COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Refitting the EU legislation on seafarers' training and certification Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers and repealing Directive 2005/45/EC
Date: 2018-05-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: crew, maritime safety, maritime shipping, mutual recognition principle, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.5.2018 SWD(2018) 239 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Refitting the EU legislation on seafarers' training and certification  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers and repealing Directive 2005/45/EC {COM(2018) 315 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1.  CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 

3.  DATA COLLECTION AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................... 4 

4.  ENVISAGED ADJUSTMENTS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ......................................... 4 

4.1. ALIGNMENT OF DIRECTIVE 2008/106/EC TO THE LATEST AMENDMENTS TO 
THE STCW CONVENTION ................................................................................................................ 5 

4.2. REFITTING THE CENTRALISED SYSTEM FOR THE RECOGNITION AND 
REASSESSMENT OF THIRD COUNTRIES .................................................................................... 6 

4.3. MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF SEAFARERS' CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE 
MEMBER STATE .............................................................................................................................. 10 

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF TARGETED CONSULTATION ON AMENDING DIRECTIVE ON 
THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF SEAFARERS TRAINING INCLUDING THE MUTUAL 
RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATES BY MEMBER STATES ................................................... 12 

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP ON THE AMENDING DIRECTIVE ON THE 
MINIMUM LEVEL OF SEAFARERS TRAINING INCLUDING THE MUTUAL 
RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATES BY MEMBER STATES ................................................... 19 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  CONTEXT 

The vital role of seafarers in the safety operation of ships and the need for minimum standards 
for  the  education,  training  and  certification  of  the  seafarers  has  been  recognised  at 
international  level  since the  1970's.  The  International  Convention  on  Standards  of  Training, 
Certification  and  Watchkeeping  for  seafarers  (STCW  Convention)  developed  under  the 
International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO)  lays  down  minimum  requirements  for  the 
education,  training  and  certification  of  seafarers,  employed  on  board  seagoing  ships,  and 
provides  the  requirements  for  the  relevant  certification  and  the  recognition  of  the  seafarers' 
certificates issued by the Parties to the Convention.  

The  importance  of  the  human  element  for  the  safety  of  life  at  sea  and  the  protection  of  the 
marine environment has been recognised at the Union level since the beginning of the 1990's1. 
In  this  respect  around  180.000  masters  and  officers  are  trained  in  the  EU  while  another 
100.000 are working on board the EU fleet are trained outside of the Union2. 

Directive 2008/108/EC, as amended3, integrates at the EU level the international framework 
on  the  training  and  certification  of  seafarers  as  prescribed  by  the  STCW  Convention.  The 
Directive was put in place in order to attain a high level of safety through the enhancement of 
maritime  education,  training  and  certification  of  seafarers  by  setting  minimum  training  and 
education  standards.  At  the  same  time,  the  Directive  is  aiming  at  the  harmonised 
implementation  of  the  STCW  Convention  by  the  Member  States  and  their  compliance  with 
the relevant requirements, especially in light  of the absence of any international mechanism 
for the rigorous enforcement of the Convention. 

Directive  2008/106/EC  also  contains  a  common  EU  mechanism  for  the  recognition  of  the 
systems  of  maritime  education,  training  and  certification  of  seafarers  from  third  countries. 
The overall objective of this centralised procedure is to establish a level playing field between 
seafarers  trained  inside  the  Union  and  seafarers  trained  in  third  countries  by  ensuring  that 
non-Union  seafarers  are  trained  as  a  minimum  according  to  the  international  requirements 
imposed by the STCW Convention.  

1  In  its  conclusions  of  25  January  1993  on  maritime  safety  and  pollution  prevention,  the  Council  noted  the 
importance  of  the  human  element  in  the  safe  operation  of  ships.  Also,  in  its  resolution  of  8  June  1993  on  a 
Common Policy on Safe Seas, the Council set the objective of removing substandard crews and gave priority to 
action aimed at enhancing training and education by developing common standards for minimum training levels 
of key personnel. 
2  Data  published 
in  http://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/technical-reports-studies-and-plans/item/3094-
seafarer-statistics-in-the-eu-statistical-review-2015-data-stcw-is.html.It  has  to  be  noted  that  data  were  available 
only  for  2014  and  2015  since  the  data  regarding  2016  will  be  populated  in  STCW-IS  database  by  the  end  of 
2017.  The  STCW-IS  database  started  to  operate  in  2014  and  thus  this  is  the  first  year  for  which  data  are 
available. 
3 Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the minimum 
level of training of seafarers (OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 33). Directive, as last amended by Directive 2012/35/EU 
of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L343, 14.12.2012, p.78). 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
Directive  2005/45/EC4  had  as  an  objective  to  foster  the  professional  mobility  of  seafarers 
within  the  EU  by  facilitating  the  mutual  recognition  of  seafarers'  certificates  issued  by  the 
Member  States.  The  Directive  introduced  a  simplified  procedure  for  the  recognition  of 
seafarers'  certificates  issued  by  the  Member  States.  The  purpose  was  to  ensure  that  all 
seafarers, who are qualified in a Member State and hold such certificates, will be permitted to 
serve on board ships flying the flag of any Member State. 

2.  BACKGROUND 

In the spirit of the Commission's regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) and 
Better  Regulation  agenda  the  Commission  undertook  an  evaluation  of  the  EU  regulatory 
framework on the minimum level of training and certification requirements for seafarers and 
on  the  mutual  recognition  of  seafarers'  certificates  issued  by  the  Member  States5.  The 
evaluation concluded that both Directives are fit for purpose and have met to a great extent 
the initial objectives and expectations.  

However, it also identified elements that have hindered the effectiveness and the efficiency of 
the legislative framework. In particular, the evaluation concluded that: 

  There  is  the  need  to  align  Directive  2008/106/EC  with  the  latest  amendments  to  the 
STCW  Convention.    In  this  respect,  the  current  procedure  for  incorporating 
amendments of the STCW Convention causes considerable delays and poses the risk 
of the Union law to be inconsistent with the international framework for a significant 
period of time.  

