Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2000)802-2 - Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2000)802-2 - Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2000)802  |
| date | 07-12-2000 |
Contents
- General background
- The international context
- Developments in the European Community
- Results of implementation of Directive 93/75/EEC
- The purpose of a new Community initiative
- Adoption of measures to improve the monitoring and safety of shipping in European waters
- Introduction of a notification system for ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods
- Action and monitoring in respect of dangerous ships
- High-risk ships
- Improving implementation of the Directive
- Further development of the Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic
- SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 8
- Article 9
- Article 10
- Article 11
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 14
- Article 15
- Article 16
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 20
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Articles 23 and 24
- Article 25
- Article 26
- ANNEXES
- Annex II
- Annex III
- Annex IV
- Annex V
1. Since it began in 1993, i Community maritime safety policy has resulted in the adoption of fifteen or so regulations or directives designed to improve the safety of ships, and their crews and passengers, and to do more to prevent pollution of the seas.
The Erika accident on 13 December 1999 showed that there is still a risk of accidents at sea along the European coastline, and also demonstrated how serious the consequences can be, particularly as regards coastal pollution. On 21 March 2000, three months after the accident, the Commission adopted a communication on the safety of the seaborne oil tanker trade, in which it set out a general strategy and made a number of proposals for specific measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents of this kind. The short-term measures proposed by the Commission in this communication were to be backed up by other measures to improve the protection of European waters against the risk of accidents and sea pollution in the longer term. It also set out medium-term measures on the safety of shipping, improving systems of liability and compensation for damage in the event of accidental pollution, and the establishment of a European maritime safety agency. These proposed measures were confirmed at the Biarritz European Council on 14 October 2000 on the basis of the Commission's report of 27 September 2000 on the Community's strategy for safety at sea. i
2. In Europe, and particularly along the Atlantic coastline, there have been a number of disastrous accidents involving oil tankers (Torrey Canyon, Amoco Cadiz, Tanio, Braer and Aegean Sea). Apart from the direct causes of these accidents, which are many and varied, bad weather and sea conditions, difficult coastlines and the dense traffic in certain sea areas can also increase risk considerably. In addition, cases of accidental pollution, and regular operational pollution, are common (particularly along the Atlantic coast) causing particular damage to the environment and the local economy, because of the particular abundance along the European coast of vulnerable biotopes and sea-based resources (fishing and tourism). In this respect, virtually the whole of Europe's coastline can be classed as a sensitive area which should be protected. The economic consequences of an accident caused by a single oil tanker, even a small one, can be catastrophic, as was shown by the Erika accident, the damage caused by which involves compensation payments estimated at more than EUR 300 million.
3. At both international and Community level, there is now a whole body of technical rules on the construction, stability and equipment of ships, the qualifications of crews and living and working conditions on board. Without these rules, the number of accidents at sea would be much higher. However, even the best safety rules in the world will never be able to reduce the risk of accidents in European waters to zero, especially as these rules are applied much more thoroughly by some countries than by others. The statistics established by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control of ships show that there are still many cases where inspections discover defects sufficiently serious to justify the detention of hundreds of ships a year. Thus, port State control is not sufficient on its own to solve the problem of open-registry ships. Moreover, port State control has one major shortcoming: inspections are carried out only when ships put into ports. Even though increasingly sophisticated methods of selection are being developed, like targeting coefficients, some ships still manage to slip through the net for a while at least. As a result, every day there are many ships plying the coasts of the Member States whose poor condition is an obvious threat to safety and the environment, while the threat remains undetected, or the riparian State is not even aware that the ship is passing through its waters.
Consequently, neither the safety rules which bind flag States, nor port State control are sufficient to protect a State against the risk of accident or pollution of its coastline. Accordingly, it is important for those Member States with a coastline to set up a system for monitoring and controlling maritime traffic along their coasts in order to protect their citizens, their economies and their environment against the disastrous effects of an accident at sea.
