COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 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) 148 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  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) 149 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ..................................... 1 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 9 

2.1.  What are the problems? ..................................................................................... 9 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 11 
2.3.  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 24 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 24 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 24 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 24 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 25 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ..................................................... 25 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 25 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 26 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................... 27 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 27 
5.2.  Description of the policy measures and policy options ................................... 29 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................. 34 

6.1.  Economic impacts ........................................................................................... 35 
Impacts on public authorities............................................ 35 

6.1.1. 

6.1.2. 

6.1.3. 

6.1.4. 

6.1.5. 

6.1.6. 

Impacts on ship operators ................................................. 37 

Impact on EMSA .............................................................. 38 

Impacts on SMEs .............................................................. 39 

Functioning of the internal market and competition ........ 40 

Impacts on competitiveness .............................................. 40 

6.2.  Social impacts .................................................................................................. 40 
Maritime safety ................................................................. 40 

6.2.1. 

6.2.2. 

6.2.3. 

Impacts on working conditions and skills ........................ 42 

Impacts on fundamental rights ......................................... 42 

6.3.  Environmental impacts .................................................................................... 42 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 43 

7.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 43 
7.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 45 
7.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 46 
7.4.  Subsidiarity and proportionality ...................................................................... 46 

i 

 
 
 
8. 

PREFERRED OPTION....................................................................................................................... 47 

Identification of the preferred policy option and stakeholders views ............. 47 
8.1. 
8.2.  REFIT .............................................................................................................. 50 
8.3.  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach ................................................. 50 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 50 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 52 

1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES .................................................................. 52 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ...................................................................................................... 52 

3. 

4. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB....................................................................................................... 52 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 54 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 63 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE..................................................................... 63 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 65 

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................... 67 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 68 

ANNEX  5:  CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  2018  MARITIME  FITNESS  CHECK  AND  EMSA 

HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 98 

ANNEX 6: PARIS MOU CHANGES NOT REFLECTED IN THE CURRENT DIRECTIVE ................ 101 

ANNEX 7: EXPANDED INSPECTIONS ................................................................................................. 102 

ANNEX 8: DISCARDED POLICY MEASURES ..................................................................................... 104 

ANNEX 9: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES ........................................................................................ 105 

ANNEX 10: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS .......................................... 113 

ii 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BWM 

EEA 

EC 

EGD 

EMSA 

EU 

ILO 

IMO 

MARPOL 

MED MoU  

MLC  

MoU 

MRV 

International Ballast Water Management Convention   

European Economic Area 

European Commission 

European Green Deal 

European Maritime Safety Agency 

European Union  

International Labour Organisation  

International Maritime Organization 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships 

Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on port State control 

Maritime Labour Convention 2006 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Monitoring reporting and verification of greenhouses gases 

Paris MoU 

Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control 

PM 

PO 

PSC 

PSCO 

QMS 

REF2020  

REFIT  

RO  

SafeSeaNet 

SDG 

SOLAS 

SRP 

THETIS 

WGB 

VSMC 

Policy Measure 

Policy Option 

Port State Control 

Port State Control Officer  

Quality Management System 

EU Reference scenario 2020  

The European Commission's regulatory fitness and performance 
programme 

Recognised Organisation 

The EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system 

Sustainable Development Goal 

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Ship Risk Profile 

EU/Paris MoU port State control database 

White, Grey, Black list 

Very Serious Marine Casualty 

iii 

 
 
 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This  Impact  Assessment  accompanies  a  legislative  proposal  for  a  revision  of  Directive 
2009/16/EC on port State control1 (hereinafter “the PSC Directive” or “the Directive”). 

Maritime  transport  is  a  key  sector  for  the  EU  economy  as  it  embodies  the  main 
transport  mode  for  European  imports  and  exports  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  Maritime 
transport  is  estimated2  to  represent  around  80%  of  worldwide  goods  transported  and 
around 30% of intra-EU transport activity. In 2019, 1.9 billon tonnes were transported by 
short sea shipping to/from the main EU ports. In addition, 418 million passengers aboard 
ferries and cruise vessels embarked and disembarked in EU ports in 2019. 

At the same time, an average of 2,239 marine accidents were reported per year between 
2014 and 2020 for EU Member States, of which 33% very serious and serious casualties. 
In addition, 370 cases of marine pollution have been reported in total during 2014-20203.   

The  revision  of  the  PSC  Directive  has  to  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s 
Communication on a Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS) which sets out 
the  EU  vision  for  the  transport  system  of  the  future.  The  Strategy  announced  that  the 
Commission  is  planning  to  initiate  a  major  review  of  existing  legislation  on  flag  State 
responsibilities,  port  State  control  and  maritime  accident  investigation  in  2021. 
According  to  the  SSMS,  the  overall  objective  of  this  review  should  be  to  enable  safe, 
secure and efficient maritime transport and further stresses that “safety and security of the 
transport  system  is  paramount  and  should  never  be  compromised  and  the  EU  should 
remain a world  leader in  this field.  Continuous  efforts with international, national  and 
local authorities, stakeholders, and citizens is key […]4.” The Strategy sets as one of the 
milestones  that  by  2050,  the  death  toll  for  all  modes  of  transport  in  the  EU  should  be 
close  to  zero.  The  objective  of  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  to  ensure  a  high  and 
uniform level of maritime safety and environmental protection has also been underlined 
in several Council conclusions and in particular those from 20175 and 20206. 

Port State Control (PSC) can be described as the inspection of foreign ships in ports of 
states  other  than  the  flag  state  by  PSC  officers  to  verify  that  the  competency  of  the 
master,  officers  and  crew  on  board,  the  condition  of  a  ship,  and  its  equipment  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  international  conventions  -  and  in  the  European  Union, 
applicable EU law.  As such, PSC is  an important  element  for ensuring maritime safety 
and protecting the marine environment.  

1  Directive  2009/16/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  port  State 
control, OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, pp. 57 – 100.   
2 European Commission (2021). The EU Blue Economy Report 2021 
3  http://www.emsa.europa.eu/newsroom/latest-news/item/4266-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-
incidents-2020.html  
4 COM(2020) 789 final  - Sustainable and Smart Mobility  Strategy  – putting European transport on track 
for  the  future;  FLAGSHIP  10  –  ENHANCING  TRANSPORT  SAFETY  AND  SECURITY  point  98  and 
101. 
5  "Priorities  for  the  EU's  maritime  transport  policy  until  2020:  Competitiveness,  Decarbonisation, 
Digitalisation to ensure global connectivity, an efficient internal market and a world-class maritime cluster" 
6 "EU Waterborne Transport Sector – Future outlook: Towards a carbon-neutral, zero accidents, automated 
and competitive EU Waterborne Transport Sector" 

1 

 
 
                                                           
In  relation  to  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment,  the  initiative  should  contribute 
towards delivering the zero pollution ambitions of the European Green Deal (EGD)7 and 
the  SSMS.  The  initiative  contributes  towards  Sustainable  Development  Goal  (SDG)  3 
(“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”) and SDG 14 (“Conserve 
and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”). 

International and regional context 

Due  to  its  history  and  international  nature,  maritime  transport  has  developed  a  specific 
regulatory  structure.  At  the  global  level,  maritime  safety  and  protection  of  the 
environment  are  promoted  through  an  international  legal  framework  adopted  under  the 
auspices  of  the  United  Nations’  specialised  agency  responsible  for  regulating  shipping, 
the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)8. International rules related to working 
and  living  conditions  on-board  ships  are  promulgated  by  another  UN  agency,  the 
International Labour Organisation (ILO)9. 

Each of the IMO Conventions provides that they can be enforced by State parties of the 
convention other than the flag State in their function of port State, this means that port 
States have an important role in policing how flag States do their work and can protect 
their ports and waters from unsafe or polluting ships. As certain owners and certain flag 
States have proved unwilling or unable to  correctly apply  and  enforce their obligations 
deriving  from  the  international  conventions  on  their  ships,  systemic  PSC  whereby  port 
states would work together was developed.   

To improve effectiveness, port States carrying out PSC inspections coordinate their work on 
a regional basis. In 1978 a number of maritime authorities in Western Europe signed an 
agreement  to  provide  for  the  joint  enforcement  of  shipboard  living  and  working 
conditions under a convention of the ILO. Subsequently, and as a response to a number 
of  maritime  accidents,  the  role  and  responsibilities  were  broadened  and  the  Paris 
Memorandum of Understanding on port State control10 (hereinafter the “Paris MoU”) 
established in 1982  as  the first of nine such intergovernmental structures to be  established 
worldwide11, with its membership spread across the North-Atlantic basin to deal with issues 
related to: (i) safety of life at sea, (ii) prevention of pollution by ships, and (iii) living and 
working  conditions  on  board  ships.  Over  time,  the  Paris  MoU  has  been  amended  to 
accommodate new safety and marine environment requirements stemming from the IMO 
and ILO. 

  Paris  MoU  signatories  apply  common  procedures  to  select  vessels  for  inspection,  the 
carrying  out  of  PSC  inspections  to  enforce  the  IMO  and  ILO  conventions  and  to  share 
inspection  data.  It  has  established  an  international  PSC  inspection  regime  carried  out  by 
national inspectors referred to as port State control officers (PSCOs). 

7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en#documents 
8  International  Maritime  Organization  (www.imo.org);  all  EU  Member  States  are  IMO members  and  the 
EU has Observer status through the Commission. 
9 International Labour Organization (www.ilo.org), the UN agency whose mandate is to advance social and 
economic justice through setting international labour standards, all EU Member States are members of the 
ILO but the EU is not. 
10 www.parismou.org. All 24 EEA Member States with seaports, as well as Canada, the Russian Federation 
and the  United Kingdom, are  members of the Paris MoU, which  was established in 1982. The European 
Union is not a member. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian Federation membership of the 
Paris MoU was suspended in May 2022. 
11 The Paris MoU, Tokyo MoU (Pacific Ocean) Indian Ocean MoU, Mediterranean MoU, Acuerdo de Viña 
del Mar (Central and South America), Caribbean MoU, Abuja MoU (West Africa), Black Sea MoU, and 
Riyadh MoU. 

2 

 
                                                           
EU context 

EU  action  in  the  field  of  maritime  safety  both  complements  and  implements  the 
international framework as defined within IMO and ILO. The transposition of IMO and 
ILO  rules  into  the  EU  legal  system  makes  these  provisions  actionable  before  the 
European Court of Justice thereby ensuring their uniform enforcement across the Union. 
In  addition,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  play  an  important  role  in  improving 
international  standards,  by  initiating  and  contributing  directly  to  their  adoption  at 
international level. The bulk of today’s EU maritime safety policy was developed in the 
early  1990s,  and  was  further  worked  upon  between  2000-2009,  in  the  wake  of  major 
maritime accidents causing substantial oil spills12 and loss of life13. The overall objective 
of the EU has therefore been – and continues to be – a common policy on safe seas14, and 
continuous work to improve safety and reduce accidents and pollution. It should be noted 
that  while  the  EU  Member  States  are  members  of  the  IMO  and  have  ratified  the 
conventions  (enforced  by  PSC),  the  Union  is  not  a  party  and  cannot  adhere  to  these 
Conventions.  While  EU  MS  as  flag  States  apply  the  international  conventions  to  the 
vessels flying their flag, PSC provides for a system of mutual enforcement whereby port 
States  enforce  the  same  conventions  to  foreign  vessels  (including  other  EU  member 
States)  calling  at  their  ports.  This  ensures  a  harmonised  application  of  the  safety  and 
environmental  standards,  and  reduces  any  competitive  advantage  by  disincentivising 
shipowners  and/or  flag  States  that  may  attempt  to  gain  such  advantage  by  not  strictly 
following the rules  and  standards set  out in  the  conventions. While over time the  Paris 
MoU  has  developed  a  wide  body  of  procedures  for  the  inspection  of  ships,  it  has  no 
means to oblige its members to follow these rules. The Member States of the Paris MoU 
accordingly  have  a  wide  margin  of  manoeuvre  as  the  MoU  can  only  count  on  their 
professionalism and goodwill to ensure a harmonised and coordinated approach.       

EU  involvement  in  port  State  control  dates  from  1995  when  Directive  95/21/EC15 
(precursor of the existing Directive) was adopted, bringing PSC within the EU acquis and 
therefore making the obligations that EU Member States commit to in the context of the 
Paris MoU actionable before the EU courts as these are now included in the Directive. At 
that time, there was no system for targeting vessels for inspection and Paris MoU and EU 
Member  States  simply  had  to  inspect  at  least  25%  of  the  number  of  individual  ships 
which  entered  their  ports  during  a  calendar  year.  The  advent  of  improved  information 
technology  allowed  the  Member  States  to  share  more  easily  the  inspection  results  by 
means of the THETIS database and these could be used to develop an individual ship risk 
profile  for  all  ships  eligible  for  PSC  calling  to  EU  and  Paris  MoU  ports.  The  use  of 
THETIS to  record and share inspection results is  mandatory under EU law  -  this  is the 
major  advantage  that  Directive  2009/16/EC  brought.  The  inspection  effort  could  be 
focused on the poorest performing ships and those ships which did well in previous PSC 
inspections  would  be  inspected  less  frequently.  EEA  Member  States  are  also  provided 
with information regarding vessels scheduled to call to their ports by means of the Union 

12 e.g. Aegean Sea in 1992, ES (74,000 tonnes hydrocarbon), Braer accident in 1993, UK (85,000 tonnes), 
etc. 
13 e.g. the MV Estonia sinking in the Baltic sea in 1994 claiming 852 lives. 
14 COM (93) 66 ‘A common policy on safe seas’ 1993 
15 Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using 
Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international 
standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State 
control) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1 

3 

 
                                                           
maritime  information  exchange  system  'SafeSeaNet'16  to  allow  them  to  plan  their 
inspections.  

In the absence of the Directive, the Paris MoU States have committed themselves to carry 
out  a  required  number  of  inspections  (the  inspection  commitment)  to  an  agreed 
harmonised  level.  These  obligations  however  are  on  a  best  efforts  basis  and  not 
enforceable in any way; the only pressure that can be exercised is moral. The Paris MoU 
provides  that  ships  will  be  inspected  on  the  basis  of  a  ship  risk  profile  but  this  was  in 
reality implemented by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in pursuit of the 
Directive.  Absent  the  Directive  it  is  likely  that  the  Paris  MoU  would  have  a  targeting 
system  and  inspection  database.  This  would  not  have  been  mandatory  to  use  for  EU 
Member States and it would not however have the support provided by EMSA through 
training and the help desk provided by the Agency to national PSC administrations. 

The main objectives of the  2009  PSC Directive are: (i) the continuous  improvement of 
maritime  safety  and  security;  (ii)  the  continuous  improvement  of  pollution  prevention 
and  of  environmental  impact;  (iii)  the  continuous  improvement  of  on-board  living  and 
working conditions; (iv) the avoidance of distortions of competition. The key elements of 
the  EU  PSC  regime  in  this  context  are:  (i)  a  harmonised  approach  to  inspections  and 
detentions;  (ii)  an  annual  inspection  commitment  for  each  Member  State;  (iii)  the 
targeting  of  ships  for  inspection  based  on  a  ship  risk  profile  (SRP)  for  each  individual 
ship and (iv) record keeping and information sharing (inspection database). 

The PSC Directive incorporates the procedures and tools of the Paris MoU as agreed in 
2009. The Paris MoU and the PSC Directive have at their base the ideas of shared burden 
and  targeted  harmonised  inspections.  The  fact  that  the  results  of  PSC  inspections  are 
shared  and  publicly  accessible  means  that  there  is  a  high  level  of  mutual  control.  The 
owners and operators of well-run ships and their trade bodies view good PSC inspections 
as  a  mark  of  quality,  and  PSC  inspection  results  are  used  by  ship  lessors  in  making 
business decisions about which vessels to charter.  

Similarly, the flag State administrations (of good quality flags) are very aware of the port 
State  control  inspections  being  carried  out  on  vessels  flying  their  flag  especially  when 
these are unfavourable. Repeated poor inspection results lead to a negative impact on the 
ship risk profile and increased inspections. This has impact not only on the ship and the 
shipowner  concerned  but  also  on  the  flag  State  of  the  vessel  and  all  vessels  flying  this 
flag  by  negatively  impacting  the  flag  State  performance  (the  White  Grey  Black  list) 
which is used for targeting and selecting vessels for inspection. 

Subsequent  to  its  entry  into  force,  the  Directive  has  been  amended  to  provide  for  the 
enforcement  by  PSC  of  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention  2006  (MLC  2006)17. 
Furthermore,  in  the  EU  particular  rules  apply  to  ferries  in  regular  service,18  insurance 
requirements,19  the  control  of  ship  generated  waste  and  cargo  residues20,  the  safe  and 

16 This is a system hosted and developed by EMSA which enables Member States to provide and receive 
information  on  ships  and  their  hazardous  cargoes.  It  provides,  among  others,  the  identification,  position 
and status of a ship; times of departure and arrival; incidents reports, details on hazardous cargoes. 
17 Directive 2013/38/EU of 12 August 2013 amending Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control (OJ L 
218, 14.8.2013, p. 1) 
18 Directive (EU) 2017/2110 of 15 November 2017 on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-
ro passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC 
and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC (OJ L 315, 30.11.2017) 
19 Directive 2009/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the insurance 
of shipowners for maritime claims (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.128) 

4 

 
                                                           
environmentally sound recycling of ships21 and the monitoring reporting and verification 
(MRV)  of  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions22  where  enforcement  of  these  rules  is 
provided by means of PSC inspections. For other EU legal acts, such as  the controls of 
the sulphur content of marine fuels, enforcement is also performed in the vast majority of 
the EU Member States by PSC23. However, these EU provisions do not apply to the non-
EEA  members  of  the  Paris  MoU.  These  provisions  exist  independently  from  the 
international  conventions  and  EU  Member  States  use  port  State  control  for  their 
enforcement as regards foreign ships calling to EU ports. Absent the Directive the EU co-
legislator would have had to find or create other enforcement tool(s). 

Synergies with other EU policy instruments  

The  maintenance  of  the  condition  of  the  ship,  and  for  ensuring  that  its  equipment 
complies  with  the  requirements  of  the  international  conventions  applicable,  is  the 
responsibility of the ship-owner/shipping company.  

However, at State level, the responsibility for maritime safety involves three overlapping 
lines  of  State  intervention  (see  Figure  1).  States  have  differing  but  complementary 
responsibilities either as a vessel’s state of registration, a state which is being visited by a 
foreign flagged vessel or as a coastal state by which a vessel is travelling without calling. 
The first “line of defence” is provided by the flag State.  

The  primary  responsibility  for  monitoring  the  compliance  of  ships  with  the  IMO 
standards  for  safety,  pollution  prevention24,  and  the  ILO  standards  regarding  on-board 
living and working conditions lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose 
nationality  the  ship  holds  –  the  flag  State.  However,  as  flag  State  rules  only  apply  to 
vessels  that  fly  that  flag,  many  of  the  IMO's  most  important  technical  conventions 
contain provisions for ships to be inspected when the vessels visit foreign ports to ensure 
that  they  meet  the  international  requirements.  There  were  and  are  flag  States  allowing 
substandard  vessels  to  operate  under  their  flags  or  unable  to  adequately  enforce  the 
international rules. Therefore, systemic forms of PSC become a second but essential line 
of  defence,  to  reduce  the  risks  posed  by  substandard  ships  in  national  waters  of  EU 
Member  States.  Given  that  there  are  costs  associated  with  complying  with  the  relevant 
international  Conventions,  shipowners  operating  substandard  ships  can  potentially 
undercut  their  competitors  by  operating  below  the  necessary  standards,  and  could 
consequently  gain  a  competitive  advantage,  PSC  levels  the  playing  field  by  seeking  to 
reduce the competitive advantage to ship owners may seek through non-compliance. 

20  Directive  (EU)  2019/883  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  port 
reception  facilities  for  the  delivery  of  waste  from  ships,  amending  Directive  2010/65/EU  and  repealing 
Directive 2000/59/EC (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 11) 
21 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on 
ship  recycling  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  and  Directive  2009/16/EC  (OJ  L  330, 
10.12.2013, p. 1) 
22  Regulation  (EU)  2015/757  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2015  on  the 
monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending 
Directive 2009/16/EC (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 55) 
23 Directive (EU) 2016/802 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  11 May 2016 relating to a 
reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (codification) (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p.58) 
24  International  rules  include  for  example  the  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of  Life  at  Sea 
(SOLAS  74),  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL  73/78), 
Standards  of  Training,  Certification  and  Watchkeeping  (STCW),  the  International  Convention  on  Load 
Lines,  1966,  the  Convention  on  the  International  Regulations  for  Preventing  Collisions  at  Sea,  1972 
(COLREG 72) etc. 

5 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
As  previously  stated  PSC  involves  the  inspection  of  vessels  to  ensure  compliance  with 
international and EU standards relating to safety, environmental protection and working 
and living conditions on board. In the EU, there are four types of PSC inspections, (i) an 
initial inspection (ii) an expanded inspection (iii) a more detailed inspection and (iv) a ro-
pax25  inspection.  An  initial  inspection  is  a  general  inspection  of  the  vessel  and  of  its 
certificates. An  expanded inspection is  a more complex inspection which is  carried out 
on  types  of  ships  which  are  considered  to  be  of  higher  risk  either  because  they  carry 
passengers, because of their cargo or their age. In this regard particular attention is paid 
to  chemical  tankships,  gas  carriers,  oil  tankers,  bulk  carriers,  passenger  ships  and  any 
vessel  which  is  more  than  12  years  old.  A  more  detailed  inspection  is  carried  out 
whenever there are clear grounds for believing, during an inspection, that the condition of 
the  ship  or  of  its  equipment  or  crew  does  not  substantially  meet  the  relevant 
requirements. Ro-pax inspections arise due to specific EU legislation in this regard26.  

During a PSC inspection, the inspector may identify one or more deficiencies which are 
included in the PSC inspection report. The report also specifies by  when the deficiency 
should be rectified which can be immediately, before departure, at the next port or within 
a certain number of days. In the case of serious deficiencies giving rise to danger to the 
safety, health, or the environment, the PSC inspector can decide to detain the ship. The 
detention  of  a  ship  indicates  the  seriousness  of  the  deficiencies  and  the  inspector  will 
have  to  return  to  the  ship  to  verify  that  the  deficiencies  have  been  rectified  before 
departure.  A  vessel  subject  to  multiple  detentions  over  a  certain  period  can  be  refused 
access (banned) from any port in the EU (or Paris MoU region).  

The deficiencies and detentions recorded against individual ships as recorded and shared 
in  the  THETIS  database  are  reflected  thereafter  in  the  vessel’s  SRP,  meaning  that  the 
PSC system is risk-based; the poorest performing ships are the most often inspected.  

Figure 1: The flag state, port state and accident investigation responsibilities of EU Member States 

25 A ro-pax  ship  is a passenger vessel  which also has roll-on /roll-off capacity for the carriage of private 
cars and commercial vehicles along with space for passengers. Ro-pax inspections are specific to the EU. 
26 Directive (EU) 2017/2110 of 15 November 2017 on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-
ro passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC 
and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC (OJ L 315, 30.11.2017) 

6 

 
 
                                                           
This impact assessment has been initiated in parallel to the related impact assessments of 
the  Maritime  Accident  Investigation  Directive  (Directive  2009/18/EC27)  and  the  Flag 
State  Directive  (Directive  2009/21/EC28).  All  three  Directives  are  based  on  IMO  rules 
and  standards.  While  they  each  reflect  the  differing  responsibilities  of  the  EU  Member 
States in their various roles as flag, port and coastal states they have to be coherent with 
each other and any proposed change to one has to take the other two Directives and the 
broader international regulatory environment into account.   

Although both the flag State control and the  PSC Directives work to improve maritime 
safety and the marine environment, accidents can and do still occur. Once this happens, it 
is important to investigate what went wrong and draw lessons therefrom. To achieve this 
the third line of defence was created, via the Accident Investigation Directive’. 

The  Directives  work  together  to  contribute  to  a  higher  level  of  maritime  safety  and 
maritime transport efficiency  as well as a stronger level  playing field  between Member 
States.  The  counter  factual  situation  would  be  international  obligations  transposed  into 
national  legislation  with  no  means  for  Member  States  to  control  each  other  or  to 
cooperate with the support of EMSA. This would lead to less protection for EU citizens. 

The  impact  assessment  of  the  Directive  on  maritime  accident  investigation  looks  at 
extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  fishing  vessels  of  below  15  metres  in  length  – 
larger  fishing  vessels  are  already  included.  It  also  seeks  to  clarify  certain  unclear  or 
ambiguous definitions and to update the EU legislation having regard to changes at IMO 
level.  It  also  examines  the  possibilities  for  EMSA  to  provide  operational  support  to 
Member States’ accident investigation bodies.  

The  impact  assessment  of  the  flag  State  Directive  aims  to  update  and  align  it  with 
international  rules  (the  Implementation  of  IMO  Instruments  Code  or  III  Code) 
maintaining  the  IMO-Audit  provision  and  follow-up;  to  strengthen  the  flag  States  in 
performing  their  obligations,  including  monitoring  of  EU  Recognised  Organisations 
(Classification Societies)29. It also aims to digitalise the flag registers, to revise the flag 
State performance measurement and reward good quality. 

These  three  Directives  are  also  part  of  and  have  significant  interaction  with  the  larger 
maritime  safety  acquis  which  includes  elements  such  as  SafeSeaNet30,  the  EMSA 
founding Regulation31, the fishing vessel safety Directive32, the EU legislation relating to 
Recognised Organisations (ROs)33, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive34 and other 

27  Directive  2009/18/EC  of  23  April  2009  establishing  the  fundamental  principles  governing  the 
investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and 
Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 114) 
28 Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance 
with flag State requirements (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 132) 
29  Classification  societies  are  organisations  which  develop  and  apply  technical  standards  for  the  design, 
construction and survey of ships and which carry out surveys and inspections on board ships. Flag states 
can delegate  certain of their  statutory  ship  survey and ship certification tasks to classification societies  – 
when they do so the classification society becomes known as a ‘recognised organisation’ or RO. 
30 Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (OJ L 
208, 5.8.2002, p. 10) 
31  (OJ  L  208,  5.8.2002,  p.  1)  which  is  under  possible  revision  see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13049-European-Maritime-Safety-Agency-review-of-mandate_en 
32  (OJ  L  34,  9.2.1998,  p.  1)  which  is  under  evaluation  see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12522-Fisheries-Fishing-Vessel-Safety-Directive-evaluation-_en 
33  Regulation  (EC)  No  391/2009  on  common  rules  and  standards  for  ship  inspection  and  survey 
organisations (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p.11) and Directive  2009/15/EC on common rules and standards for 

7 

 
                                                           
 
EU environmental legislation35. The PSC Directive in particular is a major plank for the 
harmonised enforcement of standards applicable to ships calling in EU ports arising from 
international conventions but in particlar from EU acquis.   

Evaluation of the Directive and visits carried out by EMSA 

The 2018 REFIT ex-post evaluation36 and Maritime Transport Fitness Check37 concluded 
that, although the PSC Directive removes the flexibility of the Paris MoU to some extent, 
it  adds  value,  by  combining  a  PSC  control  framework  with  a  legal  enforcement 
mechanism, to ensure correct and consistent implementation in Member States. This has 
resulted in pressure to perform and continuously improve, and thus to  a better resource 
allocation  at  Member  State  level  for  PSC.  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  PSC 
Directive has contributed to the intended objectives to improve maritime safety, security, 
pollution prevention and ensuring better working and living conditions on-board.  

The  assistance  of  EMSA  has  supported  the  EU  PSC  regime  in  important  ways.  The 
evaluation  highlighted  the  importance  of  the  THETIS  database.  Over  two-thirds  of 
EU/EEA Member States carrying out PSC inspections exclusively use THETIS in deciding 
which vessels to inspect. The role of EMSA in managing and updating THETIS, as well 
the  provision  by  the  Agency  of  training  of  inspectors  to  harmonise  the  implementation 
inspections  throughout  the  Paris  MoU  region,  was  also  found  to  be  very  important.  The 
results  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  and  the  linkages  to  the  present  impact  assessment  are 
reflected in this impact assessment as set out in Annex 5.  

In a similar vein, the  Maritime Transport  Fitness Check  pointed to  a number of possible 
improvements as regards PSC. As regards the scope of the Directive, the inclusion of some 
environmental legislation is adding to the workload of inspectors and the complexity of the 
system  and  several  Member  States  have  expressed  concern  that  PSC  is  moving  too  far 
from its original goals and risks overburdening the system. On the other hand, some other 
Member States have expressed the wish that PSC be broadened in its scope to allow for the 
inspection  of  foreign  fishing  vessels  for  safety,  environmental  and  working  conditions  
issues.  The  Maritime  Transport  Fitness  Check  recommended  digitalisation  and  EMSA 
digital  systems,  applications  and  databases 
to  support  enforcement,  facilitate 
implementation and reduce burden on maritime administrations and shipping operators.  

the  Commission  and  EMSA  have  continuously  monitored 

the 
In  addition, 
implementation  of  the  Directive.  The  fact  that  PSC  inspection  reports  have  to  be 
uploaded to THETIS as soon as the inspection is completed means that EMSA has a near 
real-time  and  detailed  overview  of  all  inspections  carried  out.  EMSA  also  provides  a 
help-desk  and 
to  Member  States  who  require  assistance. 
Furthermore,  EMSA  visits  Member  States  to  verify  compliance  and  in  2019  EMSA 
completed  a  Mid-Cycle  Horizontal  Analysis38,  based  on  visits  to  14  Member  States 
carried out between 2017-2019 to verify correct implementation of the Directive.  

technical  assistance 

ship  inspection  and  survey  organisations  and  for  the  relevant  activities  of  maritime  administrations  (OJ 
L131, 28.5.2009, p.47) 
34 OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19 
35  Such  as  Directive  92/43/EEC  (the  “Habitats  Directive”),  Directive  2009/147/EC  (the  “EU  Birds 
Directive”, Directive (EU) 2019/904 (Single use Plastics Directive)  
36 SWD(2018) 230 final 
37 SWD(2018) 228 final 
38 Not yet published 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
The  main  findings  of  the  horizontal  analysis  are  that  PSC  function  as  it  should.  The 
number and rate of detentions varied slightly between Member States and that appears to 
follow a geographical pattern; Member States closer to EU’s external borders, appear to 
have a higher probability of detecting and detaining substandard ships. Member States’ 
compliance  with  the  inspection  commitment  has  improved  significantly  between  2013 
and  2018.  However,  a  number  of  weaknesses  were  identified,  the  results  of  EMSA 
horizontal analysis are summarised in Annex 5.  

2.  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  underlying  problems,  problem  drivers  and  implications  that  are  relevant  for  the 
revision of the Directive are presented in Figure 2. 

2.1. 

2.1. 

What are the problems? 

Problem  1  –  Legal  uncertainty  on  the  implementation  of  new  international  mandatory 
rules at EU level 

The PSC Directive refers to IMO Conventions and also to the procedures of the Paris 
MoU. Since the adoption of the Directive, both the IMO legislation as well as the Paris 
MoU procedures impacting on the Directive have changed (see Annex 6). As a result, the 
Directive  does  not  always  refer  to  the  up-to-date  legislation.  This  creates  legal 
uncertainty on the implementation of new international mandatory rules at EU level. 

Figure 2: Problem tree 

In order for EU Member States to enforce international conventions by means of PSC these 
need to be listed in the Directive; all EU Member States should ratify and enforce the same 
international conventions within the PSC Directive to ensure coherence and a harmonised 
approach.  As  regards  the  Paris  MoU,  if  Member  States  implement  the  changes  already 
agreed at Paris MoU level by modifying their internal procedures this would put them in 
contradiction with the Directive and potentially in violation of EU law. Furthermore, such 
unilateral  action  by  Member  States  would  deprive  the  Directive  of  its  coordinating  and 
harmonising  effect,  leading  to  distortions  in  the  internal  market.  Among  the  nine  EU 
Member  States  interviewed  as  part  of  the  stakeholders  consultations  (Bulgaria,  Estonia, 
Denmark,  France, Germany,  Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal) there is  full agreement 
on  the  need  for  the  alignment  of  the  Directive  with  the  Paris  MoU  amendments.  Other 

9 

 PROBLEM DRIVERSPROBLEMSIMPLICATIONSFINAL CONSEQUENCELegal uncertainty on theimplementation of new international mandatory rules at EU levelRisk of non-enforcement of new international rulesInefficient andnon harmonised approach toPSC inspectionsRiskof substandard fishing vesselsRisk of internal market distortionsLack of harmonised responsein crisis situationsMissed opportunities brought by digitalisationRisk for maritime safety (pollution and casualties) 
 
stakeholder  groups  (non-EU  Member  States,  industry  associations,  international  bodies, 
ROs, pilots, port operators and ship owners) also agree on the need for alignment.  

Problem 2 – Inefficient and non-harmonised approach to PSC inspections 

While PSC inspections are generally regarded as effective, several issues were identified 
as problematic since the entry into force of the Directive. These give rise to inefficiencies 
and a non-harmonised approach to PSC throughout the Union. Some of these issues have 
been identified by the Member States themselves as well as by the Commission and by 
EMSA,  which  functions  as  a  training  provider  as  well  as  the  database  manager  for  the 
THETIS  ship  targeting  and  database  system.  The  obligation  of  the  Member  States  to 
upload  the  inspection  report  to  THETIS  typically  within  72  hours  of  the  inspection 
allows EMSA and the Commission  to have a near-real-time overview of the way these 
inspections are carried out. 

The first of these issues relates to the scope of the Directive while all of the others relate 
to different aspects of the ways in which inspections are prepared for being carried out or 
followed up, which could be improved. As regards the scope of the Directive, there is a 
category of vessel (namely larger fishing vessels) operating in EU waters and calling to 
EU ports, which are subject to international conventions but are not subject to PSC in a 
harmonised  and  coordinated  manner.  The  issue  therefore  arises  as  to  whether  these 
vessels should be subject to some form of PSC and what form this would take. The other 
issues  around  inefficient  and  non-harmonised  PSC  inspections  relate  to  a  multiplicity  of 
aspects  which  have  either  been  identified  as  problematic,  such  as  what  happens  when 
Member  States  miss  inspections  either  for  operational  reasons  or  due  to  force  majeure 
situations (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) or how to deal with Member States that inspect 
more vessels than they have been allocated by their inspection commitment. Also identified 
as  problematic  are  for  example  the  validation  of  inspection  reports,  the  absence  of  a 
quality management system (QMS) or the number of inspectors carrying out inspections.  

For example, 58% of all inspections and 45% of expanded inspections (which themselves 
make up 21% of all PSC inspections) are carried out by a sole inspector. It is considered 
to  be  best  practice  by  EMSA  that  inspections,  and  in  particular  expanded  inspections, 
should  be  carried  out  by  more  than  one  inspector  because  of  complexity  of  the 
inspections and the fire and/or evacuation drills which are involved. Nevertheless, this is 
not found in the Directive thus it is not legally enforceable. 

Similarly,  EMSA  estimates  that  71%  of  all  inspection  reports  are  not  validated  by 
someone other than the inspector carrying out  the inspection and submitting the report. 
Validation by someone other than the inspector carrying out the inspection is considered 
to  be  best  practice  and  although  not  currently  required  by  the  Directive  provides  for  a 
significant and valuable level of quality control.  

Therefore the inspections are not carried out in a harmonised manner in the EU Member 
States.  

A third category of  issues  relates to  developments  either in  terms  of EU  policy to  take 
more account of environmental aspects of PSC or technology such as the increased use of 
electronic certificates in PSC.  

The  final  consequence  of  the  problems  discussed  above  relates  to  risks  for  maritime 
safety (pollution and casualties). This should however be seen in the broader context of 
the  flag  State,  PSC  and  accident  investigation  responsibilities  for  ensuring  maritime 
safety and the protection of the marine environment.  

10 

 
During 2014-2020, an average of 2,239 marine casualties and incidents were reported per 
year showing a relatively stable evolution over time (see Figure 3). Very serious marine 
casualties39  (VSMCs)  represented  3.1%  of  the  total  while  serious  casualties40  an 
additional  30.2%,  resulting  in  an  average  of  69  fatalities.  Crew  is  the  most  affected 
category  of  victims,  representing  around  89%  of  fatalities.  Furthermore,  a  total  of  145 
ships were lost over the 2014-2020 period (21 per year on average)41.  

Figure  3:  Number  of  reported  marine  casualties  and  incidents  by  type  (left  side)  and  number  of 
fatalities (right side) 

Source: European Maritime Safety Agency (2021) 

A total of 370 cases of marine pollution have been reported during 2014-2020, showing a 
decreasing trend over time. Marine pollution in the form of ship bunkers (fuel) and other 
pollutants (e.g. cargo residues, lubricating or hydraulic oils)  represented 68% and 18%, 
respectively, of the total number of cases of pollution (Figure 4)42.  

Figure 4: Cases of marine pollution by type  

Source: European Maritime Safety Agency (2021) 

2.2. 

2.2. 

What are the problem drivers? 

Problem  Driver  1:  Current  EU  requirements  are  not  aligned  with  new  international 
mandatory rules and new procedures agreed at regional level  

IMO  alignment:  At  the  IMO  level,  a  number  of  international  conventions,  in  which 
enforcement would ordinarily be provided for by means of PSC, have entered into force 
or  are  in  the  process  of  ratification.  However  as  these  Conventions  are  not  included  as 

39 As defined by the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents – in effect loss of a 
ship, death or severe damage to environment - referred to in Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2009/18/EC on 
maritime accident investigation. 
40 As defined by the IMO – in effect a fire, explosion, collision, grounding, contact, heavy weather damage, 
ice damage, hull cracking, or suspected hull defect, etc. referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/8/EC 
on maritime accident investigation 
41 European Maritime Safety Agency (2021), Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2021. 
42 European Maritime Safety Agency (2021), Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2021. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
relevant  instruments  within  Article  2  of  the  PSC  Directive,  they  cannot  be  included 
within  the  EU  PSC  regime.  Changes  at  IMO  level  are  not  as  regular  as  those  at  the 
implementation  level  of  the  Paris  MoU  but  given  that  the  international  Conventions 
underpin PSC it is essential that the PSC Directive be kept up to date with these changes.  

The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and 
Sediments (BWM) entered into force since 2011 and has been ratified and is enforced by a 
number of EU Member States43. The aim of the convention is to help prevent the spread of 
potentially  harmful  aquatic  organisms  and  pathogens  in  ships'  ballast  water.  The  Nairobi 
International  Convention  on  the  Removal  of  Wrecks  (Nairobi  Convention)44  is  a  2007 
instrument which provides a legal basis for States to remove, or have removed, shipwrecks 
that may have the potential to affect adversely the safety of lives, goods and property at sea, 
as well as the marine environment. The fact that these Conventions are not included in the 
PSC Directive but have been ratified by some Member States means that they are enforced in 
a  non-harmonised  and  non-coordinated  way  which  could  give  rise  to  distortions  in  the 
internal market, and thus an uneven safety net is applied throughout the Union45. A majority 
of stakeholder groups consulted (i.e. EU Member States, industry associations, international 
bodies, non-EU countries, ROs) agree that it is a problem that there is no correct reference to 
the  BWM Convention and the Nairobi Wreck  Removal Convention in the PSC Directive, 
which then does not allow these Conventions from being enforced as a part of EU PSC. 

The Hong Kong International Convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling 
of ships (Hong Kong Convention)46 is an international Convention, developed at IMO, aimed 
at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives, 
do  not  pose  any  unnecessary  risk  to  human  health  and  safety  or  to  the  environment. 
However, while the Convention has not yet entered into force, given the importance that the 
EU  attached  to  this  issue,  its  essential  elements  have  been  incorporated  into  EU  law  and 
given  effect  in  Regulation  (EU)  1257/2013.47  As  regards  ships  calling  to  EU  ports, 
enforcement of this Regulation is provided for by the PSC Directive. However, if the Hong 
Kong Convention were to enter into force it would be an important political signal that this 
convention could be formally incorporated into the Directive.  

As regards the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in 
Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS) this 
is  an  international  convention  proving  for  the  compensation  for  damages  caused  by 
spillage  of  hazardous  and  noxious  substances  during  maritime  transportation.  This 
convention has also not yet entered into force. However if the HNS Convention were to 
enter into force it  would be  important  to  enforce it  throughout  the EU in a harmonised 
and coordinated manner without having to fully amend the PSC Directive. 

43 As of 26 October 2021 BWM has been ratified by 18 EU Member States. As of 2021 Finland has signed 
but not yet ratified the Convention and Italy, Romania, Ireland, Cyprus and Slovenia have not signed the 
Convention. 
44  As  of  26  October  2021  the  Nairobi  Convention  has  been  ratified  by  14  EU  Member  States.  Ireland, 
Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia have not yet ratified the Convention. 
45 The BWMC and Nairobi Conventions are both “relevant instruments” for the purposes of the Paris MoU, 
meaning that if they have ratified them, the member states of the Paris MoU are expected to enforce them. 
46  As  of  26  October  2021  the  Hong  Kong  Convention  (which  has  not  yet  entered  into  force)  has  been 
ratified by 9 EU Member States. 
47 The EU’s Ship Recycling Regulation lays down requirements for ships and recycling facilities to ensure 
that  ship  recycling  takes  place  in  an  environmentally  safe  and  sound  manner,  restricts  or  prohibits  the 
installation  and  use  of  hazardous  materials  on  ships,  such  as  asbestos  or  ozone-depleting  substances  and 
establishes a European list of ship recycling facilities. 