  The administrative framework regarding the recognition and re-assessment procedure 
of third countries should be amended in order to become more efficient and effective, 
namely: 
  A  realistic  timeframe,  taking  into  account  all  the  procedural  steps  that  the 

recognition of new third countries entails, should be envisaged.   

  The available financial and human resources on the recognition of third countries 
should  be  used  in  a  more  efficient  manner.  In  this  regard,  the  procedure  should 
take into consideration the number of masters and officers likely to be employed 
from the third countries.  

  In  this  context,  the  re-assessment  procedure  for  some  third  countries,  for  which 
limited  number  of  endorsements  are  issued  by  the  Member  States  and  for  which 
there is strong indication that they continue to comply with the requirements of the 
STCW  Convention,  should  be  performed  in  longer  intervals  than  the  current  5 
years period.  

  There is a need to clarify and increase legal certainty on the scope of the scheme for 
the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States. Directive 
2005/4/5EC  should  be  repealed  and  the  mutual  recognition  scheme  should  be 

4 Directive 2005/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the mutual 
recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.160). 
5 SWD(2018)19 

3 

 
 
                                                            
regulated by Directive 2008/106/EC in order to avoid inconsistencies and reduce the 
administrative burden. 

3.  DATA COLLECTION AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

This revision builds primarily on the data collected during the REFIT evaluation as reported 
in the relevant Commission Staff Working Document. In addition to the data and consultation 
carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  REFIT  fitness  check,  the  preparation  of  this  proposal 
necessitated an input from technical and legal experts regarding the concrete formulation of 
the  technical  requirements.  This  expertise  was  gathered  internally,  in  cooperation  with  the 
European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA),  and  during  a  workshop  organised  on  6  March 
2018 with experts from the national administrations and industry stakeholders. 

Given  the  technical  nature  of  the  envisaged  proposal,  a  targeted  consultation  has  been 
considered  the  most  adequate  consultation  tool.  The  consultation  lasted  for  4  weeks, 
following  an  extension  of  one  week  to  the  initial  period,  between  5  February  2018  and  2 
March  2018.  National  experts  and  stakeholders  representing  seafarers'  and  shipowners' 
interests have been consulted and the results of this consultation together with a summary of 
the workshop organised are reported in Annex 1 and 2. 

The  feedback  on  specific  comments  or  concerns  raised  during  the  consultation  process  is 
provided  in  Chapter  4  according  to  the  individual  measures  proposed.  Where  the  Member 
States  (MS)  did  not  wish  to  be  identified,  their  responses  are  referred  to  in  an  anonymous 
form (i.e. 'a MS'). Despite the overwhelming support of national experts and of stakeholders 
representing  seafarers'  interests  for  the  proposed  measures,  a  number  of  concerns  or 
comments have been raised by stakeholders representing shipowers' interests with respect to 
the  centralised  mechanism  for  recognition  of  third  countries.  Their  suggestions  have  been 
therefore carefully reviewed and taken into account as it is explained below.  

4.  ENVISAGED ADJUSTMENTS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  recall  the  recommendations  of  the  REFIT  evaluation,  to 
explain the rationale of the proposed solutions from the technical as well as legal perspective 
and to provide feedback on the comments raised during the consultation process. Given that 
the envisaged measures in the proposal are of a technical nature and primarily consist of non-
measurable  impacts  such  as  legal  clarity,  certainty  and  simplicity,  no  materially  different 
policy options have been identified besides the baseline scenario of no further EU action. For 
this reason, and in line with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, a fully-fledged 
impact assessment has not been carried out. 

The  overarching  objective  of  this  revision  is  to  simplify  and  streamline  the  existed  EU 
regulatory framework on seafarers' training and certification in order to: i) keep the EU rules 
aligned  with  the  international  framework;  ii)  revamp  the  centralised  mechanism  for  the 
recognition  of  third  countries  in  order  to  increase  its  efficiency  and  effectiveness;  and  iii) 
increase legal clarity regarding the mutual recognition of seafarers certificates issued by the 
Member States. 

4 

 
 
1.1. ALIGNMENT OF DIRECTIVE 2008/106/EC TO THE LATEST AMENDMENTS TO THE 

STCW CONVENTION 

The  REFIT  evaluation  concluded  that  there  is  a  need  to  keep  the  current  EU  framework  in 
line  with  the  international  framework,  namely  the  STCW  Convention.  Since  the  last 
amendments  to  Directive  2008/106/EC,  introduced  by  Directive  2012/35/EU6,  which 
incorporated  in  the  Union  legislation  the  so  called  'Manilla  amendments'  to  the  STCW 
Convention  in  2010,  there  were  three  new  amendments  to  the  STCW  Convention:  i) 
amendments 
training  and 
to  Regulation  V/2  regarding  minimum  requirements  for 
qualifications  of  seafarers  working  on  board  passenger  ships;  ii)  a  new  Regulation  V/3 
introducing minimum training and qualification requirements for seafarers working on board 
ships subject to the International Code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint 
fuels  (IGF  Code);  and  iii)  a  new  Regulation  V/4  introducing  minimum  training  and 
qualification  requirements for seafarers working onboard ships operating in the polar waters. 

It is therefore proposed to align the existing legislative framework with the latest amendments 
to  the  STCW  Convention  in  relation  to  the  training  and  qualification  requirements  for 
seafarers working on board ships subject to  the International Code of  safety  for ships using 
gases or  other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF Code), seafarers working on board passenger ships 
and on board ships operating in polar waters. This option was fully supported by the Member 
States and the other stakeholders during the consultation. 