4. In recent years, there have been substantial changes, both legal and technological, regarding the monitoring and control of maritime traffic.
The United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 establishes the balance between the responsibilities of coastal States, flag States and port States, in a way which largely upholds the principle of the freedom of the seas, but gives coastal States many more legal powers than before. It is mainly in order to combat the risks of pollution that coastal States have been given wide powers regarding both their own territorial waters and their exclusive economic zone (if they have one).
5. Since then, there have been several changes to international law, particularly as a result of the various changes to the SOLAS Convention (International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea). Chapter V of SOLAS, on safety of navigation, is currently being reworked. The new Chapter V will contain detailed provisions on, for example:
- ships' routing systems (new Regulation 10) designed to improve safety in sensitive areas where traffic is particularly heavy or difficult; systems may involve traffic separation schemes, no-go areas, deep water routes, etc;
- ship reporting systems (new Regulation 11) requiring ships transiting particular areas to notify the coastal authorities responsible and give them certain types of information;
- vessel traffic services (or VTS as they are usually called, see new Regulation 12), which provide ships travelling through sea areas where traffic density is high or where there are serious risks of accidents with shipping and weather information, and, where appropriate, with traffic assistance and routing services.
The regulations in the SOLAS Convention have been supplemented with resolutions on these various points describing in detail the principles of these services and systems and operational arrangements.
6. The last ten years or so have seen some important developments in the technologies relating to communications and the positioning and monitoring of ships, particularly with regard to satellite positioning, electronics and telematics. One of the most important innovations is certainly the appearance of automatic ship identification systems or transponders, which the IMO is expected to make compulsory on board ships of more than 300 tonnes beginning in 2002. One of the advantages of this technology, as used ship-to-land, is that it is a passive technology that does not require active intervention on board ships, which makes the master's job much easier. Moreover, computerisation has considerably simplified and optimised the monitoring of ships by coastal stations, particularly as a result of improved processing of radar images, and also makes it much faster to transmit information electronically.
7. Because of the volume of traffic and the high risks to shipping in European waters, the Member States have, for some 20 years now, been introducing ships' routing systems on the main routes used by traffic to and from European ports. These systems, which have been approved by the IMO, have helped to limit the risk of collision or other accidents along Europe's coastlines.
The development of compulsory reporting systems is more recent. Before the SOLAS Convention was amended in 1994, systems were based on the voluntary participation of ships in transit. Now, the IMO has approved a number of voluntary or mandatory reporting systems, particularly along the Atlantic coast and in the English Channel, areas which are particularly vulnerable or environmentally sensitive. In addition, the practice of port reporting is also widespread: ships notify ports of their ETA (generally several days in advance, so as to reserve a berth) and confirm 24 or 48 hours before they arrive in port.
Ship movements in most European ports and their approaches are controlled by port VTS, thus helping to improve the efficiency of port management and safety in and around port areas. The development of coastal VTS is designed to improve the monitoring of transit traffic in certain areas where justified by traffic density.
It should be stressed that often the various functions described above are performed by the same land-based authority. So, for example, one VTS may be receiving reports from ships while monitoring traffic passing through a traffic separation scheme in its area of cover, and will also be responsible for related services such as search and rescue at sea.
8. A number of points should be made regarding the situation at Community level.
Firstly, the Community already has a legislative framework:
* Directive 93/75/EEC (known as the 'Hazmat Directive') was adopted in September 1993 to allow the national authorities responsible for tackling the consequences of an accident at sea to have the information they require. Accordingly, the masters or operators of ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods are required to provide certain information to the competent authorities designated by the Member States. These authorities must then pass on this information as required for safety reasons.
* The proposal for the Eurorep Directive was adopted in December 1993. It follows on from Directive 93/75/EEC, which established a notification system for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. Its main purpose is to extend the notification requirements in Directive 93/75/EEC to ships passing through Community coastal waters. Although the proposal was approved by the European Parliament, discussions in the Council ran into a number of obstacles; it has been before the Council since 1994 but a common position has not yet been adopted.