12 

 
                                                           
The way in which international conventions are enforced by means of port state control 
depends  largely  on  the  subject  matter.  In  relation  to  the  four  international  conventions 
mentioned  above,  enforcement  of  the  BWMC  can  involve  a  document  check  but  may 
also  involve  sampling  the  ballast  water  or  checking  the  ballast  water  tanks  and  the 
equipment  used  to  neutralise  alien  and  invasive  species.  Similarly  for  the  Hong  Kong 
Convention  its  provisions  have  been  brought  within  EU  law  by  means  of  the  Ship 
Recycling  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  1257/2013)  and  port  State  control 
enforcement  of  ship  recycling  can  be  either  ‘light  touch’  as  a  document  check  or  ‘a 
detailed  inspection’  of  the  vessel  to  verify  that  it  complies  with  the  “inventory  of 
hazardous” material or “ready to recycle certificates” which are issued by the flag State.  

With  regard  to  the  other  two  conventions  (Nairobi  Wreck  Removal  and  HNS),   
enforcement  is  mainly  a  document  check.  These  two  instruments  are  based  on  the 
concept  of  “polluter  pays”  and  require  that  vessels  have  adequate  insurance  for  the 
damage that they may cause. The HNS provides for the establishment of a fund to pay for 
damages  caused  by  spills  at  sea  of  highly  noxious  substances  while  the  Nairobi 
convention  provides  that  the  owner  of  a  ship  must  take  action  to  mitigate  the  damage 
caused by shipwrecks. If during an inspection, it is found that the vessel is not carrying 
the  appropriate  certificates  under  Nairobi  or  HNS  then  a  deficiency  can  be  recorded 
against the vessel.  

The Paris MoU and EU PSC regimes operate a ‘no more favourable treatment’ clause so 
that even when a flag State chooses not to ratify a convention, vessels calling to EU ports 
and  subject  to  PSC  will  still  be  expected  to  achieve  substantial  compliance  with    the 
conventions. This means that there is no incentive for these flag State not to comply and 
given  that  deficiencies  can  be  recorded  against  their  ships  they  are  “encouraged”  to 
ratify. Overall, this means that the standards of international shipping are maintained and 
improved. 

Paris  MoU  alignment:  Another  significant  area  of  divergence  between  the  Directive  and 
international  rules  concerns  amendments  to  the  Paris  MoU  and  procedures  negotiated  and 
accepted within the context of the Paris MoU since 2009. The PSC Directive makes explicit 
references to the procedures of the Paris MoU but does not refer to the changes made to the 
Paris MoU since 2009. These changes (set out in Annex 6) concern key operational features 
of  the  PSC  regime  that  have  become  obsolete  since  2009  based  on  developments  in  the 
practice of PSC inspections as well as those based on operational experience. In a number of 
cases, the changes made at Paris MoU level can create incompatibilities with the Directive 
and in  these  cases, the  adopted  changes  have been put into  abeyance waiting  for the PSC 
Directive to be adapted.  

The  key  elements  that  have  been  changed  in  the  Paris  MoU  include  the  calculation 
method  of  the  so  called  White  Grey  Black  (“WGB”)  list  for  targeting  purposes,  the 
method  for  drawing  up  the  Ship  Risk  Profile,  the  certificates  and  documents  to  be 
checked  during  inspections,  the  inspection  commitment,  the  72-hour  pre-reporting 
obligations for ships which are eligible for expanded inspections and procedures related 
to the banning of ships. However, these changes cannot be implemented by EU Member 
States as the PSC Directive has not been amended.  

To  take  the  example  of  the  72-hour  pre-arrival  notification  obligation,  prior  to  the 
adoption of the Directive the Paris MoU had introduced an obligation on vessels which 
are  eligible  for  an  expanded  PSC  inspection:  (i)  all  ships  with  a  high  risk  profile 
(regardless of type and age), which have not been inspected in the last five months; (ii) 
oil,  gas  and  chemical  tankers,  bulk  carriers  or  passenger  ships  more  than  12  years  old, 

13 

 
with a standard risk profile, which have not been inspected in the last 10 months; (iii) oil, 
gas and chemical tankers, bulk carriers or passenger ships more than 12 years old, with a 
low risk profile, which have not been inspected in the last 24 months. The obligation was 
to notify their estimated time of arrival to a port 72 hours in advance of their arrival. If 
the  voyage  was  to  take  less  than  three  days,  the  agent  is  to  submit  the  data  before 
departure from the previous port.  

As the Directive was implemented, the members of the Paris MoU began to feel that that 
this obligation was too burdensome on the agent, operator or master and added no value 
as  the  national  PSC  authorities  have  the  information  required  of  the  agent  more  easily 
available in THETIS. On this basis the Paris MoU abolished this pre-arrival notification 
obligation but this change cannot be implemented unless and until the Directive (which 
contains an identical obligation) is amended. 

Problem Driver 2: Current EU requirements do not apply to fishing vessels 
Article 3(4) of PSC Directive excludes certain types of vessels from the scope of PSC48. 
The  reasons  why  these  vessel  types  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  are 
various,  but  relate  mainly  to  the  fact  that  these  vessels  either  are  not  operated 
commercially/professionally  or  because  the  international  conventions  do  not  apply  to 
them. However, the 2018 ex-post evaluation49 and the stakeholders’ consultation in  the 
context of the impact assessment process, showed the need to assess further whether the 
Directive should apply to fishing vessels.  

While  within  the  maritime  transport  sector  PSC  provides  for  the  inspection  of  foreign-
flagged merchant ship in ports for conformity with relevant international Conventions no 
equivalent harmonised mechanism for foreign fishing vessels calling to ports in the EU 
exists.  There  are  however  legally  binding  international  instruments,  developed  by 
IMO  and  ILO  applying  to  larger  fishing  vessels  (over  24  metres  in  length),  fishing 
vessel personnel, and fishing  operations that provide for their enforcement by means 
of PSC50. This means that every fishing vessel, to which the respective international 
instrument  applies51,  when  in  a  port  of  a  State  that  is  a  Party  to  the  respective 
instrument,  could  be  subjected  to  PSC  inspections  by  that  State.  It  is  however  far 
from clear whether, and to what extent, such inspections take place. What can be said 
with  some  certainty  is  that  if  EU  Member  States  are  carrying  out  these  inspections, 
they  are  not  being  carried  out  in  a  targeted,  harmonised  or  coordinated  manner  and 
the results of these inspections are not shared with other Member States. 

48 The Directive excludes "Fishing vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries, wooden ships of a primitive built, 
government ships used for non-commercial purposes and pleasure yachts not engaged in trade". 
49 SWD(2018) 228 final 
50  The  list  of  legally  binding  international  instruments  includes:  International  Convention  for  the 
Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships,  1973,  as  modified  by  the  Protocol  of  1978  relating  thereto,  and  as 
further amended by the Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL); International Convention on Standards of Training, 
Certification  and  Watchkeeping  for  Fishing  Vessel  Personnel  (STCW-F),  1995;  ILO  Work  in  Fishing 
Convention,  2007  (No.188);  International  Convention  for  the  Control  and  Management  of  Ships'  Ballast 
Water and Sediments (BWM). Cape Town Agreement of 2012 on the Implementation of the Provisions of 
the Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of 
Fishing Vessels, 1977 (CTA). CTA is not yet in force. 
51 PSC of smaller fishing vessels (below 24 metres in length) is not considered here as (i) the international 
conventions  do  not  apply  to  these  vessels  and  so  there  would  be  no  agreed  standards  against  which  the 
vessels could be inspected (ii) these vessels operate within national waters (including EEZs) and return to 
land their catch in their home port meaning that there is no foreign port call on which PSC is predicated.  

14 

 
                                                           
Due to their small size, most fishing vessels in the EU operate in territorial waters. This 
means that in general, only larger fishing vessels above 24 meters in length are likely to 
engage in international waters and call at ports different than those in the country where 
they  are  registered52  and  therefore  be  subject  to  PSC.  Only  seven  EEA  countries 
(Denmark,  France,  Ireland,  Iceland,  Netherlands,  Norway  and  Spain)  were  visited  by  a 
significant  number  of  large  foreign  fishing  vessels  during  2016-202053.  In  2019,  1,328 
individual foreign flagged fishing vessels above 24 meters called at EU ports (Figure 5).  

Figure 5: Number of fishing vessels potentially eligible for PSC per country during 2016-2020 

Source: EMSA 

Fishing  vessels  in  general  show  a  relatively  high  incidence  of  serious  and  very 
serious  casualties  (VSMCs)  as  compared  to  maritime  transport  vessels.  For  2014-
2020,  data  reported  to  the  European  Maritime  Casualty  Information  Platform 
(EMCIP) shows a share of VSMCs in total number of marine casualties of 6.8% and 
of  serious  casualties  of 59%,  well  above the  average  for  other  ship  types  (2.6%  and 
24.3%,  respectively).  In  terms  of  share  in  the  number  of  VSMCs  and  serious 
casualties  they  come  second  after  cargo  ships,  with  32%  and  31%  respectively. 
During  2014-2020,  a total of  86  fatalities  involving  fishing  vessels  above  24  meters 
were  registered  (around  12  fatalities  per  year).  This  represents  around  18%  of  the 
total  number  of  fatalities  involving  all  vessels  (commercial  transport  and  fishing) 
falling within the scope of the maritime accident investigation Directive.  

There are different views among stakeholders as to the consequences of the current exclusion 
of  fishing  vessels  from  the  PSC  Directive.  Europêche54  is  of  the  view  that  it  is  not  the 
exclusion of these types of ships from the scope of the PSC Directive that generates negative 
consequences,  but  the  reluctance  of  the  flag  States  of  fishing  vessels  to  ratify  relevant 
international  agreements  on  safe  fishing  vessel  construction,  training  and  certification  of 
crews,  and  decent  working  and  living  conditions.  Europêche  further  stressed  that  fishing 
vessel operations should not be hampered by the PSC Directive since its application would 
directly affect the income of the fishermen concerned. 

Some of the  EU Member States  consulted  (Bulgaria, Germany,  Italy, Poland, Portugal) 
as  well  as  the  Union  of  Greek  Shipowners  (UGS),  Albania,  Norway  are  in  favour  of 
applying  some  form  of  PSC  regime  to  this  sector  due  to  the  need  for  a  harmonized 
approach, particularly for the sake of technical cooperation. There are however questions 

52 According to the EU fleet register 97% of the EU fishing fleet is below 24 meters. Source: Fleet Register 
(europa.eu) 
53 The figures do not account for the duration of the port call; some of the calls may be too short (less than 
12 hours) to effectively carry out a PSC inspection. 
54  Europêche is the representative body for fishermen in the European Union representing around 45000 
vessels 

15 

 
 
                                                           
on how this should be done. Portugal, Albania, Norway and UGS consider that PSC on 
foreign  fishing  should  be  done  differently  from  PSC  of  cargo  and  passenger  ships,  to 
avoid undermining the functioning of the PSC Directive.   

Legal  possibilities  exist  for  individual  EU  Member  States  to  inspect  larger  foreign-
flagged  fishing  vessels  calling  to  their  ports  as  there  are  a  number  of  legally  binding 
international conventions, developed by the IMO and ILO which apply to these vessels 
and which include port State control provisions.  

It  is  not  possible  to  directly  link  the  absence  of  such  inspections  with  the  poor  safety 
record  of  this  vessel  type  but  it  may  be  observed  that  port  State  control  of  merchant 
vessels has progressively improved the quality of vessels calling to EU ports over the last 
decade  and  a  similar  result  could  reasonably  be  expected  if  fishing  vessels  were  to  be 
systematically  inspected.  The  absence  of  such  inspections  means  that  the  poorest 
operators of larger fishing vessels (in many cases flagged in third countries)  can call to 
EU ports with little risk of repercussions.  

During  the  stakeholder  consultation  while  several  Member  States  said  that  the 
international  conventions  gave  them  the  right  to  do  so,  no  Member  State  has 
acknowledged  carrying  out  such  inspections  in  any  systematic  way.  Ad  hoc  PSC 
inspections (of third country fishing vessels) particularly relating to  working and living 
conditions on board may take place on the basis of complaints. The Commission services 
are not aware of any PSC inspections currently being carried out by EU Member States 
on  foreign-flagged  fishing  vessels  calling  to  their  ports.  It  is  possible  that  such 
inspections  are  being  carried  out  but  as  there  is  no  system  to  share  the  result  of  these 
inspections  and  the  Commission  has  no  information  in  this  regard.  Accordingly,  if  EU 
Member  States  are  carrying  out  these  inspections,  they  are  not  being  carried  out  in  a 
targeted, harmonised or coordinated manner and the results of these inspections are not 
shared with other Member States or the Commission/EMSA.  

With regard to merchant shipping, PSC has undeniably led to better compliance by these 
ships with international conventions and standards, particularly as regards those vessels 
registered in flag States, which either cannot or will not discharge their obligations under 
the  international  conventions  correctly.  Such  an  effect  could  also  be  expected  to  occur 
with fishing vessels engaged internationally, if such ships were subject to PSC. Since the 
maritime fishing sector appears to have a significant safety issue, the inclusion of fishing 
vessels  within  the  Directive  or  the  creation  of  a  PSC  regime  for  fishing  vessels  may 
provide an  effective control mechanism for these ships that are  engaged internationally 
thereby calling at ports other than those in the State where they are registered. 

Problem Driver 3: Unbalanced distribution of inspections across EU ports 

The Directive  (Article 5) imposes obligations on Member States to  inspect  ships based 
on  their  “priority”  -  which  is  determined  by  the  length  of  time  since  the  ship  was  last 
inspected.  “Priority  II”  ships  may  be  inspected  while  “Priority  I”  ships  must  be 
inspected55. The Directive requires that Member States carry out annually a total number 
of inspections of Priority I and Priority II ships corresponding to at least their 'fair share'.  

55 Ships are selected on the basis of priority, there are two priorities: Priority II: means that ships may be 
inspected  because  they  are  within  the  time  window  or  the  port  State  considers  an  unexpected  factor 
warrants an inspection while with Priority I: ships must be inspected because either the time window has 

16 

 
                                                           
 
The "fair share" mechanism provides for a system whereby the burden is distributed on a 
pro rata basis among the Member States of the Paris MoU and in this sense contributes 
to  the  stability  of  the  PSC  system.  The  Directive  provides  that  a  Member  State  is 
permitted  to  miss  a  certain  number  of  “priority”  inspections  and  still  comply  with  its 
obligations56.  The  Directive  also  allows  Member  States  to  postpone  inspections  of 
Priority I ships under certain circumstances57.  

The 2018 ex-post evaluation found several issues in respect to the inspection commitment. 
Some  Member  States  encountered  difficulties  in  discharging  their  obligations  under  the 
Directive due to uneven  distribution of vessels  across EU  ports.  Due to  changes in  trade 
flows there are significant differences between the shares of inspections by priority for the 
sea basins,  During the ex-post evaluation dissatisfaction  was expressed about the  way in 
which  the  inspection  commitment  (the  “fair  share”)  is  calculated  and  how  it  can  be 
complied with – arguing that it is unfairly inflexible for them.  

The main issue that gives rise to problems is a perceived absence of flexibility for certain 
Member States because of the number of vessels that call to their ports as compared to 
their  inspection  commitment.  Member  States  which  have  a  low  number  of  Priority  I 
vessels saw it as unfair that they could not  avail of flexibility when it comes to missed 
inspections.  While  the  Directive  obliges  the  Member  States  to  have  sufficient  human 
resources  to  be  able  to  discharge  their  obligations  under  the  Directive,  it  does  not  take 
account  of  seasonal  changes.  Member  States  have  expressed  the  view  that  increased 
flexibility to allow for more missed or postponed inspections could address this issue.  

Another issue which has  given rise to concern is over-inspecting where Member States of 
Paris  MoU  inspect  more  vessels  than  their  inspection  commitment  provides  for.  The 
allocation of an inspection commitment to each Member State of the Paris MoU is based on 
a  shared  burden  and  an  efficiency  of  effort.  Over-inspection  involves  the  carrying  out  of 
inspections  which  are  not  necessary  or  justified  and  as  the  calculation  of  the  inspection 
commitment is based on a three year rolling average of all inspections carried out in the Paris 
MoU region, this over-inspection has the effect over time of cumulatively ratcheting up the 
inspection  commitment  by  1-2% per  year  for  all  members for  all members  (including  EU 

closed  or  there  is  an  overriding  factor.  Ships  become  due  for  periodic  inspection  in  the  following  time 
windows: 
For High Risk Ships – between 5-6 months after the last inspection in the Paris MoU region. Standard Risk 
Ships – between 10-12 months after the last inspection. Low Risk Ships – between 24-36 months after the 
last inspection in the Paris MoU region.  
For example a Standard Risk Ship ordinarily becomes Priority  II after 10 months after the last inspection 
and may be inspected, if it is not inspected and 2 more elapse (12 months since the last inspection) it then 
becomes Priority I and must be inspected.  
56  According  to  the  provisions  of  the  PSC  Directive,  a  Member  State  can,  while  still  complying  with  its 
commitment,  miss 5% of Priority I ships  with a high-risk  profile calling at its ports and anchorages, and 
10% of Priority I ships other than those with a high-risk profile (Article 6). Furthermore, the PSC Directive 
foresees several modalities allowing a balanced inspection share within the EU (Article 7). First, a Member 
State in which the total number of calls of Priority I ships exceeds its inspection share may miss up to 30% 
of total number of Priority I ships calling at its ports and anchorages, and still comply with its inspection 
commitment. Second, a Member State in which the total number of calls of Priority I and Priority II ships 
is less than the inspection share can comply with the commitment if it carries out the inspections of Priority 
I  ships  and  inspections  on  at  least  85%  of  the  total  number  of  Priority  II  ships  calling  at  is  ports  and 
anchorages. 
57 The PSC Directive allows Member States to postpone inspections of Priority I ships (Article 8) if (a) the 
inspection can be carried out at the next call of the ship in the same Member State, provided that the ship 
does not call at other ports in the Community or the Paris MoU States in between and the postponement is 
no more than 15 days, (b) if the inspection can be carried out in another port within 15 days, if the port has 
agreed in advance to perform the inspection. 

17 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Member States) over and above what would be caused by (for example) increased ship calls, 
due to increased maritime traffic.  

Problem Driver 4: The current design of the ship risk profile and targeting mechanism 
are not up to date  

Since the entry into force of the  Directive, the quality of ships calling to EU and Paris 
MoU ports has improved – in part because of the effectiveness of the PSC system.  Far 
fewer  substandard  ships  operate  in  the  Paris  MoU  region58.  Data  from  THETIS  shows 
that the number of deficiencies has decreased by 22% between 2014 and 2019 due to the 
PSC inspections. The consequence is  that ships that call at  EU ports are  generally of  a 
better standard as compared to those which were calling to these ports when SRP59 was 
designed.  The  ship  risk  profile  and  targeting  mechanisms  are  no  longer  up  to  date  and 
need to be adapted.  

The  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  impact  assessment  process  generally  confirmed  the 
findings  of  the  2018  ex-post  evaluation.  They  agreed  that  low-risk  ships  are  sufficiently 
targeted and that sub-standard ships no longer operate in significant numbers in EU waters. 
In  its  written  contribution,  the  Paris  MoU  Secretariat  confirmed  that  most  sub-standard 
ships no longer or hardly operate in the Paris MoU region. A majority of respondents to the 
survey  questionnaire  of  all  groups  of  respondents  have  rated  the  effectiveness  of  the 
targeting mechanism based on the ship risk profile as moderately to highly effective. 

However,  those  interviewed  (Bulgaria,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Netherlands, 
Poland, Albania, Norway, IMO, the Federation of European Private Port Companies and 
Terminals - FEPORT, Bureau Veritas, Croatian Register of Shipping and the International 
Association  of  Classification  Societies  -  IACS)  and  surveyed  stakeholders  (from  PSC 
authorities  in  EU  and  non-EU  Member  States,  Flag  State  authorities,  ROs,  international 
bodies and others involved in the maritime transport industry) also pointed out that the ship 
risk profile could be improved with the addition of parameters or the adjustment of existing 
ones  in  order  to  perform  more  targeted  inspections  to  vessels  still  bearing  a  higher  risk, 
avoid targeting low-risk vessels and discourage sub-standard shipping. There is however a 
general  understanding  among  the  interviewed  stakeholders  that  vessels  still  need  to  be 
inspected regularly, in order to maintain the current, generally high performing standards. 

According to the targeted stakeholders’ consultation there is still a level of unnecessary or 
poorly  targeted  vessels  but  with  considerable  divergence  as  to  the  perception  of  the 
stakeholders as to the size of the issue. Overall, stakeholders estimate that the number of 
unnecessary targeted ships is in the range of 10% to 25%. This may reflect geographical 
considerations where as previously referred to in the 2019 Mid-cycle Horizontal Analysis, 
Member  States  at  the  EU’s  external  borders  may  be  visited  by  more  sub-standard  ships. 

58 In 2019 the average detention rate  – meaning the percentage of inspections resulting in  a  vessel being 
detained was 2.96% while in 2011 is was 3.61%. Over the same period the average number of deficiencies 
detected during an inspection went from 2.58 in 2011 to 2.37 in 2019 (source: EMSA).  
59  All  ships  in  the  ship  information  system  are  assigned  either  as  high,  standard  or  low  risk  based  on 
generic and historic parameters. Each criterion has a weighting which reflects the relative influence of each 
parameter on the overall risk of the ship. High Risk Ships  (HRS)  are ships  which  meet criteria to a total 
value of 5 or more weighting points. Low Risk Ships (LRS) are ships which meet all the criteria of the low 
risk parameters and have had at least one inspection in the previous 36 months. Standard Risk Ships (SRS) 
are  ships  which  are  neither  HRS  nor  LRS.  A  ship’s  risk  profile  is  recalculated  daily  taking  into  account 
changes in the more dynamic parameters such as age, the 36-month deficiency and detention  history and 
PSC  performance  of  the  company.  Recalculation  also  occurs  after  every  inspection  and  when  the 
applicable performance tables for flag and recognised organisations are changed. 

18 

 
                                                           
Data in THETIS however shows that over the period 2014-2019 the number of inspections 
of low risk ships giving rise to a finding of zero deficiencies was 34%.  

Over  the  last  decade  PSC  is  being  used  increasingly  to  enforce  environmental  legislation 
(based  on  EU  provisions60).  However,  the  ship  risk  profile  devised  prior  to  2009  had 
different  priorities  and  is  not  fully  adapted  to  focus  more  the  PSC  effort  on  the  least 
environmentally performing vessels. This also needs to be seen in the context of the “Fit for 
55” package proposed in July 202161 that aims to reduce the EU’s total GHG emissions by 
55%  by  2030,  paving  the  way  to  climate  neutrality  by  2050.  Shipping  is  expected  to 
contribute to this effort and four proposals have been put forward by the Commission that are 
relevant  for  the  maritime  transport  sector:  (i)  the  revision  of  the  EU  Emission  Trading 
System  Directive  (ii)  the  FuelEU  Maritime  Regulation  (iii)  the  Alternative  Fuels 
Infrastructure Regulation and (iv) the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive.  

On this basis, it may be appropriate to reconsider the way in which the ship risk profile is 
formulated 
to 
environmental related deficiencies and detentions. By changing the SRP to better reflect 
the environmental history the risk-based approach of the SRP is retained.   

issues  by  attaching  more 

to  reflect  environmental 

importance 

Problem Driver 5: Cumbersome paper-based certificate system  

The  PSC  Directive  does  not  provide  for  inspections  based  on  electronic  certificates 
and/or the electronic provision of information.  The exchange of information is  thus not 
efficient and it cannot be employed for refining the targeting of ships. The use of paper-
based certificates implies more time spent on performing an inspection and extra-costs. 

According  to  the  IMO’s  Global  Integrated  Shipping  Information  System  (GISIS) 
database,  at  present  23  out  of  66  flag  States  provide  statutory  certificates  in  electronic 
form. The majority of these electronic certificates are issued on behalf of the flag States 
by  20  ROs62  acting  on  their  behalf.  In  addition,  a  number  of  EU  flag  administrations 
issue electronic certificates directly, including Denmark, Germany and Portugal. 

The  number  of  ships  carrying  electronic  certificates  is  on  the  rise  and  expected  to 
increase.  For  instance,  Estonia  confirmed  that  around  60%  of  ships  visiting  Estonian 
ports  have  at  least  some  statutory  certificates  issued  electronically.  Similarly,  Poland 
explained that today 40%-50% of ships entering Polish ports have electronic certificates 
but all of them still need to carry hard copies for inspection purposes.  

At  the  international  level,  the  IMO  has  produced  guidance63  regarding  the  acceptance  by 
PSC authorities of electronic certificates, which provides a framework for regulating the use 
of electronic certificates. The Paris MoU has also issued similar guidelines, which state that 
PSC  should  accept  electronic  certificates  if  they  can  be  verified  using  a  unique  tracking 
number. However, the PSC Directive lacks a framework for the use of electronic certificates 
and the electronic provision of information. This means that even if a vessel is equipped with 
electronic certificates it still has to carry paper versions in case the electric versions are not 
accepted. A framework is missing for the practical implementation of electronic certificates 
and the electronic provision of information. PSC inspectors are also not given guidance on 

60  For  example  sulphur  emissions,  ship  generated  waste  and  cargo  residues,  recycling  of  ships,  and  the 
monitoring reporting and verification of GHG emissions. 
61 Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) 
62 This includes all 12 of the ROs recognised by EU flag states which between them cover over 85% of 
world tonnage 
63  FAL.5/Circ.39/Rev.2 

19 

 
                                                           
how to handle different types and forms of electronic certificates that ships can be required to 
carry and the extent to which they can be accepted during an inspection.  

There is  general agreement among all stakeholders consulted that electronic certificates 
are an inevitable development. A large majority of the PSC authorities of EEA countries 
and ROs responding to the survey stated that they are willing to consider using electronic 
certificates  in  the  future.  Despite  this,  the  acceptance  of  electronic  certificates  by  port 
States is in practice rather low (the share of inspections of ships having e-certificates is 
currently  20%,  according  to  data  from  EMSA)  between  EU  Member  States  and  even 
ships issued with electronic certificates systematically print out the certificates and carry 
them on board to avoid problems.  

Most  stakeholders  interviewed  (Germany,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Estonia,  France, 
Portugal, European Community Shipowners Association - ECSA, International Chamber of 
Shipping-  ICS, UGS, Albania, Norway, European Sea Ports Organisation  - ESPO, Bureau 
Veritas, Croatian Register of Shipping, IACS) also agreed that targeting of inspections can be 
improved  if  electronic  certificates  are  available  for  (automatic)  validation  prior  to 
inspections, an idea that is widely supported by respondents to the survey.  

The fact that statutory certificates can be issued in an electronic format by flag authorities 
or by ROs acting on their behalf could change and improve the way that PSC inspections 
are  carried  out.  Under  existing  arrangements,  ROs  recognised  by  the  European  Union 
provide information on statutory certificates directly to EMSA by means of a deep hyper-
link  between  the  ROs’  databases  and  the  THETIS  database.  The  information  currently 
provided only relates to the identity of the vessel concerned, the existence of a certificate 
and the period of validity of the certificate.  

The  current  partial  introduction  of  electronic  certificates  is  seen  as  inefficient  in 
situations where ships still have to print out electronic certificates, making the validation 
process even more cumbersome than paper-based ones. Both the Netherlands and Poland 
raised  this  issue  during  the  stakeholders’  consultation.  They  further  emphasised  the 
current  lack  of  an  operational  standard  for  exchanging  and  validating  electronic 
certificate.  This  leads  to  a  complicated  validation  process  that  also  does  not  protect 
sufficiently against falsifying a certificate.  

Problem Driver 6: Inadequate and inflexible procedures and inadequate PSC resources 
(skills, training)  

Article 24(3) of the Directive requires that Member States provide the actual time of the 
arrival and the time of departure of any ship calling at their ports and anchorages through 
the  Union  maritime  information  exchange  system  'SafeSeaNet'.  The  2018  ex-post 
evaluation identified difficulties concerning the implementation of such provision of the 
PSC Directive. Estimated time of arrival and of departure is challenging as it depends on 
the  information  from  various  parties.  Thus,  'port  call  optimisation'  is  still  ongoing  in 
many  ports  as  a  point  of  continuous  improvement  of  port  operations.  However,  if  the 
required information on the time of arrival and departure is not provided into the system, 
port States do not have sufficient time to prepare and allocate appropriate resources for 
inspections. The countries that expressed an opinion on this matter (Bulgaria, Poland and 
Norway)  confirmed  that  more  clarity,  guidance  and  training  is  needed  concerning  the 
reporting of arrival and departure time.  

The  PSC  Directive  requires  that  the  inspectors  follow  harmonized  procedures  and 
guidelines when it comes to performing inspections and controlling the ships. However, 

20 

 
EMSA identified that there are issues when it comes to the level of implementation and 
the  extent  to  which  such  guidelines  and  procedures  are  followed  by  inspectors.  As  the 
scope  of  inspections  has  increased  over  time  in  terms  of  content  and  complexity,  it  is 
necessary to ensure realignment of the guidelines and procedures followed by  inspector 
and ensure that the level of training is adequate. 

The  stakeholders  interviewed  generally  acknowledge  that  inspections  will  inevitably 
become  increasingly  complex  as  new  inspection  requirements  are  added,  either  by  EU 
law or via the IMO. They tend to agree that, whereas PSC guidelines and procedure have 
so far been effective to provide guidance to PSCOs in performing inspections, they also 
present  weaknesses  that  could  be  improved  in  particular  as  they  do  not  keep  the  pace 
with the increasing scope and complexity of PSC inspections.  

More specifically, Germany noted that PSCOs are not always aware of the provisions of 
the guidelines and that the system may be time constrained, due to the short duration of 
port calls combined with the wide scope of inspections. The Netherlands has highlighted 
the importance of keeping guidelines as practical and supportive as possible to the work 
of  PSCOs.  Accordingly,  guidelines  should  not  be  prescriptive  on  procedures  but  rather 
lay down the key principles of the inspection regime. Portugal mentioned that guidelines 
need to be more quickly accessible, user-friendly, clear and well-structured. France noted 
that inspection guidelines do not reflect recent developments in the context of the IMO 
and  the  shipping  sector.  There  is  lack  of  guidance  for  inspections  performed  on  “non-
fully  conventional” ships, namely vessels that  are not  subject  to  all  of the international 
conventions64.  

In  its  written  contribution,  the  Paris  MoU  Secretariat  suggested  that  amending  the 
guidelines is at times hindered and/or held back by the constraints  imposed by the PSC 
Directive and the fact that the requirements of the Directive are very detailed. This lack 
of flexibility would contribute to opposition to updating the guidelines. Nevertheless, the 
Paris  MoU  Secretariat  specified  that  the  Committee  has  already  identified  the  need  to 
improve PSC guidelines and some measures have already been taken. More specifically, 
the  Paris  MoU  aims  at  enhancing  the  consistency,  user-friendliness,  clarity  and 
effectiveness of the current Paris MoU PSC procedures, in order to reduce fragmentation, 
duplication,  ambiguity  and  administrative  burden.  In  this  respect,  Norway  claimed  that 
the inclusion of recent changes to the Paris MoU guidelines in the PSC Directive would 
already be sufficient to improve the efficiency of PSC guidelines and procedures.  

Respondents to the survey questionnaire generally acknowledged that guidelines do not 
keep  the  pace  with  the  increasing  scope  and  complexity  of  PSC  inspections.  This  idea 
was strongly supported by Member State authorities and, to some extent, by respondents 
in the category ‘other actors involved in the maritime industry’. According to France and 
Germany,  further  training  on  technologies,  such  as  the  use  of  LNG  for  propulsion,  the 
implementation  of  new  international  Conventions  (e.g.,  BWM,  MLC,  Nairobi  Wreck 
Removal Convention) and EU legislation (e.g., the Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying 
of greenhouses gases and the Ship Recycling Regulations need to be developed. 

Expanded  inspections  as  provided  for  by  Article  14  of  the  Directive  present  particular 
difficulties. These inspections are carried out on high risk ships or on certain ship types 
(passenger  ships,  oil  tankers,  gas  or  chemical  tankers  or  bulk  carriers  of  more  than  12 
years  of  age).  Expanded  inspections  of  vessels  involve  detailed  checks  of  construction 

64 See footnote 22 

21 

 
                                                           
elements and safety systems by inspectors and in 2019 made up about 21%65 of all PSC 
inspections carried out66.  

The  specific  requirements67  of  an  expanded  inspection  are  set  out  in  Commission 
Regulation 428/2010 (which has a mirror text within the MoU) depending on the vessel 
type.  Given their complexity, inspections of this complexity which involve evacuation or 
fire  drills  cannot  usefully  be  carried  out  by  a  single  inspector.  This  is  however  not  an 
issue that the Paris MoU (as a good efforts organisation) has shown any determination in 
tackling. It is only by imposing this requirement through legislation that such change can 
be effectuated.   

As  set  out  above,  expanded  inspections  include  a  number  of  exercises  and  drills  and 
checks  which  can  be  difficult  for  a  single  inspector  to  correctly  monitor.  Due  to  their 
complexity68    and  the  fire  and/or  evacuation  drills  which  are  involved,  expanded 
inspections are planned and in 79%69 of cases are carried out by more than one inspector 
which is considered by EMSA to a best practice. Ideally all expanded inspections should 
be carried out by more than one inspector because of complexity of the inspections but 
absent a legally enforceable obligation to do so this it is not mandatory.  

An important aspect of the Directive is that it requires Member States to share the results 
of  inspections.  Information  related  to  inspections  has  to  be  transferred  to  THETIS  as 
soon  as  the  inspection  report  is  completed  or  the  detention  lifted  and  validated  for 
publication  purposes  within  72  hours.  EMSA  noted  that  in  2019  the  validation  of  the 
inspection  reports  in  THETIS  was  carried  out  72%  of  the  time  (4,091  out  of  14,026 
inspections) by someone else than the person submitting the report. This is considered to 
be  a  best  practice  and  although  not  currently  required  by  the  Directive  provides  for  a 
significant and valuable level of quality control.  

On the other hand, Member States are not required to have a quality management system 
for  their  PSC  activities  under  EU  law,  while  EU  Flag  State  administrations  already 
implement  such  system  in  line  with  Directive  2009/21/EC;  such  a  quality  management 
system  (QMS)  is  a  de  facto  if  not  a  de  jure  requirement  for  compliance  with  IMO 
requirements as regards Flag State requirements. A QMS will allow PSC administrations 
to identify system problems such as resource or personnel allocation issues before these 
become problematic.  

Since the entry into force of the PSC Directive, PSC is more used as an enforcement tool 
to  ensure  compliance  of  vessels  calling  to  EU  ports  with  respect  to  international 
standards but in particular with new EU acquis – particularly in the environmental field. 
PSC is regarded as an efficient and cost-effective means of enforcement as it ensures a 
significant  number  of  similar  inspections  throughout  the  EU.  With  these  growing 
requirements  and  the  accompanying  complexity  of  procedures,  PSC  inspectors  have  to 
perform more administratively heavy and time-consuming inspections, this has resource 
as  well  as  capacity-building  implications.  Most  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  and 
surveyed confirmed that the training of inspectors offered by EMSA and the Paris MoU 

65 Source EMSA 
66 Initial inspections made up approximately 39% of inspections and more detailed inspections 40%. 
67 See Annex YY 
68 See Commission Regulation (EU) No 428/2010 of 20 May 2010 implementing Article 14 of Directive 
2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards expanded inspections of ships (OJ L 
125, 21.5.2010, p.2) 
69 Source EMSA 

22 

 
                                                           
is  generally  effective;  however,  the  stakeholders  recognized  that  training  is  limited 
considering  the  widened  scope  of  PSC.  As  a  consequence,  according  to  them, 
improvements are needed, to update trainings and make them more effective.  

Some Member States have nevertheless underlined that the training and in particular the 
certification of PSCOs is a Member States’ responsibility and some Member States argue 
that  there  should  be  more  flexibility  as  regards  training,  especially  when  it  comes  to 
granting inspectors’ authorization and revalidation of qualifications. For instance, in Italy 
PSC activities are handled by the Italian Coast Guard. This implies specific training and 
tasks  that  Italian  PSCOs  have  due  to  their  status  as  military  personnel.  During  the 
interview, Italy mentioned that more flexibility in trainings should be allowed to Member 
States,  especially  when  it  comes  to  authorization  and  revalidation  of  qualifications.  A 
more  flexible  approach  in  terms  of  qualification  requirements  is  also  supported  by 
Norway  and  France.  The  former  explained  that  the  system  has  little  flexibility  when  it 
comes  to  maintaining  a  PSCO’s  authorization,  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  annual 
number  of  inspections  to  be  carried  out,  which  can  especially  be  a  challenge  during 
unexpected events as well as for PSCOs on maternity/paternity leave for longer periods.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised doubts on the resilience of the PSC regime to force 
majeure  events  having  regard  to  issues  such  as  (i)  postponement  of  inspections,  (ii) 
remote inspections, (iii) difficulties for shipowners to arrange vessel surveys and update 
certificates  (iv)  difficulties  for  seafarers  to  attend  the  required  training  courses  and  to 
revalidate their certificates, etc. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the PSC inspection 
system and temporarily reduced the number of PSC inspections due to safety concerns. 
While  most  Paris  MoU  (and  EU)  states  were  eventually  able  to  reach  their  inspection 
commitment for 2020, the second quarter of 2020 in particular saw very little inspection 
activity and PSC inspections were resumed in a piecemeal and non-harmonised manner.  

The  lack  of  flexibility  to  cater  for  unexpected  events  was  widely  acknowledged  by 
respondents  to  the survey  questionnaire, in particular  by  industry  associations  and PSC 
authorities of non-EU countries and, to some extent, by PSC authorities of EU and other 
EEA  countries  and  respondents  in  the  category  ‘other  actors  involved  in  maritime 
industry’.  According  to  Germany,  the  lack  of  guidance  resulted  in  an  unbalanced 
inspection  regime  with  an  indicated  “overburden  status”  for  almost  all  Member  States. 
Accordingly,  inspection  commitments  based  on  the  fair  share  were  not  adjusted  to  the 
situation. Other stakeholders, such as the UGS, have called for digital solutions to cater 
for such unexpected events.  

The Paris MoU Secretariat has developed temporary guidance for its Member Authorities 
during the COVID-19 crisis. The guidance recognised the need to apply flexibility under 
the special circumstances. Guidance for the  PSC authorities has been drafted regarding 
impact of delays for surveys, inspections and audits; extensions of validity of the ship’s 
certificates;  extended  periods  of  service  on  board;  delaying  periods  for  seafarers’ 
certification.  According  to  the  Paris  MoU  Secretariat,  such  unexpected  events  can  be 
dealt with in PSC Circulars. The first revision of the Circular dealing with the pandemic 
was released within three weeks after the first inspection-related COVID-19 issue. 

Other  potential  disruptive  elements  which  may  have  an  impact  on  PSC  include  new 
technologies such as autonomous shipping and new fuels. It is important that PSC as a 
system  can  remain  responsive  to  technological  and  legislative  developments  either  at 
IMO or EU level (e.g. in the field of environmental protection standards). 

23 

 
2.3. 

2.3. 

How will the problem evolve? 

Problem  1  –  Legal  uncertainty  on  the  implementation  of  new  international  mandatory 
rules  at  EU  level.  The  legal  uncertainty  on  the  implementation  of  new  international 
mandatory  rules  at  EU  level  is  likely  to  persist  as  long  as  the  PSC  Directive  includes 
outdated IMO and Paris MoU references. Without amendments to the Directive, Member 
States will continue to be unable to implement the changes already agreed at Paris MoU 
level.  They  may  modify  their  internal  procedures  but,  if  they  do  this,  it  will  be  in 
contradiction  with  the  Directive.  Unilateral  action  by  Member  States  will  deprive  the 
Directive of its coordinating and harmonising effect, leading to distortions in the internal 
market.  

Problem  2  –  Inefficient  and  non-harmonised  approach  to  PSC  inspections.  Without 
further  EU  level  intervention,  the  issues  related  to  the  unbalanced  distribution  of 
inspections, of missed inspections as well as those of the SRP and targeting of vessels for 
inspection  will  persist  and  remain  unresolved.  Similarly  the  identified  problems  of  the 
inefficiencies and non-harmonised approach to PSC inspections will continue. The issue 
is not one of the number of inspections being carried out but rather involves the lack of a 
harmonised quality thereof.  

Larger fishing vessels will continue to operate in EU waters and call to EU ports either 
without any control or only subject to such controls as the port States wish to implement 
in an uncoordinated and haphazard manner. A failure to push on the digitalisation of ship 
certificates will mean that the potential of this valuable technology will not be harvested 
and little progress will be made on this issue.  

3.  3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes 
the EU’s prerogative to make provisions for the Common Transport Policy. Pursuant to 
Article 100(2) TFEU, the Union legislator may lay down appropriate provisions for sea 
transport.  Article  91(1)(c)  of  the  TFEU  provides  that  the  Union  has  competence  in  the 
field of transport to lay down measures to improve transport safety.   

Within  this  legal  framework,  the  EU  provides  for  a  coordinated  and  harmonised 
safety standard, protecting life and the marine environment across the Union, instead 
of relying on the uncoordinated action of individual Member States only. Travellers, 
workers and citizens in general can be reassured that vessels are inspected to the same 
high standard across the Union.  

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

Under  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  in  areas  which  do  not  fall  within  its  exclusive 
competence,  the  Union  shall  act  only  if  and  in  so  far  as  the  objectives  of  the  proposed 
action  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States.  To  the  extent  that 
international  instruments  in  the  field  of  PSC  in  the  maritime  transport  sector  are  an 
exclusive Union competence pursuant to Article 3(2) TFEU, the subsidiarity principle does 
not apply, either to those instruments or to Union rules implementing those agreements. 