For this purpose, it is proposed that Regulation V/2 in Annex I to Directive 2008/106/EC is 
replaced  by  the  new  Regulation  V/2,  reflecting  the  amendments  regarding  training  and 
qualification  requirements  for  seafarers  working  onboard  passenger  ships.  In  addition,  it  is 
proposed  that  two  new  regulations  are  introduced,  Regulation  V/3  and  Regulation  V/4,  in  
Annex  I  of  Directive  2008/106/EC  in  order  to  reflect  training  requirements  regarding 
seafarers  working onboard ships subject to the IGF Code and the Polar Code respectively. 

In order to fully incorporate the relevant amendments to the STCW Convention into Directive 
2008/106/EC,  it  is  also  proposed  that  definitions  in  relation  to  'IGF  Code',  'Polar  Code'  and 
'Polar waters' should be introduced in the Directive. Moreover, Article 12 is proposed to be 
amended in order to be aligned with the amendments to the STCW Convention.  

Article  12  paragraph  3  is  proposed  to  be  amended  in  order  to  include  in  its  scope  not  only 
certificates  of  competency  but  also  certificates  of  proficiency.  This  was  an  omission  of  the 
current  Directive  and  it  is  proposed  in  order  to  align  it  with  Regulation  I/11  paragraph  5 
(previously  paragraph  4)  of  the  STWC  Convention.  In  this  vein,  a  new  paragraph  3a  is 
proposed to be inserted in Article 12. This amendment is in line with paragraph 10 of the new 
Regulation  V/3  of  the  STCW  Convention.  In  particular,  the  Member  States  shall  issue 
Certificates of Proficiency to seafarers who are qualified under paragraphs 4 or 7 of the new 
Regulation V/3 under Annex I to the Directive. Therefore, a comparison of any standards of 
competence required by the Member States before 1 January 2017 should be conducted with 
the  new  standards  of  competence  under  Section  A-V/3  of  the  STCW  Code  and  it  shall  be 

6 OJ L343, 14.12.2012, p.78 

5 

 
 
                                                            
determined by the Member States the need to require from the seafarers certified under the old 
standards to update their qualifications. 

A further conclusion of the evaluation was that every time the STCW Convention is amended, 
a  formal  legislative  procedure  for  the  amendment  of  the  Directive  is  necessary  in  order  to 
incorporate  in  the  Union  legislative  framework  any  new  requirements  of  the  STCW 
Convention.  This  procedure  causes  considerable  delays  and  could  lead  to  misalignment 
between the EU and the international framework until any new international requirements are 
incorporated  into  the  Directive.  Therefore,  it  is  proposed  that  the  power  is  conveyed  to  the 
Commission  to  adopt  delegated  acts  in  order  to  bring  about  the  alignment  of  the  Directive 
with any future amendments to the Convention. The need for such a mechanism which would 
ensure a rapid alignment between the technical requirements of the Directive and the STCW 
Directive was fully supported by all the participants during the consultation. 

1.2. REFITTING THE CENTRALISED SYSTEM FOR THE RECOGNITION AND REASSESSMENT 

OF THIRD COUNTRIES 

The centralised mechanism for the recognition and re-assessment of the third countries under 
Directive 2008/106/EC was one of the main areas of concern indicated by the evaluation.  In 
particular, the evaluation showed that the efficiency of the centralised system was hampered 
in three ways:  

i)  the  available  financial  and  human  resources  were  used  inefficiently  in  some  cases  since 
there  were  requests  for  recognition  of  third  countries  from  which  eventually  only  very  few 
seafarers were employed. In particular, it was indicated that under the current procedure the 
Member  States  tended  to  submit  request  for  recognition  of  third  countries  without  any 
justification for such a need. 

ii)  The  current  deadline  of  18  months,  in  order  to  adopt  a  Commission  decision  for  the 
recognition  of  a  third  country  following  a  request  from  a  Member  State,  is  unrealistic  and 
does  not  reflect  the  necessary  diplomatic  procedure  to  contact  the  authorities  of  the  third 
country  in  order  to  schedule  an  onsite  inspection  by  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency 
(EMSA)  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Commission  assess  the  compliance  of  the  third  country 
with  the  requirements  of  the  STCW  Convention.  In  addition,  when  the  third  country  has  to 
implement  corrective  actions,  including  amendments  to  its  national  legislation,  in  order  to 
comply with the STCW Convention requirements, and thus being able to be recognised at the 
EU level, additional time is required. 

iii)  The  obligation  of  equally  reassessing  every  third  country  on  a  five  year  cycle  without 
consideration  of  the  actual  number  of  masters  and  officers  holding  certificates  issued  from 
every country has resulted to inefficient use of the available resources. It was indicated by the 
evaluation  that  if  the  available  resources  are  used  for  the  re-assessment  of  countries  which 
provide  a  very  low  number  of  masters  and  officers  at  the  same  way  for  the  major  labour 
providing countries then the latter might not be monitored at the appropriate level.  

Need to recognise a third country 

6 

 
 
In order to address the above problematic areas and to increase the hampered efficiency of the 
centralised  mechanism  it  is  proposed  that  the  procedure  for  the  recognition  of  new  third 
countries  should  take  into  consideration  the  need  for  such  recognition  on  the  basis  of  an 
analysis, including an estimation of the number of masters and officers likely to be employed 
from  that  country.  In  this  regard,  it  is  proposed  that  Article  19  paragraph  2  is  amended  in 
order to provide for a new procedural step following the submission of a recognition request 
by a Member State. 

In particular, it is proposed that the Member State submitting the request for recognition of a 
third  country  should  also  provide  a  preliminary  analysis  of  the  third  country's  compliance 
with the requirements of the STCW Convention, accompanied by an estimation of the number 
of  masters  and  officers  likely  to  be  employed  from  that  country.  In  addition,  it  is  proposed 
that  following  the  submission  request  from  a  Member  State  an  implementing  decision  to 
initiate the recognition process will be adopted by the Commission. 