* The Council Decision of 25 February 1992 on radionavigation systems for Europe makes provision for the development of navigation aids in European waters by extending the terrestrial Loran-C navigation systems. This maritime component contributes to European policy on navigation for all modes of transport, and particularly to the development of the Galileo satellite navigation network.
* A Council Directive of 21 December 1978 is designed to ensure that ships wishing to use pilotage services in the North Sea and English Channel can call on adequately qualified deep-sea pilots.
* Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network has as one of its objectives the establishment of a management and information system for maritime traffic, so as to guarantee a high level of safety and efficiency of shipping and environmental protection in shipping zones belonging to Community Member States. This instrument makes it possible to provide Community funding for various maritime traffic management or information projects (particularly VTS). In addition, other Community funds can contribute to the development of maritime traffic management and information infrastructure or installations (ERDF, Cohesion Funds).
As one of a number of measures designed to facilitate the implementation of Community legislation, the Commission initiated a memorandum of understanding between Member States on the establishment of an electronic data interchange network between the authorities in the Member States for the implementation of Directive 93/75/EEC (five Member States are already party to the agreement and three others should be joining shortly). The project is being funded out of trans-European transport network resources. One Phare project (Early Warning System - EWS - for the Baltic Sea), which was concluded in 1999, should result in a similar scheme involving several of the Baltic Sea States.
9. The Hazmat Directive, Directive 93/75/EEC, has been in force since 1995. The Commission now has a fairly comprehensive view of its application from several sources of information: scrutinising national transposing legislation, information obtained directly from Member States, contact with the industry, and the results of specially commissioned studies.
The main conclusions are:
* The system established by the Directive is not very clear to the rest of the world and is often not fully understood by masters and shipowners, particularly those from outside the European Union;
* The requirement that the operator of a ship coming from a port located outside the Community must give notification of departure is not correctly applied, in many cases notification being given after the ship's departure and in some cases being addressed simply to the port of destination according to the local rules of that port (e.g. 48 or 24 hours in advance); similarly, it is often the case that notification from a port of departure inside the Community is given late;
* There are sometimes problems in transmitting information on the cargo, notably because the means of communication are inappropriate, e.g. fax machines for the transmission of large quantities of information;
* Since the Directive lays down no procedures or standard format for the transmission and exchange of data, this can prevent the proper and efficient working of the whole system;
* There is no clear definition of competent authorities, and as a result responsibilities are not clearly established; the problem applies particularly to ports, which are not mentioned in the Directive;
* The list of competent authorities is not updated regularly and is not easily available;
* In most cases, information notified under the Directive is merely stored by the recipients for use in the event of an accident, but otherwise remains unused; thus the information collected is not put to any good use.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission considers that the instruments put in place to cope with accidents or pollution caused by substandard shipping in European waters are still inadequate.
In fact, the main aim of Directive 93/75/EEC is to reduce the possible environmental consequences of an accident at sea. Existing instruments for monitoring and managing traffic are of limited geographical scope and concentrate on the main areas of traffic convergence without properly covering events which could occur outside radar or radio range. The only really effective way the Community has of preventing a substandard ship (flying the flag of a non-member country) from sailing in European waters seems to be port State control. However, by definition this is an unreliable instrument (since it only covers part of the traffic) and does not reduce the potential hazard of (as yet) uninspected ships plying the coasts of Europe.
Another limitation is that there is not enough contact between the parties which have information on maritime traffic. Frequently, VTS, coastguards, port authorities, etc. have very detailed information on traffic, but this information is not usable because it has not been pooled or circulated efficiently.
