  of  maritime  interest  gathered  by  the  various  public  or 
private bodies involved in maritime safety. 

(21)  Regulation  (EC)  No  2099/2002  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
5 November  2002  establishing  a  Committee  on  Safe  Seas  and  the  Prevention  of 
Pollution from Ships (COSS)6 centralises the tasks of the committees set up under the 
relevant Community legislation on maritime safety, prevention of pollution from ships 
and  protection  of  living  and  working  conditions  on  board.  The  existing  committee 
should therefore be replaced by the COSS. 

(22)  The amendments to the international instruments referred to should also be taken into 

account. 

(23)  The European Maritime Safety Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 
of the European Parliament and of the Council7 should provide the necessary support 
to ensure the convergent and effective implementation of this Directive. 

6 

7 

OJ  L  324,  29.11.2002,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  amended  by  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  415/2004 
(OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 10). 
OJ  L  208,  5.8.2002,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  724/2004  (OJ  L  129, 
29.4.2004, p. 1). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(24)  Directive 2002/59/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Directive 2002/59/EC is amended as follows: 

Article 1 

(1) 

In  Article  2(2),  the  introductory  wording  “This  Directive  shall  not  apply  to:”  is 
replaced by the words “Unless otherwise provided, this Directive shall not apply to:” 

(2) 

Article 3 is amended as follows: 

(a)  Point (a) is amended as follows: 

(i) 

the  first  sentence, 

introductory  wording  “the  following 
in 
instruments” is replaced by the words “the following instruments, in their 
up-to-date version:” 

the 

(ii) 

the following indents are added: 

– 

– 

IMO  Resolution  A.949(23)  means 
International  Maritime 
Organisation Resolution 949(23) entitled “Guidelines on places of 
refuge for ships in need of assistance”; 

IMO  Resolution  A.950(23)  means 
International  Maritime 
Organisation  Resolution  950(23)  entitled  “Maritime  assistance 
services (MAS)”; 

(b)  The following point (s), (t) and (u) are added: 

“(s)  ‘SafeSeaNet’  means  the  Community  maritime  information  exchange 
system  developed  by  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  Member 
States to ensure the implementation of Community legislation; 

(t) 

‘regular service’ means a series of ship crossings operated so as to serve 
traffic  between  the  same  two  or  more  ports,  either  according  to  a 
published  timetable  or  with  crossings  so  regular  or  frequent  that  they 
constitute a recognizable systematic series; 

(u) 

‘fishing  vessel’  means  any  vessel  equipped  or  used  commercially  for 
catching fish or other living resources of the sea.” 

(3) 

The following Article 6a is inserted: 

“Article 6a 
Use of automatic identification systems (AIS) by fishing vessels 

Any fishing vessel with a length of more than 15 metres overall and sailing in waters 
under the jurisdiction of a Member State must, in accordance with the timetable set 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
out  in  Annex  II,  part  I(3),  be  fitted  with  an  AIS  which  meets  the  performance 
standards drawn up by the IMO.” 

(4) 

Article 12 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 12 
Obligations on the shipper 

No dangerous or polluting goods shall be offered for carriage or taken on board any 
ship,  irrespective  of  its  size,  in  a  port  of  a  Member  State  unless  a  declaration  has 
been delivered to the master or operator containing the following information: 

(a) 

the information listed in Annex I(2); 

(b) 

(c) 

for the substances referred to in Annex I to the Marpol Convention, the safety 
data  sheet  detailing  the  physico-chemical  characteristics  of  the  products, 
including their viscosity expressed in cSt at 50°C and their density at 15°C; 

the  emergency  numbers  of  the  shipper  or  any  other  person  or  body  in 
possession  of  information  on  the  physico-chemical  characteristics  of  the 
products and on the action to be taken in an emergency. 

It shall be the duty of the shipper to deliver to the master or operator such declaration 
and  to  ensure  that  the  shipment  offered  for  carriage  is  indeed  the  one  declared  in 
accordance with the first paragraph.” 