In the absence of the  PSC Directive, the Member States of the Paris MoU would carry 
out  PSC inspections  but  it  is  unlikely  that  those  inspections  which  derive  from  the  EU 
acquis  (insurance,  sulphur,  ship-recycling,  port  reception  facilities,  GHG  emissions 

24 

 
monitoring, etc.) and which rely on EU PSC for their enforcement would be carried out 
in  a  harmonised  or  coordinated  manner.  Different  and  piecemeal  solutions  would  have 
had  to  be  found.  The  Directive  has  therefore  addressed  a  safety  and  environmental 
protection need with “Union relevance”.  

Shipping is an international sector, operating in different EU and international waters and 
regulated  at  the  global  as  well  as  regional  and  national  instances.  Therefore,  it  has  by 
nature  a  strong  cross-border  dimension.  The  PSC  Directive  has  been  demonstrated  to 
work  well,  through  an  improved  and  enhanced  implementation  of  safety  and 
environmental protection in EU waters.  

The  identified  problems  apply  across  the  entire  Union  and  have  the  same  underlying 
causes. At the same time, the current Directive is no longer aligned with the international 
mandatory rules (IMO and Paris MoU). In the absence of EU action, EU Member States 
may implement national solutions and will work in an uncoordinated and non-harmonised 
way. This could damage the harmonised safety standard which exists  across EU ports, it 
could result in a lower safety standard and also distort completion between ports.  

3.3. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

Shipping is an international sector, operating in different EU and international waters and 
regulated  at  the  global  as  well  as  regional  and  national  instances.  Therefore,  it  has  by 
nature  a  strong  cross-border  dimension.  The  2018  ex-post  evaluation  of  this  Directive 
and the Maritime Fitness Check underlined the EU added value of the intervention in the 
sector, in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency and synergies that it brings.  

Given the international nature of maritime transport and the need for a coordinated and 
harmonised approach to maritime safety, a multiplicity of Member State responses to the 
issues  identified  is  not  appropriate.  If  EU  Member  States  were  to  align  their  domestic 
legal orders to the changes at IMO or Paris MoU standards this would call into question 
the coordinated and harmonised standards that the Directive provides for. With respect to 
larger fishing vessels, the example of the Paris MoU and of the Directive as it applies to 
commercial transport vessels demonstrates that only harmonised procedures and common 
criteria  for  PSC  of  these  vessels  can  address  this  issue.  Failure  to  adapt  the  Directive 
would remove the synergistic benefits gained through its implementation.  

4.  4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1. 

4.1. 

General objectives 

In view of the Problems, as described in Section 2, the general objectives of the revision 
of  the  PSC  Directive  are:  (i)  to  maintain  a  level  playing  field  and  avoid  market 
distortions,  (ii)  to  ensure  high  levels  of  maritime  safety  (iii)  to  ensure  prevention  of 
maritime  pollution.  The  revision  should  thus  also  contribute  towards  Sustainable 
Development Goal (SDG) 3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all 
ages”)  and  SDG  14  (“Conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine 
resources for sustainable development”). 

To this end the revision should take into account: (i) changes in the EU and international 
regulatory  framework  (in  particular  Paris  MoU)  since  its  entry  into  force,  (ii)  lessons 
learned during the implementation of the Directive, including the need for digitalisation 
and unexpected and force majeure situations (such as COVID-19 pandemic), (ii) address 
the  issue  of  whether  the  correct  vessels  are  being  targeted  for  inspection  and  whether 

25 

 
 
more emphasis needs to be placed on environmental concerns and (iv) examine whether 
the scope of the Directive should be broadened to include fishing vessels.  

4.2. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

This  initiative  is  designed  to  effectively  address  the  problems  previously  set  out  and  to 
improve the way PSC inspections are carried out in the Union. The specific objectives (SOs) 
and their correspondence with the problem drivers are presented in Figure 6.  

Figure 6: Correspondence between the specific objectives and the problem drivers 

SO1:  Align  EU  legislation  with  new  international  rules.  Keeping  the  PSC  Directive 
aligned  and  up  to  date  with  the  relevant  instruments  and  developments  at  international 
level (IMO and Paris MoU) is essential to guarantee a harmonised and high safety level 
across  the  Union.  The  Directive  needs  to  be  flexible  and  dynamic  to  adapt  to 
developments  in  the  international  regulatory  environment.  The  IMO  has  added 
international  Conventions  to  respond  to  safety  and  environmental  concerns  and  these 
need to be enforced by means of PSC. As regards Paris MoU changes, there should be no 
their 
divergence  between  Member  States  obligations  under 
international obligations. 

the  Directive  and 

SO2:  Protect  fishing  vessel,  their  crews  and  the  environment.  While  the  international 
Conventions  applicable to the  fishing vessels  provide  for PSC,  this is not  being  done in  a 
systemic and harmonised way. The possible expansion of the PSC Directive to cover larger 
fishing  vessels,  which  are  subject  to  the  international  Conventions,  would  allow  for  a 
coordinated and harmonised system of control of this vessel type which overall has a poor 
safety record. This control should thereby increase the level of compliance of the latter with 
the international standards of safety and environmental protection applicable to these vessels. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  possible  trade-offs  with  SO4  in  terms  of  impacts  on  the 
white  grey  black  list  flag  state  performance  and  on  the  risk  profile  of  all  vessels  in  the 
flagged fleet that need to be taken into account.    

SO3: Ensure higher uptake of digital solutions: The opportunities offered by electronic 
certificates  are  not  currently  being  taken  full  advantage  of.  Although  the  technology  to 
issue, validate and inspect electronic certificates  is already available, the PSC Directive 
does not facilitate or incentivise the use of electronic statutory certificates. The reliance 
on paper-based  checks of statutory certificates does not allow to use the certificates for 

26 

  PROBLEM DRIVERSSPECIFIC OBJECTIVESGENERAL OBJECTIVESAlign EU legislation with new international rules (SO1)Ensure higher uptake of digitalsolutions(SO3)Protect fishing vessels, their crews and the environment (SO2)Ensure efficient and harmonised approach in undertaking PSC inspections(SO4)Maintain a level playing field and avoid market distortionsEnsure high levels of maritime safetyEnsure prevention of maritime pollution due to marine casualties 
targeting purposes or to prepare for inspections nor does it allow these certificates to be 
checked  digitally  prior  to  the  inspection  allowing  for  more  ship-centric  inspections. 
Accordingly,  a  digitalized  system  would  further  increase  the  efficiency  of  ship  risk 
targeting,  better  prepared  inspections,  more  time  to  focus  the  inspection  on  operational 
aspects as well as an easier and faster exchange of relevant information. 

SO4: Ensure efficient and harmonised approach in undertaking PSC inspections: Taking 
EU  action  in  this  area  should  allow  for  better  targeting  of  vessels  for  inspection  by 
restructuring the out-dated aspects of the ship risk profile and add new components to it, 
so that the targeting mechanism can work more effectively. Any changes to the ship risk 
profile  should  maintain  the  risk  based  approach  whereby  the  inspection  effort  is 
concentrated on poor performing, higher risk ships.  

Targeting  of  vessels  for  inspection  should  take  account  of  improvement  in  the  safety 
profile  of  the  ships  calling  to  EU  ports  and  also  the  increased  importance  attached  to 
environmental aspects of PSC. Changes to the inspection commitment and to the way in 
which  missed  inspections  (for  operational  reasons  related  to  the  uneven  distribution  of 
ships across the Union or for force majeure reasons such as COVID-19) are postponed or 
accounted  for  will  provide  Member  States  with  more  flexibility  to  comply  with  their 
obligations under the Directive without compromising on safety. 

The stipulations regarding the numbers of PSCOs who should carry out inspections and 
on  the  validation  of  inspection  reports  should  improve  quality.  Measures  derived  from 
the lessons learned in implementation should allow for more substantive ship inspections 
by having (i) more  clear rules, (ii) better allocated resources, (iii) up to  date guidelines 
and procedures for PSC inspections including the use of electronic certificates, to allow 
for more efficient and better prepared PSCOs and less time wasted. The introduction of a 
QMS  similar  to  what  is  required  by  Directive  2009/21/EC  as  regards  flag  state 
responsibilities  should  also  improve  this  aspect.  By  ensuring  more  harmonised 
inspections, any competitive advantages (relative lower costs) that a PSC authority has in 
case  inspections  are  not  required  to  be  carried  out  by  more  than  one  inspector  and 
inspection reports to  be  validated by someone other than the inspector carrying out  the 
inspection will incur to other PSC authorities, will be addressed. As a consequence, PSC 
inspections will not only ensure high quality in terms of safety, environmental protection 
and working and living conditions on board but will also help to level the playing field 
between the ship operators and the PSC authorities.  

5.  5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1. 

5.1. 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The  EU  Reference  scenario  2020  (REF2020)  is  the  starting  point  for  the  impact 
assessment of this initiative. The REF2020 takes into account the impacts of the COVID-
19  pandemic  that  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  transport  sector.  More  detailed 
information  about  the  preparation  process,  assumptions  and  results  are  included  in  the 
Reference scenario publication70. Building on REF2020, the baseline has been designed 
to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package proposed by the Commission on 14 
July 2021. A common baseline was developed for this impact assessment, as well as for 
the  Flag  State  and  maritime  accident  investigation  impact  assessments  to  ensure 
consistency. More details on the baseline are provided in Annex 4. 

70 EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 

27 

 
                                                           
The Baseline scenario assumes no further EU level intervention beyond the current PSC 
Directive.  It  assumes  the  continuation  of  the  work  of  the  Paris  MoU  without  the 
incorporation  of  any  amendments  adopted  since  2009  and  the  PSC  Directive  under  its 
2009 scope. Fishing vessels would continue to be outside the scope of the Directive and 
Member States could inspect foreign fishing vessels calling to their ports if they wished 
to do so under national law. Slow progress would take place with respect to the uptake of 
electronic certificates in the baseline scenario, without further EU level intervention. The 
share of inspections of ships having e-certificates is currently 20%, according to data from 
EMSA, and is projected to go up to 30% by 2050 in the baseline scenario.  

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on global shipping, affecting all segments. 
In the baseline scenario, international maritime freight transport activity (intra and extra-
EU) is projected to be 21% lower in 2020 relative to 2015. From 2021 onwards, however 
it is projected to start recovering and grow strongly by 2025 and beyond (i.e. 19% growth 
for 2015-2030 and 48% for 2015-2050), due to the rising demand for primary resources 
and container shipping. Relative to 2019, this is equivalent to an 8% increase in transport 
activity by 2030 and 33% growth by 2050. 

The number of port calls for 2025-2050 is projected to grow at lower rate than transport 
activity, following similar evolution over the historical period71. This reflects the fact that 
transport activity is also driven by other factors such as the increase in the size of vessels 
over time, and of the distance travelled. In the baseline scenario, the number of port calls 
is projected to go up by 14% by 2030 relative to 2015 and by 36% by 2050 (equivalent to 
6% growth by 2030 relative to 2019 and 26% increase by 2050), following the recovery 
from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Driven by the increase in the transport activity and the number of vessels, the number of 
marine casualties is projected to increase over time in the baseline scenario. The number 
of casualties, including those involving fishing vessels, is projected to increase by 14% 
by  2030  relative  to  2019  and  by  45%  by  2050  without  further  EU  level  action.  At  the 
same time, the degree of severity of marine casualties is projected to decrease, leading to 
a relative stabilisation of the number of fatalities by 2050 (11% decrease for 2019-2030 
and  3%  increase  for  2019-2050).  This  is  still  far  from  the  milestone  of  the  Sustainable 
and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy  to  achieve  a  close  to  zero  death  toll  for  all  modes  of 
transport in the EU. 

The tonnes of bunker fuel lost at sea due to very serious marine casualties is estimated to 
go up from around 650 tonnes in 2019 to 740 tonnes in 2030 and 890 tonnes in 205072.  

In the baseline scenario, the total number of inspections performed by PSCOs is projected to 
increase from 13,446 in 2019 to 14,985 in 2030 and 17,974 in 2050. As a result, the total 
costs for the EU port State authorities for performing inspections and administrative tasks are 
projected to increase from EUR 2.9 million in 2019 to EUR 3.2 million in 2030 and EUR 3.8 
million in 2050. The lower increase in costs relative to that of inspections is explained by the 
slight  reduction  in  the  man-hour  per  inspection  over  time,  driven  by  the  slow  uptake  of 
electronic certificates. More details are provided in Annex 4.  

71  The  same  ratio  between  the  growth  in  the  number  of  port  calls  and  the  transport  activity  as  for  the 
historical period (2014-2019) has been assumed for the projection period.  
72 An average level of 30 tonnes of bunker fuels lost per vessel (excluding fishing vessels) has been used 
for the  estimations in the context of the impact assessment support study. For fishing vessels an average 
level of 22 tonnes of bunker fuels lost per vessel has been assumed, based on data from EMSA.  

28 

 
                                                           
5.2. 

5.2. 

Description of the policy measures and policy options  

As  a  first  step,  a  comprehensive  list  of  possible  policy  measures  was  established  after 
extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings,  and independent research in 
the context of the impact assessment support study and the Commission’s own analysis. 
This  list  was  subsequently  screened  based  on  the  likely  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
proportionality  of  the  proposed  measures  in  relation  to  the  given  objectives,  as  well  as 
their legal, political and technical feasibility. 

Discarded policy measures 

A  number  of  possible  measures  were  considered  during  the  impact  assessment  process 
but were discarded either because the identified problem driver was not validated by the 
stakeholders consulted, because the problem was not susceptible to a solution by means 
of EU legislation or because proposing an action to address the issue at EU level will not 
yield any additional results.  

The issue of accidents involving port and dock workers on ships in port has been raised 
during the stakeholder consultation by the Sectoral Social Dialogue for Ports. The idea of 
tackling  this  by  means  of  a  vessel  safety  checklist  has  been  examined  but  has  been 
discarded  as  the  checklist  would  need  to  be  used  before  each  loading  and  unloading 
operation involving a cargo ship in an EU port while PSC inspection are carried out on a 
targeted spot check basis. A full list of discarded policy options along with the reasons 
for which these were not retained is set out in Annex 7. 

Retained policy measures and policy options overview 

The retained policy measures have been grouped in 3 policy options (PO A, PO B and 
PO  C)  as  presented  in  Table  1.  The  table  presents  the  links  of  the  retained  policy 
measures with  the specific policy objectives and  the POs. A detailed description of the 
policy measures is provided in Annex 9. 

Table 1: Overview of specific objectives, measures and policy options 
Specific 
objective 
SO1 

Policy measure 

PM1A: Expand the scope of the Directive and align  with IMO 
and  Paris  MoU  by  adding  Ballast  Water  Management 
Convention  (BWM)  as  a  relevant  international  instrument  to 
the Directive 
PM1B: Expand the scope of  the Directive and align  with IMO 
by adding Nairobi International Convention on the Removal 
of Wrecks (Nairobi) as a relevant instrument to the Directive 
PM1C:  Expand  the  scope  of  the  Directive  by  providing  for 
other  Conventions  (HNS  and  Hong  Kong)  which  are  open  for 
ratification  and  have  been  ratified  by  at  least  one  EU  Member 
State.  These  are  to  be  added  to  the  Directive  "once  they  enter 
into force"  
PM2:  Align  the  Directive  to  the  Paris  MoU  new  Ship  Risk 
Profile  (SRP)  including  the  new  calculation  method  for  the 
White  Grey  Black  (WGB)  list  formula  used  for  targeting 
ships  
PM3:  Align  the  Directive  to  the  (i)  Paris  MoU  list  of 
certificates and documents to be checked during an inspection 
(ii)  to  the  changes  in  the  Paris  MoU  refusal  of  access 
(banning)  procedures  and  (iii)  incorporate  all  current  Paris 
MoU Procedures and Guidelines  
PM4:  Align  the  Directive  to  the  Paris  MoU  changes  to  the 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

29 

 
 
 
 
inspection commitment  
PM5:  Align  the  Directive  to  the  Paris  MoU  changes  which 
abolishing the 72 hour reporting obligation for vessels eligible 
for an expanded inspection  
PM6A: Encourage Member States to carry out PSC on eligible 
fishing  vessels  (over  24  metres)  by  means  of  development  of 
guidelines, workshops  
PM6B: Provide for a voluntary PSC system for fishing vessels 
of above  24 metres  which  will exist in parallel to the Directive 
by  means of guidelines, training and an inspection database for 
targeting ships and reporting on inspections 
PM6C:  Amend  the  Directive  to  fully  incorporate  larger 
fishing vessels (over 24 metres in length) within its scope  
PM7A:  Encourage  the  uptake  and  use  of  electronic 
certificates in PSC by means of guidelines, workshops, etc. 
PM7B:  Amend  the  Directive  to  make  e-certificates  the 
default for PSC in the EU providing for a common data model, 
a validation/verification tool and repository at EU level  
PM7C:  Amend  the  Directive  to  provide  for  electronic 
tool  and 
certificates,  common  data  model,  a  validation 
repository at EU level - linking the use of electronic certificates 
with the ship risk profile 
PM8:  Amend  the  Directive  to  clarify  and  fix  the  time-frame 
within which the ship arrival and departure notifications have 
to be carried out  
PM9: Amend the Directive to allow more flexibility for missed 
inspections 
PM10:  Amend  the  Directive  to  prevent  unwanted  spill-over 
effects  of  Member  States  which  exceed  their  inspection 
commitment  
PM11:  Amend 
parameters to the ship risk profile used to target ships  
PM12:  Commission 
tools/capacity development for inspectors 
PM13:  Amend  the  Directive  to  require  Member  States  to 
develop  and  apply  a  Quality  Management  System  for  their 
PSC activities  
PM14:  Amend  the  Directive  to  allow  for  inspections  to  be 
missed in force majeure situations  
PM15A:  Recommend  that  all  inspections  are  carried  out  by 
more than one inspector 
PM15B:  Amend  the  Directive  to  require  that  all  expanded 
inspections are carried out by more than one inspector 
PM16A:  Recommend  that  all  PSC  inspection  reports  are 
validated by a validator other than the inspector who carried out 
the inspection  
PM16B: Amend the Directive to require that all PSC inspection 
reports are validated by a validator other than the inspector who 
carried  out  the  inspection  before  the  inspection  report  is 
transferred to the database 
PM17: Encourage all EU States  who  are eligible (EL,  ES, FR, 
HR,  IT,  SI)  to  join  the  Mediterranean  MoU  on  Port  State 
control  

the  Directive  by  adding  environmental 

to  develop 

enhanced 

training 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

SO2 

SO3 

SO4 

SO1 

All  three  policy  options  contain  eight  common  policy  measures:  PM1A,  PM1B,  PM2, 
PM3, PM4, PM5, PM12, PM13 and PM17. PM1 to PM5 and PM17 contribute towards 
SO1  (aligning  EU  legislation  with  new  international  rules).  These  are  alignment 
measures  that  have  to  be  implemented  to  prevent  the  Directive  going  out  of  date. 
Developments  at  the  international  level  at  the  IMO  but  most  particularly  at  the  Paris 
MoU means  that the Directive was diverging from  these standards almost  as soon as it 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was adopted and certainly by the time it had been transposed. The issues were minor at 
first but with the passage of time this has been exacerbated. The Directive has within it 
certain  flexibility and those Paris MoU changes  that have been put  in  place since 2009 
which could be accommodated within the text of the Directive have been implemented.  
For others the Directive will have to be amended before these can be actioned.  

With regard to the proposed addition of international conventions (PM1), the PMs fall 
into  two  categories.  PM1A  and  PM1B  refer  to  the  Ballast  Water  Management 
Convention (BWMC) and the Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention which have already 
been added to  the list  of conventions  enforced by  the Paris MoU  – adding these to  the 
Directive  is  simply  a  question  of  alignment  –  removing  any  divergence  between  MS 
obligations  to  the  Directive  and  to  the  MoU.  PM1C  proposes  to  add  two  further 
international  conventions  to  the  Directive  namely  the  HNS  Convention  (dealing  with 
compensation for spills of highly noxious substances) and the Hong Kong Convention on 
the  safe  recycling  of  ships.  Although  the  conventions  are  open  for  ratification  (as  they 
have not attained yet the ratification threshold to enter into force), PM1C proposes to add 
these to the Directive on a provisional basis so that if they do enter into force they can be 
enforced  immediately  through  PSC  without  having  to  amend  the  Directive.  This  was 
done  in  PM1C  as  PO  C  is  the  highest  ambition  option  and  this  would  be  a  means  of 
sending  the  political  signal  that  the  EU  attaches  importance  to  these  Conventions 
entering into force.  

The  other  two  common  measures  (PM12  and  PM13)  contribute  towards  SO4  (Ensure 
efficient and harmonised approach in undertaking PSC inspections).  

The requirement to develop enhanced training tools/capacity development for inspectors 
(PM12)  relates  to  other  policy  measures  but  also  to  changes  that  will  arise  due  to 
developments  in  technology  and  the  shipping  world  in  general.  As  regards  the  other 
policy  measures  these  include  those  involving  new  international  conventions  (PM1)  or 
the  new  procedures  of  the  Paris  MoU  (PM2-PM5)  but  also  PM6  relating  to  PSC  for 
fishing  vessels  or  PM7  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  in  PSC.    In  the  context  of  the 
European  Green  Deal  and  the  “Fit  for  55”  package,  it  is  likely  that  there  will  be  a 
significant change in ship propulsion and fuels used in the coming decades as shipping 
moves from hydrocarbon based propulsion systems to low carbon fuels. This is expect to 
have  significant  implications  for  the  entire  shipping  and  fishing  industries  and  can  be 
expected to  have an impact  on the way  vessels  are powered, operated  and therefore on 
the way in which PSC inspections are conducted.  

The  requirement  to  have  a  quality  management  system  (QMS)  is  also  included  in  all 
policy  options  (PM13).  This  requirement  does  not  have  to  be  seen  as  a  (significant) 
burden but rather as an aid to allow for more efficient inspections, better management of 
resources and systems and to identify problems before these become serious.  The need 
for  such  a  QMS  is  to  allow  for  better  management  of  resources  to  identify  system 
problems and to allow these to be addressed by making the case for additional resources 
at  the  national  level.  A  key  part  of  improvements  in  efficiency  is  to  establish  control 
conditions  and  a  QMS  supports  this  as  it  is  supposed  to  indicate  with  more  precision 
where there is a ‘problem’ or systematic ‘fault’ so that the administration can take action. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  includes  availability  of  sufficient  and  adequate  (technical) 
resources. 

Article 8 of Directive 2009/21/EC on flag State requirements requires that EU Member S 
flag State administrations have a QMS.  Since the  Implementation of the  IMO Code on 
the  Implementation  of  International  Instruments  (the  “III-code”)  became  mandatory  in 

31 

 
2017,  it  is  acknowledged  that  a  QMS  ensures  better  adherence  with  the  III-code 
requirements. Therefore, and as PSC is a key tool to ensure correct implementation of the 
international  Conventions,  it  is  appropriate  to  ensure  coherence  between  the  different 
parts of the MS maritime administrations that this requirement is extended to the MS port 
State  control  functions  (as  it  has  been  also  proposed  for  the  MS  accident  investigation 
bodies in the accident investigation Impact Assessment report). It is thus included in all 
policy options.  

Policy option A  

This option is mainly focussed on keeping the Directive aligned with international legal 
instruments.  Most  of  the  other  changes  proposed  are  non-regulatory  measures  making 
use  of  recommendations,  guidelines  and  workshops  organised  by  Commission  and/or 
EMSA. This option will leave the scope of the Directive as it is. The Directive is fully 
aligned with the changes already decided by the Member States of the Paris MoU. The 
changes  envisaged  will  ease  legal  uncertainty  as  the  decisions  of  the  Paris  MoU  taken 
since  2009  will  update  the  Directive.  The  IMO  BWM  and  Nairobi  Conventions  are 
added and this option requires that Member States put in  place a quality management 
system (QMS)  for their  PSC administration.  The main impacts  of this  measure will be 
on the Member States’ PSC administrations.  

In addition, non-regulatory measures to encourage PSC of fishing vessels and the use of 
electronic  certificates  are  proposed.  PM6A  will  involve  a  recommendation  that  those 
Member  States  who  wish,  could  PSC  inspect  eligible  foreign  fishing  vessels  (over  24 
metres  in  length)  for  safety,  environmental  and  working  conditions  related  issues.  This 
will be supported by EU guidelines, while EMSA will provide training and workshops. 
The system will not be risk based and Member States will have full discretion on what 
fishing  vessels  to  inspect.  There  will  be  few  obligations  on  the  port  State.  These  two 
measures will impact on the Member States PSC administrations, on EMSA as well as on 
fishing  vessel  operators.  Similarly,  recommendations  are  provided  with  regard  to  the 
validation of inspections and the carrying out of inspections by more than one inspector. 
EU Member States who are eligible will be encouraged to join the Mediterranean MoU 
on Port State control. 

 Policy option B  

The same alignment as in policy option A (on IMO and Paris MoU) is provided for as 
is the requirement for a QMS as the measure on the Mediterranean MoU. In this policy 
option, flexibility for PSC administrations is balanced with harmonisation.  

On  PSC  for  fishing  vessels  a  voluntary  PSC  system  for  fishing  vessels  of  above  24 
metres is proposed in parallel to  (but outside) the current Directive. Guidelines, EMSA 
training  and  an  EMSA  inspection  database  for  targeting  ships  and  reporting  on 
inspections  are  foreseen.  The  reference  to  “voluntary”  refers  on  the  port  State:  any 
foreign vessel calling to a port in another State effectively acknowledges the jurisdiction 
of  the  port  State  and  has  no  choice  as  to  whether  and  how  it  is  inspected  under  the 
international  conventions  that  apply  to  it,  the  choice  to  inspect  is  for  the  port  State.  A 
risk-based system rather than a quota-based system whereby participating Member States 
simply  have  to  inspect  a  predefined  number  of  vessels  is  felt  to  be  a  better  use  of 
resources  and  has  a  more  significant  positive  impact  on  safety.  This  will  impact  on 
Member  States’  PSC  administrations  as  well  as  on  fishing  vessel  operators  and  should 
allow  for  the  development  of  this  inspection  type  for  those  Member  States  who  are 
interested, working with the Paris MoU and avoiding undesired spill-over effects on the 
current EU PSC regime. EMSA will develop a THETIS module whereby all PSC reports 

32 

 
relating  to  fishing  vessels  are  reported  and  a  ship  risk  profile  (SRP)  for  each  fishing 
vessel would be developed based on the age, flag and previous PSC history of the vessel. 
It is on the basis of this SRP that vessels will be selected for inspection. This means that 
Member States can benefit from previous inspections carried out by other Member States 
and because the inspection results are shared via EMSA the Member States can control 
each  other  while  EMSA  can  monitor  all  activity.    The  EU  has  a  long  and  productive 
association (since 1995) with the Paris MoU in the joint development of PSC standards, 
since  it  and  the  preferred  measure  would  allow  for  the  development  of  fishing  vessels 
PSC in a gradual and organic manner which takes account of the required flexibility. 

PM6B  provides  for  a  voluntary  system  for  those  Member  States  that  are  interested  to 
have a  risk-based  approach to  fishing vessel  PSC. This  would mean that EMSA would 
develop  a  THETIS  module  whereby  all  PSC  reports  relating  to  fishing  vessels  are 
reported and a ship risk profile (SRP) for each fishing vessel would be developed based 
on the age, flag and previous PSC history of the vessel. It is on the basis of this SRP that 
vessel will be selected for inspection. This  means  that Member States can benefit from 
previous  inspections  carried  out  by  other  Member  State  and  because  the  inspection 
results are shared via EMSA the Member States can control each other while EMSA can 
monitor  all  activity.    A  risk  based  system  rather  than  a  quota  based  system  whereby 
participating states simply have to inspect a predefined number of vessels is felt to be a 
better use of resources and has a more significant positive impact on safety.  

This is proposed as a voluntary separate system rather than a compulsory free standing 
system  due  to  flexibility  and  the  way  that  standards  are  developed  within  the  PSC 
community  by  consensus.  By  providing  for  a  voluntary  system  for  those  EU  Member 
States  that  wish  to  carry  out  these  inspections  a  system  of  PSC  can  be  developed 
organically  by  Member  States,  the  MoU,  the  Commission  and  EMSA.  This  will  retain 
the  necessary  flexibility  for  the  new  system  in  its  early  phase  when  it  is  subject  to  the 
most change. Creating a compulsory stand-alone system means that the parameters will 
be fixed from its date of adoption and will make it difficult to adapt and develop.   

The use of electronic certificates will be provided for in the Directive but their use will 
not  be  obligatory.  This  will impact  on flag State administrations while  EMSA working 
with flag States, ROs and IMO will develop a common data model, a validation tool and 
repository. The use of electronic certificates will be encouraged by linking them with the 
ship risk profile. EMSA will develop enhanced training tools/capacity development for 
inspectors  especially  as  regards  new  technologies  and  in  relation  to  the  additional 
obligations  arising from  new  IMO  conventions. This  is  justified for political  as well as 
practical reasons.  

On  the  political  level,  if  the  Commission  were  to  propose  the  total  phase-out  of  paper 
certificates  by  mandating  their  replacement  with  electronic  certificates  there  would  be 
significant  resistance  both  from  within  the  EU  flag  States  but  also  from  third  country 
flags  and  the  IMO.  As  mentioned  in  section  2.2  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report  the 
current take up rate of electronic certificates in the EU is about 20%. EU legislation lacks 
a  framework  for  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  and  the  electronic  provision  of  ships 
statutory  certificates.  This  means  that  even  an  EU  ship  equipped  with  electronic 
certificates calling to a port in another EU Member State (where the trust level between 
administrations  should  objectively  be  high)  still  has  to  carry  paper  versions  in  case  the 
electronic versions are not accepted. As PSC applies to both EU and third country foreign 
flagged  vessels  calling  to  EU  ports  and  as  approximately  70%  of  vessels  operating 
internationally in EU waters are flagged in third countries, if the EU were to unilaterally 
move to refusing to accept paper certificates in PSC, EU flag and port States would fear 

33 

 
retaliation  from  those  third  countries  which  are  either  unwilling  or  unable  to  move  to 
electronic certificates. This is a matter which needs to be progressed but it will need to be 
handled taking account of the concerns of EU flag States, the Paris MoU, the IMO, the 
recognised organisations (which act for most flag States) and the third countries.  

The  incentivisation  of  electronic  certificates  by  linking  their  usage  to  the  SRP 
nonetheless clearly indicates the EU preference in this matter but allows for those third 
countries that do not wish to work on this issue not to do so.   

On  issues  relating  to  better  functioning  of  the  Directive  such  as  ship  arrival  and 
departure  notifications,  missed  inspections,  over-inspecting,  expanded  inspections 
being carried out by more than one inspector, validation of inspection reports and force 
majeure  situations,  this  option  is  prescriptive  and  will  propose  amendments  to  the 
Directive. This will mainly impact on PSC administrations.  

Policy option C  

This policy option is the most ambitious in terms of increased administrative burden for 
the  PSC  administrations  but  it  will  also  ensure  the  highest  level  of  harmonisation  of 
inspections.  

The  same  alignment  as  in  Policy  options  A  and  B  (on  IMO  and  Paris  MoU)  is 
provided  for  as  is  the  requirement  for  a  QMS  as  the  measure  on  the  Mediterranean 
MoU.   

PSC for fishing vessels of above 24 metres will be incorporated fully into the Directive, 
impacting  on  the  owners/operators  of  these  vessels  as  well  as  on  Member  States’  PSC 
administrations.  The use of electronic certificates will be mandated in the Directive and 
a phase-out of paper certificates by 2035 will be provided for. EMSA working with flag 
States,  ROs  and  IMO  will  develop  a  common  data  model,  a  validation  tool  and 
repository.  EMSA  will  develop  enhanced  training  tools/capacity  development  for 
inspectors,  especially  as  regards  new  technologies  and  in  relation  to  the  additional 
obligations arising from new IMO conventions. 

On  issues  relating  to  better  functioning  of  the  Directive  such  as  ship  arrival  and 
departure  notifications,  missed  inspections,  expanded  inspections  being  carried  out 
by  more  than  one  inspector,  validation  of  inspection  reports  and  force  majeure 
situations, this option is prescriptive and will propose amendments to the Directive.  

6.  6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This section summarizes the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts 
of  each  PO73.  The  proposed  measures  are  assumed  to  be  implemented  from  2025 
onwards, so the assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period and refers to 
EU27.  Costs  and  benefits  are  expressed  as  present  value  over  the  2025-2050  period, 
using a 3% discount rate. Further details on the methodological approach and impacts on 
costs by measure for the policy options are provided in Annex 4. 

73  The  analysis  in  this  section  is  based  on  the  COWI  et  al.  (2022),  Impact  assessment  support  study 
concerning  possible  revision  of  Directive  2009/16/EC  on  port  State  Control,  and  on  the  analysis  of 
stakeholders' feedback. 

34 

 
                                                           
6.1. 

6.1. 

Economic impacts 

This  section  provides  the  economic  impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  the  public 
authorities (i.e. PSC authorities and flag State authorities), ship operators and EMSA. It 
also  provides  an  assessment  of  impacts  on  small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs),  the 
functioning of the internal market and competition, and on competitiveness.  

6.1.1.  Impacts on public authorities 

Impacts  on  port  State  authorities.  All  three  policy  options  lead  to  an  increase  in  the 
enforcement costs, adjustments costs and administrative costs for the EU PSC authorities 
relative to the baseline. They also result in enforcement costs savings (see Table 2). More 
explanations  on  each  category  of  costs  by  policy  option  are  provided  below,  while  the 
detailed  costs  and  costs  savings  by  policy  measure,  including  the  assumptions  used  to 
derive them, are provided in Annex 4.  

Enforcement costs for port State authorities. The increase in enforcement costs relative to 
the baseline are driven by: i) expanding the scope of the Directive and aligning with IMO 
and  Paris  MoU  (i.e.  measures  PM1A  and  PM1B  in  PO  A  and  PO  B,  and  measures 
PM1A, PM1B and PM1C in PO C); ii) measures related to PSC inspections on fishing 
vessels (i.e. PM6A in PO A, PM6B in PO B and PM6C in PO C); iii) measures adding 
environmental parameters to the ship risk profile used to target ships (i.e. PM11 in PO B 
and PO C); and, iv) measures for ensuring that inspections are carried out by more than 
one inspector (PM15A in PO A and PM15B in PO B and PO C).  

Table  2:  Costs  for  EU  port  State  authorities  by  policy  option  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  million 
EUR), in 2020 prices  

Total additional costs  

Administrative costs  
Adjustment costs  
Enforcement costs  

2050 
0.797 
0.261 
0.140 
0.397 
0.175 
Enforcement costs savings  
Net costs  
0.622 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 
0.697 
0.218 
0.140 
0.339 
0.132 
0.565 

PO A 
2040 
0.740 
0.238 
0.140 
0.362 
0.190 
0.550 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 
2040 
0.992 
0.483 
0.140 
0.369 
0.556 
0.436 

2030 
0.932 
0.442 
0.140 
0.350 
0.366 
0.566 

2050 
1.076 
0.530 
0.140 
0.407 
0.578 
0.498 

PO C 
2040 
1.077 
0.486 
0.140 
0.452 
0.631 
0.445 

2030 
1.014 
0.445 
0.140 
0.430 
0.401 
0.614 

2050 
1.162 
0.531 
0.140 
0.491 
0.661 
0.501 

PO  C  shows  the  highest  increase  in  enforcement  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  (EUR 
0.430 million in 2030 and EUR 0.491 million in 2050), followed by PO B (EUR 0.350 
million in 2030 and EUR 0.407 million in 2050) and PO A (EUR 0.339 million in 2030 
and  EUR  0.397  million  in  2050).  In  terms  of  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the 
additional  enforcement  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR  8.174  million  in  PO  C,  EUR  6.697 
million  in  PO  B  and  EUR  6.508  million  in  PO  A.  The  highest  shares  of  additional 
enforcement  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  are  given  by  measures  for  ensuring  that 
inspections are carried out by more than one inspector (i.e. around 87% of the additional 
enforcement  costs  in  PO  A,  around  46%  in  PO  B  and  38%  in  PO  C),  followed  by 
measures adding environmental parameters to the ship risk profile used to target ships in 
PO B and PO C (i.e. around 40% of the additional enforcement costs in PO B and 32% in 
PO C). In addition, in PO C expanding the scope of the PSC Directive  by adding other 
Conventions  (HNS  and  Hong  Kong)  would  drive  around  17%  of  the  additional 
enforcement costs. Measures related to PSC inspections on fishing vessels only represent 
around 4% of the additional enforcement costs in PO A, 5% in PO B and 6% in PO C. 

35 

 
 
Enforcement costs savings for port State authorities. Enforcement costs savings relative 
to the baseline are driven by: i) measures on aligning the Directive to the Paris MoU new 
Ship Risk Profile (i.e. measure PM2 in PO A, PO B and PO C); ii) measures related to 
the use of electronic certificates (i.e. measure PM7A in PO A, measure PM7C in PO B 
and  PM7B  in  PO  C);  and  measures  to  prevent  unwanted  spill-over  effects  of  Member 
States which exceed their inspection commitment (i.e. PM10 in PO B and PO C).  

PO C shows the highest enforcement costs savings (see Table 2) relative to the baseline 
(EUR 0.401 million in 2030 and EUR 0.661 million in 2050), followed by PO B (EUR 
0.366 million in 2030 and EUR 0.578 million in 2050) and PO A (EUR 0.132 million in 
2030  and  EUR  0.175  million  in  2050).  In  terms  of  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the 
enforcement  costs  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR  9.503  million  in  PO  C,  EUR  8.406 
million  in  PO  B  and  EUR  2.887  million  in  PO  A.  The  highest  shares  of  enforcement 
costs  savings  relative  to  the  baseline  are  given  by  measures  related  to  the  use  of 
electronic certificates (i.e. around 97% of the enforcement costs savings in PO A or EUR 
2.804  million,  86%  in  PO  B  or  EUR  7.260  million  and  88%  in  PO  C  or  EUR  8.385 
million), followed by measures to prevent unwanted spill-over effects of Member States 
which  exceed  their  inspection  commitment  in  PO  B  and  PO  C  (i.e.  around  13%  of  the 
enforcement costs savings in PO B and 11% in PO C). 

In terms of number of inspections (see Table 3), PO A results in a slight decrease in the 
total  number  of  inspections  relative  to  the  baseline  despite  the  fact  that  the  number  of 
PSC  inspections  on  fishing  vessels  and  the  number  of  expanded  inspections  on 
commercial  vessels  increase.  On  the  other  hand,  PO  B  and  PO  C  would  lead  to  an 
increase in the number of inspections. Cumulatively, over the 2025-2050 period, the total 
number  of  PSC  inspections  is  projected  to  increase  by  7,461  in  PO  C  relative  to  the 
baseline (5,010 increase of PSC inspections on fishing vessels and 2,451 increase of PSC 
inspections on commercial vessels), by 5,727 in PO B (3,276 increase of PSC inspections 
on fishing vessels and 2,451 increase of PSC inspections on commercial vessels) and to 
slightly  decrease  by  77  in  PO  A  (2,250  increase  of  PSC  inspections  on  fishing  vessels 
and 2,327 decrease of PSC inspections on commercial vessels). The increase is however 
limited, to around 1.4% in PO B relative to the baseline and 1.8% in PO C.  

Table 3: Number of PSC inspections by policy option relative to the baseline  
Difference to the baseline 
PO B 
2040 

PO A 
2040 

2050 

2030 

2050 

2030 

PSC inspections on commercial 
vessels 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 
PSC inspections on fishing 
96 
vessels 
Total number of PSC inspections  
-4 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

95 
4 

80 
-4 

-91 
-84 
-93 
86 

-100 
-92 
-103 
95 

-84 
-77 
-86 
79 

88 
-195 
-206 
488 

103 
191 

96 
-212 
-224 
532 

138 
234 

105 
-234 
-247 
586 

157 
262 

PO C 
2040 

96 
-212 
-224 
532 

212 
308 

2030 

88 
-195 
-206 
488 

173 
261 

2050 

105 
-234 
-247 
586 

198 
303 

Adjustment costs for port State authorities. Adjustment costs for PSC authorities relative 
to the baseline are driven by: i) the requirement to develop and apply a QMS for the PSC 
activities  (i.e.  PM13  in  all  policy  options);  and  ii)  measure  encouraging  the  port  State 
authorities to join the Med MoU (i.e. PM17 in all policy options). All POs are estimated 
to result in the same adjustment costs (see Table 2) relative to the baseline (EUR 0.140 
million in 2030 and EUR 0.140 million in 2050). In addition, one-off costs of EUR 0.100 
million for implementing the QMS are foreseen in 2025. In terms of present value over 
2025-2050, the adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 2.570 million in PO A, PO B and 

36 

 
 
PO  C.  The  highest  share  of  adjustment  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  is  given  by  the 
requirement to develop and apply a QMS for the PSC activities (i.e. around 72% of the 
adjustment costs relative to the baseline).  

Administrative costs for  port State authorities. Administrative costs for PSC authorities 
relative  to  the  baseline  are  driven  by  measures  that  recommend  or  require  the  PSC 
inspection reports to be validated by a validator other than the inspector who carried out 
the inspection (i.e. measure PM16A in PO A, and measure PM16B in PO B and PO C). 
PO  C  shows  the  highest  additional  administrative  costs  (see  Table  2)  relative  to  the 
baseline (EUR 0.445 million in 2030 and EUR 0.531 million in 2050), followed by PO B 
(EUR  0.442  million  in  2030  and  EUR  0.530  million  in  2050)  and  PO  A  (EUR  0.218 
million in 2030 and EUR 0.261 million in 2050). The higher administrative costs in PO 
C relative to PO B are explained by the higher number of inspections in PO C, and thus a 
higher  number  of  PSC  reports.  In  terms  of  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the 
administrative costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 8.643 million in PO C, 
EUR 8.595 million in PO B and EUR 4.235 million in PO A. 