In its report to the Biarritz European Summit, the Commission outlined the main principles of its new proposals on safety of shipping in European waters:
- "introducing a wider obligation to declare before entry into European waters,
- improving the procedures regarding the transmission and use of data concerning dangerous cargoes, more particularly by making systematic use of electronic data interchange (EDI),
- requiring ships sailing in Community waters to carry on board automatic identification systems (or transponders) in accordance with the timescale laid down by the IMO in order to ease their identification and monitoring by the relevant coastal authorities,
- boosting the development of common databases and the networking of centres responsible for managing the information received under the Directive in order to provide a more complete picture of the traffic, especially transit traffic, in European waters,
- ensuring closer monitoring of the ships presenting a particularly serious threat to safety at sea and the environment,
- enhancing the powers of intervention of the Member States, as coastal States, if there is an accident hazard or threats of pollution off their coasts."
11. These aims are too broad to be covered by a simple amendment to Directive 93/75/EEC. Accordingly, the Commission proposes a new instrument which incorporates the objectives of Directive 93/75/EEC but also covers much broader objectives: preventing accidental and operational pollution at sea, management and monitoring of maritime traffic, closer surveillance of ships deemed to pose a risk, wider scope for intervention at sea where there are threats to the environment and shipping safety, and facilitating search and rescue operations at sea.
12. The Commission proposes to provide a Community legal basis for a number of practices or requirements applied by Member States in order to improve their efficiency and, where appropriate, to allow further application of a system of appropriate sanctions by the Member States in cases of infringements. In particular, it will be made compulsory:
- to give prior notification before entering European ports;
- to report to the mandatory reporting systems set up by Member States and approved by the IMO;
- to use the vessel traffic services and ships' routing systems approved by the IMO.
These measures should ensure that, whether or not they carry dangerous or polluting goods, all ships covered by the Directive which enter European waters or use European ports will be identified, will observe the traffic rules in force and will provide the coastal authorities with information that will be important in the event of an emergency at sea.
13. The content of information is based on minimal harmonisation: only certain essential items of information are included (identification of ship, position, destination, etc.), on the grounds that certain information (type of ship, tonnage, etc.) can easily be obtained from other sources like the EQUASIS database on Quality Shipping. Moreover, these minimum items of information are those generally required by the mandatory reporting systems already in place, with the exception of the following information which is included in the proposal.
- The number of persons on board. Directive 93/75/EEC required notification of the number of crew members on board. However, this information proved to be inappropriate and inadequate because: (a) it took no account of any non-crew members on board, (b) it applied only to ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, and (c) being part of a cargo information management system it did not have any direct operational usefulness for the land-based authorities concerned (particularly the centres which coordinate sea search and rescue operations). In future, this information will be transmitted en route to the coastal stations which can make the best use of it.
- An address. This allows the operational authorities to contact those persons who have detailed knowledge of the cargo, which can be vital in the case of an accident involving ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, especially, for example, in the case of a ship in transit which is not heading for a Community port (in such cases no authority in any Member State has information on the cargo).
- Details of the type and quantity of bunker fuel. This is because the fuel carried in ship bunkers is a major potential source of pollution (some ships carry thousands of tonnes of fuel). If spilled, oil is particularly difficult to recover and can have serious toxic effects. Accordingly, it is important for coastal authorities to have this information so that they are in a better position to evaluate the possible consequences of an accident at sea.
14. The proposal is designed to improve efforts to prevent and understand the reasons for accidents at sea. In fact, in order to establish an effective policy for preventing accidents at sea, it is essential to have better knowledge of traffic flows and to be able to identify and monitor ships which constitute a safety or environmental hazard. This aim can be achieved more easily by introducing automatic identification systems, known as transponders, which make it possible to keep coastal shipping under continuous surveillance. Moreover, accurate analysis of the reasons for accidents at sea is essential in order to understand the factors which cause an accident and as a result to introduce further safety measures. In the past, enquiries have often been lengthy, complex and expensive. This situation should be greatly facilitated by the use of black boxes, based on those used in aircraft. These should also play a role in preventing accidents (particularly those due to human error) in that crews will know there is a black box on board and will be encouraged to exercise greater vigilance and a greater sense of responsibility when operating the ship. These various technological developments are currently being considered by the IMO, particularly in the context of changes to Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention, but the Commission takes the view that they should be introduced more rapidly and more extensively in the European Union, particularly for categories of ships not subject to international regulations.