(5) 

In Article 16(1) the following points (d) and (e) are added: 

(d) 

(e) 

“ships  which  have  failed  to  notify  or  do  not  have  insurance  certificates  or 
financial guarantees pursuant to Directive XX/XXXX/EC [on the civil liability 
and financial guarantees of shipowners]; 

ships  which  have  been  reported  by  pilots  or  port  authorities  as  having 
deficiencies which may prejudice their safe navigation or create a risk for the 
environment.” 

(6) 

The following Article 18a is inserted: 

“Article 18a 
Measures in the event of risks posed by the presence of ice 

1.  Where  the  competent  authorities  designated  by  Member  States  consider,  in 
view of the ice conditions, that there is a serious threat to the safety of human 
life at sea or to the protection of their shipping areas or coastal zones, or of the 
shipping areas or coastal zones of other States: 

(a) 

they  shall  supply  the  master  of  a  ship  which  is  in  their  area  of 
competence,  or  intends  to  enter  or  leave  one  of  their  ports,  with 
appropriate  information  on  the  ice  conditions,  the  recommended  routes 
and the icebreaking services in their area of competence; 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(b) 

they may request that a ship which is in the area concerned, and intends 
to enter or leave a port or terminal or to leave an anchorage area, satisfy 
the strength and power requirements commensurate with the ice situation 
in the area concerned. 

2. 

The measures taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be based, as regards the data 
concerning  the  ice  conditions,  upon  ice  and  weather  forecasts  provided  by  a 
qualified meteorological information service recognised by the Member State.” 

(7) 

In Article 19(2) the following subparagraph is added: 

“To  this  end  they  shall  communicate  to  the  competent  national  authorities,  on 
request, the information referred to in Article 12.” 

(8) 

Article 20 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 20 
Accommodation of ships in distress in places of refuge 

1.  Member States shall ensure that, subject to the results of the assessment of the 
situation carried out on the basis of the plan referred to in Article 20a, ships in 
distress are admitted to a place of refuge which makes it possible to limit the 
threat posed by their situation. 

2. 

3. 

The  accommodation  of  a  ship  in  distress  in  a  place  of  refuge  shall  be  the 
subject  of  a  prior  assessment  of  the  situation  and  a  decision  taken  by  an 
independent competent authority designated by the Member State. 

The authorities referred to in paragraph 2 shall meet regularly to exchange their 
expertise  and  improve  the  measures  taken  pursuant  to  this  Article.  They  may 
meet at any time, on account of specific circumstances, at the initiative of one 
of them or of the Commission.” 

(9) 

The following Article 20a is inserted: 

“Article 20a 
Plans for the accommodation of ships in distress 

1.  Member States shall draw up plans for responding to threats presented by ships 

in distress in the waters under their jurisdiction. 

2. 

The plans referred to in paragraph 1 shall be prepared after consultation of the 
parties concerned, taking into account the relevant IMO guidelines referred to 
in Article 3(a), and shall contain at least the following: 

(a) 

the  identity  of  the  authority  or  authorities  responsible  for  receiving  and 
handling alerts; 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

the  identity  of  the  authority  responsible  for  assessing  the  situation, 
taking  a  decision  on 
selecting  a  suitable  place  of  refuge  and 
accommodating a ship in distress in the place of refuge selected; 

the inventory of potential places of refuge, recapitulating those elements 
which  are  conducive  to  speedy  assessment  and  decision-making, 
including  descriptions  of  the  environmental  and  social  factors  and  the 
natural conditions of the potential places considered; 

the  assessment procedures  for  selecting the place of refuge on the basis 
of the potential places listed on the inventory; 

the  resources  and  installations  suitable  for  assistance,  rescue  and 
combating pollution; 

any  international  coordination  and  decision-making  mechanisms  that 
may be applicable; 

the  financial  guarantee  and  liability  procedures  in  place  for  ships 
accommodated in a place of refuge. 

3.  Member States shall publish the name of the competent authority referred to in 
Article  20(2)  and  the  list  of  appropriate  contact  points  for  receiving  and 
handling  alerts.  They  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  inventory  of 
potential  places  of  refuge.  They  shall  also  communicate  the  relevant 
information  concerning  the  plans  and  places  of  refuge  to  the  neighbouring 
Member States. 