The  proposal  aims  to  raise  the  transparency  in  relation  to  new  requests  submitted  by  the 
Member  States  for  the  recognition  of  third  countries.  The  adoption  of  the  implementing 
decision  by  the  Commission  will  allow  for  a  thorough  exchange  of  arguments  and  a 
discussion between the Member States on whether the Union resources shall be mobilized and 
invested  for  the  recognition  of  a  third  country.  Thus,  recognition  requests  which  have  been 
submitted in the past  without solid justification will be avoided in  the future and the Union 
resources will be used in a more transparent and efficient way. 

The  proposed  measures  reflect  the  high  support  which  was  received  by  the  Member  States 
and  the  stakeholders  during  the  consultation  on  the  need  to  introduce  a  discussion  for  the 
reasons  to  recognise  a  new  third  country  (66,5%  of  the  participants  expressed  a  positive 
opinion).  The  same  support  was  showed  for  the need  to  accompany  the recognition request 
with  an analysis, including  an estimation of  the number of  masters and officers  likely to  be 
employed from the third country (71% agreed with this view). 

The above measures were highly supported by the seafarers' who expressed unanimously the 
need  for  such  a  procedural  step.  On  the  other  hand,  participants  representing  shipowners' 
interests  expressed  concerns  that  such  a  decision  might  reduce  the  current  flexibility  of  the 
Member  States  to  request  the  recognition  of  new  third  countries.  Their  main  concern  was 
related  on  whether  such  a  step  would  go  against  Regulation  I/10  of  the  STCW  Convention 
under which, according to these stakeholders, it should be up to the Member States to decide 
to recognise a third country or not. 

The concerns put forward by these stakeholders, although being against the vast majority of 
the participants in the consultation, have been taken into account by the proposed measures. 
In particular, the flexibility of the current system is maintained since the requesting Member 
State(s)  will  continue  to  be  able  to  unilaterally  recognise,  under  their  own  responsibility, 
certificates  issued  to  masters  and  officers  by  the  third  country.  As  a  result,  if  there  is  an 
immediate need for a shipowner to employ seafarers originating from a third country not yet 
recognised,  the  Member  State  concerned  could  recognise  unilaterally  that  third  country  and 
thus  allowing  the  shipowners  using  its  flag  to  employ  seafarers  coming  from  that  country. 

7 

 
 
Therefore,  the  new  procedural  step  will  not  deprive  the  current  system  of  its  flexibility. 
However, at the same time will not allow that Union's resources are used for the recognition 
of  third  countries  only  for  one  seafarer  who  became  occasionally  available  to  a  shipping 
company flying the flag of one of the Member States.  

In  relation  to  the  argument  that  such  a  step  might  go  against  the  STCW  Convention,  it  is 
considered  that  nothing  is  changed  in  relation  to  the  ultimate  recognition  or  not  of  a  third 
country  which  since  2003  is  decided  at  the  Union  level  and  not  by  each  Member  State 
individually.  

Furthermore, it is proposed that the current deadline for the recognition of a third country is 
extended from 18 months to 24 and in case that there is a need for major corrective measures 
to be adopted by the third country, such as amendments to the national legislation, then the 
deadline  shall  be  further  extended  to  36  months.  As  it  was  explained  above,  the  REFIT 
evaluation indicated that the deadlines should reflect better the reality and the time needed to 
recognise a third country. This view was supported by the majority of the participants to the 
consultation  (80%  for  an  extension  to  24  months  and  75%  for  a  further  extension  to  36 
months). 

In  relation  to  any  negative  impacts  by  the  introduction  of  the  above  measures,  only  the 
stakeholders  representing  seafarers'  interests  expressed  their  concerns  that  by  allowing  a 
unilateral recognition of the third country by the requesting Member State negative impacts, 
especially to maritime safety might arise. As a result, the proposed measures had to balance 
this concern with the concern expressed by the stakeholders representing shipowners' interests 
to maintain flexibility of the system. Thus, the proposed measures allow the possibility for the 
requesting Member State to unilaterally recognise the third country in order to  maintain the 
competiveness of the EU fleet through the flexibility of the system, as it was explained above. 
However, in order to minimize the potential risk, the Member State unilaterally recognising 
the  third  country  shall  already  conduct  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  compliance  of  that 
country with the requirements of the STCW Convention. 

Validity of recognition of third countries from which there are no seafarers employed 

In  this  vein  and  in  order  to  further  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  centralised  system,  it  is 
proposed that a third country from which there are no masters or officers employed for more 
than 5 years in any of the Member States shall be de-recognised. It is considered that if there 
are  no  endorsements  attesting  recognition  of  certificates  of  competency  or  certificates  of 
proficiency for tankers7 for a period of 5 years, then this is a strong indication that either the 
relevant  third  country  has  stopped  to  invest  in  its  maritime  educational  system  or  that  the 
European shipowners have stopped to being interested to employ seafarers from that country. 
The time period of 5 years as the reference period was chosen as the most appropriate since 
the endorsements attesting recognition of certificates are valid for up to 5 years. 

7 Regulation V/1-1 and V/1-2 of the STCW Convention 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Therefore,  the  de-recognition  is  referring  only  to  extreme  cases  of  not  even  one  master  or 
officer being employed in the EU fleet during a period of 5 years and will allow the release of 
resources  which  otherwise  would  remain  allocated  for  the  re-assessment  of  such  a  third 
country. These resources could be used for the recognition of new third countries while at the 
same time the list of the third countries recognised will remain manageable with the currently 
available  resources8.  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  most  of  the  third  countries 
currently  recognised,  have  been  grandfathered  in  the  Directive  from  the  old  system  of 
recognitions, which dates back to the 90's, under which each Member State was individually 
recognising a third country. Hence, the proposed measure would allow the renewal of that list 
by de-recognising countries which have ceased to be interested in seafaring and allowing the 
addition of new countries which developed such an interest. 