Net costs for port State authorities. Overall, the total additional costs for PSC authorities 
outweigh  the  costs  savings.  In  terms  of  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  net  costs 
relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 10.427 million in PO A, EUR 9.885 million 
in  PO  C  and  EUR  9.456  million  in  PO  B.  The  higher  net  costs  in  PO  A  are  mainly 
because of the lower cost savings due to the use of electronic certificates. 

Impacts on flag State authorities. Adjustment costs for flag State authorities relative to 
the baseline are expected due to measures related to the use of electronic certificates (i.e. 
measure PM7C in PO B and PM7B in PO C). Flag State authorities (or the Recognised 
Organisations  which  act  on  their  behalf)  will  need  to  communicate  their  statutory 
certificates to a central repository managed by EMSA. The adjustment costs involved are 
expected  to  be  quite  limited  as  the  ROs  already  communicate  directly  with  EMSA  the 
existence  of  and  dates  of  validity  of  the  statutory  certificates  but  not  the  certificates 
(together with their conditions, endorsements etc.). The adjustment costs are expected to 
be  the  same  in  PO  B  and  PO  C  and  to  amount  to  EUR  10,000  per  year  per  flag  State 
authority from 2026 onwards (EUR 0.220 million per year for all flag State authorities). 
In  addition,  one-off  investment  costs  of  EUR  1  million  are  expected  in  2025  so  that  a 
common and mutually acceptable model for the statutory certificates can be put in place 
for all flag States either by the flag State authorities or the Recognised Organisations. In 
terms of present value over 2025-2050, the adjustment costs relative to the baseline are 
estimated at EUR 4.831 million in PO B and PO C.  

6.1.2.  Impacts on ship operators 

All  policy options result in  an increase in  the  enforcement  costs for ship operators that 
are however largely overcompensated by administrative costs savings (see Table 4). The 
assumptions used for deriving the costs and costs savings, are provided in Annex 4.  

Table 4: Costs and costs savings for ship operators by policy option relative to the baseline (in 
million EUR), in 2020 prices 

2050 
0.031 
Enforcement costs  
0.339 
Administrative costs savings  
Net cost savings  
0.309 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 
0.026 
0.286 
0.260 

PO A 
2040 
0.030 
0.309 
0.279 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 
2040 
0.044 
0.309 
0.265 

2030 
0.033 
0.286 
0.253 

2050 
0.050 
0.339 
0.289 

PO C 
2040 
0.068 
0.309 
0.241 

2030 
0.055 
0.286 
0.231 

2050 
0.063 
0.339 
0.276 

37 

 
 
Enforcement  costs  for  ship  operators.  The  increase  in  enforcement  costs  relative  to  the 
baseline are driven by measures related to PSC inspections on fishing vessels (i.e. PM6A in 
PO A, PM6B in PO B and PM6C in PO C). While subject to a PSC inspection, the vessel 
will  be  obliged  to  remain  in  port  and  to  make  the  captain  or  his/her  representative 
available. Having regard to the smaller size of fishing vessels (even those over 24 metres) 
as  compared  with  vessels  currently  subject  to  PSC  and  the  number  of  conventions 
applicable  to  fishing  vessels,  EMSA  assessed  the  average  time  necessary  for  a  PSC 
inspection of a large fishing vessel as currently being 4.5 hours. This is over time reduced 
taking account of savings brought about by digitalisation, depending on the policy option.  

PO  C  shows  the  highest  increase  in  enforcement  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  (EUR 
0.055 million in 2030 and EUR 0.063 million in 2050), followed by PO B (EUR 0.033 
million in 2030 and EUR 0.050 million in 2050) and PO A (EUR 0.026 million in 2030 
and  EUR  0.031  million  in  2050).  In  terms  of  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the 
additional  enforcement  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR  1.105  million  in  PO  C,  EUR  0.715 
million in PO B and EUR 0.496 million in PO A. 

Administrative  costs  savings.  Administrative  costs  savings  relative  to  the  baseline  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 in all policy options. This obligation 
covered 85,764 ship calls involving ships which were eligible for an expanded inspection 
in 2019, representing 11.9% of the total number of port calls. A rough estimation of the 
time taken for a ship agent/operator/master to report the estimated time of arrival within 
72-hour through the National Single Window system of each Member State is around 5 
minutes. Therefore, also taking into account the projected evolution of the number of port 
calls  over  time,  removing  the  restriction  could  result  in  administrative  cost  savings  for 
shipping operators of EUR 0.286 million in 2030 and EUR 0.339 million in 2050 relative 
to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative 
to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR  5.53  million.  On  average  per  year,  the  total  costs 
savings expressed as present value are estimated at EUR 0.221 million, while the average 
number of port calls would be 96,637 per year during 2025-2050.  

Net costs savings for ship operators. Overall, the administrative costs savings outweigh 
the additional enforcement costs. In terms of present value over 2025-2050, the net costs 
savings relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 5.035 million in PO A, EUR 4.816 
million in PO B and EUR 4.425 million in PO C. 

6.1.3.  Impact on EMSA 

The changes to the Directive related to  alignment either as regards IMO instruments or 
the Paris MoU are not expected to give rise to additional costs for EMSA. On the other 
hand, measures related to PSC inspections on fishing vessels (i.e. PM6A in PO A, PM6B 
in PO B and PM6C in PO C), measures related to the use of electronic certificates (i.e. 
measure PM7A in PO A, measure PM7C in PO B and PM7B in PO C) and developing 
enhanced  training  tools/capacity  development  for  inspectors  (i.e.  PM12  in  all  POs)  are 
expected to lead to adjustment costs for EMSA relative to the baseline.  

The costs related to the introduction of PSC for larger fishing vessels will arise as a result of 
training  offered  by  the  Agency  to  Member  States’  inspectors  and  by  the  provision  of  a 
fishing  vessels  specific  module  for  the  THETIS  ship  targeting  and  inspection  reports 
database. PO A will involve training costs for EMSA. The training of PSC inspectors will 
mainly  focus  on  the  relevant  EU  guidelines.  The  development  of  such  a  course  would  be 
done by EMSA in house but a budget of EUR 36,000 per year is foreseen for the in-person 

38 

 
training  from  2025  onwards.  In  addition,  online  training  through  the  setup  of  the  virtual 
reality platform (VRESI) would involve a one-off cost of EUR 50,000 in 2025. PO B and PO 
C include the same  costs as PO A, but  in  addition they  also  cover the  costs related  to  the 
development of a THETIS module for fishing vessels (i.e. one-off costs of EUR 100,000 in 
2025). This also involves the development of a dedicated common core curriculum (CCC) 
for PSC of fishing vessels which will cover all the relevant instructions and guidance.  

In relation to the use of electronic statutory certificates in PSC, PO A will involve training 
costs for EMSA of EUR 36,000 per year for training the PSC inspectors. PO B and PO C 
would  have  similar  training  costs  as  PO  A.  In  addition,  in  PO  B  and  PO  C  one-off 
investment  costs  of  EUR  500,000  are  foreseen  in  2025  to  develop  a  validation  tool  and 
repository,  followed by  maintenance costs of EUR 100,000 per  year  from  2026 onwards 
(equivalent to 0.9 additional full time equivalents relative to the baseline).  

With respect to developing enhanced training tools/capacity development for inspectors, 
training  of  PSCOs  is  foreseen  on  new  technologies,  including  but  not  limited  to 
renewable  and low  carbon fuels,  which are particularly relevant  in view  of the  “Fit for 
55” package, and automation. This is expected to amount to EUR 150,000 per year in all 
three  policy  options,  made  up  of  EUR  36,000  for  in  person  training,  a  further  EUR 
34,000 to cover enhancement (related to PSC) of EMSA’s online training tools and EUR 
80,000 for the recruitment of experts from a pool of expertise that EMSA has developed 
to  address  very  specialised  matters  (such  as  new  technologies)  for  which  the  Agency 
does  not  have  the  expertise  in  house.  This  is  equivalent  to  one  additional  full  time 
equivalent (FTE) for EMSA in all three policy options relative to the baseline.  

Overall,  the  adjustment  costs  for  EMSA  in  PO  B  and  PO  C  are  estimated  at  EUR  0.322 
million per year from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline, plus one-off costs of EUR 0.650 
million in 2025. In PO A the costs are estimated to be lower, at EUR 0.222 million per year 
from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline, plus one-off costs of EUR 0.050 million in 2025. 
Of these costs, one additional full time equivalent is estimated to be needed by EMSA in PO 
A and close to 2 FTEs in PO B and PO C.  In terms of present value over 2025-2050, the net 
costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 4.138 million in PO A and EUR 6.479 
million in PO B and PO C. 

6.1.4.  Impacts on SMEs  

The  creation  of  a  PSC  regime  for  larger  fishing  vessels  of  above  24  metres  in  all  policy 
options (i.e. PM6A in PO A, PM6B in PO B and PM6C in PO C) is relevant for SMEs as it 
can be assumed that all fishing vessels of above 24 metres eligible for PSC would qualify as 
small enterprises74. Fishermen’s groups have been consulted as part of the impact assessment 
process, and while they are in favour of safety inspections, they stress that PSC inspections 
should  not  hamper  vessel  operations  since  PSC  would  directly  affect  the  income  of  the 
fishermen concerned.  

The analysis in section 6.1.2 has shown that, in PO A the additional enforcement costs for 
fishing vessels operators are estimated at around EUR 0.026 million at EU level in 2030 and 
EUR  0.031  million  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline.  PO  B  shows  higher  costs  than  PO  A 
(EUR  0.033  million  in  2030  and  EUR  0.050  million  in  2050).  For  PO  C,  the  additional 
enforcement costs are estimated at EUR 0.055 million in 2030 and at EUR 0.063 million in 

74 Small companies have less than 50 employees and either a net turnover or balance sheet of €10 million. 
Large fishing vessels would typically be operated as single vessels companies and have a crew of less than 
20.  

39 

 
                                                           
2050. Considering the projected number of fishing vessels above 24 meters in 2030 and 2050 
at EU level, the additional enforcement costs relative to the baseline are estimated in PO A at 
12 EUR per vessel in 2030 and 18 EUR per vessel in 2050. For PO B, the additional costs 
are estimated at 16 EUR per vessel in 2030 and 29 EUR per vessel in 2050, while in PO C 
they would be 27 EUR per vessel in 2030 and 37 EUR per vessel in 2050. These costs can 
however be regarded as the upper bound as it has been assumed that for the duration of the 
PSC inspection no other on-board operations can take place which is not necessarily the case.  

On  the  other  hand,  all  policy  options  will  have  positive  impacts  in  terms  of  safety  for 
operators  of  fishing  vessels  above  24  metres  in  length,  which  are  mainly  small 
enterprises, as shown in section 6.2.1.  

6.1.5.  Functioning of the internal market and competition 

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal 
market, both by improving overall maritime safety for the benefit of freight customers and 
passengers throughout the Union as well as by ensuring that the same safety level applies 
throughout the Union. The positive impacts of PO B are expected to be higher than those 
of PO A and PO C, because of the easier path towards digitalisation and the quicker uptake 
of  a  voluntary  creation  of  a  PSC  regime  for  larger  fishing  vessels  resulting  in  a  higher 
degree of harmonisation between Member States. This is particularly the case as only  10 
Member States are visited by significant numbers of larger foreign flagged fishing vessels. 
All policy options provide for a level playing field as all policy options improve safety and 
the performance of the Member States in the performance of their PSC functions.  

6.1.6.  Impacts on competitiveness 

As  explained  in  section  6.1.2,  the  additional  enforcement  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  for 
ship operators are expected to be limited in all three policy options. No other additional costs 
are  expected for the industry  (i.e. ship operators) in the three policy  options. On the  other 
hand,  all  policy  options  are  expected  to  lead  to  administrative  costs  savings  for  ship 
operators, in particular commercial vessels operators, which outweigh the costs. Therefore, it 
can be concluded that all policy options may improve the competitiveness of the operators.  

6.2. 

6.2. 

Social impacts 

Social impacts are mainly assessed in terms of impacts of the policy options on maritime 
safety (in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided), working conditions and fundamental 
rights.  Costs  impacts  for  consumers  from  any  of  the  policy  options  have  not  proved 
quantifiable but are expected to be negligible.  

6.2.1.  Maritime safety  

As  deficiencies  identified  during  PSC  inspections  typically  have  to  be  rectified  before  the 
vessel  leaves  the  port  or  shortly  thereafter,  PSC  inspections  are  expected  to  lead  to  a 
reduction  in  the  number  of  deficiencies  and  thereby  to  improve  safety  and  environmental 
performance. This should result in a reduction in the number of marine casualties and thus of 
lives lost and injuries. With regard to marine casualties involving transport vessels, PO B and 
PO C are estimated to lead to the same impact in terms of number of lives saved and injuries 
avoided  during  2025-2050  (3  lives  saved  and  27  injuries  avoided  relative  to  the  baseline) 

40 

 
while PO A would not lead to any significant impact relative to the baseline75. With respect 
to  marine  casualties  involving  fishing  vessels,  PO  C  leads  to  the  highest  number  of  lives 
saved and injuries avoided (4 lives saved and 53 injuries avoided) relative to the baseline, 
followed by PO B (3 lives saved and 34 injuries avoided) and PO A (3 lives saved and 25 
injuries avoided). Thus, all policy options contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal 
3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”), although the impact of 
PO C is the highest. 

All policy options are estimated to result in a reduction in the external costs of accidents 
relative  to  the  baseline  (Table  5)  although  the  impact  would  be  highest  in  PO  C  (EUR 
43.7  million,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050)  relative  to  PO  A  (EUR  15.6 
million) and PO B (EUR 35 million)76.  

Table 5: Reduction in the external costs of accidents, present value over 2025-2050 (in million EUR), 
in 2020 prices 

Fatalities and injuries in which commercial vessels 
are involved 

Fatalities 
Injuries 

Fatalities and injuries in which fishing vessels are 
involved 

Fatalities 
Injuries 

Total fatalities and injuries 

Fatalities 
Injuries 

Baseline 

8,095 
2,987 
5,107 

1,823 
884 
939 
9,918 
3,872 
6,046 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 

PO A 

PO C 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

15.6 
6.9 
8.8 
15.6 
6.9 
8.8 

16.4 
6.9 
9.6 

18.6 
6.9 
11.8 
35.0 
13.7 
21.3 

16.4 
6.9 
9.6 

27.3 
9.1 
18.2 
43.7 
15.9 
27.8 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

It should be noted however that there is high uncertainty regarding these estimates. This 
is  because  the  impacts  of  the  PSC  Directive  on  safety  are  indirect,  through  inspections 
that are aimed to address ship deficiencies. For this reason, sensitivity analysis has been 
performed, assuming 10% and 15% lower value in absolute terms of the elasticity used to 
derive the impacts. Table 6 shows that even with lower value of the elasticity all policy 
options are projected to result in lives saved and injuries avoided, although the positive 
impacts on safety would be more limited.  

Table  6:  Results  of  the  sensitivity  analyis  on  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  fatalities  and  injuries 
over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline and  on the external  costs of accidents, expressed as  present 
value over 2025-2050 (in million EUR) relative to the baseline 

Total number of fatalities and injuries 

Central case 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 

PO A 

PO C 

28 

67 

87 

75  In  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study  a  log-log  relationship  between  the  number  of 
inspections conducted in  year t and the number of marine casualties in  year t+2 has been estimated. The 
elasticity  has  been  estimated  at  -1.031  meaning  that  “a  1%  increase  in  inspections  in  year  t  reduces  the 
number of marine casualties in year 2 by 1.031%”. However, as the number of ship deficiencies decreases 
over  time,  it  is  expected  that  the  impact  on  marine  casualties  and  thus  on  the  number  of  fatalities  and 
injuries avoided would also decrease over time. Therefore, it has been assumed that the elasticity decreases 
in a non-linear way by 2050, the impacts being significantly smaller post-2040 (at less than 0.2%). More 
explanations are provided in Annex 4.  
76 The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport has been used to monetise the costs. According to 
the  Handbook, the external costs of a fatality in 2020 prices is estimated at around EUR 3.5 million and 
that of an injury at around EUR 0.5 million.  

41 

 
 
 
  
  
  
                                                           
10% lower elasticity 
15% lower elasticity 

Reduction in external costs of accidents (present value 2025-
2050, in million EUR) 

Central case 
10% lower elasticity 
15% lower elasticity 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

6.2.2.  Impacts on working conditions and skills 

18 
14 

15.6 
11.0 
9.9 

46 
35 

35.0 
26.0 
22.4 

60 
44 

43.7 
34.0 
25.7 

The  impact  of  the  policy  options  on  working  conditions  is  expected  to  be  positive, 
although it has not been possible to quantify it. By improving safety, the policy options 
will  result  in  saved  lives  (of  passengers  but  in  particular  of  crew),  avoid  injuries  and 
improve the attractiveness of employment in the sector. The creation of a PSC regime for 
fishing vessels is in particular expected to improve the working and living conditions on 
board fishing vessels subject to PSC.  

The  impact  is  expected  to  be  higher  in  PO  C  and  PO  B  than  in  PO  A,  resulting  in  the 
highest number of lives saved and injuries avoided in PO C. In addition, the knowledge 
sharing  and  training  organised  by  EMSA  will  improve  the  skills  of  PSCOs  in  light  of 
new  developments  which  may  be  relevant  for  PSC  inspections  in  the  future,  including 
but not limited to renewable and low carbon fuels, automation and autonomous shipping.  

6.2.3.  Impacts on fundamental rights  

The policy options were assessed to determine if they have an impact on the fundamental 
rights and/or equal treatment of EU citizens. The starting point of the assessment of the 
fundamental  rights  is  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union77.  All 
three of the POs were assessed having regard to  the relevant  EU instrument  and it was 
concluded that they maintain full respect for human and fundamental rights and none will 
have any negative impact thereon. 

6.3. 

6.3. 

Environmental impacts 

The impact of the policy options on the environment is also an indirect one, as it depends 
on  the  PSC  inspections  as  explained  in  section  6.2.1,  that  are  expected  to  lead  to  a 
reduction in the number of ship deficiencies over time, to an improvement in safety and 
as a consequence to a reduction in accidents and pollution. The environmental impact of 
maritime casualties derives from ships sinking, cargoes lost and oil spills (either as cargo 
or from bunker fuels). While there has not been a single significant oil spill similar to that 
of  the  Erika  (1999)  or  Prestige  (2002)  accidents  in  EU  waters  for  almost  20  years,  the 
possibility  of  such  an  incident  is  nonetheless  present  and  has  to  be  mitigated  against. 
Similarly and in the context of the European Green Deal and the “Fit for 55” package, it 
is  likely that there will be a significant  change in ship  propulsion and fuels  used in the 
coming decades. This will have implications for the entire shipping and fishing industries 
and can be expected to have an impact on the way PSC inspections are conducted. 

Furthermore,  23  cases  of  pollution  due  to  bunker  fuel  lost  were  recorded  in  2019  for 
commercial and larger fishing vessels. In the baseline scenario, the cumulative number of 
tonnes  of  bunker  fuels  lost  between  2025  and  2050  is  estimated  at  20.2  thousand  (see 
Table  7).  PO  C  would  result  in  98  tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  avoided  (33  tonnes 

77 OJ C 326 of 26.10.2012 p.2 

42 

 
  
  
  
                                                           
involving commercial vessels and 65 tonnes involving fishing vessels) during 2025-2050 
relative  to  the  baseline,  followed  by  PO  B  (75  tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  avoided,  33 
tonnes involving commercial vessels and 42 tonnes involving fishing vessels) and PO A 
(30  tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  avoided,  involving  fishing  vessels).  This  is  expected  to 
positively  impact  on  the  quality  of  marine  water  and  on  biodiversity.  Thus,  all  policy 
options contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal 14 (“Conserve and sustainably 
use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources  for  sustainable  development”),  although  the 
positive impact of PO C is the highest.  

 Table 7: Bunker fuel lost cumulative for 2025-2050 (in tonnes) 

Baseline 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 

PO A 

PO C 

Bunker fuels lost 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

20,200 

30 

75 

98 

No significant harm is expected on the environment in any of the three policy options, in 
particular in the area of sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources to 
which the initiative relates. On the contrary, as explained above, all three policy options 
are  expected  to  have  small  positive  impacts  on  the  quality  of  water  and  biodiversity  – 
with the highest impact among the three projected in PO C.  

7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

7.1. 

7.1. 

Effectiveness 

The  assessment  of  effectiveness  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  the  general  and  specific 
objectives  (SO)  of  the  intervention,  as  previously  described,  are  met.  Table  8  provides 
the link between policy objectives and assessment criteria. 

Specific objective 
SO1 - Align EU legislation with 
new international rules 

Table 8: Link between objectives and assessment criteria 
General objectives 
The general objectives 
are: (i) to maintain a 
level playing field and 
avoid market distortions, 
(ii) to ensure high levels 
of maritime safety (iii) to 
ensure prevention of 
maritime pollution 

SO2 - Protect fishing vessel, their 
crews and the environment 

SO3 - Ensure higher uptake of 
digital solutions 
SO4 - Ensure efficient and 
harmonised approach in 
undertaking PSC inspections 

Assessment criteria  

Expected improvement in clarity and functioning 
of the internal market 

Changes in the number of fatalities and injuries 
involving fishing vessels 
Changes in the number of tonnes of bunker fuel 
lost at sea involving fishing vessels 
Enforcement costs savings for port State authorities 
due to the uptake of digital solutions 
Administrative costs savings for ship operators 
Changes in the number of fatalities and injuries 
involving commercial and fishing vessels 
Changes in the number of tonnes of bunker fuel 
lost at sea involving commercial and fishing 
vessels 

Concerning  SO1,  all  three  policy  options  incorporate  the  changes  already  adopted  with  the 
context  of  the  Paris  MoU  and  allow  for  full  alignment  of  the  EU  legislation  with  the 
international body on whose practice and policies the Directive is largely based. As previously 
stated  although  the  Paris  MoU  has  made  changes  to  the  way  PSC  should  be  carried  out 
throughout the region these cannot be implemented unless and until the Directive is amended. 
Alignment  and  update  of  the  Directive  to  incorporate  the  most  up  to  date  international 
instruments and MoU decisions will improve the Directive but will also improve the practice 
of PSC throughout the EU. This can be expected to strengthen the safety net across the Union, 
improve harmonisation and the functioning of the internal market.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
As  regards  alignment  with  and  incorporation  of  IMO  Conventions,  all  three  options 
provide  for  the  inclusion  of  the  BWM  and  Nairobi  Wreck  Conventions  which  have 
entered  into  force  and  been  incorporated  into  the  Paris  MoU.  Option  C  goes  slightly 
further  and  provides  for  the  possible  inclusion  of  two  further  Conventions  if  and  when 
they ever enter into force. This would mean that the Directive could be kept up-to-date 
without  having  to  undergo  a  full  co-decision  procedure.  Overall  and  given  that  neither 
the  HNS  nor  the  Hong  Kong  Convention  have  entered  into  force  all  three  options  are 
equally effective at achieving SO1.  

Concerning  SO2,  PO  C  would  be  the  most  effective  in  that  it  fully  incorporates  larger 
fishing vessels (over 24 metres in length) within the scope of the PSC Directive, with the 
largest positive effects on safety and protection of marine environment. However, the full 
incorporation  of  larger  fishing  vessels  into  the  PSC  Directive  may  lead  to  undesired 
effects  on  SO4.  The  international  conventions  applicable  to  fishing  vessels  are  not  the 
same  as  those  applicable  to  commercial  (cargo  or  passenger)  vessels.  This  means  that 
direct comparisons and the use of inspection results to target the general merchant fleet is 
problematic. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that only a rather small number of EU 
Member States have significant numbers of fishing vessels of over 24 metres in length. 
Full incorporation of the fishing vessel segment into the PSC Directive would mean that 
poor results from  the  PSC inspections  of their flagged  fishing vessels would  impact  on 
their white grey black list flag state performance and on the risk profile of all vessels in 
the  flagged  fleet,  not  just  on  the  fishing  vessels.  It  is  clear  from  the  stakeholder 
consultations that, for the reasons stated above the PSC administrations are in favour of 
developing  (together  with  the  Paris  MoU)  a  voluntary  PSC  system  in  parallel  to  the 
Directive, rather than extending the scope of the Directive. 

PO B, through the creation of a voluntary PSC system for fishing vessels of above 24 metres 
parallel to the Directive, is also effective in addressing SO2 although the positive effects on 
safety and protection of marine environment are somewhat lower than those of PO C. On the 
other hand, PO B does not have undesired effects on SO4. The least effective in addressing 
SO2 is PO A, that only focuses on guidelines and training, and achieves the lowest positive 
impacts  on safety  and  protection of marine environment.  For the  reasons  identified  above, 
PO B is regarded as the most effective in achieving SO2, while at the same time avoiding 
undesired effects on SO4.  

Concerning SO3, PO C is the most effective in terms of enforcement costs savings for PSC 
authorities due to the uptake of digital solutions (EUR 8.385 million savings relative to the 
baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050). PO B is also effective in addressing 
SO3, leading to enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities due to the uptake of digital 
solutions  of  EUR  7.260  million  relative  to  the  baseline,  expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050. Incentivising the use of electronic certificates by linking their use to the ship 
risk profile means that third countries continue to have a choice and can continue to call to 
EU ports with paper certificates – albeit with a disadvantage. PO A is the least effective in 
addressing SO3, leading to enforcement costs savings of EUR 2.804 million relative to the 
baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050.  

Concerning  SO4,  all  three  POs  require  a  QMS  to  allow  PSC  administrations  to  identify 
systemic  weaknesses.  PO  B  and  PO  C  will  have  similar  effects,  making  provisions  for 
dealing with identified problems relating to reporting the actual time of arrival/departure, 
over-inspection, missed inspections caused by force majeure situations (such as the Covid-
19  pandemic).  Similarly  PO  B  and  PO  C  also  address  the  issue  of  re-focussing  PSC  on 
environmental issues while retaining the risk based approach. With regard to the issues of 
the numbers of inspectors carrying out inspections and the validation of inspection reports 

44 

 
PO  A  makes  recommendations  while  PO  B  and  PO  C  amend  the  Directive  to  formalise 
what  is  considered  best  practice.  On  this  basis,  PO  B  and  PO  C  are  regarded  as  more 
effective in achieving SO4 than PO A. 

7.2. 

7.2. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency concerns "the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of 
resource/at  least  cost".  The  major  costs  of  the  policy  options  come  in  the  form  of 
enforcement  costs  and  administrative  costs  for  PSC  authorities  and  costs  for  EMSA. 
They are summarised in Table 9 below. 

PO  C  leads  to  the  highest  total  costs  among  the  three  policy  options,  estimated  at  EUR 
31.803 million in addition to the baseline costs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. 
The highest total costs in PO C are the enforcement costs and administrative costs for PSC 
authorities, and adjustment costs for EMSA. A large part of enforcement costs are linked to 
the requirement that all expanded inspections are carried out by more than one inspector, and 
adding  environmental  parameters  to  the  ship  risk  profile  used  to  target  ships,  while  the 
administrative  costs  are  linked  to  the  requirement  that  all  PSC  inspection  reports  are 
validated by a validator other than the inspector who carried out the inspection (see section 
6.1.1). PO B shows lower costs than PO C, estimated at EUR 29.887 million in addition to 
the baseline costs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. The highest cost categories 
are  the  same  as  in  PO  C.  Finally,  PO  A  shows  the  lowest  total  costs  among  the  POs, 
estimated at EUR 17.947 million in addition to the baseline costs.  

Table 9: Summary of costs and benefits of policy options – present value for 2025-2050 compared to 
the baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 

Total costs 

PSC authorities 

Administrative costs  
Adjustment costs  
Enforcement costs  
Flag State authorities 
Adjustment costs  

EMSA 

Adjustment costs  

Ship operators 

Enforcement costs  

Total benefits 

PSC authorities 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

17.947 

29.887 

31.803 

4.235 
2.570 
6.508 

0.000 

4.138 

0.496 
24.038 

8.595 
2.570 
6.697 

4.831 

6.479 

0.715 
48.985 

8.643 
2.570 
8.174 

4.831 

6.479 

1.105 
58.752 

Enforcement costs savings  

Ship operators 

Administrative costs savings 

Reduction in external costs of accidents 

Net benefits 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2.887 

8.406 

9.503 

5.530 
15.621 
6.092 

5.530 
35.048 
19.098 

5.530 
43.718 
26.949 

In  terms  of  total  benefits,  PO  C  shows  the  highest  benefits  among  the  three  policy 
options  mainly  due  to  the  reduction  in  the  external  costs  of  accidents.  Total  benefits, 
including enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities and administrative costs savings 
for  ship  operators,  are  estimated  at  EUR  58.752  million  relative  to  the  baseline, 
expressed as present value over 2025-2050. PO B shows somewhat lower benefits than 
PO C, estimated at EUR 48.985 million, while PO A is estimated to result in the lowest 
benefits of the three options (EUR 24.038 million). The impact of the avoided pollution 
due to the tonnes of bunker fuel lost was not possible to be monetise but also in this case 
the highest benefits are projected in PO C, as shown in section 6.3.  

45 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
All policy options result in net benefits. The net benefits are largest in PO C, estimated at 
EUR 26.949 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
followed  by  PO  B  (EUR  19.098  million)  and  PO  A  (EUR  6.092  million).  PO  C  also 
shows higher benefits to costs ratio (1.85) relative to PO B (1.64) and PO A (1.34).  

Considering the sensitivity analysis on the impacts of the policy options on external costs 
of accidents, provided in section 6.2.1, the net benefits and the benefit to cost ratio have 
been  calculated  for  each  case  and  are  provided  in  Table  10.  The  table  shows  that  even 
with lower values of the elasticity, all policy options would still result in net benefits and 
PO C would result in the highest benefit to cost ratio, followed by PO B.  

Table 10: Results of the sensitivity anaysis on net benefits and benefit to cost ratio of policy options  

Net benefits (in million EUR) 

Central case 
10% lower elasticity 
15% lower elasticity 

Benefit cost ratio 
Central case 
10% lower elasticity 
15% lower elasticity 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

7.3. 

7.3. 

Coherence 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 

PO A 

PO C 

6.092 
1.514 
0.335 

1.34 
1.08 
1.02 

19.098 
10.010 
6.407 

1.64 
1.33 
1.21 

26.949 
17.203 
8.977 

1.85 
1.54 
1.28 

Internal coherence. The internal coherence concentrates on how the different elements 
within the Directive work together to achieve the objectives. It should be noted that this 
does  not  only  concern  the  Directive  itself,  but  also  its  accompanying  secondary 
legislation  (delegated  and/or  implementing  acts)  and  rules  as  well  as  interpretative 
guidelines.  Although  all  three  POs  address  the  identified  problems,  they  do  so  in 
different ways. PO A addresses the problems and objectives in such a way that room for 
flexibility  remains,  meaning  that  while  there  is  alignment  with  the  international 
instruments  the  majority  of  guidance  is  by  recommendation.  PO  B  and  PO  C  propose 
amendments to the Directive itself for all aspects that require further harmonisation and 
thus ensure a higher degree of internal coherence than PO A.  

External  coherence.  The  external  coherence  concentrates  on  the  compliance  of  the 
Directive  with  key  EU  policy  objectives  and  international  legislation.  Revising  the 
Directive and aligning with the most up-to-date Paris MoU and IMO provisions ensure a 
modern harmonised approach. As such, all three legal regimes will be consistent. As PO 
A, PO B and PO C all seek alignment with the current international legal regime, external 
coherence will be guaranteed in all three policy options.  

7.4. 

7.4. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

As  highlighted  in  section  2  there  is  a  clear  need  for  EU  action  on  all  the  problems 
identified, and their drivers. The current Directive does not apply to larger fishing vessels 
and  refers  to  outdated  legislation  and  procedures.  In  addition,  experience  with  the 
Directive has shown PSC is  not  always  being  carried out in  the  most efficient manner, 
notably as regards the use of electronic certificates and having regard to  environmental 
issues. Member States individually are not able to tackle all the problems identified. As 
PSC  is  based  on  a  shared  inspection  burden  and  a  common  system  for  targeting  and 
selection of vessels for inspection and the carrying out of inspections, common action to 
improve  the  Directive  is  essential.  To  avoid  a  fragmented  legal  framework,  there  is  a 

46 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
need  for  EU  action.  As  such,  there  is  a  right  for  the  EU  to  act.  As  all  policy  options 
ensure harmonisation of the legal framework, the subsidiarity requirement is fulfilled. In 
any event, as stated in Section 3.2, the principle of subsidiarity does not  apply to areas 
subject to EU exclusive competence pursuant to Article 3(2) TFEU. 

In  relation  to  proportionality,  the  objectives  are  achieved  by  improving  the  way  that  PSC 
inspections are carried out. PO A contributes to the objectives by focusing on improving the 
ability  of  national  PSC  administrations  to  inspect  ships.  Apart  from  alignment  and  the 
requirements for a QMS the focus is on recommendations.  

PO B additionally contributes to the objectives by providing for a voluntary PSC system for 
fishing vessels, while  PO  C  fully  incorporates  larger  fishing  vessels  within the  scope  of the 
PSC  Directive.  As  fewer  than  10  of  the  22  EU  Member  States  which  apply  the  PSC 
Directive (those with sea-ports) are visited by larger foreign fishing vessels, this is likely 
to result in political resistance or reluctance in taking this measure forward and making 
the necessary changes to national legislation and investments in training for inspections 
that will not be carried out. On electronic certificates PO B links their use with the ship risk 
profile  and  in  this  way  provides  a  real  and  achievable  incentive  for  flag  states  to  make  the 
digital  move.  PO  C  is  more  ambitious,  mandating  the  use  of  electronic  certificates,  and 
thereby phasing out paper certificates. However, while it is desirable to move to electronic 
statutory certificates, the effective banning of paper certificates provided for in PO C may 
prove  difficult  to  implement  politically  and  may  provoke  negative  reactions  in  third 
countries and within the IMO. EU Member States as flag states may fear that their vessels 
when operating in third country ports may be subject to retaliatory action by states which 
continue to use paper certificates and may therefore be reluctant to take the step to end all 
use of paper certificates.  

During the stakeholder consultation, it became clear that provision of some sort of PSC for 
fishing vessels is an important aspect of change but that the Member States administrations 
would  prefer  that  this  was  done  voluntarily  and  with  the  cooperation  of  the  Paris  MoU. 
Similarly,  while  all  stakeholders  see  the  need  for  more  digitalisation  unwanted  spill  over 
effects should  be  avoided. For this reason, PO  B is seen  as more proportional than PO C, 
while contributing more towards the objectives than PO A 

8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

8.1. 
views 

Identification  of  the  preferred  policy  option  and  stakeholders 

Although each of the options addresses the problems identified, their drivers and the specific 
objectives, some options are more effective in achieving the specific and general objectives. 
Based on the assessment done, PO B is equally effective with PO A and PO C in addressing 
SO1.  PO  B  is  regarded  as  the  most  effective  in  addressing  SO2,  while  at  the  same  time 
avoiding undesired effects on SO4. PO B is also effective in addressing SO3, although the 
most effective option is PO C. With regard to SO4, PO B and PO C are equally effective and 
more effective than PO A.   

With respect to efficiency, PO C has the highest additional costs, followed by PO B and 
PO A. When linking costs to benefits, PO C also yields the highest benefits in terms of 
improving maritime safety and thus monetised benefits, and enforcement cost savings for 
the  PSC  authorities.  As  the  additional  benefits  outweigh  the  additional  costs,  PO  C  is 
seen as the most efficient of the options proposed. None of the options leads to excessive 

47 

 
costs  in  achieving  the  objectives  set,  while  PO  B  is  relatively  close  in  terms  of  net 
benefits and benefit to cost ratio to PO C.  

On  internal  coherence,  as  PO  B  proposes  amendments  to  the  Directive  itself  for  all 
aspects  that  require  further  harmonisation,  it  ensures  a  higher  degree  of  internal 
coherence than PO A, and equal to that of PO C. External coherence will be guaranteed 
for  all  policy  options,  including  PO  B,  as  they  all  seek  alignment  with  the  current 
international legal regime. 

The  subsidiarity  requirement  is  fulfilled  for  all  options,  including  PO  B,  as  they  all 
ensure harmonisation of the legal framework. However, PO B is seen as more proportional 
than PO C, while contributing more towards the objectives than PO A. 

Stakeholder consultations showed that  PSC administrations are in  favour of developing 
(together and within the Paris MoU) a voluntary PSC system in parallel to the Directive 
(as in PO B), rather than extending the scope of the Directive to incorporate large fishing 
vessels (as in PO C). All PSC authorities are in favour of the increased and enhanced use 
of electronic certificates in PSC. However, the effective phasing out of paper certificates 
provided  for  in  PO  C  may  prove  difficult  to  implement  politically  and  may  provoke 
negative  reactions  within  the  IMO  and  in  third  countries.  EU  Member  States  as  flag 
states may fear that their vessels when operating in third country ports may be subject to 
retaliatory action by those states and therefore be reluctant to take the step to end all use 
of paper certificates. 

On  the  issue  of  electronic  certificates  the  preference  for  PM7C  whereby  the  use  of 
electronic  certificates  will  be  encouraged  and  supported  by  developing  common  data 
standards,  an  electronic  validation  tool  and  repository  and  incentivised  by  linking  their 
use with the ship risk profile, is justified for political as well as practical reasons.  

On  the  political  level,  if  the  Commission  were  to  propose  the  total  phase-out  of  paper 
certificates  (PM7B)  by  mandating  their  replacement  with  electronic  certificates  there 
would be significant resistance both  from within the EU flag States but  also from third 
country flags and the IMO. As mentioned in section 2.2 of the Impact Assessment report 
the  current  take  up  rate  of  electronic  certificates  in  the  EU  is  about  20%  and  EU 
legislation  lacks  a  framework  for  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  and  the  electronic 
provision of ships statutory certificates. This means that even an EU ship equipped with 
electronic certificates calling to a port in another EU State (where the trust level between 
administrations  should  objectively  be  high)  still  has  to  carry  paper  versions  in  case  the 
electronic versions are not accepted.  

As PSC applies to both EU and third country foreign flagged vessels calling to EU ports 
and as approximately 70% of vessels operating internationally in EU waters are flagged 
in  third  countries,  if  the  EU  were  to  unilaterally  move  to  refusing  to  accept  paper 
certificates  in  PSC,  EU  flag  and  port  States  would  fear  retaliation  from  those  third 
countries which are either unwilling or unable to move to electronic certificates. This is a 
matter which needs to be progressed but it will need to be handled taking account of the 
concerns of EU flag States, the Paris MoU, the IMO, the recognised organisations (which 
act for most flag States) and the third countries.  

The  incentivisation  of  electronic  certificates  by  linking  their  usage  to  the  SRP 
nonetheless clearly indicates the EU preference in this matter but allows for those third 
countries that do not wish to work on this issue not to do so. As this issue needs to be 

48 

 
handled  sensitively  rather  than  unilaterally  it  is  submitted  that  PM7C  achieves  the 
required objective, addressing along the running issue in a balanced and achievable way.    

On  the  issue  of  fishing  vessels  PSC  the  preferred  option  represents  a  balanced  option. 
The  EU  has  a  long  and  productive  association  (since  1995)  with  the  Paris  MoU  in  the 
joint  development  of  PSC  standards  and  the  preferred  measure  would  allow  for  the 
development of fishing vessels PSC in a gradual and organic manner which takes account 
of the required flexibility.  

The  preferred  measure  PM6B,  which  would  provide  for  a  voluntary  PSC  system  for 
fishing vessels of above 24 metres, which will exist in parallel to the Directive by means 
of  guidelines,  training  and  an  inspection  database  for  targeting  ships  and  reporting  on 
inspections is expected to work and through the MoU to deliver on this aim. The system 
will  be  voluntary  for  the  Member  States  that  want  to  implement  it  not  for  the  fishing 
vessels  themselves.  The  alternative  (PM6C)  of  full  incorporation  of  the  fishing  vessels 
into  the  Directive  would  freeze  the  EU  situation at  the  moment  of  adoption  and  would 
not allow for the gradual development of standards. 

As  to  why  the  PM6B  is  proposed  as  a  voluntary  separate  system  rather  than  a 
compulsory free standing system this has to do with flexibility and the way that standards 
are  developed  within  the  PSC  community  by  consensus.  One  of  the  most  important 
conventions  which  would  be  applicable  to  fishing  vessels  is  the  2012  Cape  Town 
Agreement (CTA). The CTA adopted by the IMO, consists of minimum safety measures 
for fishing vessels that mirror the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 
(SOLAS)  as  large  parts  of  SOLAS  to  not  apply  to  fishing  vessels.    Once  in  force,  the 
CTA  will  set  minimum  requirements  on  the  design,  construction,  equipment,  and 
inspection  of  fishing  vessels  of  24  meters  or  longer  that  operate  on  the  high  seas. 
However  and  significantly,  the  CTA  has  not  yet  reached  its  ratification  threshold  and 
therefore has not yet entered into force. By providing for a voluntary system for those EU 
Member States that wish to carry out these inspections a system of PSC can be developed 
organically  by  Member  States,  the  MoU,  the  Commission  and  EMSA.  This  will  retain 
the  necessary  flexibility  for  the  new  system  in  its  early  phase  when  it  is  subject  to  the 
most change and means that the CTA can be incorporated into fishing vessels PSC when 
the  CTA  enters  into  force,  which  is  hoped  will  be  in  the  next  five  years.  Creating  a 
compulsory stand-alone system means that the parameters will be fixed from its date of 
adoption and will make it difficult to adapt and develop. 