First of all, the new SOLAS provisions on transponders must be made mandatory. In particular, they will be extended or applied more rapidly to ships not covered by the new SOLAS Regulation, i.e. basically ships of more than 300 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages. This is in line with the approach already adopted by the Commission in other areas of maritime safety: the need to require that ships engaged in cabotage inside the Community comply with rules which are at least as strict as those which apply to ships on international voyages in order to ensure a uniform level of safety in European waters.
Secondly, the proposal makes it compulsory for ships to be fitted with black boxes (voyage data recorders - VDR), similar to those used in aircraft. Though these are not strictly navigation equipment, being designed to help with enquiries after accidents, their inclusion in Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention, currently being reworked, proves their importance in terms of general shipping safety. Directive 1999/35 made black boxes compulsory on board ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft providing scheduled services to and from a port in a Member State. Given their importance in analysing the causes of accidents and improving shipping safety, the Commission considers it essential to make the new Regulation 20 on black boxes in Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention compulsory, even at this early stage, for all passenger ships and all other categories of ships, whether or not engaged in international voyages.
15. The proposal includes the basic provisions of Directive 93/75/EEC, but changes them to take account of experience with the Directive, and in the light of legal and technological developments at international level.
One of the basic difficulties of Directive 93/75/EEC is that of managing what may be huge amounts of information on cargoes efficiently and cheaply. One significant way of improving the present situation should therefore be first to improve procedures for circulating this information.
To this end, the new provisions are designed to keep information on cargoes as close as possible to the source of that information (the concept of the 'dormant' system), so that the information is used only in exceptional circumstances. The Commission proposes to make the procedure for notifying this information more flexible so that, depending on the Member State's preference, it could be notified either to a designated competent authority, as under the current Directive 93/75/EEC (i.e. for those Member States wishing to maintain the existing system), or to the port authority, which would be responsible for keeping the information available to the competent national authorities on a 24-hour basis in case it is needed. However, national authorities would only contact ports to obtain this information in the event of an accident. This procedure would allow those Member States which so wished to operate the system more efficiently and cheaply.
The proposal for a directive should also harmonise methods of transmitting information. Currently, operators may use any means at all to give notification. Cargo information is often transmitted by fax, particularly to smaller ports, which obliges the authorities concerned to store large volumes of paper documents on their premises.
Many of Europe's major ports, realising the economic disadvantages of these outdated procedures, have tackled the problem by requiring ships to notify data electronically, specifically by EDI. The Commission is proposing that all cargo data now be transmitted electronically (i.e. by computer and not by fax), thus ending the current practice of using paper, which undermines the efficiency of the system. It also proposes that, when EDI formats are used for electronic data transmission, use be made only of the appropriate EDIFACT formats listed in the annex to the directive, in order to avoid having divergent standards throughout the Community.
Moreover, the system of exemption laid down in Directive 93/75/EEC for scheduled services of a certain duration should be made more flexible. The requirement concerning the journey duration is not needed if the company concerned has put in place a system guaranteeing the rapid transmission of data on dangerous cargoes to the competent authority when necessary.
16. Finally, it should be pointed out that Article 8 of Directive 93/75/EEC on the obligations of pilots has not been included in the new directive because:
- in the light of experience of the application of the Directive, very few masters complete the check list for the pilot, partly because it is unreasonable to expect the master himself to list the defects of his own ship; moreover, stricter port State controls introduced by Directive 95/21/EC make this check list redundant;
- paragraph 2 of Article 8 is redundant because it is included in Article 13 of Directive 95/21/EC.