The  idea  of  de-recognising  a  third  country  also  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  seafarers 
employed from that country received the support of the participants in the consultation (64% 
replied  that  fully  or  partially  agree).  However,  the  stakeholders  representing  shipowners' 
interests expressed their concerns on introducing a threshold in relation to the seafarers who 
shall be employed from a third country in order to be kept recognised. This concern has been 
taken  into  account  in  the  proposed  measure  by  only  introducing  the  de-recognition  of  third 
countries from which there is not even one master or officer employed on board the EU fleet 
for  a  long  period.  Hence,  the  de-recognition  is  considered  to  have  no  impact  or  minimal 
impact since the requirement introduced is that there would be no seafarer employed on board 
the Union fleet from that country for the preceding period of 5 years. 

Reassessment  of  third  countries  and  use  of  available  information  on  seafarers' 
certificates 

In this context, and to further increase the efficiency of the centralised system, it is proposed 
that the reassessment procedure for third countries which provide limited number of seafarers 
in the Union fleet should be conducted in longer intervals. In particular, it is proposed that the 
legal obligation to reassess a third country is extended from 5 to 10 years. The extension is 
accompanied with  priority criteria in order  to  safeguard  the level playing field  and the high 
level of seafarers' training and education provided in all the third countries recognised. 

On  the  basis  of  priority  criteria,  it  would  be  possible  to  manage  on  a  more  efficient  and 
effective way the available resources. The major labour supplying countries or countries with 
potentially high safety risk could be targeted and inspected more frequently by releasing the 
necessary resources from third countries which either provide the Union with lower numbers 
of seafarers or there are strong indications that comply with the requirements.  For the latter 
category  of  countries,  it  was  indicated  and  supported  by  the  stakeholders  (66%  of  the 
participants) that the reassessment could be spanned on longer intervals than 5 years and up 
to 10 years. 

8 Currently there are 49 third countries recognized at EU level. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
As a safeguard to potential safety threats, the priority criteria9 shall take into account all the 
available sources of information in relation to a potential deterioration of the level of maritime 
training and  education  in  the  third countries. In  addition,  it is  proposed  that in  case of  non-
compliance of a third country to the requirements of the STCW Convention, , its reassessment 
shall take immediate priority. 

In  this  vein,  it  is  proposed  that  the  information  collected  on  the  seafarers  trained  and 
employed  from  the  third  countries  should  be  used  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the 
centralised mechanism by feeding in the necessary information. As a result, it is proposed that 
Article 5a and Article 25a are amended in order allow for the use of the relevant information 
in  determining  priority  criteria  and  de-recognising  third  countries  for  which  there  are  no 
endorsements issued by any Member State for a period of more than 5 years. 

1.3. MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF SEAFARERS' CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MEMBER 

STATE 

The  main  conclusion  of  the  REFIT  evaluation  in  relation  to  Directive  2005/45/EC  was  that 
the  definition  of  certificates  included  in  this  Directive  does  not  take  account  of  the  2010 
amendments to the STCW Convention, which introduced the distinction between Certificates 
of Competency (CoC) and Certificates of Proficiency (CoP).  As a result the definition of the 
seafarers'  certificates  that  are  falling  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive  has  become  obsolete, 
creating  uncertainty  and  being  the  source  of  many  complaints  from  the  side  of  seafarers. 
Hence,  the  evaluation  suggested  updating  the  relevant  definition  by  merging  the  two 
Directives  and  including  the  mutual  recognition  scheme  under  the  scope  of  Directive 
2008/106/EC. 

It is therefore proposed that Directive 2005/45/EC is repealed and a new Article 5b regarding 
the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates is introduced in Directive 2008/106/EC.  The 
merger of the two Directives was highly supported by all the stakeholders participated in the 
consultation (85% of the participants).In this regard, it is proposed that a definition for 'host 
Member  State'  is  included  in  Article  1  which  is  deemed  necessary  to  clarify  the 
responsibilities  between  the  Member  States.  This  definition  is  originated  from  the  repealed 
Directive  2005/45/EC.  In  addition,  it  is  proposed  that  the  scope  of  Directive  2005/45/EC  is 
also incorporated as a new paragraph 2 in Article 2 of Directive 2008/106/EC.  

The above intervention is considered to address the concerns raised by a Member State during 
the  consultation  period  regarding  the  cases  where  a  Member  State  is  approving  training 
courses in another Member State. The location of the training courses approved by a Member 
State should be irrelevant for the purposes of the mutual recognition of certificates issued by 
or  under  the  authority  of  this  Member  State.  Directive  2008/106/EC  has  followed  the  same 
approach as  the STCW Convention under which the competent authorities of a Member State 
approve  maritime  schools  and  programs  which  constitute  their  maritime  educational  system 
for which they hold full responsibility.  

9 Set out in in Article 21 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The proposed Article 5b maintains the scope of the repealed Directive 2005/45/EC in relation 
to the purpose of the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States. 
Certificates of Proficiency and Documentary evidence issued by a Member State, and which 
do not need to be endorsed under Regulation I/10 of the STCW Convention, shall be accepted 
by another Member State for the purpose of allowing seafarers to serve onboard. As a result, 
seafarers who hold specialised Certificates of Competency issued by a Member State, as for 
example Certificate of Proficiency as ship security officer, will be allowed to serve under the 
same capacity on board a ship flying the flag of another Member State. 

Moreover,  paragraph  2  clarifies  the  way  of  recognition  for  Certificates  of  Competency  or 
Certificates  of  Proficiency,  issued  in  accordance  with  Regulations  V/1-1  and  V/1-2.  When 
these two categories of seafarers' certificates are presented for recognition to another Member 
State  then  the  latter  shall  recognise  them  by  issuing  the  necessary  endorsement  attesting 
recognition.  This  measure  reflects  the  international  obligation  of  the  Member  States  under 
Regulation  I/10  of  the  STCW  Convention  and  does  not  change  the  scope  of  the  repealed 
Article 3 of Directive 2005/45/EC. 