With  regard  to  the  White  Grey  Black  (WGB)  list  and  its  potential  impact  on  PSC  for 
fishing  vessels  the  WGB  list  is  an  important  element  used  in  determining  the  ship  risk 
profile  and  therefore  the  selection  of  ships  for  inspection.  During  PSC  inspection  as 
deficiencies are identified these are recorded and the reports are collected and evaluated 
allowing  for  the  evaluation  of  the  performance  of  flag  States  and  recognised 
organisations,  which  act  on  their  behalf.  The  Paris  MoU  publishes  a  flag  State 
performance list each year calculated by relating the number of detentions to the number 
of inspections over the previous three years, with white listed flags performing the best in 
PSC inspections and with black listed flags performing worst.  

Those EU Member States (approximately 10) with large fishing fleets potentially eligible 
for  PSC  are  concerned  that  the  mere  fact  of  having  their  fishing  vessels  inspected  will 
negatively  impact  on  their  overall  fleet  if  fishing  vessels  were  to  be  fully  incorporated 
(PM6C)  into  the  Directive.  It  is  for  this  reason,  inter  alia  that  Member  States  have 
expressed a clear wish that this remains a voluntary system parallel to but separate from 
the Directive.  

49 

 
On the basis of what precedes and the analysis above it can be concluded that PO B is the 
preferred policy option.  

8.2. 

8.2. 

REFIT  

This  initiative  is  part  of  the  Commission  Work  Programme  2021  under  Annex  II  (REFIT 
initiatives), under the heading Promoting our European Way of Life78.  It has an important 
REFIT dimension in terms of alignment and simplification of safety legislation, of improving 
the safety profile in particular of the larger fishing vessel segment and of assisting Member 
State PSC authorities to better discharge their inspection functions.  

Despite  the  fact  that  the  voluntary  expansion  of  PSC  to  larger  fishing  vessels  and  the 
targeting of more environmentally polluting vessels for inspection will increase the overall 
policy  ambition,  the  revision  of  the  Directive  also  includes  some  important  simplification 
aspects. While more inspections will have to be carried out, this has to be seen against the 
simplification  and  improvement  that  will  accrue  from  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  in 
PSC. The preferred policy option results in enforcement costs savings for the PSC authorities 
estimated at EUR 9.503 million, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline and administrative costs savings of EUR 5.530 million for ship operators.  

In addition, the preferred policy option includes elements of simplification:  

  It  will  clarify  the  situations  and  circumstances  in  which  PSC  inspections  can  be 

missed either for normal operational reasons or in force majeure situations.  

  The  provision  by  EMSA  of  assistance  to  national  PSC  authorities  with  training  on 
how to carry out PSC of fishing vessels, and the provision of a dedicated inspection 
database to target and select vessels for inspection and to record and share the results 
of the inspections. 

  EMSA will assist Member States regarding the use of electronic certificates in PSC. 
This  will  involve  the  provision  of  a  common  data  model,  a  validation  tool  and  a 
central repository for electronic certificates.  

  EMSA training to national PSC staff on technological and regulatory developments as 
well as on issues arising from renewable and low carbon fuels and other developmens 
arising from the European Green Deal as well as issues arising from the enforcement 
of new international Conventions.  

8.3. 

8.3. 

Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach  

As  explained  in  section  6.1.2,  the  preferred  policy  option  is  expected  to  result  in 
administrative  costs  savings  for  the  shipping  sector,  estimated  at  EUR  5.530  million 
relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050, from the abolition of 
the  72-hour  advance  reporting  obligation  for  the  operator,  agent  or  master  of  a  ship 
eligible for an expanded inspection. This is equivalent to around EUR 0.221 million on 
average per year.  No additional costs (administrative or adjustment costs) relative to the 
baseline have been identified for businesses or citizens.  

9.  9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  Commission  services  will  monitor  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  this 
initiative  through  a  number  of  actions  and  a  set  of  core  indicators  that  will  measure 

78 COM(2020) 690 final  

50 

 
                                                           
progress  towards  achieving  the  operational  objectives.  Five  years  after  the  end  of  the 
implementation  date  of  the  legislation,  the  Commission  services  should  carry  out  an 
evaluation to verify to what extent the objectives of the initiative have been reached. 

Actions foreseen for verifying implementation include: 

-  As the Directive requires that the results of  port State control inspections have to be 
uploaded to  the THETIS database within 72 hours of the inspection, EMSA and the 
Commission  have  a  near-real-time  means  of  monitoring  implementation  of  the 
Directive’s provisions in and by the Member States.  

-  The  Commission/EMSA  can  thereby  monitor  the  THETIS  database  to  verify  that 
inspections are being carried out as required and that the reports are uploaded to the 
database, in this regard the Commission will monitor the number of inspections and in 
particular  expanded inspections,  the number of inspections  carried out  by  more than 
one inspector, the number of inspections in which electronic certificates are involved 
and  the  number  of  inspection  reports  validated  by  someone  other  than  the  inspector 
carrying  out  the  inspection.  These  indicators  will  also  be  monitored  for  inspections 
carried  out  on-board  fishing  vessels  of  above  24  meters  in  length  by  those  Member 
States which carry out these inspections. 

-  The  fact  that  Commission/EMSA  can  monitor  the  progress  of  Member  States 
effectively  on  a  weekly  basis  and  that  the  Member  States  know  that  they  are  being 
monitored means that if a measure becomes mandatory the Commission can take swift 
action  to  address  any  shortcomings.  This  can  take  the  form  of  additional  technical 
support or training from EMSA or ultimately the Commission can open an EU pilot or 
take infringement action against the Member State concerned for non-implementation 
of the Directive79. 

-  Visits  to  Member States to  verify operations on the ground,  these are  carried out  by 
EMSA  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  as  part  of  EMSA’s  support  role  to  the 
Commission80. To be translated into visits reports and identified shortcomings. These 
visits are useful to identify underlying problems or structural issues. The introduction 
of the QMS may also help in this regard.  

-  Member  States  will  have  to  have  a  QMS  to  certify  their  organisation,  policies, 
processes, resources and documentation are appropriate to achieve its objectives. This 
will have to be certified and subsequently subject to audit every five  years. Member 
States will have to share with Commission/EMSA the results of the audits carried out 
by the accredited body such that the PSC administration retains its QMS certification.  
-  Horizontal analysis required81 to be carried out by EMSA (giving an indication of how 
the  legislation  is  functioning  and  identifying  gaps  and  what  can  be  done  to  address 
in 
them)  and  reported 
workshops).This  is  particularly  useful  in  identifying  situations  where  the  EU 
legislation is seen as problematic by more than one Member State.  

the  Commission  and  Member  States  (discussed 

to 

79 It should be noted in this regard that since the entry to effect of Directive 2009/16/EC the Commission 
has not been obliged to take any infringement action against any Member State for non-compliance with 
the provisions of the Directive. Assistance from EMSA and/or additional training has been sufficient. 
80 EMSA carries out such visits under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European 
Maritime Safety Agency as part of its core tasks, as such no additional costs are expected to arise. 
81 Article 3(5) Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency 

51 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

10.  1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The lead DG is the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport DG MOVE, Unit D2: 
Maritime Safety 

DECIDE reference number: PLAN/2019/5430 

Item  35  in  Annex  II  to  Commission  Work  Programme  2021:  Promoting  our  European 
Way of Life82. 

11.  2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The impact assessment follows the ex-post evaluation of the Port State Control Directive 
performed as part of the overall maritime transport policy Fitness Check in 2018. 

The impact assessment started in 2020, with inception impact assessment published on 9 
October 202083.  

The  impact  assessment  on  a  possible  review  of  the  Port  State  Control  Directive  was 
coordinated  by  an  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG).  The  Commission  Services 
participating in  the  ISG  were:  Secretariat-General,  Legal  Service,  DG Maritime Affairs 
and  Fisheries,  DG  Climate  Action,  DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  DG  for 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion,  DG  Environment,  DG  Health  and  Food 
Safety and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). 

The  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  met  5  times:  on  22  January  2021,  3  March  2021,  15 
October  2021,  24  March  2022  and  16  June  2022.  It  was  consulted  throughout  the 
different steps of the impact assessment process: notably on all stakeholder consultation 
materials  and  deliverables  from  the  external  contractor  and  on  the  draft  Staff  Working 
Document.  

12.  3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The draft report was discussed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 19 July 2022, which 
issued  a  positive  opinion.  The  Board  also  made  several  main  recommendations  for 
improvement which were addressed in the final impact assessment report as follows:  

RSB recommendations 

Modification of the IA report 

(1) The report should better explain the 
international conventions that are relevant for 
the PSC Directive, in particular the Paris 
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and 
the added-value of the PSC Directive. It 
should explain from the outset the voluntary 
character of these arrangements and the role 

In Section 1 the historical development of PSC and its 
incorporation into EU law is better explained. The best 
efforts nature of the Paris MoU is also explained as are the 
difficulties posed by flag states which either cannot or do 
not wish to adequately enforce the international standards. 
The importance of the directive in providing for a level 
playing field and harmonised system between EU member 

82 COM(2020) 690 final  
83 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3807523_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12641-Port-State-control-Further-
improving-safety-security-and-sustainability-of-maritime-transport_en 

52 

 
 
                                                           
of the PSC Directive in their implementation 
in the EU. 

states is also reinforced.  

(2) The report should better present the 
evidence of the problems it addresses and of 
the need for the EU to act. The evidence 
should demonstrate the inefficient and non 
harmonised approach to PSC inspections. 
The report should clarify the notion of 
‘efficient inspection rate’ and show to what 
extent over-inspections present a problem, 
not only in terms of market distortions but 
also in terms of efficiency. For larger fishing 
vessels, the report should establish a clear 
link between the poorer safety record and 
lack of inspections (or reporting thereof). It 
should clarify whether the market failure 
relates to the lower level of inspections, the 
low quality of inspections (when carried out 
by only one inspector) or on both and explain 
why. 

(3) In presenting the policy options and their 
impacts, the report should focus on those 
issues that involve policy choices (i.e. 
electronic certificates, large fishing vessels 
and new international conventions). Policy 
measures, which are common to all policy 
options, should still be assessed but their 
impacts should be presented also in 
disaggregated form in order not to obscure 
the impact of the main policy choices. Where 
the report uses packages of policy measures, 
it should explain the underlying rationale of 
each of the packages. 

(4) The main report should give an indication 
of the main assumptions underpinning the 
impact analysis, in particular for the uptake 
and expected effectiveness of voluntary 
nonlegislative measures (e.g. inspections of 
fishing vessels). In terms of the 
administrative costs, it should explain the 
origin of the 72-hour advance notice and why 
it can be abolished now. 

(5) The report needs to justify better the 
choice of the preferred policy option (B) 
given that the analysis indicates that this 
option does not produce the highest net 
benefit and the Benefit Cost Ratio. It should 
clarify the role of the international acceptance 
of electronic certificates and the role of the 
white/grey/black list in the choice of the 
preferred policy option. It should also explain 
this list, its content and its consequences, and 
clarify how it is set up and adapted over time. 

The  issues  of  non-harmonised  and  inefficient  inspections 
is  better  explained  in  section  2.  The  issue  of  over-
inspection within problem driver 3 and why this creates a 
burden for all Member States is reinforced. The relatively 
poor safety record of fishing vessels in general and the fact 
that  fishing  vessels  represent  18%  of  the  total  number  of 
fatalities  involving  all  vessels  (commercial  transport  and 
fishing)  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  maritime  accident 
investigation Directive is further  developed. The fact that 
a  systematic  inspection  regime  has  improved  the  safety 
record  of  commercial 
its 
introduction  and  the  likelihood  that  this  could  be  applied 
to the fishing sector is also explained.  

transport  vessel 

since 

Section  5.2  distinguishes  between  the  policy  measures 
which  are  common  to  all  policy  options  and  those  which 
are  distinct.  The  impacts  of  these  options  is  better 
presented  in  a  disaggregated  fashion.  The  underlying 
rationale for each of the options is also better explained.   

In Section 6.1.1 the assumptions regarding the take up rate 
of  for  port  State  control  for  fishing  vessel  is  better 
explained. In Section 2.2 the  obsolescence of the 72 hour 
pre-arrival notification for vessels subject to and expanded 
inspection is better explained.  

Section  8.1  on  the  preferred  policy  option  B  has  been 
reinforced to better explain the political choices and why a 
voluntary system of PSC for larger fishing vessels is more 
deliverable in the short to  medium term. The incentivised 
phase-in of electronic certificates rather than a mandatory 
phase  out  of  paper  certificates  and  the  impact  this  would 
have on third country  vessels (making up 70% of vessels 
engaged in international voyages in the EU) is also better 
explained.  

The  draft  report  was  submitted  to  the  RSB  on  22  June  2022  and  was  discussed  by  the 
Board on 19 July 2022.  

53 

 
 
13.  4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  impact  assessment  is  based  on  a  several  sources,  using  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative data, collected from Member States and industry. This includes: 

  The ex-post evaluation of the Port State Control Directive  

  Maritime Fitness Check 2018 

  Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex 2) 

  EMSA mid-cycle horizoinal analysis of visits to Member States 

  External  support  study  carried  out  by  an  independent  consultant  (COWI  A/S, 

supported by Studio Legale Grimaldi and Ecorys)  

  Commission experience in monitoritung and implementing the Directive  

  Various databases managed by EMSA. 

54 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1.  INTRODUCTION  

This annex provides a summary of the outcomes of the consultation activities which have 
been carried out for the review of Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control, including 
in the context of the external support study. It notes the range of stakeholders consulted, 
describes the main consultation activities and provides a succinct analysis of their views 
and the main issues they raised.  

The  objective  of  the  consultation  activities  were  to  collect  information  and  opinions  of 
stakeholders  on  the  key  problems  and  associated  drivers,  definition  of  relevant  policy 
objectives linked to those problem areas and the identification, definition and screening 
of  policy  measures  that  could  eventually  be  incorporated  into  policy  options  for  this 
Impact Assessment as well as gather information and opinions on their likely impacts.  

The main consultation activities included: 

-  Four  exploratory  interviews  with  EU  level  representatives  of  key  stakeholders, 
particularly  to  support  and  refine  the  overall  problem  definition  and  possible  policy 
options.  

-  A  targeted  stakeholder  survey  organised  by  the  consultant  in  charge  of  the  external 
support study to the Impact Assessment, running from 7 September 2021 to 6 October 
2021,  among  key  stakeholders  to  fill  specific  information  requests,  particularly  to 
support the assessment of impacts of possible policy measures. 

-  Twenty two targeted interviews organised by the consultant in charge of the external 
support study to the Impact Assessment, running from 13 July 2021 to 16 September 
2021,  among  key  stakeholders  to  fill  specific  information  requests,  particularly  to 
support the assessment of impacts of possible policy measures. 

-  Additional  consultation  activities  organised  by  DG  MOVE  and  the  consultant  in 
charge of the external support study to the Impact Assessment in order to consult the 
Member States and key stakeholders by providing their views on the different policy 
measures but also to validate the emerging and final results of the support study to the 
Impact Assessment in terms of the quantification of the impacts. These activites took 
place  in  the  context  of  meetings  of  the  EU  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue  Committee  on 
maritime transport (16  April 2021, 23 September 2021  and 16 December 2021), the 
EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on Sea Fisheries (29 January 2021, 8 March 
2021 and 16 November 2021), the EU Sector Socal Dialogue Committee on ports (19 
November 2021), an informal meeting of the EU/EEA Maritime Transport Directors 
(30  November  2021),  virtual  and  in  person  meetings  of  the  port  State  Control 
Committee of the  Paris  MoU (May 2021 and May  2022)  meetings of the of the EU 
Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (17 May 2021, 11 
November 2021 and 31 May 2022).  

The  information  collected  from  stakeholders  was  key  in  allowing  the  Commission  to 
refine the design of the POs as well as to assess their economic, social and environmental 
impacts, compare them and determine which PO is likely to maximize the benefits/costs 
ratio for the society and fully contribute to achieving a more effective and efficient port 
State  control  mechanism  that  would  allow  a  better  targeting  of  substandard  shipping. 

55 

 
 
Findings from those processes complemented the desk research carried out in the context 
of the external support study.  

2. 

 METHODOLOGY  

The remainder of the annex presents the main findings from the analysis of stakeholder 
contributions to the consultation process. They are structured around the main elements 
of the intervention logic, namely problems and their drivers, key policy objectives as well 
as key needs and possible aspects of policy design. In general, the initiative as presented 
in the Inception Impact Assessment received positive reactions. A consultation strategy, 
covering  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  carried  out  as  part  of  the  study, has 
been developed and further fine-tuned throughout the different phases of the study.  

A  mixed  methods  approach has  been  adopted  to  conduct  the  targeted  stakeholder 
consultation activities, which have taken place gradually throughout the implementation 
of  the  study.  This  allowed  to  capture  and  fill  in  data  gaps  along  the  study  process  and 
ensure synergies and evidence-build up for the different study tasks. Methods have been 
adapted to take account of the development of the COVID-19 pandemic. For this reason, 
interviews and meetings have been held by videoconference.  

It  is  to  be  noted  that  an  exemption  was  granted  from  carrying  out  an  Open  Public 
Consultation  (OPC)  in  relation  to  this  Impact  Assessment,  as  previous  experience  with 
the ex-post evaluation and the Maritime Fitness Check proved that such a technical topic 
would  yield  little  interest  from  the  general  public.  The  general  public  was  nevertheless 
offered the opportunity to provide any views on this initiative, via an announcement on 
DG MOVE web page84 and a dedicated functional mailbox.  

One contribution was received from a shipowner association, this association stated that 
it  supported  the  initiative  on  PSC  as  it  aims  to  add  further  environmental  and  climate 
protection elements as well as the use and acceptance of electronic statutory certificates.  

2.1. Feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment 

The  Commission  received  10  responses  to  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  for  this 
initiative during 09 October 2020 to 20 November 2020.  

There  were  2  responses  provided  by  NGOs  and  5  provided  by  business  associations, 
actors  from  shipping  and  port  industry  including  a  trade  association  of  seafarers.  2 
Member  State  public  authorities  provided  feedback  as  well  while  there  was  also  an 
anonymous contributor.  

2.2. Exploratory interviews and targeted consultations 

Between  08  February  2021  and  12  February  2021,  4  exploratory  interviews  have  been 
conducted  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  current  situation  of  the  PSC  regime, 
collect  ideas  on  possible  solutions  to  the  problems  and  explore  the  availability  of  data 
and  related  challenges.  Those  interviews  took  place  with  EMSA,  the  Paris  MoU 
Secretariat, the Danish Maritime Authority and the LIFE Platform. 

Further  targeted  interviews  were  conducted  and  an  online  targeted  survey  was 
distributed.  Both  the  interviews  and  the  survey  were  aimed  at  a  range  of  relevant 
stakeholders representing public authorities and other public bodies (national authorities 

84 Maritime safety – three directives under review (europa.eu) 

56 

 
                                                           
in  EU,  EEA  and  third  countries,  EU  and  international  bodies)  industry  representatives 
(including relevant associations of shipowners, port operators and seafarers).  

The interviews and surveys focused on obtaining detailed input on the expected impacts 
(economic, social and environmental) of the measures under consideration in comparison 
to the baseline, the possible issues that may arise and identifying the level of support for 
specific  measures.  Where  relevant,  stakeholders  were  asked  for  input  on  the  cost 
implications  of  each  measure.  Surveys  and  interviews  commenced  13  July  2021  and 
concluded 16 September 2021.  

Table 11: Summary of stakeholder interviews and surveys completed by activity  
Consultation 
activity 

FAC 

PSC 

ROs 

EC 

FS 

IA 

IB 

Others 

Total 

Exploratory 

interviews 

Targeted 

Interviews 

E-survey 

Sub-total 

Multiple 

consultations 

Total 

1 

1 

5 

7 

2 

5 

1 

10 

23 

34 

6 

28 

- 

- 

8 

8 

- 

8 

- 

- 

27 

27 

- 

27 

- 

3 

9 

12 

3 

9 

1 

1 

4 

6 

2 

4 

1 

4 

6 

11 

1 

10 

- 

4 

2 

6 

1 

5 

4 

23 

84 

111 

15 

96 

Source:  COWI;  Note:  EC  –  European  Commission  services,  PSC  -  Port  State  Authorities  in  EU/EEA 
Member States and third countries, FS – Flag State Authorities, FAC – Members of the Fishery Advisory 
Councils, ROs – Registered Organizations, IB – International bodies, IA – Industry associations, Others – 
other actors in maritime transport.  

The full list of stakeholders consulted is included in the external support study.  

3.  Analysis of the results of the stakeholder consultation 

The remainder of the annex presents the main findings from the analysis of stakeholder 
contributions to the consultation process. They are structured around the main elements 
of  the  intervention  logic,  including  the  problem  areas  and  their  drivers,  the  policy 
objectives  as  well  as  the  key  aspects  of  the  design  of  possible  policy  measures.  The 
technical support study for this Impact Assessment contains the detailed presentation of 
findings from the targeted consultation activities.  

3.1. Problem areas and policy objectives 

The  shortcomings  of  the  PSC  Directive  have  been  partly  raised  during  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the Directive. Therefore, the problems that the stakeholders face have been 
extensively  discussed  during  the  exploratory,  targeted  interviews  and  in  the  targeted 
survey.  

Respondents to the targeted survey showed to a large extent of being aware of proposed 
or  agreed  amendments  to  the  Paris  MoU  that  would  involve  changes  to  the  EU 
requirements for PSC inspections if included in the PSC Directive.  

57 

 
Figure 7: Are you aware of key amendments since 2009 or recent proposals for amendments to the 
Paris MoU that will involve changes to the EU requirements  for PSC inspections if included in the 
PSC Directive? 

Moreover  the  issue  of  PSC  for  fishing  vessels  has  been  explored  in  the  survey 
questionnaire.  Respondents  showed  confidence  in  assessing  that  the  lack  of  PSC 
inspections on fishing vessels has moderate to significant negative consequences on the 
safety  of  fishing  vessels,  their  environmental  impact  and  on  working  and  living 
conditions on-board such vessels. 

In  relation  to  the  weaknesses  in  PSC  targeting  of  substandard  ships  vis-à-vis  high 
standard ships, a majority of respondents (33 out 34 respondents) estimated that the share 
of high-standard ships that are still being unnecessary targeted for PSC inspection are in 
the  range  below  10%  to  25%.  According  to  interviewed  stakeholders,  the  number  of 
unnecessary  targeted  vessels  would  be  generally  below  25%  of  the  overall  yearly 
inspections  in  EU  ports.  In  specific,  EU  Member  States  such  as  Germany,  Italy  and 
Bulgaria have reported an even lower threshold of less than 10% of unnecessary targeted 
ships for inspection in a year in their respective ports. On the other hand, the Netherlands 
reported an average of more than 50% of the ships as being unnecessary targeted. In its 
response  to  the  survey  questionnaire,  the  Paris  MoU  Secretariat  explained  that  most 
substandard ships no longer or hardly operate in the Paris MoU region anymore. 

Interviews  revealed  that  there  is  a  general  agreement  among  stakeholders  consulted 
(Germany,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Estonia,  France,  Portugal, 
the  European 
Community Shipowners’ Association, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Union 
of  Greek  Shipowners,    Albania,  Norway,  the  European  Sea  Ports  Organisation,  Bureau 
Veritas,  Croatian  Register  of  Shipping,  the  International  Association  of  Classification 
Societies)  that  targeting  can  be  improved  if  electronic  certificates  are  available  for 
(automatic) validation prior to inspections. 

Stakeholders were also surveyed about the effectiveness of the 'ship risk profile' (SRP). 
Generally,  more  respondents  tended  to  agree  (slightly  to  moderately)  that  a)  the  SRP 
includes  insufficient  risk  parameters,  b)  it  excludes  highly  relevant  risk  parameters.  In 
addition,  more  respondents  agreed  (slightly  to  completely)  that  c)  the  SRP  should  be 
related  to  the  weighing  of  generic  and  historic  risk  factors,  d)  it  should  include  ship-
specific accident information provided by the Accident Investigation Board and that e) it 
should include a rewarding element, that lowers targeting, based on good environmental 
and safety performance of ships. 

Concerning  the  banning  mechanism,  in  the  survey,  there  was  a  general  agreement  that 
change in the banning mechanism is needed. A large majority of respondents (38 out of 
49  respondents)  agreed  that  the  banning  mechanism  does  not  allow  to  ban  all 
substantially substandard ships.  

58 

 
 
In  relation  to  the  inspection  commitment  based  on  the  'fair  share'  almost  all  the 
respondents  (PSC  authorities)  of  the  survey  (20  out  of  23  respondents)  agreed  that  the 
inspection  commitment  based  on  the  'fair  share'  principle  contributes  to  balance  the 
distribution of inspections among EU port States. 

In  the  survey  questionnaire,  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  use  of  PSC  inspection 
guidelines  and  procedures  among  PSCOs  was  explored.  Respondents  almost  equally 
supported  both  the  following  reasons  why  guidelines  and  procedures  are  not  always 
followed effectively by PSCOs: a) Guidelines do not keep the pace with the increasing 
scope  and  complexity  of  PSC  inspections,  b)  Guidelines  are  not  sufficiently  flexible  to 
cater  for  unexpected  events  (e.g.,  Covid-19).  Several  respondents  (15  out  of  46 
respondents) also selected 'others' as a reason; however, they refrained from providing an 
explanation for their choice. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  training  and  retention  of  PSC  officers  were  also  explored. 
Respondents were generally satisfied with the PSCO training offered by EMSA and the 
Paris  MoU.  PSC  authorities  (both  EU/EEA  and  third  countries)  showed  particular 
appreciation  for  the  EMSA  trainings  (13  out  of  31  respondents)  however  to  a  lesser 
extent  for  Paris  MoU  trainings  (8  out  of  31  respondents).  However,  interviewed 
stakeholders  recognized  that  training  is  limited  considering  a  widened  scope  of  PSC 
inspections. 

Finally,  interviews  revealed  that  the  current  inspection  of  paper-based  certificates  is 
cumbersome and not optimal and that the lack of a framework for electronic certificates 
further contributes to lower the overall efficiency of inspections. 

3.2. Potential policy measures 

The  formulation  of  the  policy  measures  at  the  time  of  interviews  and  survey  was  not 
entirely identical with the wording of this report, since fine-tuning continued all along the 
Impact Assessment process. However, stakeholders have proposed a long list of possible 
solutions  and  have  been  asked  to  share  their  ideas  on  further  measures  to  address  the 
aforementioned problems. The aim was to test their agreement with such measures, their 
feasibility, costs and potential benefits.  

Alignment of the scope of the Directive to the amendments to the Paris MoU 
All  respondents  stated their agreement with  the proposed and/or agreed amendments  to 
the  Paris  MoU.  Member  States  have  also  specified  that  the  inclusion  of  these 
amendments can improve the PSC regime by providing e.g. increased harmonization of 
PSC  procedures,  better  targeting  of  vessels  for  inspection,  increased  ship  safety  and 
protection  of  the  marine  environment,  increased  ship  compliance  to  international 
requirements, better distribution of PSC inspections between EU Member States. 

When  asked  about  how  to  make  the  revision  process  of  the  PSC  Directive  faster  and 
more  flexible  to  ensure  that  amendments  to  the  Paris  MoU  are  timely  included  in  the 
future, the following interviewed countries expressed a preference for a direct reference 
of the Directive to the Paris MoU: Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and 
Norway. Germany, Poland and Norway, in addition to Italy supported also the possibility 
to  update  annexes  of  the  Directive  through  the  use  of  Delegated  Acts.  A  more  regular 
revision of the Directive was generally supported among interviewed stakeholders and, in 
particular, by Italy, Estonia, France, Portugal and the industry (the European Community 
Shipowners’ Association, the International Chamber of Shipping, the European Maritime 

59 

 
Pilots  Association  EMPA,  Bureau  Veritas,  Croatian  Registry  of  Shipping  and  the 
International Association of Classification Societies). 

A majority of respondents confirmed that the effectiveness of the PSC Directive can be 
increased by including further international conventions in its scope. 

Figure 8: Will the reference to certain international conventions increase the effectiveness of the PSC 
Directive, if they are included in its scope? 

Extension of PSC inspections to fishing vessels 

Respondents showed general agreement that the extension of PSC inspections to fishing 
vessels  would  moderately  to  significantly  increase  fishing  vessels'  safety  standards, 
improve their environmental impacts and working and living conditions on-board. When 
asked to express their preference for a perspective inclusion of fishing vessels under the 
current PSC regime as regulated by the PSC Directive or rather via the establishment of a 
separate  PSC  regime,  a  majority  of  respondents  supported  the  latter.  Again,  flag  State 
and  PSC  authorities  were  highly  supportive  of  the  establishment  of  a  separate  PSC 
regime  for  fishing  vessels;  on  the  other  hand,  members  of  fishery  advisory  councils 
expressed  a  clear  preference  for  the  inclusion  of  fishing  vessels  under  the  current  PSC 
regime. 

Introduction of an incentive scheme for high-standard vessels 

A large majority of respondents (42 out of 49 respondents) agreed that ships performing 
well  in  terms  of  safety  and  environmental  protection  standards  should  be  actively 
rewarded through an incentive scheme while the majority agreed with the establishment 
of an incentive scheme for which high-standard ships would be exempted from or subject 
to less frequent PSC inspections. 

Figure 9: Would you agree with such an incentive scheme? 

60 

 
 
 
 
Changes to the banning mechanism 

In the survey, a majority of respondents (30 out of 49) stated that the decoupling of the 
banning mechanism from flag State performance would increase the performance of ship 
targeting. This was strongly supported by PSC and flag State authorities and international 
bodies, whereas industry associations and ROs did not agree. 

Electronic certificates 

The  issuance  and/or  acceptance  of  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  during  PSC 
inspections is wide among the stakeholders surveyed. 

Figure 10: Would you consider using electronic certificates in the future? 

Stakeholder have ranked the main reasons for adopting electronic certificates in order of 
importance as follows:  
1.  Less initial inspections vis-à-vis more remote inspections;  
2.  Cost savings / Better inspections at the same cost; 
3.  Fewer inspections (i.e., as a consequence of a future change in targeting). 

Respondents generally tended to agree with the solutions proposed regarding electronic 
certificates  –  to  different  extents.  In  specific,  more  respondents  (32  out  of  46 
respondents)  agreed  that  the  PSC  Directive  should  allow  for  voluntary  validation  of 
electronic  certificates  pre-boarding  the  ship  and  that  electronic  information  should  be 
pre-loaded into THETIS by the flag State/RO and used to improve the targeting of ships 
for inspections. 

Figure  11:  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  following  statement?  ‘The  PSC  Directive  should 
allow for voluntary validation of electronic certificates pre-boarding the ship’ 

Figure 12: To what extent do you agree with the following statement? ‘Electronic information should 
be  pre-loaded  into  THETIS  by  the  flag  State  /  RO  and  used  to  improve  the  targeting  of  ships  for 
inspection’ 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
Total

Industry Association

Recognized Organization (RO)

0
0
0

0
0

PSC Authority - Third and Non-EU…

EU Institution - DG or Agency

0
0
0
0

6

8

4

2

1

1

1

4

0

1
1

3

0

0

1

3

13

1

1

0
0
0

3

0

1

6

4

3
1

15

1

0

1

0

1

5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Do not know

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Completely

Quality Management System (QMS) for PSC  

Respondents  were  divided  on  this  topic,  with  industry  association  being  generally 
supportive  of  the  establishment  of  a  QMS  for  PSC,  whereas  international  bodies  being 
completely  against  it.  On  the  other  hand,  PSC  authorities  in  EU/EEA  Member  States 
were divided on the issue. 

Figure  13:  Do  you  believe  that  introducing  a  requirement  to  have  a  Quality  Management  System 
(QMS)  in  place  for  port  State  authorities  would  make  the  use  of  PSC  inspection  guidelines  more 
effective? 

Invitation to join the Mediterranean MoU 

The  Commission  is  planning  on  promoting  eligible  Member  States  to  join  the 
Mediterranean  MoU,  an  information  that  was  shared  with  stakeholder  during  the  final 
consultation and validation workshop. In that framework, Italy agreed that the Directive 
should  include  an  invitation  to  join  the  Mediterranean  MoU  only  to  Mediterranean 
Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  France  specified  that  this  possibility  should  be 
discussed among Mediterranean Member States before being inserted in the Directive.  

3.3. Possible impacts 

The  stakeholders  were  asked  to  provide  input  on  the  current  administrative  and 
inspection cost for PSC and the figures provided on cost /benefits estimations were duly 
taken  into  account  in  Annex  4  in  the  calculations  for  the  various  policy  measures  and 
policy options. 

3.4. Differences among stakeholder groups 

Virtually  all  consulted  stakeholders  supported  the  main  problems  and  objectives 
addressed  in  this  report.  Stakeholders  generally  agree  that  some  ship  safety  and 

62 

 
 
 
 
environmental issues are not covered by PSC inspections (international conventions and 
EU legislation). For this reason, they support the alignment of the scope of the Directive 
in particular to international instruments that have entered into force since 2009 or are in 
the process of ratification – the BWM and HK conventions – and to the amendments to 
the  Paris  MoU.  Stakeholders  recognize  the  positive  impacts  that  the  inclusion  of 
international  instruments  and  the  alignment  to  the  Paris  MoU  would  bring  to  the  PSC 
regime. Stakeholders also largely support a more regular revision of the PSC Directive, 
mainly through direct reference to the Paris MoU or delegated acts. 

Stakeholders  negatively  assess  the  lack  of  PSC  inspections  for  larger  fishing  vessels. 
This would contribute to the low safety, environmental, working and living standards of 
fishing vessels. Hence, many of the Member States consulted agree on the extension of 
PSC to fishing vessels by the creation of a separate regime. On the other hand, members 
of fishery advisory councils showed uncertainty and only a minority of them (2 out of 6) 
stated  that  the  extension  of  PSC  inspections  to  fishing  vessels  would  improve  the 
aforementioned categories. 

Regarding  the  incentive  scheme  for  high-standard  vessels,  the  survey  shows  that 
stakeholders  support 
interviews 
demonstrate  that  several  Member  States  believe  that  the  current  targeting  mechanism 
would  not  need  any  further  incentive,  as  it  would  already  incentivize  high-standard 
performance of vessels - e.g., compared to that of the Tokyo MoU. 

introduction  of  such  a  scheme.  However, 

the 

On  the  issue  of  pre-loaded  data  from  electronic  certificates,  stakeholders  confirm  that 
they largely already use e-certificates. Stakeholders largely agree that the PSC Directive 
should  allow  for  voluntary  validation  of  e-certificates  pre-boarding  the  vessel  and 
electronic  information  to  be  pre-loaded  to  THETIS  and  used  for  targeting  purposed. 
Numerous  stakeholders  also  support  the  setup  of  a  framework  for  rewarding  and 
incentivizing  the  use  of  electronic  certificates.  Technical  standards  for  the  exchange  of 
data should be defined at the global level. 

Finally, the proposal of establishing a QMS for PSC operations does not gather general 
agreement  among  stakeholders.  Only  the  industry  seems  to  support  such  a  solution, 
whereas some Member States, in addition to the Paris MoU Secretariat are not in favour.  

63 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

14.  1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Summary of the preferred policy option implementation 

The  revision  of  the  port  State  control  Directive  aims  at  maintaining  and  improving  the 
level of maritime safety of vessels operating in EU waters. The impacts of the preferred 
policy  option  are  expected  to  fall  on  different  stakeholder  groups:  national  port  State 
control  authorities,  flag  State  authorities,  EMSA,  the  maritime  transport  industry  (i.e. 
ship owners/operators), the fishing vessels industry, crews of the vessels and passengers 
of maritime vessels. 

Ensuring a high level of safety is important for the users of transport transporting goods 
as well as for passengers. It is also important for vessel crews as these persons make up 
the largest number of persons killed and/or injured in maritime accidents. It is important 
for  consumer  protection  as  well  as  for  the  integrity  of  the  internal  market  that  a 
harmonised  level  of  safety  is  ensured  through  coordinated  maritime  safety  inspections 
carried out in a coherent and harmonised manner across the European Union. There can 
be no gaps in the maritime safety net.  

It is also important for the environment that ships are inspected throughout the Union to 
ensure  environmental  standards  are  maintained  and  improved.  Similarly  a  harmonised 
level of protection as regards seafarers working and living conditions on board is assured 
by the inspection regime.  

The  preferred  policy  option  identified  in  the  context  of  this  Impact  Assessment,  policy 
option B, provides for a voluntary port State control regime for those EU Member States 
which wish to carry out port State control inspections of larger (above 24 metres) fishing 
vessels calling to EU ports.  

Similarly,  option  B  foresees  the  encouragement  of  the  use  of  electronic  certificates  in 
PSC by linking the use of these certificates with the ship risk profile used to target ships 
for inspection. It is expected that by incentivising the use of the certificates and working 
with  the  Paris  MoU  as  well  as  with  flag  States  and  the  Recognised  Organisations  to 
whom the flag states have delegated many tasks that this can lead to a very high level of 
uptake  allowing  for  better  targeting  of  ships,  better  prepared  and  more  ship  focused 
enforcement.  

Policy Option B envisages that the least performing vessels in environmental terms will 
be  subject  to  more  PSC  inspections.  This  will  be  based  on  their  environmental 
performance  in  previous  PSC  inspections  for  all  ships  eligible  for  PSC,  but  for  those 
vessels over 5000 GT (which are the most polluting) the ship risk profile used to target 
ships  for  inspection  will  take  the  ship’s  carbon  intensity  indicator  issued  by  the  ship’s 
flag state under the aegis of the IMO into account.  

The  preferred  policy  option  also  provides  for  improvements  in  the  way  that  port  State 
control  is  carried  out  taking  advantage  of  identified  best  practice  and  lessons  learned. 
These  include  issues  such  as  missed  inspections,  problems  with  the  inspection 

64 

 
 
 
commitment,  the  number  of  inspectors  carrying  out  inspections,  the  validation  of 
inspection  reports  as  well  as  the  requirement  to  have  a  quality  management  system  for 
the Member State PSC activities.  

Finally the preferred policy option aligns the Directive with developmens at the IMO and 
in the Paris MoU.  

Implications on consumers, market actors and public authorities 

The following key target groups of this initiative have been identified: 

  Port State control authorities in EU Member States 
  Flag State authorities in EU Member States 
  European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) 
  Owners/operators of maritime transport vessels 
  Owners/operators of fishing vessels of above 24 metres length overall 
  Crews of the above-mentioned categories of vessel 
  Passengers of maritime vessels 

EU  PSC  authorities  will  be  affected  in  three  ways:  firstly  the  extension  of  scope  to 
larger  fishing  vessels  will  mean  that  those  Member  States  which  wish  to  participate  in 
this voluntary scheme will have to carry out inspections of these vessels. PSC authorities 
will benefit from the operational support that they will receive from EMSA which should 
allow  them  to  better  discharge  their  obligations  in  an  efficient  and  timely  fashion 
particularly when confronted with multiple investigations which have to be carried out at 
the same time.  

The encouragement of the use of electronic certificates should have a positive impact on 
national  PSC  administrations  by  allowing  for  more  focussed,  better  prepared  and  ship 
focused inspections. 

A third aspect is that PSC authorities will change the way they carry out inspections to 
take  account  of  changes  adopted  by  the  Paris  MoU  as  well  as  a  number  of  policy 
measures  proposed  by  the  amendment  to  take  account  of  lessons  learned  in 
implementation of the Directive.   

The fourth aspect is that Member States will have to put in place a quality management 
system  (QMS)  for  their  PSC  activities.  The  PSC  administrations  internal  systems  will 
have to  be certified  and  then  administration  will have to  be audited  every five  years  to 
retain  its  certification.  This  implies  one-off  costs  for  putting  in  place  the  system  and 
ongoing costs for the audit. 

EMSA will be impacted as regards PSC of fishing vessels as it is will provide Member 
States’  authorities  with  training  as  well  as  a  dedicated  THETIS  module  for  fishing 
vessels  helping  them  to  identify  the  fishing  vessels  for  inspection  and  recording  and 
sharing the results of the inspections.  

The Agency will also have to work with flag States, recognised organisations (which act 
on behalf of flag states), the Paris MoU and other interested bodies to develop a common 
data  standard,  a  validation  tool  and  a  repository  to  allow  for  the  use  and  exchange  of 
electronic certificates in PSC inspections. 

65 

 
 
EMSA will also provide different forms of technical support and training to national PSC 
bodies.  

In fisheries, the owners/operators of fishing vessels of above 24 metres in length overall 
will be impacted as their vessels will be potentially elgibile for PSC when they call to a 
port in a state other than their state of registry. The extension of PSC through a voluntary 
measure should lead to an improvement in the safety profile of this vessel segment and at 
the very least to a better understanding of the safety problems faced by vessels within this 
category. The fact of being incpected will result in additional (enforcement) costs for the 
sector.  

Maritime  transport  operators  will  be  impacted  in  that  the  changes  to  the  Directive 
brought about by alignment as well as the changes to the ship risk profile to in support of 
the Union’s environmental goals will lead to a limited number of additional inspections. 
The  additional  costs  for  the  sector  of  these  inspections  (i.e.  enforcement  costs)  are 
however limited.  

On  the  other  hand,  benefits  are  expected  in  terms  of  improved  safety.  These  benefits 
overcompensate the costs for the industry (i.e. shipowners/operators).  