In implementing  the procedures  provided  for in the  plans for  accommodating 
ships in distress, they shall ensure that all relevant information concerning the 
plans  and  places  of  refuge  is  made  available  to  the  parties  involved  in  the 
operations, including assistance and towing companies.” 

(10) 

The following Article 20b is inserted: 

“Article 20b 
Financial guarantees 

1. 

2. 

Prior  to  accommodating  a  ship  in  distress  in  a  place  of  refuge,  the  Member 
State may request the ship’s operator, agent or master to present an insurance 
certificate  or  a  financial  guarantee,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  X  of 
Directive  XX/XXXX/EC  [on  the  civil  liability  and  financial  guarantees  of 
shipowners], covering his liability for damage caused by the ship. 

The  absence  of  an  insurance  certificate  or  financial  guarantee  shall  not 
exonerate the Member States  from the prior  assessment and decision referred 
to in Article 20.” 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(11) 

The following Article 22a is inserted: 

“Article 22a 
European maritime information exchange system SafeSeaNet 

1.  Member  States  shall  establish  maritime  information  management  systems,  at 

national or local level, to process the information referred to in this Directive. 

2. 

3. 

Communication  systems  set  up  pursuant  to  paragraph  1  must  allow  the 
information  gathered  to  be  used  operationally  and  must  satisfy,  in  particular, 
the conditions laid down in Article 14 of this Directive. 

To  guarantee  an  effective  exchange  of  the  information  referred  to  in  this 
Directive, Member States shall ensure that the national or local systems set up 
to gather, process and preserve that information can be interconnected with the 
Community maritime information exchange system SafeSeaNet.” 

(12) 

Article 23 is amended as follows: 

(a)  Paragraph (c) is replaced by the following: 

“(c)  extending  the  cover  of  the  Community  vessel  traffic  monitoring  and 
information  system,  and/or  updating  it,  with  a  view  to  enhanced 
identification and monitoring of ships, taking into account developments 
in  information  and  communication  technologies.  To  this  end,  the 
Member States and the Commission shall work together to put in place, 
where  necessary,  mandatory  reporting  systems,  mandatory  maritime 
traffic  services  and  appropriate  ship’s  routing  systems,  with  a  view  to 
submitting  them  to  the  IMO  for  approval.  They  shall  also  collaborate, 
within  the  regional  or  international  bodies  concerned,  on  developing 
long-range maritime traffic monitoring systems;” 

(b) 

the following points (e) and (f) are added: 

“(e)  ensuring the interconnection and interoperability of the national systems 
used  for  managing  the  information  referred  to  in  the  Annex,  and 
developing and updating the SafeSeaNet system; 

(f) 

studying the feasibility and determining the detailed rules for integrating 
automatic 
the  positioning  and 
communication  systems  used  in  the  context  of  the  common  fisheries 
policy.” 

identification  systems  (AIS)  with 

(13) 

The following Article 23a is inserted: 

“Article 23a 
Processing and management of maritime safety information  

1. 

The  Commission  shall  ensure,  where  necessary,  the  processing,  use  and 
dissemination  to  the  authorities  designated  by  the  Member  States,  of  the 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
information gathered under this Directive or gathered by any public or private 
bodies in the pursuance of their respective missions. 

2.  Where  appropriate,  the  Commission  shall  contribute  to  the  development  and 
operation of systems for collecting and disseminating data relating to maritime 
safety, in particular through the ‘Equasis’ system or any other equivalent public 
system.” 

(14) 

Article 28 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 28 
Committee 

1. 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Committee  on  Safe  Seas  and  the 
Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (COSS)  established  by  Article  3  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2099/2002  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council*. 

2.  Where  reference 

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

is  made 

to 

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

The Committee shall adopt its Rules of Procedure. 

3. 
___________________ 
* 

OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p. 1.” 