17. Directive 93/75/EEC contains provisions on the reporting by ships of accidents or incidents at sea and the subsequent measures to be taken by Member States. However, because of the definition of 'ship' given in the Directive, these measures apply only to ships bound for or leaving a Community port and carrying dangerous or polluting goods.
The first objective of the Commission's proposal therefore is to extend these provisions to all ships, whether or not they are carrying dangerous or polluting goods and whether or not they call at a Community port.
The proposal defines the circumstances under which the master of a ship will be required to report an incident to the coastal authorities. These are the situations described in IMO Resolution A.851(20) on ship reporting, and the reporting of pollution or the discharge of packaged goods (by other ships) observed at sea. These reports will enable the coastal authorities rapidly to launch operations to combat pollution or to recover floating packages, which in practice are unfortunately frequently not discovered until they reach the shore.
18. In addition to the measures available to a Member State under international law to take action to reduce hazards to its shoreline or to related interests, other examples of possible measures are listed in an annex to the Directive (which is not a restrictive list):
- give official notice to the master of the ship to put an end to the threat to the environment or maritime safety,
- send an evaluation team aboard the ship to assess the degree of risk, help the master to remedy the situation and keep the competent coastal station informed thereof,
- instruct the master to put in at a port of refuge on the coast in the event of imminent peril, or
- cause the ship to be piloted or towed.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as the 1969 Brussels Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties and its 1973 Protocol on Pollution by Substances other than Oil enable Member States whose coastlines or interests are threatened to take such measures in their territorial waters, their exclusive economic zone and in respect of incidents arising on the high seas.
19. Whatever the cause of an accident at sea (human error or technical failure), experience shows that bad weather and rough seas in a particular area seriously increase the risks. Maritime ports are therefore natural places of refuge. Accordingly, the proposal aims to make it easier to seek a port of refuge in the event of trouble at sea, and also to prevent the risk of accident by prohibiting ships from leaving ports of call in the Community if particularly bad weather and sea conditions increase the risk of an accident.
Most of the pollution disasters off Europe's coasts have occurred during severe storms at sea. The Commission considers that where weather and sea conditions are particularly bad (wind speed of more than 48 knots, i.e. force 10 on the Beaufort scale), the need to protect the environment against serious pollution hazards is a justifiable reason for not leaving the decision as to whether to leave port solely in the hands of the master of the ship. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods should not be allowed to put to sea until weather and sea conditions improve to the point where they can leave port safely.
The decision to require a ship to seek a port of refuge is always difficult. It requires a realistic assessment of the risks involved, either in refusing port access in order to keep the danger of pollution or explosion away from the coast or in requiring a ship in a precarious condition to head for a port in order to keep the ship and its crew safe and to avoid sea pollution. Indeed, a port may be putting itself at considerable risk by accepting a ship in distress, endangering local inhabitants and the environment, especially as the areas concerned, particularly estuaries, are often areas which are environmentally very vulnerable. However, the present situation leaves transport operators in considerable doubt, and this should be rectified. Moreover, there is obviously a Community dimension to the problem, since ships refused access to one port may have an accident and pollute the coastline of a neighbouring State.
So there has to be a legal framework to accommodate ships in distress. The decision whether or not to accept a ship in distress must be taken on an ad hoc basis. However it must also be based on objective criteria, such as the capacity of the port, and must take account of special constraints and hazards connected with the configuration of the port area and the environmental sensitivity of the area. Accordingly, Member States should draw up plans for accommodating ships in distress, listing all the relevant information and providing those responsible for port operations with reliable information on which to base their decisions.
20. Some ships can pose a particular hazard for the States along whose coastlines they travel, either because they are known to be in poor condition following an inspection under the port State control system, or because they are presumed to be in a bad condition, or because of dubious behaviour, or because of infringement of international or European law.