Given  that  crews  are  systematically  the  most  impacted  category  of  people  as  regards 
injuries and death in maritime transport any improvement to safety will impact on them 
positively.  Positive  impacts  in  terms  of  safety  improvements  are  also  expected  for  the 
passengers of maritime vessels. 

15.  2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option B) 

Description 

Improvement in the 
functioning of the internal 
market 

Enforcement costs savings 
relative to the baseline (i.e. 
present value over 2025-
2050) 

Reduction of external costs 
related to accidents relative 
to the baseline (i.e. present 
value over 2025-2050) 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Positive impact on the functioning of the 
internal market, both by improving overall 
maritime safety for the benefit of freight 
customers and passengers throughout the 
Union as well as by ensuring that the same 
safety level applies throughout the Union. 
The path towards digitalisation and the 
voluntary creation of a PSC regime for 
larger fishing vessels results in a high 
degree of harmonisation between Member 
States. 

Enforcement costs savings for port State 
authorities are mainly driven by measures 
related to the use of electronic certificates. 
In terms of present value over 2025-2050, 
the enforcement costs savings are estimated 
at EUR 8.406 million. 

Indirect benefit to ships’ crews, including 
those of fishing vessels, and to society at 
large, due to the lives saved and injuries 
avoided. As deficiencies identified during 
PSC inspections typically have to be 
rectified before the vessel leaves the port or 
shortly thereafter, PSC inspections are 

EUR 8.406 million 

Indirect benefits 

EUR 35.048 million 

66 

 
 
Reduction in the bunker fuel 
lost at sea, relative to the 
baseline over 2025-2050 (in 
tonnes) 

75 tonnes of bunker fuel lost avoided 

expected to lead to a reduction in the 
number of ship deficiencies over time and 
thereby to improve safety. The impacts are 
estimated at 6 lives saved and 61 injuries 
avoided (i.e. 3 lives saved and 27 injuries 
avoided for marine casualties in which 
commercial vessels are involved and 3 lives 
saved and 34 injuries avoided for marine 
casualties in which fishing vessels are 
involved). 

Indirect benefit to society at large. 
Preventing accidents from occurring in the 
future is projected to avoid  
75 tonnes of bunker fuel lost at sea relative 
to the baseline. This is expected to have a 
positive impact on the quality of marine 
water and biodiversity. 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

Reduction in the 
administrative costs for ship 
operators relative to the 
baseline (i.e. present value 
over 2025-2050)  

EUR 5.53 million (or EUR 0.221 million on 
average per year) 

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. Taking into account the 
projected evolution of the number of port 
calls over time, removing the restriction 
could result in administrative cost savings 
of EUR 0.286 million in 2030 and EUR 
0.339 million in 2050 relative to the 
baseline. Expressed as present value over 
2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to 
the baseline are estimated at EUR 5.53 
million. 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (Policy option B) 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct adjustment costs 
relative to the baseline (i.e. 
present value over 2025-
2050) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

For Port 
State 
Control 
authorities: 
EUR 0.100 
million 

For Flag 
State 
authorities: 
EUR 1 
million   

For Port State 
Control 
authorities: 
EUR 2.470 
million 

For Flag State 
authorities: 
EUR 3.831 
million   

For EMSA: 
EUR 0.650 
million 

For EMSA: 
EUR 5.829 
million 

Direct administrative costs 
relative to the baseline (i.e. 
present value over 2025-
2050) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

For Port State 
Control 
authorities: 
EUR 8.595 
million 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

- 

- 

Direct enforcement costs 
relative to the baseline (i.e. 
present value over 2025-
2050) 

Total   

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 
relative to the 
baseline (i.e. 
present value 
over 2025-2050) 

- 

- 

For ship 
operators: EUR 
0.715 million 

- 

For Port State 
Control 
authorities: 
EUR 6.697 
million 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

For ship 
operators: EUR 
5.53 million (or 
EUR 0.221 
million on 
average per 
year) 

16.  3. RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option (Policy option B) 
Expected progress towards the Goal 
Relevant SDG 

Comments 

SDG 3 “Ensure healthy lives 
and promote well-being for 
all at all ages” 

SDG 14 “Conserve and 
sustainably use the oceans, 
seas and marine resources 
for sustainable 
development” 

Changes to the Directive are expected to 
contribute to health and well-being benefits. As 
deficiencies identified during PSC inspections 
typically have to be rectified before the vessel 
leaves the port or shortly thereafter, better 
prepared, better carried out and more targeted 
PSC inspections are expected to lead to a 
reduction in the number of ship deficiencies over 
time and thereby may prevent future injuries or 
fatalities. 

Changes to the Directive are expected to 
contribute to preventing future damage to the 
marine environment through accidents. 

The preferred policy option is projected to 
result in 6 lives saved and 61 injuries 
avoided (i.e. 3 lives saved and 27 injuries 
avoided for marine casualties in which 
commercial vessels are involved and 3 lives 
saved and 34 injuries avoided for marine 
casualties in which fishing vessels are 
involved) over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline. 

Preventing accidents from occurring in the 
future is projected to avoid 75 tonnes of 
bunker fuel lost at sea relative to the 
baseline over 2025-2050. This is expected to 
have a positive impact on the quality of 
marine water and biodiversity.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1.  Description of the analytical methods used  

The  main  model  used  for  developing  the  baseline  scenario  for  this  initiative  is  the 
PRIMES-Maritime  transport  model  by  E3Modelling,  a  specific  sub-module  of  the 
PRIMES and PRIMES-TREMOVE models. The model has a successful record of use in 
the Commission's energy, transport and climate policy assessments. In particular, it has 
been used for the impact assessments underpinning the “Fit for 55” package85, the impact 
assessments  accompanying  the  2030  Climate  Target  Plan86  and  the  Staff  Working 
Document  accompanying 
the 
Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Long  Term  Strategy88  as  well  as  for  the  2020  and  2030 
EU’s climate and energy policy framework.  

the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy87, 

For  the  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy  options  an  Excel-based  tool  has  been 
developed  by  COWI  in  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study89.  The  tool 
draws on the Standard Cost Model for the assessment of the administrative costs and also 
includes  an  assessment  of  the  impacts  on  the  maritime  safety.  The  Excel-based  tool 
builds  extensively  on  data  provided  by  EMSA,  including  data  from  EMCIP,  and  the 
analysis of stakeholders' feedback. The proposed measures which involve the amendment 
of  the  Directive  are  assumed  to  be  implemented  from  2025  onwards,  so  that  the 
assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period and refers to EU27. Costs and 
benefits are expressed as present value over the 2022-2050 period, using a 3% discount 
rate. 

PRIMES-Maritime model 

The  PRIMES-Maritime  transport  model  is  a  specific  sub-module  of  the  PRIMES  and 
PRIMES-TREMOVE  models  and  aims  to  enhance  the  representation  of  the  maritime 
sector within the energy-economy-environment modelling nexus. The model, which can 
run  in  stand-alone  and/  or  linked  mode  with  PRIMES  and  PRIMES-TREMOVE, 
produces  long-term  transport  activity,  energy  and  emission  projections,  until  2070, 
separately for each EU Member State. The coverage of the model includes the European 
intra-EU maritime sector as well as the extra-EU maritime shipping. The model covers 
both  freight  and  passenger  international  maritime.  PRIMES-Maritime  focuses  only  on 
the EU Member States, therefore trade activity between non-EU countries is outside the 
scope of the model. The model considers the transactions (bilateral trade by product type) 
of  the  EU-Member  States  with  non-EU  countries  and  aggregates  these  countries  in 
regions. Several types and sizes of vessels are considered. 

PRIMES-Maritime  features  a  modular  approach  based  on  the  demand  and  the  supply 
modules. The demand module projects maritime activity for each EU Member State by 

85 Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) 
86 SWD(2020)176 final. 
87 EUR-Lex - 52020SC0331 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)  
88 Source: 2050 long-term strategy (europa.eu)  
89  COWI  et  al.  (2022),  Impact  assessment  support  study  concerning  possible  revision  of  Directive 
2009/16/EC on port State Control. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                           
type of cargo and by corresponding partner. Econometric functions correlate demand for 
maritime  transport  services  with  economic  indicators  considered  as  demand  drivers, 
including  GDP,  trade  of  energy  commodities  (oil,  coal,  LNG),  trade  of  non-energy 
commodities, international fuel prices, etc. The supply module simulates a representative 
operator  controlling the  EU fleet,  who offers the requested maritime transport services. 
The  operator  of  the  fleet  decides  the  allocation  of  the  vessels  activity  to  the  various 
markets  (representing  the  different  EU  MS)  where  different  regulatory  regimes  may 
apply  (e.g.  environmental  zones).  The  fleet  of  vessels  is  disaggregated  into  several 
categories. PRIMES-Maritime utilises a stock-flow relationship to simulate the evolution 
of the fleet of vessels throughout the projection period and the purchasing of new vessels. 

PRIMES-Maritime  solves  a  virtual  market  equilibrium  problem,  where  demand  and 
supply interact dynamically in  each consecutive time period, influenced by a variety of 
exogenous  policy  variables,  notably  fuel  standards,  pricing  signals  (e.g.  Emission 
Trading  Scheme),  environmental  and  efficiency/operational  regulations  and  others.  The 
PRIMES-Maritime model projects energy consumption by fuel type and purpose as well 
as CO2, methane and N2O and other pollutant emissions. The model includes projections 
of costs, such as capital, fuel, operation costs, projections of investment expenditures in 
new vessels and negative externalities from air pollution. 

The model serves  to  quantify policy scenarios supporting the transition towards carbon 
neutrality.  It  considers  the  handling  of  a  variety  of  fuels  such  as  fossil  fuels,  biofuels 
(bioheavy90,  biodiesel,  bio-LNG),  synthetic  fuels  (synthetic  diesel,  fuel  oil  and  gas,  e-
ammonia and e-methanol) produced from renewable electricity, hydrogen produced from 
renewable  electricity  (for  direct  use  and  for  use  in  fuel  cell  vessels)  and  electricity  for 
electric  vessels.  Well-To-Wake  emissions  are  calculated  thanks  to  the  linkage  with  the 
PRIMES energy systems model which derives ways of producing such fuels. The model 
also  allows  to  explore  synergies  with  Onshore  Power  Supply  systems.  Environmental 
regulation,  fuel  blending  mandates,  greenhouse  gas emissions reduction targets,  pricing 
signals  and  policies  increasing  the  availability  of  fuel  supply  and  supporting  the 
alternative  fuel  infrastructure  are  identified  as  drivers,  along  fuel  costs,  for  the 
penetration of new fuels. As the model is  dynamic and handles vessel  vintages, capital 
turnover is explicit in the model, influencing the pace of fuel and vessel substitution. 

Data inputs 

The  main  data  sources  for  inputs  to  the  PRIMES-Maritime  model,  such  as  for  activity 
and  energy  consumption,  comes  from  EUROSTAT  database  and  from  the  Statistical 
Pocketbook "EU transport in figures”91. Other data comes from different sources such as 
research  projects  (e.g.  TRACCS  project)  and  reports.  PRIMES-Maritime  being  part  of 
the  overall  PRIMES  and  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  is  calibrated  to  the 
EUROSTAT energy balances and transport activity; hence the associated CO2 emissions 
are assumed to derive from the combustion of these fuel quantities. The model has been 
adapted to reflect allocation of CO2 emissions into intra-EU, extra-EU and berth, in line 
with  data  from  the  MRV  database92.  For  air  pollutants,  the  model  draws  on  the  EEA 
database.  In  the  context  of  this  exercise,  the  PRIMES-Maritime  model  is  calibrated  to 
2005, 2010 and 2015 historical data. 

90 Bioheavy refers to bio heavy fuel oil. 
91 Publications (europa.eu) 
92 THETIS-MRV (europa.eu) 

70 

 
                                                           
2.  Baseline scenario 

to  reflect 

the  fundamental  socio-economic, 

transport  and  GHG  emissions.  The  socio-economic  and 

technological  and  policy 
In  order 
developments,  the  Commission  prepares  periodically  an  EU  Reference  Scenario  on 
energy, 
technological 
developments used for developing the baseline scenario for this impact assessment build 
on  the  latest  “EU  Reference  2020  scenario”  (REF2020)93.  The  same  assumptions  have 
been used in the policy scenarios underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the 
“Fit for 55” package94.  

Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario 

The main assumptions related to economic development, international energy prices and 
technologies are described below. 

Economic assumptions  

The  modelling  work  is  based  on  socio-economic  assumptions  describing  the  expected 
evolution  of  the  European  society.  Long-term  projections  on  population  dynamics  and 
economic activity form part of the input to the model and are used to estimate transport 
activity, particularly relevant for this impact assessment.  

Population projections from Eurostat95 are used to estimate the evolution of the European 
population, which is expected to change little in total number in the coming decades. The 
GDP growth projections are from the Ageing Report 202196 by the Directorate General 
for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  which  are  based  on  the  same  population  growth 
assumptions. 

Table 12: Projected population and GDP growth per Member State 

Population 

GDP growth 

EU27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

2020 
447.7 

8.90 

11.51 

6.95 

4.06 

0.89 

2025 
449.3 

9.03 

11.66 

6.69 

3.94 

0.93 

2030 
449.1 

9.15 

11.76 

6.45 

3.83 

0.96 

10.69 

10.79 

10.76 

5.81 

1.33 

5.53 

67.20 

83.14 

10.70 

9.77 

4.97 

5.88 

1.32 

5.54 

68.04 

83.48 

10.51 

9.70 

5.27 

5.96 

1.31 

5.52 

68.75 

83.45 

10.30 

9.62 

5.50 

2020-‘25 
0.9% 

2026-‘30 
1.1% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

1.8% 

2.0% 

1.2% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

2.6% 

1.7% 

93 EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 
94 Policy scenarios for delivering the European Green Deal (europa.eu) 
95 EUROPOP2019 population projections: Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu)  
96 The 2021 Ageing Report : Underlying assumptions and projection methodologies The 2021 Ageing 
Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies | European Commission (europa.eu)  

71 

 
 
  
                                                           
Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Population 

GDP growth 

2020 
60.29 

1.91 

2.79 

0.63 

0.51 

17.40 

37.94 

10.29 

19.28 

5.46 

2.10 

47.32 

10.32 

2025 
60.09 

1.82 

2.71 

0.66 

0.56 

17.75 

37.57 

10.22 

18.51 

5.47 

2.11 

48.31 

10.75 

2030 
59.94 

1.71 

2.58 

0.69 

0.59 

17.97 

37.02 

10.09 

17.81 

5.44 

2.11 

48.75 

11.10 

2020-‘25 
0.3% 

2026-‘30 
0.3% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

0.7% 

2.1% 

0.8% 

2.7% 

1.1% 

2.1% 

0.9% 

1.4% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

2.0% 

4.1% 

0.7% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

2.4% 

1.6% 

2.2% 

Beyond  the  update  of  the  population  and  growth  assumptions,  an  update  of  the 
projections on the sectoral composition of GDP was also carried out using the GEM-E3 
computable general equilibrium model. These projections take into account the potential 
medium- to long-term impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on the structure of the economy, 
even  though  there  are  inherent  uncertainties  related  to  its  eventual  impacts.  Overall, 
conservative  assumptions  were  made  regarding  the  medium-term  impacts  of  the 
pandemic on the re-localisation of global value chains, teleworking and teleconferencing 
and global tourism. 

International energy prices assumptions  

Alongside  socio-economic  projections,  transport  modelling  requires  projections  of 
international fuel prices. The projections of the POLES-JRC model – elaborated by the 
Joint  Research  Centre  and  derived  from  the  Global  Energy  and  Climate  Outlook 
(GECO97) –  are used to  obtain long-term  estimates of the international  fuel  prices. The 
table below shows the oil prices assumptions of  the baseline and policy  options of this 
impact assessment.  

Table 13: Oil prices assumptions  

in $'15 per boe 
Oil 

in €'15 per boe 
Oil 

2015 
52.3 

2015 
47.2 

2020 
39.8 

2020 
35.8 

2030 
80.1 

2030 
72.2 

2040 
97.4 

2040 
87.8 

2050 
117.9 

2050 
106.3 

Source: Derived from JRC, POLES-JRC model, Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO) 

Technology assumptions 

Modelling  scenarios  is  highly  dependent  on  the  assumptions  on  the  development  of 
technologies  -  both  in  terms  of  performance  and  costs.  For  the  purpose  of  the  impact 
assessments  related  to  the  “Climate  Target  Plan”  and  the  “Fit  for  55”  policy  package, 
these assumptions have been updated based on a rigorous literature review carried out by 

97 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/geco  

72 

 
 
  
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
external consultants in collaboration with the JRC98. Continuing the approach adopted in 
the long-term strategy in 2018, the Commission consulted on the technology assumption 
with  stakeholders  in  2019.  In  particular,  the  technology  database  of  the  PRIMES  and 
PRIMES-TREMOVE models (together with GAINS, GLOBIOM, and CAPRI) benefited 
from a dedicated consultation workshop held on 11th November 2019. EU Member States 
representatives  also  had  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  costs  elements  during  a 
workshop  held  on  25th  November  2019.  The  updated  technology  assumptions  are 
published together with the EU Reference Scenario 202099. The same assumptions have 
been used in the context of this impact assessment. 

Policies in the Baseline scenario  

Building  on  the  EU  Reference  scenario  2020,  the  baseline  scenario  for  this  impact 
assessment has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package100.  

The Baseline scenario assumes no further EU level intervention beyond the current PSC 
Directive.  It  assumes  the  continuation  of  the  work  of  the  Paris  MoU  without  the 
incorporation  of  any  amendments  adopted  since  2009  and  the  PSC  Directive  under  its 
2009 scope. Fishing vessels would continue to be outside the scope of the Directive and 
Member States could inspect foreign fishing vessels calling to their ports if they wished 
to do so under national law. Slow progress would take place with respect to the uptake of 
electronic certificates in the baseline scenario, without further EU level intervention.  

The  role  of  EMSA  in  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  is  central.  EMSA  provides 
training,  operates  the  THETIS  and  SafeSeaNet  systems  without  which  the  Directive 
could not function. The Commission has launched an impact assessment on the possible 
review  of  EMSA  founding  Regulation.101  However,  the  outcome  of  this  impact 
assessment  cannot  be  prejudged  and  thus  the  baseline  scenario  does  not  account  for 
changes in the EMSA founding Regulation. 

Baseline scenario results 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  had  a  major  impact  on  global  shipping,  affecting  all  its 
segments  from  passenger  ships  to  container  ships  and  oil  tankers.  In  the  baseline 
scenario,  international  maritime  freight  transport  activity  (intra  and  extra-EU)  is 
projected  to  be  21%  lower  in  2020  relative  to  2015.  From  2021  onwards  however  it  is 
projected to start recovering and grow strongly by 2025 and beyond (i.e. 19% growth for 
2015-2030 and 48% for 2015-2050), due to the rising demand for primary resources and 
container  shipping.  Relative  to  2019,  this  is  equivalent  to  8%  increase  in  transport 
activity by 2030 and 33% growth by 2050. 

The number of port calls for 2025-2050 is projected to grow at a lower rate than transport 
activity,  following  similar  evolution  over  the  historical  period102.  This  reflects  the  fact 
that  transport  activity  is  also  driven  by  other  factors  such  as  the  increase  in  the  size  of 
vessels  over  time,  and  of  the  distance  travelled.  In  the  baseline  scenario  the  number  of 

98 JRC118275  
99 EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 
100 Delivering the European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) 
101 Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002/EC, the inception impact assessment at 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13049-European-Maritime-Safety-
Agency-review-of-mandate_en 
102  The  same  ratio  between  the  growth  in  the  number  of  port  calls  and  the  transport  activity  as  for  the 
historical period (2014-2019) has been assumed for the projection period.  

73 

 
                                                           
port  calls  is  projected  to  go  up  by  14%  by  2030  relative  to  2015  and  by  36%  by  2050 
(equivalent to 6% growth by 2030 relative to 2019 and 26% increase by 2050), following 
the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Driven by the increase in the transport activity and the number of vessels, the number of 
marine casualties is projected to increase over time in the baseline scenario. The number 
of casualties, including those involving fishing vessels above 15 meters, is projected to 
increase by 14% by 2030 relative to 2019 and by 45% by 2050 without further EU level 
action.  At  the  same  time,  the  degree  of  severity  of  marine  casualties  is  projected  to 
decrease, leading to a decrease in the number of vessels lost (by 5% for 2019-2030 and 
for  2019-2050)  and  a  relative  stabilisation  of  the  number  of  fatalities  by  2050  (11% 
decrease for 2019-2030 and 3% increase for 2019-2050).  

The  impact  of  the  Russian  invasion  of  Ukraine  on  maritime  traffic,  on  maritime  trade 
flows or safety has not as yet been possible to quantify, as there is large uncertainty with 
respect to its impacts, in particular for the medium to long term.  

While the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is felt in terms of trade (e.g. grain, 
bulk  fertilizers and hydrocarbons) and in  certain geographical  areas  (parts  of the  Black 
Sea), the impact on port State control in the Union is however very limited. The impact 
would  be  manifested  in  two  ways,  firstly  as  regards  Russian  flagged  vessels  calling  to 
EU  ports  and  secondly  with  regard  to  the  PSC  inspections  carried  out  by  the  Russian 
Federation on foreign flagged vessels calling to Russian ports within the context of the 
Paris MoU.  

With regard to the first aspect, the Russian merchant fleet operating in EU waters is not 
particularly  large  and  while  prior  to  the  invasion  and  EU  sanctions  EU  Member  States 
were visited on average by 15 Russian-flagged vessels per day this has now declined to 2 
vessel  calls  per  day  or  less  as  the  sanctions  regime  has  been  ramped  up.  These  vessels 
will  continue  to  be  inspected  in  EU  ports  as  and  when  they  become  eligible  for 
inspection.  

As  regards  the  PSC  inspections  carried  out  in  Russian  ports,  in  May  2022  the  other 
members of the Paris MoU decided to suspend the Russian Federation’s membership of 
the  MoU  because  of  its  invasion  of  Ukraine.  In  previous  years,  the  Russian  Federation 
contributed an average of about 6.5% of the total number inspections carried in the Paris 
MoU.   

Table 14: Projected number of marine casualties, vessels lost, fatalities and injuries in the baseline 
scenario in EU27 

2019 (levels) 

Cumulative growth rates 

'19-'30 

'19-'40 

'19-'50 

Total including fishing vessels  
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

6,303 
150 
226 
1,667 

9% 
-6% 
-7% 
0% 

16% 
-11% 
-9% 
-1% 

27% 
-14% 
-10% 
1% 

The  projected  numbers  of  marine  casualties,  vessels  lost,  fatalities  and  injuries  in  the 
baseline scenario, by vessel type, are provided in Table 15. They are derived based on the 
projected growth in the number of vessels and the occurrence ratios. For all vessels types, 

74 

 
 
except for fishing vessels, the occurrence ratios103 are assumed to remain constant over 
time at their 2019 levels, drawing on information for the historical period from EMCIP. 
This is also the case for the ratios between vessels lost, fatalities, injuries and the vessel 
fleet.  As  already  explained,  the  baseline  scenario  is  aligned  to  that  of  the  impact 
assessment accompanying the revision of the Accident Investigation Directive and of the 
Flag State Directive.  

For fishing vessels above 15 meters the occurrence ratio is projected to slightly increase 
over time (from 5.6% in 2019 to 6.2% in 2030 and 7.5% in 2050), drawing on historical 
developments but assuming a slower pace than in the past. At the same time, the ratios 
between  vessels  lost,  fatalities,  injuries  and  the  vessel  fleet  are  assumed  to  remain 
constant over time, at their 2019 levels. This is acknowledging the past trends observed, 
showing  that  while  the  number  of  marine  casualties  involving  fishing  vessels  is 
increasing over time the degree of severity of the casualties has been slightly decreasing. 
The number of fishing vessels above 15 meters is projected to reduce over time (by 6% 
between  2019  and  2030  and  by  16%  during  2019-2050),  in  line  with  historical 
developments104  and  also  taking  into  account  the  moderate  increase  in  the  number  of 
catches projected in the future (0.4% per year)105. This is the reason why the number of 
vessels lost, fatalities and injuries involving fishing vessels is projected to decrease over 
time.  

With  regard  to  fishing  vessels  above  24  meters,  the  number  of  fatalities  in  which  such 
vessels  are  involved  represent  around  18%  of  the  total  number  of  fatalities  and  around 
52%  of  the  fatalities  involving  fishing  vessels.  Their  share  in  the  number  of  fatalities 
involving fishing vessels above 15 meters is projected to remain constant over time in the 
baseline  scenario.  The  share  of  injuries  in  which  fishing  vessels  above  24  meters  are 
involved is currently 10% of the total injuries and 45% of the injuries  in which fishing 
vessels above 15 meters are involved and this share is projected to remain constant over 
time in the baseline scenario.  

Table 15: Projected numbers of marine casualties, vessels lost, fatalities and injuries in the baseline 
scenario by vessel type (EU27) 

Cargo vessels 
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Fishing vessels above 15 meters 
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Passenger vessels 
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Service vessels 

2019 

2030 

2040 

2050 

Levels 

1,233 
1 
24 
204 

381 
13 
16 
113 

616 
1 
3 
145 

1,452 
1 
28 
240 

386 
12 
14 
102 

733 
1 
4 
173 

1,623 
1 
32 
268 

388 
11 
13 
93 

821 
1 
4 
193 

1,969 
2 
38 
326 

386 
10 
12 
85 

994 
2 
5 
234 

103 Ratio between the number of marine casualties and the number of vessels.  
104 European Commission (2020). Fishing fleet. Derived from: https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-
fisheries/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-common-fisheries-policy/fishing-fleet_en 
105 OECD/FAO (2020), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020-2029 

75 

 
 
                                                           
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Other vessels 
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Total including fishing vessels above 15 meters 
Marine casualties 
Vessels lost 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2019 
193 
2 
16 
39 

79 
3 
7 
39 

2,502 
20 
66 
540 

Levels 

2040 
204 
2 
6 
41 

79 
3 
7 
39 

3,115 
18 
62 
634 

2030 
201 
2 
6 
41 

79 
3 
7 
39 

2,851 
19 
59 
595 

2050 
206 
2 
6 
42 

79 
3 
7 
39 

3,634 
19 
68 
726 

The projected developments in the number of fatalities in the baseline, presented above, 
are still far from the goal of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy of close to zero 
death toll for all modes of transport in the EU. 

The tonnes of bunker fuel lost at sea due to very serious marine casualties involving all 
vessels,  including fishing vessels  above 15  meters, are estimated to  go up from  around 
650 tonnes in 2019 to 740 tonnes in 2030 and 890 tonnes in 2050106.  

Driven by the projected number of port calls, the total number of initial, more detailed and 
expanded inspections performed by PSCOs is projected to increase from 13,446 in 2019 to 
14,985 in 2030 and 17,974 in 2050. The projected number of PSC inspections by Member 
State in the baseline scenario is provided in Table 16.  

Table 16: Projected number of PSC inspections by MS in the baseline scenario (EU) 
Projected number of PSC inspections by MS in the baseline scenario 

2030 

2019 

EU 
BE 
BG 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 

13,446 
1,010 
343 
106 
1,116 
491 
251 
299 
988 
1,518 
1,047 
299 
1,447 
309 
253 
181 
1,288 
493 
528 

14,985 
1,151 
368 
115 
1,002 
550 
265 
341 
1,071 
1,407 
877 
328 
2,084 
349 
277 
233 
1,320 
828 
626 

2040 

2050 

16,321 
1,236 
429 
132 
1,124 
645 
282 
370 
1,139 
1,500 
914 
349 
2,190 
392 
290 
258 
1,418 
975 
646 

17,974 
1,375 
506 
160 
1,275 
776 
292 
396 
1,244 
1,650 
974 
362 
2,321 
428 
294 
279 
1,608 
1,106 
688 

106 An average level of 30 tonnes of bunker fuels lost per vessel (excluding fishing vessels) has been used 
for  the  estimations  in  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study.  For  fishing  vessels  above  15 
meters an average level of 22 tonnes of bunker fuels lost per vessel has been assumed, based on data from 
EMSA. 

76 

 
 
                                                           
Projected number of PSC inspections by MS in the baseline scenario 

2019 

2030 

2040 

2050 

RO 
SI 
FI 
SE 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

489 
140 
280 
570 

769 
235 
314 
473 

914 
246 
336 
535 

1,026 
255 
360 
600 

As a result, the total costs for the EU port State authorities for performing inspections and 
administrative  tasks  are  projected  to  increase  from  EUR  2.9  million  in  2019  to  EUR  3.2 
million  in  2030  and  EUR  3.8  million  in  2050  (Table  17)107.  The  lower  increase  in  costs 
relative  to  that  of  inspections  is  explained  by  the  slight  reduction  in  the  man-hour  per 
inspection over time, driven by the uptake of electronic certificates. The share of inspections 
of  ships  having  e-certificates  is  currently  20%,  according  to  data  from  EMSA,  and  is 
projected to go up to 30% by 2050 in the baseline scenario.  

Table 17: Projected costs for port State administrations in the baseline scenario (EU), in 2020 prices 
2050 

2030 

2019 

2040 

PSC inspection costs 

Number of inspections by type of inspection 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

Man-hours per inspection (hours) 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Total costs per inspection type (million EUR) 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 
PSC administrative costs 

Total administrative costs (million EUR) 

Total costs for PSC administrations 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

3.  Impacts on costs by policy measure 

13,446 
5,292 
5,371 
2,783 
5.7 
4.0 
5.8 
8.5 
20% 
2.9 
0.8 
1.2 
0.9 

14,985 
5,898 
5,986 
3,102 
5.6 
4.0 
5.8 
8.5 
22% 
3.2 
0.9 
1.3 
1.0 

16,321 
6,424 
6,520 
3,378 
5.6 
4.0 
5.7 
8.4 
26% 
3.4 
1.0 
1.4 
1.1 

17,974 
7,074 
7,180 
3,720 
5.5 
3.9 
5.7 
8.3 
30% 
3.8 
1.0 
1.5 
1.2 

0.1 
2.9 

0.1 
3.2 

0.1 
3.5 

0.1 
3.8 

This section explains the inputs used and provides the assessment on costs of the policy 
measures included in the policy options.  

When the impact of a policy measure is different depending on the policy option, this is 
explicitly mentioned in  the text.  This  is  a result of the synergies  between the measures 
included in the options, which is already captured in this section. When not specified, the 
measure  is  either  included  in  only  one  option  and  the  synergies  between  measures  are 
directly  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment  or  the  measure  is  included  in  all  policy 
options but has the same impact.  

PM1A:  Expand  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  align  with  IMO  and  Paris  MoU  by 
adding  Ballast  Water  Management  Convention  (BWM)  as  a  relevant  international 
instrument to the Directive 

107 The tariffs per hour draw on Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, Labour Force Survey data for Non-
Wage Labour Costs. 

77 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
This  measure  concerns  the  alignment  with  international  conventions  and  instruments. 
The  introduction  of  alien  and  invasive  species  to  environments  in  which  they  have  no 
natural  predators  by  means  of  ships  ballast  water  is  considered  a  major  threat  to  the 
world's  oceans,  with  deleterious  effects  on  biodiversity,  fisheries,  tourism  and  human 
health.  The  Ballast  Water  Management  Convention  (BWM)  has  entered  into  force  and 
has  been  ratified  by  all  but  4  EU  marine  States108.  The  BWM  Convention  has  already 
been  adopted  as  a  relevant  instrument  for  the  Paris  MoU.  PM1A  will  involve  an 
additional  document  check  estimated  by  EMSA  as  involving  5  additional  minutes  of 
work  and  will  in  practice  only  have  implications  for  the  four  Member  States  (Ireland, 
Italy,  Romania  and  Slovenia)  that  have  not  yet  ratified  the  Convention.  The  projected 
number of PSC inspections for these four MS is estimated at 3,429 in 2030 increasing to 
3,719 in  2040 and  3,998 in  2050. The total  additional  enforcement  costs relative to  the 
baseline for the PSC authorities are estimated at EUR 10,805, increasing to EUR 11,718 
in  2040  and  EUR  12,598  in  2050.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the 
additional enforcement costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.208 million.  

Table  18:  Additional  enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  EUR)  for 
adding the BWM Convention to the scope of the PSC Directive  

Projected number of inspections in the 4 EU port States that did not ratify 
the BWM Convention 

IE 
IT 
RO 
SI 

Total additional costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

3,429 

3,719 

3,998 

341 
2,084 
769 
235 
10,805 

370 
2,190 
914 
246 
11,718 

396 
2,321 
1,026 
255 
12,598 

PM1B:  Expand  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  align  with  IMO  by  adding  Nairobi 
International  Convention  on  the  Removal  of  Wrecks  (Nairobi)  as  a  relevant 
instrument to the Directive 

This  measure  concerns  the  alignment  with  international  conventions  and  instruments. 
The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (Wrecks Removal 
Convention)  entered  into  force  on  14  April  2015  and  provides  the  legal  basis  for 
removing shipwrecks that may have the potential to affect adversely the safety of lives, 
goods and property at sea, as well as the marine environment. It has been ratified by all 
but 8 EU marine States109. The Wrecks Removal Convention has also been adopted as a 
relevant instrument for the Paris MoU. PM1B will involve a document check estimated 
by  EMSA  as  involving  5  additional  minutes  of  work  and  will  in  practice  only  have 
implications for  the  8 Member States (Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, Poland, 
Slovenia and Spain) that have not yet ratified the Convention. The projected number of 
PSC inspections for these 8 MS is estimated at 6,592 in 2030 increasing to 7,101 in 2040 
and 7,694 in 2050. The total additional enforcement costs relative to the baseline for the 
PSC authorities are estimated at EUR 20,772 in 2030, increasing to EUR 22,376 in 2040 
and EUR 24,242 in 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the additional costs 
relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.4 million.  

108 Ireland, Italy, Romania and Slovenia have not yet ratified.  
109 Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Spain have not yet ratified.  

78 

 
 
                                                           
Table  19:  Additional  enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  EUR)  for 
adding the Nairobi Convention to the scope of the PSC Directive 

2030 

2040 

2050 

Projected number of inspections in the 8 EU port States that did not 
ratify the Nairobi Convention 

     6,592  

      7,101  

      7,694  

IE 
EL 
ES 
IT 
LV 
LT 
SI 
PL 

Total additional costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
 Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

       341  
     1,071  
     1,407  
     2,084  
       349  
       277  
       235  
       828  
    20,772  

       370  
      1,139  
      1,500  
      2,190  
       392  
       290  
       246  
       975  
     22,376  

       396  
      1,244  
      1,650  
      2,321  
       428  
       294  
       255  
      1,106  
     24,242  

PM1C:  Expand  the  scope  of  the  Directive  by  providing  for  other  Conventions  (HNS 
and Hong Kong) which are open for ratification and have been ratified by at least one 
EU Member State. These are to be added to the Directive "once they enter into force" 

PM1C  is  about  ensuring  that  the  scope  of  the  PSC  Directive  remains  up  to  date  in  the 
future.  It  is  about  ensuring  the  flexibility  to  include  conventions  within  PSC  Directive 
scope when they enter into force.  

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection 
with  the  Carriage  of  Hazardous  and  Noxious  Substances  by  Sea  (HNS)  has  only  been 
ratified by one EU State (Denmark) and it has not been adopted as a relevant instrument 
for the Paris MoU. PSC enforcement of the HNS Convention would involve a document 
check estimated by EMSA as involving 5 additional minutes of work being added to all 
PSC inspections carried out. The projected number of PSC inspections for the remaining 
21 maritime MS is estimated at 14,435 in 2030 increasing to 15,677 in 2040 and 17,198 
in 2050. The additional enforcement costs relative to the baseline for the PSC authorities 
are  estimated  at  EUR  45,484  in  2030,  increasing  to  EUR  49,397  in  2040  and  EUR 
54,191 in 2050.  

Regarding  the  Hong  Kong  International  Convention  for  the  Safe  and  Environmentally 
Sound  Recycling  of  Ships  (Hong  Kong  Convention),  14  EU  port  States  (Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Sweden) are not yet signatories to the Convention. PSC enforcement 
of the Hong Kong Convention would involve a document check estimated by EMSA as 
involving 5 additional minutes of work being added to  all PSC inspections carried out. 
The projected number of PSC inspections for these 14 MS is estimated at 8,179 in 2030 
increasing to 8,943 in 2040 and 9,746 in 2050. The additional enforcement costs relative 
to the baseline for the PSC authorities are estimated at EUR 25,772 in 2030, increasing to 
EUR 28,180 in 2040 and EUR 30,709 in 2050. 

The total additional enforcement costs relative to the baseline for the PSC authorities for 
adding  the  HNS  and  Hong  Kong  Conventions  to  the  scope  of  PSC  Directive  are 
estimated at EUR 71,257 in 2030, increasing to EUR 77,577 in 2040 and EUR 84,899 in 
2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total additional costs relative to the 
baseline are estimated at EUR 1.382 million.  

79 

 
 
Table  20:  Additional  enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  EUR)  for 
adding the HNS and Hong Kong Conventions to the scope of the PSC Directive 

Projected number of inspections in the 21 EU port States that did not 
ratify the HNS Convention 

Additional costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices, for 
adding the HNS Convention 
Projected number of inspections in the 14 EU port States that did not 
ratify the Hong Kong Convention 
Additional costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices, for 
adding the Hong Kong Convention 
Total additional costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

14,435 

15,677 

17,198 

45,484 

49,397 

54,191 

8,179 

8,943 

9,746 

25,772 

28,180 

30,709 

71,257 

77,577 

84,899 

PM2: Align the Directive to the Paris MoU new Ship Risk Profile (SRP) including the 
new  calculation  method  for  the  White  Grey  Black  (WGB)  list  formula  used  for 
targeting ships 

PM2 implies that the PSC Directive will include the revised formula and ranking of flag 
States alongside revising the Ship Risk Profile (SRP).  

A revision of the Ship Risk Profile (SRP) is assessed to lead to a more efficient targeting 
of  ships  for  PSC  inspections.  Based  on  estimations  drawing  on  THETIS  database, 
performed by EMSA, the number of initial inspections is projected to decrease by 1.3% 
and that of more detailed inspections by 1.4% relative to the baseline, while the number 
of  expanded  inspections  would  increase  by  2.6%  relative  to  the  baseline.  Overall,  the 
total  number  of  inspections  would  decrease  by  0.6%  relative  to  the  baseline  (84  fewer 
inspections  in  2030  compared  to  the  baseline,  91  in  2040  and  100  in  2050).  Table  21 
provides the changes in the number of inspections relative to the baseline for 2030, 2040 
and 2050.  

Table 21: Changes in the number of inspections relative to the baseline in PM2  

Changes in the number of inspections relative to the baseline 

- initial inspections 
- more detailed inspections 
- expanded inspections 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

-84 
-77 
-86 
79 

-91 
-84 
-93 
86 

-100 
-92 
-103 
95 

However,  as  the  number  of  more  time-consuming  expanded  inspections  is  projected  to 
increase  relative  to  the  baseline,  the  overall  enforcement  cost  savings  for  the  PSC 
authorities  are  relatively  limited.  PM2  is  included  in  all  three  policy  options  but  the 
impact on enforcement costs savings is different under each option, due to the degree of 
uptake of e-certificates in each option linked to PM7. The uptake of e-certificates leads to 
a decrease in the unit inspections costs, as explained in PM7 below. Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 
0.083 million in PO A, 0.061 million in PO B and 0.056 million in PO C. 

Table 22: Enforcement costs savings for port State authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

PO A 
2040 

2030 

2050 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 
2040 

2030 

2050 

PO C 
2040 

2030 

2050 

Enforcement costs savings 
(EUR), in 2020 prices 

4,419 

4,434 

4,883 

3,550 

2,920 

3,216 

3,724 

2,542 

2,799 

80 

 
 
 
 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

Another  benefit  from  a  change  in  the  SRP  is  that  of  an  improved  targeting  of  sub-
standard  ships  for  PSC  inspection,  leading  to  requirements/recommendations  that  will 
contribute to increasing the safety standards of these ships. 

PM3: Align the Directive to the (i) Paris MoU list of certificates and documents to be 
checked during an inspection, (ii) to  the changes in the Paris MoU refusal  of access 
(banning)  procedures  and,  (iii)  incorporate  all  current  Paris  MoU  Procedures  and 
Guidelines  

The Paris MoU has revised the number and type of certificates to take account of changes 
at  the  IMO level.  This is  not  expected to  have  an  impact  on the number of inspections 
carried  out  and  only  a  marginal  impact  on  the  time  taken  to  check  these  certificates 
relative to the baseline. However, it would improve clarity and consistency with the IMO 
PSC framework.  

The measure also implies the alignment with changes in the Paris MoU refusal of access 
(banning)  procedures  relating  to:  (i)  the  flag  of  the  vessel  to  be  banned;  (ii)  jumped 
detention;  (iii)  a  ban  in  cases  when  a  ship  does  not  go  to  the  agreed  repair  yard. 
According to EMSA, the administrative costs for a PSC authority when issuing a ban is 
that of informing the master, the flag State and other PSC authorities in the MoU. This is 
estimated  at  around  15  minutes  per  ban.  However,  this  is  not  estimated  to  lead  to  a 
significant  change  in  the  number  of  bans  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  In  this 
context, data from EMSA shows that during 2017-2019 only 32 bans took place. Most of 
these (27 bans) were due to multiple detentions, while four were caused by a failure to 
call  at  an  agreed  repair  yard,  and  only  one  was  due  to  a  jumped  detention.  Thus,  the 
measure  would  not  result  in  changes  in  the  administrative  costs  for  PSC  authorities 
relative  to  the  baseline.  Benefits  in  terms  of  safety  or  environmental  improvements  are 
therefore also considered not to be significant. Hence, the benefits only derive from more 
timely banning procedures. 