(15) 

In Annex II(I) the following point 3 is added: 

“3.  Fishing vessels 

Any  fishing  vessel  with  a  length  of  more than  15 metres overall is subject to 
the  carrying  requirement  laid  down  in  Article  6a  according  to  the  following 
timetable: 

– 

– 

– 

fishing  vessel  of  overall  length  24  metres  and  upwards  but  less  than 
45 metres: not later than 1 January 2008; 

fishing  vessel  of  overall  length  18  metres  and  upwards  but  less  than 
24 metres: not later than 1 January 2009; 

fishing  vessel  of  overall  length  exceeding  15  metres  but  less  than 
18 metres: not later than 1 January 2010.” 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [… ] at the latest [12 months 

Article 2 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
after the entry into force of this Directive]. They shall forthwith communicate to the 
Commission  the  text  of  those  provisions  and  a  correlation  table  between  those 
provisions and this Directive. 

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. 

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. 

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

Article 3 

Article 4 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the European Parliament 
The President 
[…] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending 
Directive  2002/59/EC  of 
the  Council 
of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information 
system. 

the  European  Parliament  and  of 

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy area: Energy and transport. 

Activities: Maritime and inland waterway transport, intermodality. 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget  lines  (operational  lines  and  related  technical  and  administrative 
assistance lines (ex-B.A. lines)) including headings: not applicable 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: not applicable 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics (add rows if necessary): not applicable 

Budget 
line 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective

Diff1/ Non-
diff2 

Comp/ 
Non-comp 

Comp/ 
Non-comp 

Diff/ Non-
diff 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

No  

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

No  

1 
2 

Differentiated appropriations. 
Non-differentiated appropriations. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial resources 

4.1.1. 

Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

Expenditure type 
Operational expenditure3 

Section 
no. 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year n 

n +1 

n + 2 

n +3 

n +4 

n+5  and 
later 

Total 

Commitment 
appropriations (CA) 
Payment appropriations 
(PA) 
Administrative expenditure within reference amount4 

8.1 

b 

0 

0 

0 

a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Technical & 
administrative 
assistance (NDA) 

8.2.4 

c 

TOTAL REFERENCE AMOUNT 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Commitment 
appropriations 

0 

a+c 

Payment appropriations 

b+c 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Human resources and 
associated expenditure 
(NDA) 
Administrative costs, 
other than human 
resources and associated 
costs, not included in 
reference amount 
(NDA) 

8.2.5 

d 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.324 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.2.6 

e 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention 

TOTAL CA including 
cost of human resources 

TOTAL PA including 
cost of human resources 

a+c
+d+
e 

b+c
+d+
e 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.324 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.324 

3 
4 
5 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
Expenditure within Article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within Chapter xx 01 other than Articles xx 01 04 and xx 01 05. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Co-financing details 

The legislative proposal does not involve co-financing by Member States 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Co-financing body 

…………………… 
TOTAL CA including 
co-financing 

f 
a+c+
d+e+f 

Year 
n 
0 
0 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

n+5 
and 
later 
0 
0 

Total 

0 
0 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with financial programming 

  Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming. 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial 
perspective. 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  interinstitutional 
agreement6 (i.e. flexibility instrument or revision of the financial perspective). 

4.1.3.  Financial impact on revenue 

  Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

(cid:133) 

Proposal has financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows: 

Note:  all  details and  observations relating to the method of calculating the effect 
on revenue should be shown in a separate annex. 

Budget 
line 

Revenue 

EUR million (to one decimal place) 

Situation following action 

[n+1] 

[n+2] 

[n+3] 

[n+4] 

[n+5]7 

[Year 
n] 

Prior 
to 
action 
[Year 
n-1] 

a)  Revenue  in  absolute 
terms 

b) Change in revenue 

 ∆ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 
7 

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. 
Additional columns should be added if necessary, i.e. if the duration of the action exceeds 6 years. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

Human resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) – see 
detail under point 8.2.1. 

No impact on personnel costs. Management by existing staff. 

Annual requirements 

Total number of human 
resources 

Year  n 
(2007*) 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

n+5  and 
later 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 puts forward the principle of regrouping and 
organising all of the vessel traffic management and monitoring tools available today.  

It integrates measures for improving the safety of ships, safeguarding human life at 
sea and protecting the marine environment, such as the introduction of transponders 
(AIS) and the creation of places of refuge.  