In addition, paragraph 6 provides the possibility, given already to seafarers certified by a third 
country  under  Article  19  paragraph  7  of  the  Directive,  for  seafarers  to  serve  onboard  for  a 
period of three months while their application for endorsement of their national certificates is 
being  processed  by  the  competent  authority  of  a  Member  State.  This  addition  reflects  a 
proposal which was put forward by the stakeholders representing shipowners' interests. 

The  vast  majority  of  the  participants  to  the  consultation  supported  the  clarification  of  the 
mutual  recognition  scheme  for  seafarers'  certificates  by  maintaining  the  scope  under  the 
repealed Directive 2005/45/EC (75% of the replies). On the contrary, a proposal to expand 
the scope and include also the possibility of recognising seafarers' certificates for the purpose 
of issuing national certificates was rejected by the 59% of the respondents.  

Finally, during the consultation it was proposed by some Member States to also include the 
medical certificates in the scope of the mutual recognition scheme. This idea was discussed 
during the workshop organised on 6 March 2018 with national experts and stakeholders and 
was unanimously upheld by the participants. Therefore, the proposed measure also includes 
the  recognition  of  medical  certificates  issued  to  seafarers  in  accordance  with  the  current 
Article 11 of Directive 2008/106/EC. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  1:  SUMMARY  OF  TARGETED  CONSULTATION  ON  AMENDING  DIRECTIVE  ON 
THE  MINIMUM  LEVEL  OF  SEAFARERS  TRAINING 
INCLUDING  THE  MUTUAL 
RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATES BY MEMBER STATES 

The objective of this consultation, targeted at national experts on the STCW Convention and 
stakeholders representing seafarers' and shipowners' interests, was to support the Commission, 
assisted  by  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency,  in  the  concrete  formulation  of  the 
envisaged proposal. The results formed a basis for the discussions that took place during the 
workshop organised with national experts and stakeholders on 6 March 2018. 

Consultation period 

Given  that  the  results  and  recommendations  of  the  REFIT  evaluation  have  been  fully 
disseminated and the proposals were built primarily on the data collected during this process, 
the stakeholders had 4 weeks to provide their replies. The deadline, which was initially set on 
26  February  2018,  was  extended  until  2  March  2018  to  allow  higher  participation  in  the 
consultation.  The  Commission  processed  the  results  and  informed  the  experts  and 
stakeholders on the outcome of the consultation and any issues that were raised for discussion 
during the workshop on 6 March 2018. 

Format and process followed 

The questionnaire consisted of two parts, one focusing on the procedures for the recognition 
of  third  countries,  and  a  second  part  about  the  mutual  recognition  of  seafarers'  certificates 
issued by EU Member States.  

All  the  contributions  were  submitted  through  the  online  questionnaire,  accessible  via  a  link 
distributed to every stakeholder individually, or in case of seafarers through their unions that 
were  contacted  directly  by  the  Commission.  As  the  working  language  is  English,  the 
questionnaire was only available in English and, therefore, the same applies for the language 
of the present summary of the replies that have been received.  

Results – Stakeholders 

Replies  were  provided  by  stakeholders  from  24  countries,  consisting  in  particular  of  24 
national  maritime  authorities  from  23  EU  Member  States  and  Norway,  14  representatives 
from  seafarers'  and  4  shipowners'  associations.  More  specifically,  ETF,  ECSA,  and  the 
maritime  authorities  of  CY,    DK,    FR,    LV,  MT,  NL,    PT,    SK  and  NO  participated  to  the 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consultation and agreed to be referred to in the Staff Working Document under their identity 
as  a  contributing  Member  State.  Several  Member  States,  trade  unions  and  ship-owners' 
associations objected and will be referred to in an anonymous form.  

The results are presented on a question by question basis, following the same order as in the 
questionnaire. The focus is on the presentation of the statistics, while the specific comments 
and  clarifications  that  several  Member  States  provided,  as  well  as  specific  concerns,  are 
addressed in the relevant parts of the Staff Working Document. 

Alignment of Directive 2008/106/EC to the international framework 

Question 1 inquired whether participants consider that the Annex I to Directive 2008/106/EC 
should be amended to fully incorporate the new amendments in Regulation V/2, Regulation 
V/3, and Regulation V/4 of the STCW Convention. Only CY, partially disagreed for all three 
Directives, while 41 stakeholders agreed fully or partially. 

The second question focused on whether to establish a mechanism for enabling a more rapid 
adaptation  to  the  changes  in  the  STCW  Convention  and  Code  would  be  welcomed  by  the 
stakeholders.  78%  fully  favoured  rapid  adaptation,  while  another  19%  of  the  stakeholders 
partially agreed.  

Procedures for the recognition and reassessment of third countries 

As  for  question  3,  asking  if  the  Commission  should,  following  the  request  from  a  Member 
State,  discuss  the  reasons  and  examine  the  need  for  the  recognition  of  a  new  third  country 
with  all  the  Member  States  before  beginning  the  initiation  of  the  recognition  process,  the 

13 

 
 
 
 
answers depended very much on the participants' affiliation. Shipowner's associations tended 
to  strongly  disfavour  this  measure,  arguing  it  would  potentially  raise  the  administrative 
burden  while  in  their  opinion  might  contravene  Regulation  I/10  of  the  STCW  Convention. 
National  maritime  authorities  took  however  a  positive  view  (58%)  with  a  minority  of  the 
Member States (33%) raising concerns to a discussion of the reasons prior to the start of the 
recognition  process,  as  according  to  them  this  should  be  a  national  matter  of  the  member 
states,  with  the  Commission  solely  launching  the  evaluation  process.  The  seafarers' 
organisations voice strong preference towards the establishment of such an additional round 
of discussion in the Commission as an additional safeguard of using efficiently the available 
resources. 