Finally,  the  measure  also  aims  at  ensuring  that  the  PSC  Directive  is  up  to  date  and 
contains the most recent versions of all the Paris MoU procedures and guidelines for the 
control of ships. This is not expected to have an impact in terms of increased workload 
for  the  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  but  is  undertaken  primarily  for  legal 
consistency and to ensure consistency among EU Member States as well as Paris MoU 
members on PSC procedures, guidelines and instructions. Similarly, no additional costs 
relative to the baseline are expected for shipowners or EMSA.  

PM4: Align the Directive to the Paris MoU changes to the inspection commitment 

PM4 involves an alignment of the inspection commitment of Member States to changes 
agreed  to  at  the  Paris  MoU.  Every  Member  State  must  carry  out  a  total  number  of 
inspections  of  foreign  merchant  ships  corresponding 
inspection 
commitment. These vessels in order to be counted must be either Priority I or Priority II. 
Vessels  without  Priority  (in  effect  due  to  short  time  since  the  last  inspection)  do  not 
count for the inspection commitment.  

its  annual 

to 

However  due  to  a  changing  number  of  Priority  I  and  Priority  II  ships,  some  Member 
States may  end up being either over- or under-burdened.  As a response the Paris MoU 
has  agreed  to  increase  the  flexibility  of  the  inspection  commitment,  to  allow  for  up  to 
10% missed inspection of Priority I ships irrespective of the ship risk profile - the current 

81 

 
rule  is  that  only  5%  of  high-risk  ships  may  be  missed.  Changes  to  the  possibilities  to 
justify  a missed inspection for a night-time ship call and a very short ship  call are also 
included.  

The  costs  and  benefits  of  the  increased  flexibility  to  allow  more  missed  Priority  I 
inspections are not feasible to quantify, according to EMSA. However, it is expected that 
benefits  will  occur  for  a  few  under-burdened  PSC  authorities  mainly  in  the  Baltic  Sea 
region (Latvia and Lithuania). Such benefits consist, for example, in improved working 
conditions for PSCOs that would not carry out inspections where justified by: 'the safety 
of the inspector', 'night-time calls' or 'too short a call of the ship'. 

PM5:  Align  the  Directive  to  the  Paris  MoU  changes  which  abolishes  the  72  hour 
reporting obligation for vessels eligible for an expanded inspection 

PM5  provides  for  the  abolition  of  the  72-hour  advance  reporting  obligation  for  the 
operator,  agent  or master of  a ship  eligible for an expanded inspection.  This  obligation 
covered  3,871  ships  with  mandatory  expanded  inspection  in  2019  or  85,764  ship  calls 
involving ships which were eligible for an expanded inspection. This represents 11.9% of 
the  total  number  of  port  calls,  which  is  assumed  to  remain  constant  over  time.  The 
number  of  ship  calls  involving  ships  which  are  eligible  for  an  expanded  inspection  is 
projected to increase at 90,720 in 2030, 98,041 in 2040, and 107,676 in 2050.  

An  estimation  of  the  time  taken  for  a  ship  agent/operator/master  to  report  the  time  of 
arrival  (ETA)  within  72-hour  through  the  National  Single  Windows  of  each  Member 
State  is  around  5  minutes.  Therefore,  removing  the  restriction  could  result  in 
administrative  cost  savings  for  shipping  companies  of  EUR  285,855  in  2030,  EUR 
308,924 in 2040 and EUR 339,283 in 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 
5.53 million. 

Table 23: Administrative costs savings for shipping companies relative to the baseline (in EUR) from 
abolishing the 72 hour reporting obligation for vessels eligible for an expanded inspection 

Port calls with mandatory expanded inspection  
Total costs savings relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 
90,720 
285,855 

2040 
98,041 
308,924 

2050 
107,676 
339,283 

PM6A: Encourage Member States to carry out PSC on eligible fishing vessels (over 24 
metres) by means of development of guidelines, workshops 

This policy measure is designed to increase awareness of Member States of the potential 
benefits  from  compliance  with  a  common  discipline  for  inspection  of  fishing  vessels 
above 24 meters calling at EU ports. PM6A has an impact on enforcement costs for PSC 
authorities  that  would  have  to  conduct  additional  inspections.  It  also  has  an  impact  on 
EMSA,  that  has  to  perform  training  for  PSCOs,  and  on  enforcement  costs  for  fishing 
shipowners.   

Enforcement  costs for  PSC authorities: To calculate  the additional PSC inspections for 
fishing vessels, the share of fishing vessels calls eligible for inspection is assumed to be 
the same with the share of foreign vessels calls for commercial ships inspected. This data 
(see Table 24) has been provided by EMSA from the MARINFO database and the shares 
are assumed to remain constant over time, in line with historical developments.  

82 

 
 
Table 24: Share of foreign vessels calls for commercial ships inspected by MS 

BE 
BG 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
FI 
SE 
Source: MARINFO data from EMSA; Note: excluding ROPAX ships.  

2019 

18% 
23% 
23% 
21% 
18% 
17% 
17% 
29% 
20% 
17% 
31% 
28% 
16% 
14% 
22% 
17% 
18% 
20% 
26% 
22% 
16% 
17% 

By applying these shares to the projected number of fishing vessels calls at EU ports in 
the  baseline  scenario,  the  number  of  eligible  calls  for  inspections  is  derived.  In  PM6A 
however, as the MS are encouraged but not obliged to perform inspections, it has been 
assumed that 35% of the eligible calls for inspection would result in PSC inspections in 
2030,  going  up  to  45%  in  2040  and  50%  by  2050.  The  number  of  additional  PSC 
inspections for fishing vessels relative to the baseline are provided in Table 25.   

Table 25: Number of additional PSC inspections for fishing vessels relative to the baseline 

2030 

2040 

2050 

EU 
BE 
BG 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
FI 

80 
4 
0 
0 
2 
17 
1 
10 
2 
20 
5 
0 
2 
1 
0 
5 
5 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 

95 
5 
0 
0 
2 
20 
1 
12 
2 
24 
6 
0 
2 
1 
0 
6 
7 
2 
3 
0 
0 
0 

96 
5 
0 
0 
2 
20 
1 
12 
3 
24 
6 
0 
2 
1 
0 
6 
7 
2 
3 
0 
0 
0 

83 

 
 
 
SE 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2 

2 

2 

The number of man-hours per PSC inspection for fishing vessels is currently estimated 
by  EMSA  at  4.5,  and  is  projected  to  decrease  to  4.1  in  2030  and  to  4  in  2050  due  to 
efficiency  gains  related  to  digitalisation,  linked  to  measure  PM7A  (included  in  PO  A 
together with PM6A). Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are 
thus estimated at EUR 12,402 in 2030, EUR 14,368 in 2040 and EUR 14,520 in 2050. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
estimated at EUR 0.238 million. 

Table 26: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Additional number of inspections relative to the baseline 
Man-hours per inspection (hours) 
Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Additional inspection costs for PSC administrations (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

80 
4.1 
40% 
12,402 

95 
4.0 
50% 
14,368 

96 
4.0 
50% 
14,520 

Costs for EMSA: Operational inspection guidelines for fishing vessels will be developed 
by  EMSA  at  EU  level  to  illustrate  the  common  procedures  and  criteria  to  organise 
inspections,  to  ensure  that  the  ships  comply  with  relevant  EU  legislation/international 
conventions  in  the  domains  of  safety,  pollution  prevention  and  working  and  living 
condition. No costs are associated to the guidelines.  

Additional  training  courses  for  PSCOs  are  foreseen  to  be  organised  by  EMSA  at  around 
EUR 36,000 each per year (EUR 6,000 estimated for the trainer and EUR 30,000 on average 
for reimbursement of participants). In addition, the development of a virtual reality platform 
(VRESI), to be used for additional online training, would involve a one-off cost of EUR 
50,000 in 2025. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total costs relative to the 
baseline are estimated at EUR 0.713 million. 

Enforcement  costs  for  shipowners:  For  the  assessment  of  enforcement  costs  for 
shipowners,  a  ‘cooperation  effort’  is  assumed  that  is  equal  to  the  time  spent  on 
inspection. This represents the upper bound for the ‘cooperation effort’. The enforcement 
costs  for  shipowners  are  thus  derived  using  the  number  of  additional  inspections,  the 
‘cooperation  effort’  per  inspection  and  the  gross  value  of  landings  per  hour  worked. 
According to the latest data from the STECF Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing 
Fleet, 2021, (gross) landing from large fishing vessels (i.e. of a length of 24 metres and 
above) for EU coastal States amounted to a total EUR 3,241 million in 2019. The value 
of total number of hours worked by the crew of those vessels was estimated at EUR 45.7 
million. Thus, the gross value of landings per hour worked is estimated at EUR 70.9.  

Enforcement  costs  for  shipowners  relative  to  the  baseline  are  thus  estimated  at  EUR 
25,524  in  2030,  EUR  30,310  in  2040  and  EUR  30,629  in  2050.  Expressed  as  present 
value over 2025-2050 the total costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.496 
million. 

Table 27: Enforcement costs for shipowners relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Enforcement costs for shipowners (EUR), in 2020 prices 

2030 

2040 

2050 

25,524 

30,310 

30,629 

84 

 
 
 
 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

PM6B:  Provide  for  a  voluntary  PSC  system  for  fishing  vessels  of  above  24  metres 
which  will  exist  in  parallel  to  the  Directive  by  means  of  guidelines,  training  and  an 
inspection database for targeting ships and reporting on inspections 

PM6B provides for an increased level of ambition compared with PM6A by establishing 
a voluntary PSC system for fishing vessels above 24 meters calling at EU ports, based on 
a  simplified  version  of  the  current  PSC  system.  This  voluntary  measure  would  involve 
EMSA (in conjunction with the Paris MoU) developing a system for the PSC inspection 
of fishing vessels (of above 24 metres) calling EU ports aligned to ensure that the ships 
comply with relevant EU legislation/international conventions in the domains of safety, 
pollution  prevention  and  working  and  living  condition.  In  addition  to  operation 
inspection guidelines a ship risk profile will be developed for these larger fishing vessels 
as well as a ship targeting system and inspection database. 

Enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities:  The  enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities  are 
derived in a similar way to those of PM6A. In PM6B however, it has been assumed that 
45% of the eligible calls for inspection would result in PSC inspections in 2030, going up 
to 65% in 2040 and 80% by 2050. The number of additional PSC inspections for fishing 
vessels relative to the baseline are provided in Table 28. 

Table 28: Number of additional PSC inspections for fishing vessels relative to the baseline 

2030 

2040 

2050 

EU 
BE 
BG 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
FI 
SE 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

103 
6 
0 
0 
2 
21 
1 
13 
3 
26 
7 
0 
2 
1 
0 
7 
7 
2 
3 
0 
0 
0 
2 

138 
7 
0 
1 
3 
29 
1 
17 
4 
34 
9 
1 
3 
1 
0 
9 
9 
3 
4 
0 
0 
0 
3 

157 
8 
0 
1 
3 
32 
1 
20 
4 
39 
10 
1 
4 
2 
0 
10 
11 
3 
4 
0 
0 
0 
4 

The number of man-hours per PSC inspection for fishing vessels is currently estimated 
by EMSA at  4.5, and is projected to  decrease to  3.9 in  2030 and to  3.6  in 2050 due to 
efficiency  gains  related  to  digitalisation,  linked  to  measure  PM7C  (included  in  PO  B 
together with PM6B). Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are 
thus estimated at EUR 14,994 in 2030, EUR 18,785 in 2040 and EUR 21,371 in 2050. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
estimated at EUR 0.314 million. 

85 

 
 
Table 29: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Additional number of inspections relative to the baseline 
Man-hours per inspection (hours) 
Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Additional inspection costs for PSC administrations (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

103 
3.9 
65% 
14,994 

138 
3.6 
90% 
18,785 

157 
3.6 
90% 
21,371 

Costs  for  EMSA:  The  measure  implies  a  one-off  cost  of  EUR  100,000  for  EMSA  to 
develop a specific THETIS module for fishing vessels to allow Member States to target 
and  select  vessels  for  inspection  as  well  as  to  record  and  share  the  results  of  the 
inspections. This measure also includes a dedicated common core curriculum (CCC) for 
PSC  fishing  which  will  cover  all  the  relevant  instructions  and  guidance  related  to  the 
voluntary PSC system, including training on the specific elements related to the relevant 
THETIS module. The one-off costs for the development of this CCC is estimated at EUR 
100,000 in 2025.  

Additional  training  courses  for  PSCOs  are  foreseen  to  be  organised  by  EMSA  at  around 
EUR 36,000 each per year (EUR 6,000 estimated for the trainer and EUR 30,000 on average 
for reimbursement of participants). In addition, the development of a virtual reality platform 
(VRESI), to be used for additional online training, would involve a one-off cost of EUR 
50,000  in  2025.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  for  EMSA 
relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.813 million. 

Enforcement costs for shipowners: As in PM6A, for the assessment of enforcement costs 
for  shipowners,  the  ‘cooperation  effort’  is  assumed  to  be  equal  to  the  time  spent  on 
inspection. This represents the upper bound for the ‘cooperation effort’. 

Enforcement  costs  for  shipowners  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR  32,862  in 
2030, EUR 44,029 in 2040 and EUR 50,091 in 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 the total costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.715 million. 

Table 30: Enforcement costs for shipowners relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Enforcement costs for shipowners (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

32,862 

44,029 

50,091 

PM6C: Amend the Directive to fully incorporate larger fishing vessels (over 24 metres 
in length) within its scope 

PM6C  increases  the  level  of  ambition  a  step  further  by  incorporating  fishing  vessels 
above  24  metres  completely  within  the  PSC  Directive.  Similarly  to  PM6A  and  PM6B, 
the measure has an impact on enforcement costs for PSC authorities that would have to 
conduct additional inspections. It also has an impact on EMSA and on enforcement costs 
for fishing shipowners. 

Enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities:  The  enforcement  costs  for  PSC  authorities  are 
derived in  a similar way to  those of PM6A and  PM6B.  In PM6C however, it has been 
assumed that 75% of the eligible calls for inspection would result in PSC inspections in 
2030, going up to 100% in 2040 and beyond.  

The number of man-hours per PSC inspection for fishing vessels is currently estimated by 
EMSA at 4.5, and is projected to decrease to 3.9 in 2030 and to 3.5 in 2050 due to efficiency 
gains  related  to  digitalisation,  linked  to  measure  PM7B  (included  in  PO  C  together  with 

86 

 
 
 
PM6C). Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are thus estimated at 
EUR 25,511 in 2030, EUR 28,056 in 2040 and EUR 26,203 in 2050. Expressed as present 
value  over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR  0.476 
million. 

Table 31: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Additional number of inspections relative to the baseline 
Man-hours per inspection (hours), including digitalisation 
Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Additional inspection costs for PSC administrations (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

173 
3.9 
60% 
25,511 

212 
3.5 
100% 
28,056 

198 
3.5 
100% 
26,203 

Costs for EMSA: The costs for EMSA in PM6C are the same as in PM6B.  

Enforcement  costs  for  shipowners:  As  in  PM6A  and  PM6B,  for  the  assessment  of 
enforcement costs for shipowners, the ‘cooperation effort’ is assumed to be equal to the 
time spent on inspection. This represents the upper bound for the ‘cooperation effort’. 

Enforcement costs for shipowners relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 55,196 in 
2030,  EUR  67,639  in  2040  and  EUR  63,172  in  2050.  Expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050 the total costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 1.105 million. 

Table 32: Enforcement costs for shipowners relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Enforcement costs for shipowners (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

55,196 

67,639 

63,172 

PM7A:  Encourage  the  uptake  and  use  of  electronic  certificates  in  PSC  by  means  of 
guidelines, workshops, etc. 

PM7A  is  a  soft  policy  measure  encouraging  PSC  authorities  to  accept  electronic 
certificates and encourage flag States and the Recognised Organisations (ROs) that work 
on their behalf to work towards a common data definition to facilitate an easier validation 
of PSC data both during planning for inspections and the carrying out of inspections. The 
measure would lead to enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities and additional costs 
for EMSA for organising training courses.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities: As explained in section 2 of Annex 4, the 
share of inspections of ships having e-certificates is currently 20%, according to data from 
EMSA,  and  is  projected  to  go  up  to  30%  by  2050  in  the  baseline  scenario.  Drawing  on 
stakeholders’ feedback, the time savings per inspection due to digitalisation is estimated at up 
to 1.1 hours for initial inspections, 1.3 hours for more detailed inspections and 1.4 hours for 
expanded  inspections.  In  PM7A  the  share  of  inspections  of  ships  having  e-certificates  is 
projected to go up to 40% in 2030 and 50% in 2040, and remain constant post-2040. As a 
result, on average, the man-hours per inspection would decrease from 5.6 in the baseline to 
5.4 in PM7A in 2030 and from 5.5 in the baseline to 5.3 in PM7A in 2050. The man-hours 
per initial, more detailed and expanded inspection are provided in Table 33.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are thus estimated 
at EUR 127,635 in 2030, EUR 185,355 in 2040 and EUR 170,102 in 2050. Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated 
at EUR 2.804 million. 

87 

 
 
 
Table 33: Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 
2040 

2030 

2050 

Man-hours per inspection (hours) 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

5.4 
3.8 
5.5 
8.2 
40% 

5.3 
3.7 
5.4 
8.1 
50% 

5.3 
3.7 
5.4 
8.1 
50% 

Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Total costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices  127,635  185,355  170,102 
60,926 
70,884 
38,292 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

66,389 
77,241 
41,726 

45,715 
53,187 
28,732 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

Costs  for  EMSA:  Additional  training  courses  for  PSCOs  are  foreseen  to  be  organised  by 
EMSA at around EUR 36,000 each per year (EUR 6,000 estimated for the trainer and EUR 
30,000  on  average  for  reimbursement  of  participants).  Expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050 the total costs relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.663 million. 

PM7B:  Amend  the  Directive  to  make  e-certificates  the  default  for  PSC  in  the  EU 
providing for a common data model, a validation/verification tool and repository at EU 
level 

PM7B would make the use of electronic certificates the default for PSC and so envisages 
an  eventual  uptake  of  100%,  following  a  transition  period.  All  ships  calling  and 
susceptible  to  PSC  inspections  would  have  to  have  statutory  certificates  in  electronic 
form issued by the flag  State or the RO acting on its behalf. Failure to  carry electronic 
certificates would  result  in  deficiencies being  recorded  against the vessel.  The measure 
would  lead  to  enforcement  costs  savings  for  PSC  authorities  and  additional  costs  for 
EMSA and flag State authorities.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities: In PM7B the share of inspections of ships 
having e-certificates is projected to go up to 70% in 2030 and 100% in 2040. As a result, on 
average, the man-hours per inspection would decrease from 5.6 in the baseline to 5 in PM7B 
in 2030 and from 5.5 in the baseline to 4.6 in PM7B in 2050. The man-hours per initial, more 
detailed and expanded inspection are provided in Table 34.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are thus estimated 
at EUR 340,359 in 2030, EUR 571,512 in 2040 and EUR 595,358 in 2050. Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated 
at EUR 8.385 million. 

Table 34: Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

Man-hours per inspection (hours), including digitalisation 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Total costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (EUR) 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

5.0 
3.5 
5.1 
7.8 
70% 

340,359 
121,907 
141,833 
76,619 

4.6 
3.1 
4.7 
7.4 
100% 

571,512 
204,700 
238,159 
128,654 

4.6 
3.1 
4.7 
7.4 
100% 

595,358 
213,241 
248,096 
134,022 

Costs for EMSA: This policy measure involves the development and maintenance at EU 
level of a common system for use of electronic certificates across Flag States and RO for 

88 

 
 
 
the  use  of  PSC  as  well  as  tools  for  validation  and  inspection.  Hence,  it  involves  the 
building of a consolidated certificate database for the EU at EMSA, which can be built as 
a module within THETIS. This implies one-off costs (CAPEX) of EUR 0.5 million in 2025 
for  the  validation  tool  and  repository,  followed  by  maintenance  costs  estimated  at  EUR 
100,000  for  2026-2035  (equivalent  to  0.9  additional  full  time  equivalents  relative  to  the 
baseline). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total costs for EMSA relative to 
the baseline are estimated at EUR 2.904 million. 

Additional training courses for PSCOs are also foreseen to be organised by EMSA at around 
EUR 36,000 each per year (EUR 6,000 estimated for the trainer and EUR 30,000 on average 
for reimbursement of participants).  

Costs for Flag State authorities: The measure also implies one-off costs (CAPEX) of EUR 
1 million in 2025 for Flag State authorities for the validation tool and repository, followed by 
maintenance  costs  estimated  at  EUR  220,000  for  2026-2035.  Expressed  as  present  value 
over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  for  Flag  State  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
estimated at EUR 4.831 million. 

PM7C: Amend the Directive to provide for electronic certificates, common data model, 
a validation tool and repository at EU level  - linking the use of electronic certificates 
with the ship risk profile 

PM7C is similar to PM7B regarding system requirements but seeks the same objective in 
a less prescriptive manner. PM7C envisages the encouragement of the use of electronic 
certificates in port State control by rewarding the ship equipped with such certificates by 
adding a parameter to the ship risk profile (SRP) and thereby allowing them to being less 
targeted by PSC inspections.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities: In PM7C the share of inspections of ships 
having e-certificates is projected to go up to 65% in 2030 and 90% in 2040 and beyond. As a 
result, on average, the man-hours per inspection would decrease from 5.6 in the baseline to 
5.1 in PM7C in 2030 and from 5.5 in the baseline to 4.8 in PM7C in 2050. The man-hours 
per initial, more detailed and expanded inspection are provided in Table 35.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are thus estimated 
at EUR 304,905 in 2030, EUR 494,281 in 2040 and EUR 510,307 in 2050. Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 the total costs savings relative to the baseline are estimated 
at EUR 7.260 million. 

Table 35: Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 
2040 

2030 

2050 

Man-hours per inspection (hours) 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

5.1 
3.5 
5.2 
7.9 
65% 

4.8 
3.2 
4.9 
7.5 
90% 

4.8 
3.2 
4.9 
7.5 
90% 

Share of inspections of ships having e-certificates 
Total costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices  304,905  494,281  510,307 
109,208  177,038  182,778 
127,059  205,975  212,653 
68,638  111,268  114,876 

Initial inspection 
More detailed inspection 
Expanded inspection 

Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

Costs for EMSA: The costs for EMSA are the same as in PM7B. 

89 

 
 
Costs for Flag State authorities: The costs for Flag State authorities are the same as in 
PM7B. 

PM8:  Amend  the  Directive  to  clarify  and  fix  the  time-frame  within  which  the  ship 
arrival and departure notifications have to be carried out 

PM8 focuses on the link between SafeSeaNet and THETIS databases, and how quickly 
and accurately the transmission of the actual time of arrival (ATA) and the actual time of 
departure  (ATD)  in  SSN  should  occur.  Article  24(2)  of  the  PSC  Directive  requires 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  this  data  is  "transferred  within  a  reasonable  time  to  the 
inspection database”. PM8 will clarify what is the reasonable time such that the reporting 
of  ATA  and  ATD  is  carried  out  within  three  hours.  This  measure  does  not  imply 
additional  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  for  PSC  authorities,  shipowners  or  EMSA 
because  the  reporting  already  takes  place  according  to  the  PSC  Directive.  The  benefit 
from  timely  reporting  would  be  the  correct  calculation  of  the  ship  risk  profile  and  the 
correct selection of ships for inspection. The impact on the ships selected for inspection 
cannot however be quantified.  

PM9: Amend the Directive to allow more flexibility for missed inspections 

The  Directive  currently  allows  for  inspections  to  be  missed.  However,  the  current 
possibilities offered by the Directive are not felt to be sufficiently flexible having regard 
to  the  uneven  distribution  of  PSC  eligible  vessel  across  the  EU.  PM9  will  allow  PSC 
authorities  to  justify missed inspections  for Priority  II  vessels  (may  be inspected). This 
measure is not expected to give rise to costs for PSC authorities, shipowners or EMSA. 
On the benefit side, it is expected that Member States will be able to enjoy operational 
improvements when carrying out inspections, thanks to increasing flexibility for Priority 
II inspections and potentially saved Priority II inspections, provided the number of these 
inspections  is  below  the  required  85%  threshold.  The  impact  could  however  not  be 
quantified.  

PM10:  Amend  the  Directive  to  prevent  unwanted  spill-over  effects  of  Member  States 
which exceed their inspection commitment 

PM10  aims  at  tackling  the  issue  of  Member  States  which  exceed  their  inspection 
commitment. Over the time of the implementation of the Directive it has been observed 
that  several  Member  States,  particularly  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  basins, 
inspect  too  many  Priority  I  ships  as  compared  to  their  inspection  commitment.  In  so 
doing  this  disrupts  the  fair  share  calculations  and  creates  difficulties  for  other  Member 
States  to  comply  with  their  fair  share  commitment.  According  to  EMSA,  this  practice 
results in an annual growth in the fair share allocations by around 2% per year due to the 
way in which the fair share is calculated. PM10 would not penalise those Member States 
that “over-inspect” but would limit the effect of this practice to the  Member States that 
are carrying out these inspections.  

Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities: PM10 is projected to lead to a decrease 
in the total number of inspections by 2% relative to the baseline from 2025 onwards. This 
would mean 300 less inspections relative to the baseline in 2030, 326 in 2040 and 359 in 
2050.  Enforcement  costs  savings  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  are  thus 
estimated  in  PO  B  at  EUR  57,646  in  2030,  EUR  58,925  in  2040  and  EUR  64,891  in 
2050. Expressed as  present  value over 2025-2050 the total  costs savings relative to  the 
baseline are estimated at EUR 1.086 million. In PO C they are estimated at EUR 56,937 
in 2030, EUR 57,380 in 2040 and EUR 63,190 in 2050. Expressed as present value over 

90 

 
2025-2050  the  total  costs  savings  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR  1.063 
million.  The  calculation  of  costs  savings  already  takes  into  account  the  decrease  in  the 
costs per inspection due to digitalisation in PO B, linked to measure PM7C and in PO C, 
linked to measure PM7B.  

Table 36: Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline in PO B (in EUR) 
2050 

2030 

2040 

Decrease in the number of inspections relative to the baseline 
Cost savings for PSC authorities (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

300 
57,646 

326 
58,925 

359 
64,891 

Table 37: Enforcement costs savings for PSC authorities relative to the baseline in PO C (in EUR) 
2050 

2030 

2040 

Decrease in the number of inspections relative to the baseline 
Cost savings for PSC authorities (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

300 
56,937 

326 
57,380 

359 
63,190 

PM11:  Amend  the  Directive  by  adding  environmental  parameters  to  the  ship  risk 
profile used to target ships 

The  inclusion  of  environmental  factors  to  determine  the  ship's  risk  profile  could 
complement  the  generic  and  historical  factors  already  requires  in  Article  10  of  the 
Directive.  To  this  end,  two  criteria  for  assessing  the  environmental  performance  of  the 
ship are considered. 

Environmental Related Deficiencies 

A parameter based on the number of deficiencies arising in previous inspections which is 
related  to  relevant  environmental  related  international  conventions  namely  MARPOL, 
the Ballast Water Management Convention, the International Convention on the Control 
of  Harmful  Anti-fouling  Systems  on  Ships  (AFS  Convention),  the  International 
Convention  on  Civil  Liability  for  Oil  Pollution  Damage,  1969  (CLC  PROT  1992),  the 
International  Convention  on  Civil  Liability  for  Bunker  Oil  Pollution  Damage,  2001 
(BUNKER) and the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.  

Carbon Intensity Indicator  

The CO2 emissions performance parameter of the ship could also be included in the ship 
risk  profile  calculation.  For  that  purpose,  the  use  of  the  carbon  intensity  indicator 
required by the IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI could be a simple option to introduce in the 
ship risk profile. In June 2021, the IMO adopted CO2 regulations applicable to existing 
ships.  The  Energy  Efficiency  Existing  Ship  Index  (EEXI)  addresses  the  technical 
efficiency  of  ships,  the  Carbon  Intensity  Indicator  (CII)  rating  scheme  addresses  the 
operational  efficiency,  and  the  enhanced  Ship  Energy  Efficiency  Management  Plan 
(SEEMP) addresses the management system. From 2023, the CII requirements will apply 
to all cargo, RoPax and cruise ships over 5,000 GT engaged in international trade.  

The CII index measures the efficiency with which a ship transports cargo or passengers. 
It  is  expressed  in  grams  of  CO2  emitted  per  cargo  capacity  and  per  nautical  mile.  The 
IMO has provided that each eligible ship will be given an annual grade ranging from A to 
E, with increasingly stringent thresholds by 2030. The grade allocated will be on a scale - 
an A, B, C, D or E operational carbon intensity grade - indicating a major superior, minor 
superior,  moderate,  minor  inferior,  or  inferior  level  of  performance.  The  level  of 
performance will be recorded in the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). 
Vessels  with  D and E  grades will have this  reflected in  their  ship  risk profiles and this 

91 

 
 
 
introduction  of  an  additional  parameter  to  the  risk  profile  will  have  an  impact  on  the 
number of High Risk Ship (HRS) to be inspected. As the ship risk profile will be added 
to,  the  number  of  inspections  to  be  carried  out  will  be  impacted  by  the  inclusion  of 
environmental factors. 

Enforcement costs for PSC authorities: Drawing on calculations by EMSA, the inclusion 
of  the  Environmental  Related  Deficiencies  and  the  Carbon  Intensity  Indicator110  in  the 
ship  risk  profile  (SRP)  would  lead  to  an  increase  by  3.15%  in  the  total  number  of 
inspections  relative  to  the  baseline,  or  15.2%  increase  in  the  number  of  expanded 
inspections. According to the PSC Directive, High Risk Ship (HRS) are inspected every 
six  months.  However,  some  ships  do  not  operate  all  year  round  in  EU  waters  and 
therefore cannot be inspected as soon as their inspection time window opens. In addition, 
the interval between two inspections is not calculated on a calendar annual basis but on 
the  basis  of  time  since  the  last  inspection.  Taking  these  considerations  into  account 
EMSA estimates that these HRS will be inspected 1.8 times a year. The increase in the 
number of expanded inspections relative to the baseline, provided above, also takes into 
account these considerations.  

The number of expanded inspections is projected to increase by 471 in 2030 relative to 
the baseline, by 513 in 2040 and 565 in 2050. The enforcement costs for PSC authorities 
relative  to  the  baseline  are  provided  in  Table  38.  The  calculation  of  costs  takes  into 
account the decrease in the costs per inspection due to digitalisation in PO B and PO C. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  total  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
estimated at EUR 2.664 million in PO B and EUR 2.626 million in PO C.  

Table 38: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

PO A 
2040 

2030 

Difference to the baseline 
PO B 

PO C 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

Enforcement costs for PSC 
authorities relative to the baseline 
(EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

 - 

 - 

 -  140,074  145,965  160,760  138,862  143,325  157,853 

PM12:  Commission/EMSA  to  develop  enhanced  training  tools/capacity  development 
for inspectors 

PM12 is a specific policy measure addressing the training of PSCOs. While the training 
offered  by  EMSA  and  the  Paris  MoU  Secretariat  is  generally  assessed  to  be  effective, 
such  training  may  be  limited  and  need  to  be  further  developed  having  regard  to  new 
technologies, new requirements arising from the international conventions and EU acquis 
and renewable and low carbon fuels. As a consequence, several improvements would be 
needed  to  update  trainings  and  increase  the  scope  of  the  training,  in  addition  to  the 
training foreseen in relation to fishing vessels inspections and e-certificates. The costs for 
EMSA are expected to amount to EUR 150,000 per annum made up of EUR 36,000 for 
in person training, a further EUR 34,000 to cover enhancement (related to PSC inspector 
training)  of  EMSA’s  on  line  training  tools  (the  maritime  Knowledge  Centre  and 
RuleCheck) and EUR 80,000 for the recruitment of experts from a pool of expertise that 
EMSA has developed to address very specialised matters (such as new technologies) for 

110 The CII will be adopted in 2023. However, the IMO has indicated that the distribution of the rating for 
“A”  to “E” over the eligible world fleet will follow a “standard” with the  least polluting 15% of eligible 
ships being category A, category B making up 20%, category C compromising 30% while categories D and 
E will be 20% and 15% respectively. 

92 

 
 
                                                           
which  the  Agency  does  not  have  the  expertise  in  house.  This  is  equivalent  to  one 
additional full time equivalent (FTE) for EMSA in all three policy options relative to the 
baseline. 

PM13: Amend the Directive to require Member States to develop and apply a  Quality 
Management System for their PSC activities 

PM13  requires  Member  States  to  develop,  implement  and  maintain  a  quality 
management system (QMS) for their port State control administrations. This QMS shall 
be certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards (ISO 9000 
series). The QMS is required for all PSC administrations, to identify and address system 
problems  they  may  encounter  and  to  thereby  improve  the  quality  of  their  work  and  in 
particular resource allocation.  

Currently,  only  France  and  Poland  have  implemented  Quality  Management  Systems 
(QMS) for their PSC activities. Hence, PM13 will only have cost implications for the 20 
port States where this is not  yet the case. According to desk research  and stakeholders’ 
consultation in the context of the impact assessment support study, the one-off costs for 
putting  in  place  such  a  QMS  (ISO  9000)  is  estimated  at  EUR  5,000  per  PSC 
administration  in  2025.  Auditing  costs  (i.e.  ongoing  costs)  are  assessed  at  EUR  5,000 
every  year.  Thus,  the  total  adjustment  costs  for PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline 
are  assessed  at  EUR 100,000 from  2026 to  2050.  In addition,  the total  one-off  costs in 
2025 are estimated at EUR 100,000. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total 
adjustment  costs  for  PSC  administrations  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR 
1.841 million. 

PM14:  Amend  the  Directive  to  allow  for  inspections  to  be  missed  in  force  majeure 
situations 

PM14  addresses  the  issue  of  lack  of  flexibility  of  the  PSC  regime  in  cases  of  crisis  or 
unexpected events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The resilience of the PSC regime to 
force majeure events was in fact challenged by the pandemic. To make the regime more 
resilient, the measure focuses on granting more flexibility to Member States, in terms of 
allowing  them  to  miss  inspections  in  cases  of  force  majeure.  This  measure  is  not 
expected to have a significant impact on costs or costs savings.  

PM15A: Recommend that all inspections are carried out by more than one inspector 

PM15A includes a recommendation that all PSC inspections are conducted by more than 
one  inspector,  in  order  to  increase  the  quality  of  inspections.  Analysis  by  EMSA  has 
shown that 42% of PSC inspections (initial, more detailed and expanded inspections) on 
commercial vessels in 2019 were conducted by more than one inspector and the share is 
assumed to  remain constant  over time.  The measure  is  estimated by EMSA to  increase 
the overall time spent on inspection by a third. In PM15A it is assumed that only 50% of 
the PSC inspections that are not conducted by more than one inspector will comply with 
the recommendation.  In  addition,  the  PSC on fishing vessels due to  the  enlargement of 
the  scope  of  the  PSC  Directive  will  also  have  to  follow  the  recommendation.  The 
assessment of the measure takes into account the synergies with other measures in terms 
of number of inspections carried out and with measure PM7A with regard to the impact 
of digitalisation on the time for carrying out an inspection.  

The  projected  number  of  inspections  that  would  carry  out  the  recommendation,  for 
commercial and fishing vessels, is provided in Table  39, together with the enforcement 

93 

 
costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050  the  total  costs  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR 
5.661 million. No additional costs are expected either for vessel operators or for EMSA.  

Table 39: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

PSC inspections on commercial vessels 
Projected number of inspections with one inspector that follow the 
recommendation 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for commercial vessels, in 2020 prices 
PSC inspections on fishing vessels 
Projected number of inspections that follow the recommendation 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for fishing vessels, in 2020 prices 
Total additional enforcement costs for PSC authorities (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

4302 
292,811 

4686 
311,531 

5160 
343,074 

40 
2,067 
294,878 

48 
2,395 
313,926 

48 
2,420 
345,494 

PM15B: Amend the Directive to require that all expanded inspections are carried out 
by more than one inspector 

PM15B  ensures  that  all  expanded  PSC  inspections  are  conducted  by  more  than  one 
inspector  in  order  to  guarantee  more  substantive  inspections.  Expanded  inspections  of 
vessels involve detailed checks of construction elements and safety systems by inspectors 
and  they  represent  around  21%  of  all  PSC  inspections  carried  out.  Hence,  PM15B 
amends  the  PSC  Directive  and  turn  it  into  a  requirement  that  all  expanded  inspections 
must be carried out by at least two inspectors. Analysis by EMSA has shown that 55% of 
expanded inspections on PSC eligible vessels in 2019 were conducted by more than one 
inspector  and  the  share  is  assumed  to  remain  constant  over  time.  The  measure  is 
estimated  by  EMSA  to  increase  the  overall  time  spent  on  an  expanded  inspection  by  a 
third. 

In addition, the PSC on fishing vessels due to the enlargement of the scope of the PSC 
Directive will also have to follow the requirement. The assessment of the measure takes 
into  account  the  synergies  with  other  measures  in  terms  of  number  of  expanded 
inspections carried out and with the measures on digitalisation that have an impact on the 
time for carrying out an expanded inspection. 

The  projected  number  of  inspections  subject  to  the  requirement,  for  commercial  and 
fishing vessels, is provided in Tables 40 and 41, together with the enforcement costs for 
PSC authorities relative to the baseline under PO B and PO C. Expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 the total costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at 
EUR 3.110 million under PO B and EUR 3.083 million under PO C. No additional costs 
are expected either for vessel operators or for EMSA. 

Table 40: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) under PO B 

PSC inspections on commercial vessels 
Projected number of expanded inspections with one inspector 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for commercial vessels, in 2020 
prices 
PSC inspections on fishing vessels 
Projected number of expanded inspections with one inspector 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for fishing vessels, in 2020 prices 
Total additional enforcement costs for PSC authorities (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

1,632 

1,778 

1,958 

161,803 

168,607 

185,681 

21 
1,599 

29 
2,043 

32 
2,324 

163,402 

170,650 

188,005 

94 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 41: Enforcement costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) under PO C 

PSC inspections on commercial vessels 
Projected number of expanded inspections with one inspector 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for commercial vessels, in 2020 
prices 
PSC inspections on fishing vessels 
Projected number of expanded inspections with one inspector 
Additional enforcement costs (EUR) for fishing vessels, in 2020 prices 
Total additional enforcement costs for PSC authorities (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

1,632 

1,778 

1,958 

160,403 

165,557 

182,323 

36 
2,661 

44 
3,076 

41 
2,873 

163,064 

168,634 

185,196 

PM16A:  Recommend  that  all  PSC  inspection  reports  are  validated  by  an  inspector 
other than the inspector who carried out the inspection 

PM16A encourages that PSC inspection reports are validated by a different PSCO than 
the one who carried out the inspection and submitted the inspection report. On the basis 
of  the  information  in  the  THETIS  database,  EMSA  estimates  that  around  71%  of  the 
inspection reports are not validated by a person other than the inspector carrying out the 
inspection.  As  PM16A  refers  to  a  recommendation,  it  is  assumed  that  50%  of  the 
inspection  reports  that  are  currently  not  validated  by  a  person  other  than  the  inspector 
carrying  out  the  inspection,  will  be  validated  by  a  team  member.  One  additional  man-
hour relative to the baseline is assumed for this validation.  

In  addition,  the  PSC  inspection  reports  for  inspections  on  fishing  vessels  due  to  the 
enlargement  of  the  scope  of  the  PSC  Directive  will  also  have  to  follow  the 
recommendation.  The  assessment  of  the  measure  takes  into  account  the  synergies  with 
other  measures  in  PO  A  in  terms  of  number  of  inspections  carried  out  and  thus  the 
number of inspection reports. 

The additional number of PSC  inspection  reports to  be validated by another PSCO, for 
commercial and fishing vessels, is provided in Table 42, together with the administrative 
costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050  the  total  costs  for  PSC  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR 
4.235 million. No additional costs are expected either for vessel operators or for EMSA. 

Table 42: Administrative costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR)  
2040 

2030 

2050 

PSC inspections reports for commercial vessels 

Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

5,730 

6,239 

6,846 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
PSC inspections reports for fishing vessels 
Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Total additional administrative costs for the PSC authorities 
relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

216,648 

235,903 

258,855 

42 

50 

50 

1,583 

1,879 

1,899 

218,231 

237,783 

260,754 

95 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
PM16B: Amend the Directive to require that all PSC inspection reports are  validated 
by  a  validator  other  than  the  inspector  who  carried  out  the  inspection  before  the 
inspection report is transferred to the database 

PM16B is similar to PM16A but requires that PSC inspection reports are validated by a 
different PSCO than the one who carried out the inspection and submitted the inspection 
report.  The  PSC  inspection  reports  for  inspections  on  fishing  vessels  due  to  the 
enlargement of the scope of the PSC Directive will also have to follow the requirement. 
The assessment of the measure takes into account the synergies with other measures in 
PO  B  and  PO  C  in  terms  of  number  of  inspections  carried  out  and  thus  the  number  of 
inspection reports. 

The additional number of PSC inspection  reports to  be validated by another PSCO, for 
commercial  and  fishing  vessels,  is  provided  in  Tables  43  and  44,  together  with  the 
administrative costs for PSC authorities relative to  the baseline under PO B and PO C. 
Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 the total costs for PSC authorities relative to 
the  baseline  are  estimated  at  EUR  8.595  million  under  PO  B  and  EUR  8.643  million 
under PO C. No additional costs are expected either for vessel operators or for EMSA. 