In order to bring the measures introduced by Directive 2002/59/EC as far as possible 
into line with the operational, legal and technical requirements, and on the basis of 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  it  seems  necessary  to  make  a  number  of 
amendments.  

5.2. 

Value-added  of  Community  involvement  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with 
other financial instruments and possible synergy 

The  purpose  of  amending  the  Directive  is  essentially  technical.  The  proposal 
therefore  consists  of  some  very  precise  measures  which,  while  not  altering  the 
general scheme of Directive 2002/59/EC, complement its regulatory framework and 
ensure that it is fully effective.  

5.3. 

Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context 
of the ABM framework 

The  proposal  for  amendment  of  Directive  2002/59/EC  establishing  a  Community 
vessel traffic monitoring and information system comprises the following measures 
(expected results): 

– 

– 

by implementing a clear and precise legal framework at the places of refuge it 
will  be  possible  to  ensure  that  the  authorities  responsible  for  designating  a 
place  of  refuge  will  be  clearly  identified  and  have  at  their  disposal  whatever 
elements  are  necessary  for  taking  their  decision,  including  an  accurate 
inventory of potential places of refuge along the coast, 

some  of  the  results  of  the  SafeSeaNet  project  for  an  electronic  system  of 
information  exchange  on  movements  of  ships  and  dangerous  cargoes  in 
Community waters will be integrated in Directive 2002/59/EC, 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

automatic  identification  systems  (AIS)  will  be  installed  on  board  fishing 
vessels with a length of more than 15 metres, 

there  will  be  specific  measures  allowing  coastal  States  to  take  appropriate 
measures  to  limit  the  potential  threat  to  navigation  from  ice  formation  in 
certain northern sea areas of the European Union. 

5.4.  Method of implementation (indicative) 

Show below the method(s)8 chosen for the implementation of the action. 

(cid:133)  Centralised management 

  Directly by the Commission 

(cid:133) 

Indirectly by delegation to: 

(cid:133) 

executive agencies, 

(cid:133) 

bodies set up by the Communities as referred to in Art. 185 of the 
Financial Regulation, 

(cid:133) 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission. 

(cid:133) 

Shared or decentralised management 

(cid:133)  with Member States 

(cid:133)  with third countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

Relevant comments: 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  draft  Directive  contains  a  provision  requiring  the  Member  States  to  notify  the 
Commission  of  any  national  implementing  measures  to  be  adopted  with  a  view  to 
transposing the Directives into national law.  

In the event of failure to notify these national implementing measures (or in the event 
of  incomplete  notification),  the  infringement  procedures  will  automatically  be 
launched in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty. 

The  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  will  contribute  to  the  monitoring  of 
implementation of the Directive by the Member States. 

8 

If  more  than  one  method  is  indicated  please  provide  additional  details  in  the  “Relevant  comments” 
section of this point. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.1. 

Evaluation: 

6.1.1.  Ex ante evaluation 

The potential impact of the action is as follows:  

“Places of refuge” measures 

The  measure  will  have  a  qualitative  rather  than  a  quantitative  impact.  It  clarifies 
existing  procedures  and  obligations  and  offers  a  more  complete  and  reliable  legal 
framework  for  decision-making  and  for  the  respective  situations  of  the  parties 
involved  in  an  emergency.  The  impact  will  therefore  be  a  positive  one  for  all  the 
parties concerned: coastal States, operators and masters of ships in distress and port 
authorities. 

Integration of SafeSeaNet  

The  proposal  takes  note  of  the  obvious  success  of  the  principle  of  cooperation 
between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  called  for  by  Article  23  of 
Directive 2002/59/EC.  It  relies  on  mass  participation  by  the  Member  States  even 
beyond the requirements of the Directive to guarantee maximum use of SafeSeaNet. 

Fitting fishing vessels with AIS 

The  measure  will  make  it  possible  to  reduce  the  number  of  collisions  involving 
fishing vessels. As with the installation of all equipment, installing AIS transponders 
on fishing vessels will entail an economic cost for the operators. The total estimated 
cost  to  the  fishing  fleet  concerned  (ships  with  a  length  of  more  than  15  metres)  is 
around EUR 23 million. 