At present, international law severely limits the potential for interference by Member States with ships which are potentially hazardous (e.g. ships prohibited under Directive 95/21/EC or ships which have infringed a reporting obligation), but which nevertheless do not necessarily constitute a serious and immediate accident or coastal pollution hazard. International law does not authorise extreme measures such as the rerouting of the potentially hazardous ships referred to in the Directive, except in the event of an incident or accident at sea.
Despite the limitations of international law, it is nevertheless possible to take preventive measures with regard to these ships. They should be subject to closer surveillance in European waters, which implies better exchange of information between Member States along the shipping route. Closer monitoring would, for example, make it possible to detect more swiftly manoeuvres which were risky or which threatened the safety of shipping and to take the precautionary measures required, and to inform ports of call or the authorities of other Member States of the arrival of these ships. With this information, the Member States concerned could, before accepting high-risk ships into their ports, ask for additional information in order to check that international conventions were being complied with by the ship (copy of safety certificates), or, if necessary, to carry out on-board inspections under Directive 95/21/EC.
21. The shortcomings already mentioned regarding the implementation of Directive 93/75/EEC are because there are no proper means of enforcement. The only sanction mentioned in the Directive is refusal of access as referred to in Article 5 for failure to provide notification after leaving the port of departure outside the Community. This sanction is not applied by the Member States, despite many instances of infringement of this Article, probably partly because of the severity of the penalty compared with the nature of the infringement. What is needed, then, is a system of financial penalties which would allow the ship to have access to the port and to conduct its commercial operations there, but at the same time would strongly deter the operator or master from committing the same offence again.
Furthermore, it is essential that Member States should, through random operational tests or simulation exercises, check that information systems put in place for the requirements of the Directive operate satisfactorily. This is particularly true for that part of the system which concerns the processing of information on dangerous cargoes. This information is supposed to be used only in exceptional circumstances in the event of an accident and it is obviously essential that data transmission procedures and tools function perfectly when this happens.
Finally, the Commission's proposal includes provisions designed to ensure that the international safety management (ISM) code has been correctly applied when there is an incident or accident at sea. In fact, the ISM code is critical for preventing accidents and pollution at sea, provided that it is seen by companies - and applied - as something more than a simple bureaucratic exercise designed merely to give formal recognition to an international requirement. Indeed, it is when an accident at sea occurs that it is possible to check whether the ISM code was anything other than a bureaucratic exercise for the company operating the ship, since the ISM code includes the obligation to establish procedures which can cope with emergency situations. One essential aspect is that, when an emergency occurs, it is possible at all times to maintain proper contact between the ship and the company, on the one hand, and between the company and operational authorities, on the other, in particular so that operational decisions can be taken under the best possible conditions both by the master and by the land-based authorities. The proposal for a directive includes this obligation for communication between the parties concerned and provides for follow up measures where it is established that the company's management system did not operate during an accident at sea. These follow up measures consist first of all of informing the State (or States) which issued the ISM certificate so that they can take the necessary steps. Moreover, in the case of a ship which was certified by a Member State, and if the fault is considered particularly serious, the Member State which issued the certificate must suspend certification until a thorough check has been made of the company's safety management system.
Further development of the Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic
22. The ultimate aim of the Community information and monitoring system for maritime traffic is not to increase the number of various reporting requirements but rather to try to simplify and standardise procedures further, while giving the greatest added value to the information collected.
This proposal is only a preliminary stage in the establishment of the system. It will be necessary gradually to complete the geographical cover of the shipping management network and put in place exchanges of information between the various authorities and operators concerned. The Commission and the Member States will have to cooperate closely to identify and implement objectives.