Table 43: Administrative costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) under PO B 

PSC inspections reports on commercial vessels 
Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
PSC inspections reports on fishing vessels 
Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Total additional administrative costs for the PSC authorities relative 
to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

11,591 

12,621 

13,849 

438,277 

477,231 

523,664 

108 

144 

164 

4,076 

5,459 

6,210 

442,353 

482,690 

529,873 

Table 44: Administrative costs for PSC authorities relative to the baseline (in EUR) under PO C 

PSC inspections reports on commercial vessels 
Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
PSC inspections reports on fishing vessels 
Additional PSC inspection reports to be validated by another PSCO 

Additional administrative costs relative to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 
prices 
Total additional administrative costs for the PSC authorities relative 
to the baseline (EUR), in 2020 prices 
Source: COWI (2022), Impact assessment support study 

2030 

2040 

2050 

11,591 

12,621 

13,849 

438,277 

477,231 

523,664 

181 

222 

207 

6,845 

8,387 

7,832 

445,123 

485,617 

531,495 

PM17: Encourage all EU States who are eligible to  join the Mediterranean MoU on 
Port State control  

PM17 is a non-regulatory measure to improve the quality of PSC inspections in  marine 
areas close to the EU by encouraging all EU port States who are eligible (Croatia, France, 
Greece, Italy, Slovenia and Spain) to join the Mediterranean MoU on port State control 
(Med MoU). Cyprus and Malta are already Med MoU members. The annual cost of Med 
MoU  membership  is  currently  approximately  EUR  13,000  on  the  basis  of  10  member 
authorities. It could be however expected that if the membership were to increase to 16 
member  authorities  that  this  figure  would  be  reduced  to  approximately  EUR  8,200  per 

96 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
annum. This would result in an annual total additional cost of  EUR 39,600 for the port 
State authorities, considering also the reduction in the cost of membership for Malta and 
Cyprus.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  the  total  adjustment  costs  for  PSC 
authorities relative to the baseline are estimated at EUR 0.729 million. 

As  previously  mentioned  all  policy  options  contain  eight  common  policy  measures.  In 
relation  to  the  main  measures  that  drive  the  impacts,  sections  6.1.1-6.1.3  of  the  report 
already  provide  the  share  of  the  overall  impacts  that  are  driven  by  specific  policy 
measures with significant impact. The following tables summarise the impacts by policy 
option and by policy measure for each stakeholder group.  

Table  45:  Costs  and  costs  savings  for  EU  port  State  authorities  by  policy  option  and  by  policy 
measure – present value for 2025-2050 compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 
PO C 

PO A 

PO B 

Total additional costs (million EUR) 

Administrative costs  

PM16A 
PM16B 

Adjustment costs 

PM13 
PM17 

Enforcement costs  

PM1A 
PM1B 
PM1C 
PM6A 
PM6B 
PM6C 
PM11 
PM15A 
PM15B 

Enforcement costs savings (million EUR)  

PM3 
PM7A 
PM7B 
PM7C 
PM10 

13.313 
4.235 
4.235 

2.570 
1.841 
0.729 
6.508 
0.208 
0.400 

0.238 

5.661 

2.887 
0.083 
2.804 

17.862 
8.595 

19.388 
8.643 

8.595 
2.570 
1.841 
0.729 
6.697 
0.208 
0.400 

0.314 

2.664 

3.110 
8.406 
0.061 

7.260 
1.086 

8.643 
2.570 
1.841 
0.729 
8.174 
0.208 
0.400 
1.382 

0.475 
2.626 

3.083 
9.503 
0.055 

8.385 

1.063 

Table  46:  Costs  for  flag  State  authorities  by  policy  option  and  policy  measure  –  present  value  for 
2025-2050 compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

Adjustment costs (million EUR) 

PM7B 
PM7C 

4.831 

4.831 

4.831 
4.831 

Table 47: Costs and costs savings for ship operators by policy option and policy measure  – present 
value for 2025-2050 compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

Enforcement costs (million EUR) 

PM6A 
PM6B 
PM6C 

Administrative costs savings (million EUR) 

PM5 

0.496 
0.496 

5.530 
5.530 

0.715 

0.715 

5.530 
5.530 

1.105 

1.105 
5.530 
5.530 

Table  48:  Costs  for  EMSA  by  policy  option  and  policy  measure  –  present  value  for  2025-2050 
compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2020 prices 

Adjustment costs (million EUR) 

PM6A 
PM6B 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

4.138 
0.713 

6.479 

0.813 

6.479 

97 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
PM6C 
PM7A 
PM7B 
PM7C 
PM12 

PO A 

PO B 

PO C 

0.663 

2.762 

2.904 
2.762 

0.813 

2.904 

2.762 

4.  Benefits in terms of avoided number of fatalities, injuries and tonnes of bunker 

fuel lost at sea 

As  deficiencies  identified  during  PSC  inspections  typically  have  to  be  rectified  before  the 
vessel  leaves  the  port  or  shortly  thereafter,  PSC  inspections  are  expected  to  lead  to  a 
reduction  in  the  number  of  ship  deficiencies  over  time  and  thereby  to  improve  safety  and 
environmental performance. To estimate the benefits, a relationship between the number 
of  inspections  and  safety  indicators  has  been  estimated  in  the  context  of  the  impact 
assessment support study, by establishing an autoregressive log-log model. The effect of 
an  inspection  conducted  in  year  t  is  estimated  to  have  an  impact  on  the  safety  level  in 
year t+2. The hypothesis is thus that the safety impacts take two years to materialize. 

A  relationship  between  the  (natural  logarithm)  of  inspections  conducted  in  the  period 
2012-2017  on  the  number  of  marine  casualties  in  the  period  2014-2019  has  been 
estimated. It indicates that the negative effect of the number of inspections on the number 
of marine casualties two years later is statistically different from 0. Furthermore, the error 
term, indicated by the R2 (at 0.69) is fairly low, which suggests that much of the changes 
in  year  t+2  can  be  explained  by  changes  in  year  t.  The  regression  analysis  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  “a  1%  increase  in  inspections  in  year  t  reduces  the  number  of  marine 
casualties in year 2 by 1.031%”. However, as the number of ship deficiencies decreases 
over time, it is expected that the impact on marine casualties and thus on the number of 
fatalities  and  injuries  avoided  would  also  decrease  over  time.  Therefore,  it  has  been 
assumed  that  the  elasticity  decreases  in  a  non-linear  way  by  2050,  the  impacts  being 
significantly smaller post-2040 (at less than 0.2%).  

It should be noted however that there is high uncertainty regarding these estimates. This 
is  because  the  impacts  of  the  PSC  Directive  on  safety  are  indirect,  through  inspections 
that are aimed to address ship deficiencies. For this reason, sensitivity analysis has been 
performed, assuming 10% and 15% lower value in absolute terms of the elasticity used to 
derive the impacts. 

The reduction in the number of casualties is subsequently translated into a reduction in 
the number of fatalities, injuries and tonnes of bunker fuel lost at sea by using the ratios 
between  the  number  of  fatalities,  injuries  and  tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  at  sea  and  the 
number of marine casulaties projected in the baseline scenario.  

98 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: CONCLUSIONS OF THE 2018 MARITIME FITNESS 

CHECK AND EMSA HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS 

As  regards  port  State  control,  the  2018  Maritime  Fitness  Check  drew  the  following 
conclusions: 

  The  EU  layer  of  legislation  appears  fully  relevant  to  ensure  enforcement  and 
uniformity. While the EU is sometimes accused of going beyond the IMO standards 
and  undermining  the  credibility  of  the  international  regulation  process  when  in  the 
past  the  EU  has  acted  this  has  prompted  progress  at  IMO  level  and  the  subsequent 
adoption of global initiatives.  

  The EU is today widely perceived as one of the regions in the world where rules are 
most  strictly  and  properly  monitored  and  enforced  with  effective  systems  and 
procedures  in  place.  Considerable  added  value  is  associated  with  EMSA.  The 
Agency's  systems  and  databases,  its  training  and  capacity-building  activities  have 
been  a  key  enabler  of  the  success  of  the  overall  maritime  transport  policy,  ensuring 
real operational application. 

  The capacity of Member States to fulfil their international obligations as a flag, port or 

coastal State in relation to the various Directives appears to be under strain.  

  The fitness check concluded that there is no major scope for legislative simplification 
in  the  overall  set  up.  The  legislation  was  complementary  and  no  overlap  was 
identified. The legislation mirrors the various responsibilities defined at international 
level which would have to be followed in any case by the Member States at national 
level. On the other hand, the fitness check concluded that there is margin to achieve 
further simplification and burden reduction in relation to the individual directives. The 
potential as well as the challenges of digitalisation are horizontal issues. Digitalisation 
through EMSA systems has been a key enabler for the achievement of the objectives. 

99 

 
 
 
 
Links between the 2018 ex-port evaluation and the present impact assessment 

Main ex-post evaluation conclusions  

Conclusions on relevance 
The Commission and EMSA could together 
with the Member States explore the need for 
more flexibility to increase effectiveness 
and efficiency.  
Conclusions on effectiveness 
With regard to effectiveness, the evaluation 
recommends that EMSA continues its 
provision of common training, in pursuance 
of high-quality and harmonised PSC 
inspections. 
Member States and Paris MoU should 
continue the process of improving the 
design of the ship risk profile by looking at 
issues such as the weighting of generic and 
individual risk factors, the formula for 
calculating flag State performance (the 
white-grey-black list) and the taking into 
account of an environmental focus. 
Larger fishing vessels should be subject to 
some form of inspection to ensure 
compliance with maritime safety, pollution 
prevention as well as living and working 
conditions on-board.  
Conclusions on efficiency  
The interface between SafeSeaNet and 
THETIS should continuously be developed 
in response to user feedback. Issues related 
to the failure of certain Member State 
authorities to update SafeSeaNet also need 
to be followed up. 
There is a need for increased operational 
flexibility: justification for a missed 
inspection should for example be made 
more flexible. Member States should respect 
the inspection commitments and not exceed 
the number of inspections significantly. 
Conclusions on coherence  
Account should also be taken of all of the 
other demands placed on PSC inspectors by 
recently adopted EU legislation or by 
legislation that is planned. 
Conclusions on EU added Value  
EMSA should continue its provision of 
common training – in pursuance of high-
quality and harmonised PSC inspections. 
The Directive makes legally enforceable 
voluntary commitments made in the context 
of the Paris MoU.  

Impact Assessment 

Policy measures are defined to keep the Directive up to date 
with developments at international level (IMO and Paris 
MoU).  

Policy measures are defined for EMSA to provide for more 
and more detailed training to PSC inspectors.  

Policy measures are defined to adjust the ship risk profile to 
better target high risk ships for inspection as well as to give 
more focus to environmental aspects. The ship risk profile 
should also be modified to take account of changes to the 
formula for drawing up the white-grey–black list.  

Policy measures are defined to look into the possibility of 
providing for PSC inspections of larger fishing vessels.  

Policy measures are defined to address identified problems 
with the SafeSeaNet /THETIS interface and to require that 
all updates on time of arrival and departure are made within 
three hours.   

Policy measures are defined to provide operational 
flexibility for missed inspections (including force majeure 
situations) and to limit the effect of this over-inspection to 
the states concerned.  

Policy measures are defined to provide for better prepared, 
more ship focused PSC inspections by providing for digital 
ship certificates which is linked with the flag state 
responsibilities.  

Policy measures are defined for EMSA to provide for more 
and more detailed training to PSC inspectors. 

EU action continues to be needed to deliver on the policy 
objectives. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Links between conclusions of EMSA horizontal analysis and this impact assessment 

Weaknesses identified in horizontal 
analysis  

The four most problematic areas relate 
to expanded inspections, safety and 
security guidelines and procedures, the 
professional profile of inspectors and 
accurate and complete 
recording/exchange of information in 
THETIS.  
In some Member States, the PSC staff is 
not distributed optimally between the 
ports. 
There are problems with missed and 
postponed inspections. 
There is room for improvement in the 
cooperation between the PSC competent 
authorities and other relevant national 
authorities/bodies. 

Impact Assessment 

Policy measures are defined to address the issue of training of 
inspectors and to introduce an obligatory Quality Management 
System (QMS).  

Policy measures are defined to introduce an obligatory QMS to 
identify weaknesses in the ways in which Member States 
organise and carry out inspections. 
Policy measures are defined to address the issue of missed and 
postponed inspections.  
Policy measures are defined to address the issue of training of 
inspectors and to introduce an obligatory QMS so that 
communication problems can be identified and addressed. 

101 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: PARIS MOU CHANGES NOT REFLECTED IN THE 

CURRENT DIRECTIVE  

Changes made by the Paris MoU 

Corresponding part of the PSC Directive 

The Ballast Water Management Convention and 
the  Nairobi  International  Convention  on  the 
Removal of Wrecks have been added to the list 
of  “relevant  instruments”  to  be  enforced  by 
means of PSC.  

The  statistical  formula  for  calculating 
the 
White, Grey and Black-list favoured larger flag 
states over smaller ones and was changed to be 
more deterministic.  

Article 2(1) of the Directive  

Recital  15,  Article  16  "Access  refusal  measures 
concerning  certain  ships",  Annex  I  and  II  "Design  of 
ship risk profile" 

The  Ship  Risk  Profile  was  altered  to  take 
account of developments and lessons learned111 

Annex  I  and  II  with  details  on  the  design  of  ship  risk 
profile  

The  reference  to  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation  (IMO)  Voluntary  Member  State 
Audit  Scheme  was  replaced  by 
the  IMO 
Member State Audit Scheme (IMSAS) 

Recital (11), Article 2 (3), Annex I and II 

Annex  IV  "List  of  certificates  and  documents" 
(referred to in Article 13(1)) 

Article  6,  "Modalities  of  compliance  with 
inspection commitment" 

the 

Annex III "Notification" and referred to in Article 9(1) 

reference 

Out-of-date 
Procedures  and  Guidelines  as 
changed since 2009 

to  all  Paris  MoU 
these  have 

Lack  of  operational  flexibility  for  Member 
States  in  missing  a  Priority  I  or  Priority  II 
inspection  

The  72  hours  (3  days)  advance  notification 
(reporting) obligation for "the operator, agent or 
master  of  a  ship  which,  in  accordance  with 
for  an  expanded 
Article  14, 
is  eligible 
inspection"  has  become  redundant  as 
this 
information  can  already  be  retrieved  by  port 
State authorities, for instance through THETIS 

111 The weighing points allocated to specific ship type rated as a high risk ship (i.e. Chemical tanker, Gas 
Carrier, Oil tanker, Bulk carrier, Passenger ship, NLS-tanker) was changed from 2 to 1. This reflects the 
improved safety performance of these ship types. An additional weighting point is added if a the number of 
deficiencies recorded for a High Risk Ship in an inspection (any type) within the previous 36 months is 6 
or more. For a flag State to meet the IMO Audit criterion contributing to low risk, it shall have ratified all 
the Paris MoU relevant instruments listed in Section 2 of the memorandum. 

102 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 7: EXPANDED INSPECTIONS 

All ship types are subject to inspection of the following:   

a)  Structural condition, condition of hull and deck; 
b)  Watertight/weathertight 

condition, 

including  watertight/weathertight  doors, 

ventilators, air pipes and casing and hatchways; 

c)  Emergency  systems,  including  a  simulated  blackout/start  of  emergency  generator, 
emergency  lighting,  a  test  of  bilge  pumping  arrangements,  a  test  of  closing 
devices/watertight  doors  and  a  test  of  steering  gear  including  emergency  steering 
gear; 

d)  Radio  communication  including  a  test  of  reserve  source  of  energy,  a  test  of  main 
installation including facilities for reception of marine safety information and a test 
of  global  maritime  distress  safety  system  (GMDSS)  portable  very  high  frequency 
(VHF) sets; 

e)  Fire  safety:  a  fire  drill,  including  a  demonstration  of  the  ability  to  use  firemen’s 
outfits  and  firefighting  equipment  and  appliances,  a  test  of  emergency  fire  pump 
(with  two  hoses)  a  test  of  remote  emergency  stopping  ventilation  and  associated 
dampers,  a  test  of  remote  emergency  stopping  fuel  pumps,  a  test  of  remote  quick 
closing  valves,  fire  doors  and  fixed  fire  extinguishing  installations  and  associated 
alarms; 

f)  Alarms, including a test of the fire alarm; 
g)  Living and working conditions including condition of mooring equipment, including 

machinery foundations; 

h)  Lifesaving appliances including launching arrangements for survival and rescue craft 

(if evidence of disuse, craft must be lowered to the water); 
i)  Pollution prevention including a test of oil filtering equipment. 

While other requirements apply for other vessel types, by way of example for passenger 
vessels  Commission  Regulation  428/2010  requires  in  addition  to  all  of  the  stipulations 
already listed:  

a)  Documentation, 

documented 

training, 
familiarisation  training  and  safety  training  for  personnel  providing  direct  safety 
assistance to passengers in passenger spaces, and in particular to elderly and disabled 
persons in an emergency. Crisis management and human behaviour training; 

crowd-management 

evidence 

of 

b)  Watertight/weathertight condition including bow and stern doors as applicable and a 

test of remote and local controls of watertight bulkhead doors; 

c)  Emergency systems including crew familiarity with damage control plan; 
d)  Cargo operations including lashing arrangements as applicable; 
e)  Fire  safety  including  a  test  of  remote  and  local  controls  for  the  closing  of  fire 

dampers; 

f)  Alarms including a test of the public address system and a test of fire detection and 

alarm system; 

103 

 
 
g)  Lifesaving appliances including an ‘Abandon ship’ drill (including lowering a rescue 

and a lifeboat to the water); 

104 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: DISCARDED POLICY MEASURES 

Vessel safety checklist  

Important  ship  safety  and  environmental  issues  are  not  being  covered  by  Port  State 
Control.  The  issue  of  accidents  involving  port  and  dock  workers  on  ships  in  ports  has 
been raised during the stakeholder consultation.  

To  this  end  the  port  social  partners  have  developed  a  common  vessel  safety  checklist 
which in their opinion should be used in a uniform way in cooperation with all terminal 
operators  across  different  ports  and  Member  States,  to  detect  and  act  as  necessary  to 
correct  unsafe  workplaces  and  infrastructures  on  board  of  ships.  The  social  partners 
asked to explore whether this could be incorporated into PSC inspections.  

As  previously  stated  PSC  inspection  are  based  on  the  provisions  of  the  international 
conventions and/or on EU legislation and the vessel safety checklist does not link back to 
either  of  these  legal  bases.  Furthermore  PSC  is  a  spot-check  system  whereby  foreign 
flagged vessels are inspected on the basis of their ship risk profile and the length of time 
since  the  last  inspection;  they  are  not  inspected  on  each  port  call.  In  order  to  be 
operational  the  vessel  safety  checklist  would  have  to  apply  to  all  vessels  regardless  of 
flag  and  would  have  to  be  used  before  every  loading  and  unloading  operation.  On  this 
basis it was concluded that the vessel safety checklist cannot be incorporated into PSC.  

105 

 
 
 
This annex provides a more detailed description of the retained policy measures and their links to the specific objectives. 

ANNEX 9: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES 

Link to a specific 
objective 
SO1: Align EU 
legislation with new 
international rules 

Policy measure 

Short description 

PM1A: Expand the scope of the Directive and 
align with IMO and Paris MoU by adding Ballast 
Water Management Convention (BWM) as a 
relevant international instrument to the Directive 

PM1B: Expand the scope of the Directive and 
align with IMO by adding Nairobi International 
Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (WRC) as 
a relevant international instrument to the Directive 

PM1C: Expand the scope of the Directive by 

The Paris MoU has added the IMO BWM Convention as a relevant instrument 
for port State control inspections. This measure will align the Directive with the 
Paris MOU and require EU Member States to enforce the BWM Convention to 
combat the spread in ships’ ballast water of alien and invasive species which 
have a deleterious effect on biodiversity, fisheries, tourism and human health. As 
of 27 October 2021112, Ireland, Italy, Romania and Slovenia have not yet signed 
the Convention. Adopting this measure will in practice only have implications 
for these Member States. Furthermore, in the context of the Paris MoU, EMSA 
already provides training in this area to those EU member States that have 
signed/ratified the Convention. There are non-legislative measures in place to 
support the implementation of PM1A. 
This measure should allow EU Member States to enforce this important IMO 
Convention which provides the legal basis for States to remove, or have 
removed, shipwrecks that may have the potential to affect adversely the safety of 
lives, goods and property at sea, as well as the marine environment. PM1B will 
imply that PSCOs in the eight Member States that have not yet ratified the 
Convention will have the additional task of checking the certificate of insurance 
under this convention as well as its expiry/validity dates. As of 27 October 2021, 
this is the case for Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and 
Slovenia. 
This measure allows for the possibility of adding further environmentally 

112 The date on which the IMO last updated its ratification/accession database 

 
 
 
                                                           
Policy measure 

Short description 

Link to a specific 
objective 

providing for other Conventions (HNS and Hong 
Kong) which are open for ratification and have 
been ratified by at least one EU Member State. 
These are to be added to the Directive "once they 
enter into force"  

PM2: Align the Directive to the Paris MoU new 
Ship Risk Profile (SRP) used to target ships for 
inspection including the new calculation method 
for the White Grey Black (WGB) list formula  

PM3: Align the Directive to the (i) Paris MoU list 
of certificates and documents to be checked during 
an inspection (ii) to the changes in the Paris MoU 
refusal of access (banning) procedures and (iii) 

oriented conventions, the International Convention on Liability and 
Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and 
Noxious Substances by Sea 1996 (HNS Convention) and the Hong Kong 
International Convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of 
ships 2009 (Hong Kong Convention) when these conventions (which are not yet 
in force) enter into force and have been ratified by at least one EU Member 
State. As neither of these Conventions has yet entered into force no EU Member 
State is currently enforcing them. HNS has been ratified only by Denmark. 
Seven EU Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Malta 
and Netherlands) have ratified Hong Kong Convention but all EU Member 
States effectively apply its provisions in their PSC inspections through the EU 
Ship Recycling Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013). 
The Paris MoU has charged the way that the SRP is calculated in particular as 
regards: (i) points allocated to specific ship types (ii) in cases where a vessel has 
more than 6 deficiencies recorded against it during an inspection (iii) if the flag 
State of the vessel has ratified all the Paris MoU relevant Conventions. The MoU 
has also changed the calculation method used to calculate the White-Grey-Black 
(WGB) to target ships for inspection. The list ranks flag States in accordance 
with the PSC performance of the vessels flying their flag. The method 
previously used was shown to be unfair to fleets with small numbers of ships. 
The Paris MoU has recognised this unfairness and adopted a more deterministic 
formula. These changes cannot be implemented unless and until the Directive is 
amended. PM2 would align the methodology used to calculate the WGB list 
formula to the new methodology adopted by the Paris MoU. 
With regard to the list of certificates and documents the Paris MoU has aligned 
itself with the IMO guidance regarding Annex IV: 'List of Certificates and 
Documents'. These certificates have to be checked during each type of PSC 
inspection. This change cannot be implemented unless and until the Directive is 

 
 
Policy measure 

Short description 

Link to a specific 
objective 

incorporate all current Paris MoU Procedures and 
Guidelines   

amended. 
As regards the refusal of access (banning) procedures, three changes have been 
adopted by the Paris MoU relating to the way in which ships are refused access 
(banned).  
The first change introduces a flag-blind banning procedure so that vessels flying 
a White-listed flag can be subject to a ban – which was not previously the case. 
Poor quality ships under White-listed flags are treated in the same way as Black-
listed and Grey-listed flags. This change to the banning procedure will close an 
inconsistent and weak link in the banning procedure whereby the flag of the 
vessel used to target the vessel was also used to determine whether it could be 
subject to a refusal of access. 
The second change allows for a refusal of access (ban) if a ship violates a 
detention order issued by a port State by proceeding to sea without complying 
with the conditions determined by the port State (jumps detention). 
The third change fixes a time period of 12 months for bans due to either jumped 
detention or to a ship not proceeding to an agreed repair yard outside the port of 
detention. The ban will be automatically lifted after the time period has elapsed.  
With respect to Guidelines and Instructions, the Directive should be updated to 
contain the most recent versions of all Paris MoU procedures and guidelines for 
the control of ships.  
These procedures, guidelines and instructions are referred to in Article 15 (1) 
and in Annex VI of the Directive. Annex VI refers to the "up-to-date" versions 
of the 17 instructions listed therein and does not take into account if any of these 
has become obsolete, replaced by another instruction or guideline or if any new 
instructions have been added since 2009.  
PM3 will ensure consistency between the Directive and the Paris MoU as well as 
among EU Member States and Paris MoU members on PSC procedures, 
guidelines and instructions. 

 
 
Policy measure 

Short description 

Link to a specific 
objective 

PM4: Align the Directive to the Paris MoU 
changes to the inspection commitment  

PM5: Align the Directive to the Paris MoU 
changes which abolishing the 72 hour reporting 
obligation for vessels eligible for an expanded 
inspection  

PM6A: Encourage Member States to carry out 

This involves an alignment of the inspection commitment of Member States to 
changes agreed to at the Paris MoU. Each Member State must carry out a total 
number of inspections of foreign merchant ships classified as Priority I (must be 
inspected) and Priority II (can be inspected) corresponding to at least its annual 
inspection commitment determined in accordance with the Paris MoU (Annex 
11). Due to changes on the number of Priority I and Priority II ships, some 
Member States are over-burdened or under-burdened. Currently, member States 
are allowed to miss 5% of Priority I ships. The Paris MoU has decided to change 
this by increasing the flexibility of the inspection commitment for members with 
a low number of Priority I calls by allowing up to 10% pf Priority I ship 
inspections to be missed as well as the possibility to justify a missed inspection 
for night-time ship calls and very short ship calls.  
The memorandum placed an obligation on vessels which are eligible for an 
expanded PSC inspection: (i) all ships with a high risk profile (regardless of type 
and age), which have not been inspected in the last five months; (ii) oil, gas and 
chemical tankers, bulk carriers or passenger ships more than 12 years old, with a 
standard risk profile, which have not been inspected in the last 10 months; (iii) 
oil, gas and chemical tankers, bulk carriers or passenger ships more than 12 
years old, with a low risk profile, which have not been inspected in the last 24 
months. The obligation was to notify their estimated time of arrival to a port 72 
hours in advance of their arrival. If the voyage takes less than three days, the 
agent shall submit the data before departure from the previous port. This 
obligation was felt to be too burdensome on the agent, operator or master and to 
add no value as the PSC authorities have this information more easily available 
in THETIS. The Paris MoU abolished this pre-arrival notification obligation but 
this change cannot be implemented unless and until the Directive (which 
contains an identical obligation) is amended. 
This measure would involve a recommendation that those Member States who 

 
 
Policy measure 

Short description 

Link to a specific 
objective 

PSC on eligible fishing vessels (over 24 metres) 
by means of development of guidelines, 
workshops  
PM6B: Provide for a voluntary PSC system for 
fishing vessels of above 24 metres which will exist 
in parallel to the Directive by means of guidelines, 
training and an inspection database for targeting 
ships and reporting on inspections 

PM6C: Amend the Directive to fully incorporate 
larger fishing vessels (over 24 metres in length) 
within its scope.  

PM7A: Encourage the uptake and use of 
electronic certificates in PSC by means of 
guidelines, workshops, etc. 

PM7B: Amend the Directive to make e-
certificates the default for PSC in the EU 
providing for a common data model, a 
validation/verification tool and repository at EU 

wish, could PSC inspect eligible foreign fishing vessels (over 24 metres in 
length) for safety, environmental and working conditions related issues. This 
would be supported at EU level by means of EU guidelines and workshops etc.  
This measure would involve the creation of a voluntary PSC system for those 
EU member States which wish to carry out PSC inspections on eligible foreign 
fishing vessels (over 24 metres in length) for safety, environmental and working 
conditions related issues. This would be supported at EU level by means of a 
specific THETIS module whereby Member States could target vessels for 
inspection, record the results of inspections and share these results with other EU 
Member States. The Commission/EMSA working with the Paris MoU would 
also develop guidelines and workshops etc. 
This measure would involve fully incorporating fishing vessels of above 24 
metres into the Directive meaning that each fishing vessel would have its own 
ship risk profile and EU Member States would have to carry out PSC inspections 
on foreign flagged fishing vessels in the same way as they currently inspect 
merchant shipping. This would be supported by Commission/EMSA by means 
of EU guidelines, training and workshops etc. 
This measure consists in a recommendation encouraging the PSC 
administrations in the Member States to accept electronic certificates and 
encourage Recognised Organisations (RO) and flag States to work towards a 
common data definition to facilitate an easier validation of PSC data both during 
the planning of and the carrying out of PSC inspections. This would be 
supported by Commission/EMSA by means of guidelines, training and 
workshops. 
This measure provides that the electronic certificates become the default means 
of validating ships certificates in the context of PSC and foresees the eventual 
phasing out of paper certificates for PSC. This measure involves the 
development, maintenance and operation of IT solutions to consolidate 

SO2: Protect fishing 
vessels, their crew and 
the environment 

 
 
Policy measure 

Short description 

level  

PM7C: Amend the Directive to provide for 
electronic certificates, common data model, a 
validation tool and repository at EU level - linking 
the use of electronic certificates with the ship risk 
profile 
PM8: Amend the Directive to clarify and fix the 
time-frame within which the ship arrival and 
departure notifications have to be carried out  

PM9: Amend the Directive to allow more 
flexibility for missed inspections 

PM10: Amend the Directive to prevent unwanted 
spill-over effects of Member States which exceed 

certificates across flag states and ROs for the use of PSC administration as well 
as a validation protocol and tool. A consolidated certificate database for the EU 
Member States will be developed by EMSA, which can be built as a module for 
THETIS and based on the current prototype. It would also include building a 
tool to support the validation and inspection of certificates that can be used by 
planners and PSCOs. 
This is similar to the previous measure but does not foresee the phase out of 
paper certificates. It encourages the issuance of electronic certificates by flag 
States or by ROs acting on their behalf by rewarded e-certificates with points 
(adding a parameter to the SRP) towards being considered as a low-risk ships 
and so being less targeted by PSC inspections. 
This measure focuses on problems encountered regarding the interface between 
SafeSeaNet and THETIS, and the identified issues about the transmission of the 
actual time of arrival (ATA) and the actual time of departure (ATD). ATA and 
ATD data is critical data used in THETIS to calculate the SRP and correctly 
identify the risk status of ships arriving and departing at ports and anchorages. 
Article 24 (2) of the Directive provides that Member States should ensure that 
this data "is transferred within a reasonable time to the inspection database 
through the Community maritime information exchange system SSN". PM11 
will clarify and specify what this reasonable time should be. The ATA and ATD 
should be reported within three hours, which should be reflected in the PSC 
Directive.  
The Directive currently allows for a certain percentage of inspections to be 
missed. This is rather inflexible for those Member States with a smaller 
inspection commitment. These thresholds will be adjusted so that member States 
can have more certainty regarding the number of inspections that they can miss.  
When Member States of the Paris MoU exceed their inspection commitment this 
increases the overall number of inspections and as the annual inspection 

Link to a specific 
objective 

SO3: Ensure higher 
uptake of digital 
solutions  

SO4: Ensure efficient 
and harmonised approach 

 
 
 
 
Link to a specific 
objective 
in undertaking PSC 
inspections 

Policy measure 

Short description 

their inspection commitment  

PM11: Amend the Directive by adding 
environmental parameters to the ship risk profile 
used to target ships  

PM12: Commission to develop enhanced training 
tools/capacity development for inspectors 

PM13: Amend the Directive to require Member 
States to develop and apply a Quality Management 
System for their PSC activities  

PM14: Amend the Directive to allow for 

commitment is based on an average of the previous three years inspection it 
increases the inspection commitment for all States in the years that follow. This 
measure would limit any increase to the State that exceeds its commitment.  
As the Union and its Member States attach more importance to the 
environmental aspects of shipping than before, this measure changes the SRP in 
two ways.  
(i) As regards all vessels eligible to PSC it takes more account will be taken in 
the SRP of environmental related deficiencies (MARPOL, BWM, AFS, CLC 
PROT 1992, BUNKER and Nairobi Conventions) recorded against that ship in 
previous PSC inspections carried out in the Paris MoU region.  
(ii) For cargo and passenger vessels of over 5000 GT (which are regarded as the 
most polluting) the SRP will take account of the vessel’s IMO Carbon Intensity 
Indicator.  
This is a specific policy measure addressing the issue of PSC inspector training 
of PSCOs. PSC training needs to be further developed having regard to the 
widened and widening scope of PSC inspections. As a consequence, several 
improvements would be needed to update trainings and increase the scope of the 
training. The enhanced training tools should also cover online training 
opportunities which provide for blended training, with both virtual and on-site 
trainings to complement face-to-face training and to increase the system’s 
resilience during unexpected events.  
This measure would introduce requirements for a Quality Management System 
(QMS) for PSC operations to keep pace with the increasing complexity and 
requirements of PSC inspections. .. This measure should allow for better quality 
control and indicate problems such as resource allocation issues. It will apply to 
all port States that do not have an externally certified QMS for their PSC 
operations. 
Currently only certain Priority I inspections can be missed due to situations 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy measure 

Short description 

Link to a specific 
objective 

inspections to be missed in force majeure 
situations  

PM15A: Recommend that all inspections are 
carried out by more than one inspector 

PM15B: Amend the Directive to require that all 
expanded inspections are carried out by more than 
one inspector 

PM16A: Recommend that all PSC inspection 
reports are validated by a validator other than the 
inspector who carried out the inspection  
PM16B: Amend the Directive to require that all 
PSC inspection reports are validated by a validator 
other than the inspector who carried out the 
inspection before the inspection report is 
transferred to the database 
PM17: Encourage all EU States who are eligible 
(ES, EL, FR, HR, IT, SI) to join the Mediterranean 
MoU on Port State control.  

which are outside the control of the inspection authority. This measure would 
allow for inspections of all types to be missed in situations of impossibility, 
which are outside the control of the inspecting authority.  
This measure will recommend that in order to ensure a consistent and 
harmonised high level of inspections all PSC inspections are carried out by more 
than one inspector.  
Expanded inspections involve detailed checks of construction elements and 
safety systems and are difficult if not impossible to carry out for a single 
inspector. This measure will require that all expanded inspection are carried out 
by more than one inspector.  
This measure will recommend that all PSC inspection reports should be 
validated by someone other than the inspector(s) who carried out the inspection 
to provide for an appropriate level of quality control of inspection reports.  
This measure will require that all PSC inspection reports should be validated by 
someone other than the inspector(s) who carried out the PSCO to ensure an 
appropriate level of quality control of inspection reports.  

This is a non-regulatory measure to encourage those EU Member States which 
are eligible (Croatia, France, Greece, Italy,  Slovenia and Spain) to join the 
Mediterranean MoU on port State control (Med MoU) – Cyprus and Malta are 
already Members. The Med MoU is a regional PSC similar to the Paris MoU for 
Mediterranean littoral states. EMSA provides the Med MoU with a version of 
the Thetis database (THETIS-Med). More EU Member States joining the Med 
MoU should improve the overall quality of inspections carried out and the 
maritime safety and environmental protection situation in the Mediterranean.   

SO1: Align EU 
legislation with new 
international rules 

 
 
 
ANNEX 10: Effectiveness of the different policy options 

Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Specific policy objective 1: Align EU legislation with new international rules 

PO A 

PO B 

Unclear 

PO C 

Expected improvement in 
clarity and functioning of the 
internal market 

Positive effect in removing any ambiguity 
for national PSC authorities having regard 
to additional conventions at IMO level 
(Ballast Water Management Convention 
and Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention) 
that have entered into force and can be 
enforced by means of PSC. Improved PSC 
inspections as EU Member States can 
implement those changes already agreed at 
the level of the Paris MoU which cannot be 
implemented unless and until the Directive 
is amended. Positive effect on the 
functioning of the internal market through 
improved clarity.  

Positive effect in removing any ambiguity 
for national PSC authorities having regard 
to  additional  conventions  at  IMO  level 
(Ballast  Water  Management  Convention 
and  Nairobi  Wreck  Removal  Convention) 
that  have  entered  into  force  and  can  be 
enforced by means of PSC. Improved PSC 
inspections  as  EU  Member  States  can 
implement those changes already agreed at 
the  level  of  the  Paris  MoU  which  cannot 
be 
the 
implemented  unless  and  until 
Directive  is  amended.  Positive  effect  on 
the  functioning  of  the  internal  market 
through improved clarity.  

Positive effect in removing any ambiguity 
for national PSC authorities having regard 
to additional conventions at IMO level 
(Ballast Water Management Convention 
and Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention) 
that have entered into force and can be 
enforced by means of PSC. Improved PSC 
inspections as EU Member States can 
implement those changes already agreed 
at the level of the Paris MoU which 
cannot be implemented unless and until 
the Directive is amended. Positive effect 
on the functioning of the internal market 
through improved clarity.  

The inclusion in the Directive, “pending 
their entry into force”, of two international 
conventions (the HNS and Hong Kong 
Conventions) which have not yet entered 
into force would send a political signal of 
the importance that the Union attached to 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

PO A 

PO B 

Specific policy objective 2 – Protect fishing vessels, their crews and the environment  

Unclear 

PO C 

these issues and would allow the Directive 
to be kept up-to-date if and when these 
Conventions enter into force.  

Changes in the number of 
fatalities and injuries 
involving fishing vessels 

Positive  impact  on  the  number  of  lives 
saved  and  injuries  avoided  (3  lives  saved 
and 25 injuries avoided) during 2025-2050 
the 
the  baseline 
relative 
encouragement  of  PSC  for  larger  fishing 
vessels,  supported  by  EMSA  training  and 
Guidelines.  

through 

to 

Positive  impact  on  the  number  of  lives 
saved  and  injuries  avoided  (3  lives  saved 
and 34 injuries avoided) during 2025-2050 
relative  to  the  baseline  by  means  of  a 
voluntary  PSC  system  for  larger  fishing 
vessels  developed  with the  cooperation  of 
the Paris MoU and operating in parallel to 
the  Directive  with  a  targeting  system  and 
inspection database.  

Positive  impact  on  the  number  of  lives 
saved  and  injuries  avoided  (4  lives  saved 
and  53  injuries  avoided)  avoided  during 
2025-2050  relative  to  the  baseline  due  to 
the  full  incorporation  of  larger  fishing 
vessels into the PSC Directive.  

The  full  incorporation  of  larger  fishing 
vessels  into  the  PSC  Directive  may  lead 
however to undesired effects on SO4. 

Changes in the number of 
tonnes of bunker fuel lost at 
sea involving fishing vessels 

Positive  impact  on  the  environment,  30 
tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  from  fishing 
vessels  avoided  between  2025  and  2050, 
relative to the baseline. This is expected to 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  quality  of 
marine water and biodiversity. 

Positive  impact  on  the  environment,  42 
tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  lost  from  fishing 
vessels  avoided  between  2025  and  2050, 
relative to the baseline. This is expected to 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  quality  of 
marine water and biodiversity. 

Positive  impact  on  the  environment,  65 
tonnes  of  bunker  fuel  loss  from  fising 
vessels  avoided  between  2025  and  2050, 
relative to the baseline. This is expected to 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  quality  of 
marine water and biodiversity. 

The  full  incorporation  of  larger  fishing 
vessels  into  the  PSC  Directive  may  lead 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

PO A 

PO B 

Unclear 

PO C 

however to undesired effects on SO4. 

Specific policy objective 3: Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions  

Enforcement costs savings for 
port State authorities due to 
the uptake of digital solutions 

Positive impact on enforcement costs for 
PSC authorities. Cost saving estimated at 
EUR 2.804 million, expressed as present 
value over the period 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. 

Positive impact on enforcement costs for 
PSC authorities. Cost saving estimated at 
EUR 7.260 million, expressed as present 
value over the period 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline.  

Positive impact on enforcement costs for 
PSC authorities. Cost saving estimated at 
EUR 8.385 million, expressed as present 
value over the period 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline.  

Specific policy objective 4: Ensure efficient and harmonised approach in undertaking PSC inspctions   

Administrative costs savings 
for ship operators 

Administrative costs savings for the 
shipping sector, estimated at EUR 5.530 
million relative to the baseline, expressed 
as present value over 2025-2050, from the 
abolition of the 72-hour advance reporting 
obligation for the operator, agent or master 
of a ship eligible for an expanded 
inspection. 

Administrative costs savings for the 
shipping sector, estimated at EUR 5.530 
million relative to the baseline, expressed 
as present value over 2025-2050, from the 
abolition of the 72-hour advance reporting 
obligation for the operator, agent or master 
of a ship eligible for an expanded 
inspection. 

Administrative costs savings for the 
shipping sector, estimated at EUR 5.530 
million relative to the baseline, expressed 
as present value over 2025-2050, from the 
abolition of the 72-hour advance reporting 
obligation for the operator, agent or 
master of a ship eligible for an expanded 
inspection. 

Changes in the number of 
fatalities and injuries 
involving commercial vessels 

No impact. 

Positive impact on maritime safety. 
Reduction in the number of marine 
casualties over 2025-2050 (3 lives saved 
and 27 injuries avoided relative to the 
baseline). 

Positive impact on maritime safety. 
Reduction in the number of marine 
casualties over 2025-2050 (3 lives saved 
and 27 injuries avoided relative to the 
baseline). 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

PO A 

PO B 

Unclear 

PO C 

Changes in the number of 
tonnes of bunker fuel lost at 
sea involving commercial 
vessels 

No impact. 

Positive impact on the environment; 33 
tonnes of bunker fuel lost avoided 
involving commercial vessels between 
2025-2050.  

Positive impact on the environment; 33 
tonnes of bunker fuel lost avoided 
involving commercial vessels between 
2025-2050.