COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State Control
Date: 2023-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: dissemination of information, harbour installation, international standard, marine pollution, maritime safety, pollution from ships, prevention of pollution, vessel

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.6.2023  SWD(2023) 149 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State Control {COM(2023) 271 final} - {SEC(2023) 202 final} - {SWD(2023) 148 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on a Proposal for a Revision of Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
Directive  2009/16/EC  sets  out  the  EU  regime  for  port  State  control  (PSC),  a  system  of  inspection  of  foreign 
flagged ships by inspectors in their ports, for the purpose of verifying that the competency of the crew on board 
and the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions on the 
safety  of  life  at  sea  and  on  the  protection  of  marine  environment.  The  Directive  is  based  on  the  pre-existing 
voluntary intergovernmental structure of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU).  

The Directive was the subject of an ex-post evaluatuon and Maritime Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of 
EU  legislation)  in  2018.  A  certain  number  of  issues  have  been  identified  as  being  problematic:  (1)  current  EU 
requirements  are  not  aligned  with  new  international  mandatory  rules/procedures  (International  Maritime 
Organisation  –  IMO,  and  Paris  MoU);  (2)  current  EU  requirements  do  not  apply  to  fishing  vessels  (3)  an 
unbalanced distribution of inspections the EU; (4) the mechanism used to select ships for inspection is not up to 
date; (5) over reliance on paper-based certificates and (6) inadequate and inflexible procedures and resources.  

Absent EU action, Member States will work in an uncoordinated and non-harmonised way. 

What should be achieved?  
This initiative seeks to ensure and improve on the high level of maritime safety and pollution protection across 
the Union.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
Shipping  as  an  international  business  operates  regulated  at  the  global  as  well  as  regional  and  national 
instances, it has by nature a strong cross-border dimension.  

B. Solutions 

What  are  the  various  options  to  achieve  objectives?  Is  there  a  preferred  option  or  not?  If  not, 
why?  
Three  policy  options  (PO)  have  been  developed.  The  preferred  option  is  policy  option  B  (PO  B).  This  option 
provides for the development of a voluntary PSC regime for  larger fishing vessels in conjunction with the Paris 
MoU.  It  also  encourages  the  uptake  and  use  of  electronic  statutory  certificates.  PO  B  proposes  legislative 
solutions problems relating to inspection and validation.         

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
PO  B  is  supported  by  national  PSC  administrations  as  it  will  allow  for  the  development  of  a  PSC  regime  for 
fishing vessels analogous to that which happened with the Paris MoU. The fishing industry is broadly in favour of 
the  enforcement  of  safety  standards  but  would  prefer  if  EU  Member  States  ratified  the  relevant  international 
conventions. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                       
Societal  impacts  are  mainly  assessed  in  terms  of  impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  maritime  safety  over  the 
period 2025-2050 in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided and environmetal protection. The preferred option 
is  projected  to  result  in  6  lives  saved  and  61  injuries  avoided,  to  save  around  EUR  35  million  and  prevent  75 
tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  at  sea.  It  should  be  noted  however  that  because  the  impacts  of  PSC  are  indirect, 
through the inspections and their follow-up, there is high uncertainty regarding the estimates.   

For PSC authorities, the preferred policy option is expected to result in enforcement costs savings of EUR 8.4 
million,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  due  to  measures  that  encourage  the  uptake  and  use  of 
electronic statutory certificates.  

For ship operators, the preferred policy option is estimated to result in  administrative cost savings of EUR 5.5 
million. Administrative costs savings stem from the abolition of the 72-hour advance reporting obligation for the 
operator, agent or master of a ship eligible for an expanded inspection.  

1 

 
 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Additional costs will fall mainly on  PSC authorities, these are  estimated at  EUR 17.9 million as present value 
over 2025-2050. When considering however the enforcement costs savings, the net costs are estimated at EUR 
9.5  million.  There  will  also  be  adjustment  costs  for  flag  State  authorities  for  the  introduction  of  electronic 
certificates. These amount EUR 0.22 million per year for all flag State authorities combined. In addition, one-off 
investment costs of EUR 1 million are  expected in  2025. Total costs for flag State authorities are estimated at 
EUR 4.8 million.  

As regards EMSA the adjustment costs for in the preferred policy option are estimated at EUR 6.5 million. The 
preferred  policy  option  results  in  an  increase  in  the  enforcement  costs  of  EUR  0.7  million  for  ship  operators 
which are overcompensated by administrative costs savings of EUR 4.8 million. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
The  proposed  extension  of  the  Directive  to  larger  fishing  vessels  in  the  preferred  policy  option  is  ‘relevant’  for 
SMEs. The additional enforcement costs for fishing vessels operators are estimated at (EUR 0.03 million in 2030 
and EUR 0.05 million in 2050) but will have positive impacts in terms of safety for operators of fishing vessels.   

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
In  addition  to  the  net  costs  for  PSC  authorities,  estimated  at  EUR  9.5  million  in  the  preferred  policy  option 
relative to the baseline, there will be adjustment costs of 4.8 million for flag States for electronic certificates.     

Will there be other significant impacts?  
As the same high safety level will be preserved across the Union, there will be a positive impact on the internal 
market and competitiveness  

Proportionality 
The preferred policy option does not go beyond what is necessary to reach the overall policy objectives.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The policy will be reviewed allowing for an adequate period of time after the proposal’s adoption for measures 
to  be  effective  and  to  have  generated  impacts.  The  Commission/EMSA  will  verify  that  inspections  are  being 
carried out as required and that the reports are uploaded to the database. EMSA will continue to carry out visits 
to Member States leading to horizontal analyses.  

2