Navigation in areas of winter ice 

The  measure  should  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  accidents  in  the  areas 
considered  (of  about  100  incidents  studied  by  a  Finnish  research  institute, 
30% involved  structural  failure  due  to  ice).  This  measure  should  not  generate  new 
costs  for  the  administrations  concerned,  since  all  Member  States  affected  by  the 
problems  presented  by  winter  ice  already  have  specialised  information  and 
emergency response services suited to their environment. 

6.1.2.  Measures taken following an intermediate/ex post evaluation (lessons learned from 

similar experiences in the past) 

Not applicable 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
6.1.3.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

The  Commission  will  prepare  a  report  based  on  the  monthly  reports  from  the 
Member States. 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES 

Not applicable 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
8.  DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost: not applicable 

Type 
of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

Year n 

Year n+1 

Year n+2 

Year n+3 

Year n+4 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Year  n+5  and 
later 
No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

(Headings of 
objectives, 
actions and 
outputs should 
be provided) 
OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE 
No. 19… 
Action 1……… 

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

Action 2……… 
- Output 1 

Sub-total 
Objective 1 
OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE 
No. 2… 
Action 1……… 
- Output 1 

Sub-total 
Objective 2 
OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE 
No. n 
Sub-total 
Objective n 
TOTAL COST 

9 

As described under Section 5.3. 

EN 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2. 

Administrative expenditure 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of post 

Staff  to  be  assigned  to  management  of  the  action  using  existing  and/or  additional 
resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

Officials or 
temporary 
staff10 
(06 01 01) 

A*/
AD 

B*, 
C*/
AST 

Staff financed11 by 
Art. XX 01 02 
Other staff financed12 
by Art. XX 01 04/05 

TOTAL 

Year n 

Year n+1 

Year n+2 

Year n+3 

Year n+4 

Year n+5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.50 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action: tasks 

Modification of the Community vessel traffic monitoring system extends Community 
competence  in  the  maritime  safety  field.  An  increase  in  human  resources  –  by  an 
estimated one or two A-grade officials – is necessary for monitoring implementation 
of the Directive properly. 

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced 
or extended 

Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n 

Posts to be requested in the next APS/APB procedure 

  Posts  to  be  redeployed  using  existing  resources  within  the  managing  service 

(internal redeployment) 

(cid:133) 

Posts required for year n although not foreseen in the APS/PDB exercise of the 
year in question 

10 
11 
12 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is included within the reference amount. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.4.  Other  administrative  expenditure  included  in  reference  amount  (XX 01 04/05  – 

Expenditure on administrative management) 

Budget line 
(number and heading) 
1. Technical and 
administrative assistance 
(including related staff costs) 
 Executive agencies13 

Other technical and 
administrative assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 
Total technical and 
administrative assistance 

Year n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year n+5 
and later 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.2.5.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference 

amount 

Type of human resources 

Officials and temporary staff 
(06 01 01) 
Staff financed by Art. XX 01 02 
(auxiliary, END, contract staff, etc.) 
(specify budget line) 
Total cost of human resources and 
associated costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year n+3  Year n+4  Year n+5 
and later 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.324 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.324 

Calculation – Officials and temporary agents 

(€108 000× 0.5 = €54 000) 

Calculation – Staff financed under Art. XX 01 02 

Not applicable 

13 

Reference  should  be  made  to  the  specific  legislative  financial  statement  for  the  executive 
agency/agencies concerned. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
8.2.6.  Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings and 
conferences 
XX 01 02 11 03 - Committees14 

XX 01 02 11 04 - Studies and consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 – Information systems 

2. Total other management expenditure 
(XX 01 02 11) 
3. Other expenditure of an administrative 
nature (specify including reference to 
budget line) 
Total administrative expenditure, other 
than human resources and associated 
costs (NOT included in reference 
amount) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* 

without impact on current missions budget 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Year 
n+5 
and 
later 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

TOTAL 

0*  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

Not applicable 

14 

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

EN 

31 

   EN