An analysis including the estimation of numbers of officers and masters likely to be employed 
from  the  third  country as  a  prerequisite  for  new  request  submitted  by MS  was  the  basis  for  
question  4.  Shipowners'  associations  were  partially  in  favour  of  such  a  rule,  similarly,  all 
seafarer's  associations  and  trade  unions  support  such  a  policy.  Similarly,  the  majority  of 
Member States fully or partially agreed (62.5%), but NL, MT, and DK, along with five other 
national authorities (32% of the MS participated) opposed such a measure due to a number of 
concerns,  inter  alia  arguing  that  estimates  would  likely  be  inaccurate,  that  there  might  be 
reasons  other  than  the  current  need  for  seafarers  for  pursuing  the  recognition  of  a  third 
country, and that the requesting Member State should have the control over the decision. 

Question  5  contained  the  proposal  that  the  evaluation  period  should  be  extended  from  the 
current  18  months  to  24  months,  as  no  assessment  has  yet  been  completed  within  this  time 
frame. This suggestion was welcomed by most participants, Member States, ship-owners' and 
seafarers'  associations  alike,  with  one  vocal  exception  being  DK.  They  question  the 

14 

 
 
 
 
effectiveness of such deadlines and instead suggest a different approach with inspection plans 
presented  and  discussed  at  COSS  allowing  flexibility  in  terms  of  timeline.  CY  favours  a 
stricter  approach  with  shorter  extension  periods  in  case  a  third  country  does  not  rectify 
deficiencies in its training system.  

The  opinions  are  less  favourable,  but  similar,  for  question  6,  which  proposed  a  possible 
extension  of  the  evaluation  period  to  36  months  for  those  third  countries  in  the  evaluation 
process that have to implement corrective actions. While the majority of stakeholder opinions 
is  still  supportive,  especially  the  seafarers'  associations  and  trade  unions  as  well  as  national 
maritime authorities urge a more cautious approach in case of countries with a higher number 
of deficiencies in their system. 

The views regarding the impact of such a measure, the focus of question 7, vary significantly 
between  the  different  stakeholders,  with  most  seafarers'  associations  and  trade  unions 
anticipating negative effects, especially in regards to the training of seafarers from unilaterally 
recognised third countries, (i.e. while the evaluation is taking place,). In this regard, seafarers' 
representatives  argued  that  a  prolonged  evaluation  period  can  be  caused  by  the  need  to 
implement  changes  after  the  detection  of  system  deficiencies  in  the  third  country,  an 
indication  that  the  training  of  seafarers  with  unilaterally  recognised  certificates  might  be 
insufficient,  and  thus  endangering  maritime  safety.  The  majority  of  national  maritime 
administrations, however, believe that there will either be no negative impact, or considered 
the  possible  negative  effects  to  be  small  as  long  as  a  unilateral  recognition  of  third  country 
certificates by the requesting Member State remains a possibility. Similarly, most shipowners' 
associations are in support of the extension and would not expect any negative effects. 

The opinions regarding the extension of the reassessment period from five years to up to ten 
in  question  8,  were  mostly  favourable,  as  national  maritime 
years,  as  suggested 

15 

 
 
 
 
administrations,  trade  unions  as  well  as  shipowners'  associations  acknowledge  the  limits  of 
EMSA's resources in the face of an ever growing number of recognised third countries. Some 
national maritime authorities, among them DK, instead suggest a more risk-based system. 

Question 9 contained the proposal to assess the need to keep a third country recognised also 
on the basis of the number of seafarers employed from that country. This question produced 
more mixed responses, with ship-owners' associations, and ECSA, opposing such a policy on 
the  grounds  of  the  likely  negative  consequences  on  the  employed  seafarers  from  the 
respective third country and their employers. On the other hand the majority of the national 
administrations had a positive view (58% against 24% with a negative view0 arguing that this 
would  allow  for  a  more  efficient  use  of  EMSA's  and  the  Commission's  limited  resources. 
From the Member States disagreeing with the idea, NL elaborated on the reasons by arguing 
that  the  Member  States  should  instead  report  to  the  Commission  in  case  the  need  for 
recognition of the third country no longer persists. The ETF and the trade unions unanimously  
supported such a measure. 

Proposed in question 10, a definition of priority criteria for the reassessment of third countries 
by  the  Commission  was  supported  by  a  majority  of  stakeholders.  Most  national  shipowner 
associations as well as ECSA supported the introduction of priority criteria, but specified that 
they do not believe there is a need for new additional criteria in the Directive. Three Member 
States' national maritime authorities disagreed without further elaborating on their opposition. 

16 

 
 
 
 
In  question  11,  stakeholders then  had  the  opportunity to  list the  general principles  that  they 
deemed  most  important  when  defining  the  priority  criteria  for  third  countries  reassessment. 
ECSA  suggested  the  application  of  the  current  priorities  stated  in  Art.21  §2  of  Directive 
2008/106/EC and opposed the introduction of any new or additional criteria. ETF as well as a 
number  of  seafarers'  organisations  and  trade  unions  instead  suggest  an  amendment  of  the 
abovementioned  existing  criteria 
the  number  of 
endorsements  issued  to  masters  and  officers  and  possible  changes  to  the  education  and 
training  system  in  the  third  country.  The  most  frequently  proposed  criteria  by  the  Member 
States and the other stakeholders are summarised in this list: 

to  additionally 

into  account 

take 

  Number and seriousness of deficiencies identified in the maritime education, training 

and certification system of the third country 

  Results  of  the  independent  evaluation  report  under  Regulation  I/8  of  the  STCW 

Convention 

 

Information about unlawful practices and issuance of fraudulent certificates 

  Major changes in the system of the third country 

  Number of EaRs issued by the Member States for each of the third countries. 

Mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by Member States 

Questions  12,  13  and  14  were  related  to  the  mutual  recognition  of  Seafarers'  Certificates 
issued  by  Member  States  of  the  European  Union.  Almost  all  stakeholders  supported  the 
merging  of  Directive  2005/45/EC  and  2008/106/EC  as  proposed  in  question  12.  A  similar 
strong  support  was  shown  also  in  question  13  concerning  the  recognition  of  seafarers'  
certificates from other Member States only for the purpose of working onboard and without 
expanding the current scope of Directive 2005/45/EC.  

17 

 
 
 
 
Question 14 focuses on the recognition of STCW-related diplomas for the purpose of issuing 
national  CoCs  and  CoPs.  There  was  a  strong  opposition  from  a  large  majority  of  national 
maritime authorities as well as seafarers' organisations and trade unions to such a practice due 
to what is described as a substantial variety in qualifications and ancillary courses that are part 
of STCW certificates. There were, however, some Member States which supported the idea of 
mutual  recognition  of  seafarers'  certificates  also  for  the  purposes  of  issuing  national 
certificates, 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  2:  SUMMARY  OF  THE  WORKSHOP  ON  THE  AMENDING  DIRECTIVE  ON  THE 
MINIMUM  LEVEL  OF  SEAFARERS  TRAINING  INCLUDING  THE  MUTUAL  RECOGNITION 
OF CERTIFICATES BY MEMBER STATES 

Brussels, 6 March 2018 

Represented bodies: ECSA, ETF 

The  workshop  was  organised  by  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the  stakeholders' 
consultation  for  the  preparation  of  the  Commission's  proposal  on  amending  the  legislative 
framework  regarding  seafarers'  training  and  certification  requirements  in  the  EU  and 
recognised third countries (Directive 2008/106/EC and Directive 2005/45/EC). 

The  meeting  was  opened  and  chaired  by  Ms  C.  Berg,  Head  of  Unit  of  DG  MOVE  D.2 
Maritime Safety, who explained the context of the proposed amendments in view of current 
seafarers'  training  requirements  and  certification  regulations.  The  Chair  presented  the 
legislative framework regarding seafarers' training and certification requirements at both EU 
and  IMO  level,  highlighting  the  differences  in evaluation  and  recognition  procedures  at  EU 
level and those required by the STCW Convention developed under the umbrella of the IMO. 
Subsequently, the Chair briefly presented the results of the REFIT evaluation that took place 
last  year  and  illustrated  the  achievements  and  difficulties  under  the  current  framework,  and 
the  main  objectives  for  the  proposed  amendments.  This  was  the  last  opportunity  to  discuss 
with the Member States and the stakeholders the areas that should be amended. 

During  the  meeting  the  Commission  presented  the  results  of  the  stakeholders'  consultation, 
which lasted from 5 February to 2 March and where 42 participants, among them 24 Member 
States,  ECSA,  and  national  ship-owners'  associations  and  seafarers'  trade  unions  gave  their 
feedback  on  the  intended  changes,  followed  by  a  discussion  on  each  question,  and  general 
comments from Member States and stakeholders at the end of the meeting. 

Concrete issues raised by the participants:  

Alignment with the new amendments to the STCW Convention 

All Member States as well as ECSA and ETF fully supported the alignment of the Directive 
with the three new amendments to the STCW Convention related to training requirements for 
passenger ships and ships falling under the Polar Code and the IGF Code. 

A  unanimous  support  was  also  given  to  introduce  delegated  acts  in  order  to  empower  the 
Commission to amend the Directive in the future and align it with any new amendments to the 
STCW Convention.  

Adjusting the centralised system for the recognition of third countries  

This  was  the  most  controversial  point  where  a  number  of  different  and  diverse  views  were 
expressed by the participants. The results of the consultation indicated that the majority of the 
Member  States  are  in  support  of  the  idea  to  first  include  a  discussion  including  all  the 

19 

 
 
 
Member States as a new procedural step following a request from a member state to recognise 
a  third  country  in  the  current  procedures    before  calling  on  EMSA  to  begin  the  evaluation 
process. ETF also highly supported the idea of establishing a procedure to discuss the reasons 
and the need for recognition of a third country following the request of a Member State within 
the Commission prior to EMSA commencing the evaluation of the country's training system. 

However, some Member  States (DK, MT and FR) expressed their concerns on whether this 
would  raise  the  administrative  burden  and  remove  the  current  procedure's  flexibility.  The 
same concern was raised by ECSA. On the other hand, many countries (PT, GR, IE, LV, UK) 
supported  the  idea  to  increase  the  transparency  of  the  usage  of  the  Union  budget  and  more 
efficiently apply EMSA's resource.  

The Chair explained that the flexibility in the system will be maintained, since the requesting 
Member State will continue to have the opportunity to bilaterally recognise the third country 
until EMSA's evaluation is concluded and a decision on the recognition is reached in COSS. 

A strong support was shown for extending the deadline for the recognition period in order for 
it to better reflect the complexity of the diplomatic steps required for EMSA to enter a third 
country and more accurately take into account the time needed for the implementation of  the 
necessary corrective actions by the third country. 

In the same vein, the participants supported the extension of the reassessment period from 5 to 
10 years on the basis of priority criteria including safety concerns and the number of seafarers 
employed by the third country. 

The second point creating a vivid discussion and raised concerns (from MT and DK as well as 
ECSA) was the suggestion of an automatic de-recognition of third countries from which no 
seafarers  were  employed  for  a  considerable  time  period.  However,  the  majority  of  the 
participants  both  during  the  workshop  and  in  the  stakeholder  consultation,  including  ETF, 
supported the idea to increase efficiency and to potentially derecognise third countries from 
which no seafarers have been employed for a considerable interval. 

Mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States 

The clarification of the current scheme without a further expansion of its scope received the 
full support of all participants. In particular, the Member States, ECSA and ETF supported the 
automatic recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by other Member States for allowing the 
seafarers to work on-board any vessel under another EU flag. 

One Member State raised concerns during the workshop  regarding cases of a Member State 
approving training courses in another Member State.  

Finally, there was no support for the idea of imposing the obligation to the Member States to 
issue national certificate on the basis of training received in another Member State. 

20