23. The Commission has identified the main objectives for this second phase:
To give added value to the information collected on shipping movements by means of appropriate computer links between coastal stations (mainly VTS) and the port authorities in Member States. Indeed, various bodies or authorities have information which could be exchanged to the mutual benefit of all concerned. To give one example, an essential item of information required by port managers is a precise ETA: the more accurate this information is, the better the ship's port of call can be organised and the more efficiently the various port services can be planned (pilotage, boatage, maintenance or repair services, administrative services, etc.). At present, the information given is often vague (if it is given at all), despite the fact that the local authorities need to be informed in advance. A computer link between the port of destination and a traffic monitoring service along the ship's route would allow the port to keep updating the ETA and to organise the ship's call with maximum efficiency (in return, the traffic monitoring centre would have more accurate information on which to base predictions of ships passing through its area since it will know the exact time the ship leaves port). In some cases, these links already exist on a local level but they should be made universal in order to improve traffic safety and port management. Similarly, within the context of the trans-European transport network, it is important to develop computer links between the coastal authorities in order to transmit the information notified by ships to the stations located along the shipping routes used by these ships. If they meet the eligibility criteria, these projects could benefit from funding from the resources available for trans-European transport networks.
To complete the geographical cover of the European chain of mandatory reporting systems. Currently the main shipping routes used by ships heading for Europe, or in transit, are covered by ship reporting systems and VTS in the Channel-Atlantic area. However, some areas are still not properly covered: the Mediterranean (in particular eastern access to the Mediterranean), and northern access to the North Sea and the Baltic for ships from riparian States which are not members of the EU. It is important therefore for the Commission and the Member States concerned to take swift action to deal with this matter and to begin preparing measures to cover ships in transit through these areas, so that the IMO can be informed as soon as possible.
To put in place a permanent framework for extending the information system introduced by this directive and facilitating the management of information on maritime traffic. The proposal for a Regulation 2000/../EC on the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency includes specifically among the duties to be performed by the Agency the accomplishment of tasks related to the monitoring of shipping and maritime traffic, pursuant to Community legislation, in order to facilitate cooperation between the Member States and the Commission in this area. In order to meet this objective, the Agency could have the support of one or more European maritime information management centres. The project to establish a centralised system of information on maritime traffic in Jobourg in France, covering the Atlantic from Gibraltar to the entrance to the North Sea, and the precedent of EQUASIS, show that the concept of systems which combine various items of information and make them accessible to all the users concerned have a number of advantages (particularly economies of scale) over a decentralised system based on the regular exchange of information between the authorities concerned. These centres, which could operate within the context of centres already in place (VTS, MRCC, etc.) in the major sea areas of Europe (Mediterranean, Channel-Atlantic-North Sea, Baltic) would have the role of compiling certain information of common interest (updated list of competent authorities, list of ships constituting a special hazard, etc.) in a public database and making it available. A framework for cooperation would have to be established between the Member States in order to define exactly what the centre's tasks and responsibilities might be.
Article 1
This article specifies that the proposal establishes a Community monitoring and information system for maritime traffic with view to enhancing maritime safety, improving the efficiency of maritime traffic and preventing accidental and operational pollution by ships.
This article specifies the scope of the proposal. All ships above a threshold of 300 gross tonnage are covered, whether or not they carry dangerous goods. A number of exclusions are provided for, these being for warships and ships providing a non-commercial public service, (as defined in Regulation 1 of Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention, currently undergoing revision), recreational craft (irrespective of their characteristics and whether or not used for commercial purposes) and fishing vessels. However, the largest fishing vessels, measuring more than 45m in length, are likely to pose a hazard to shipping, and so their inclusion within the scope of the proposal is justified. Ships' stores and equipment for use on board ships are excluded (as under Directive 93/75/EEC). However, bunker fuels must be notified under the Directive.
This article sets out the definitions applicable for the purposes of the Directive.
This article requires all ships covered by the Directive to give advance notification before entering port. The present arrival notification practices are therefore made mandatory throughout the European Union, which should help make them more effective.
This article lays down the principle that ships entering the area of competence of an authority operating a reporting system must send that authority the minimum information required for them to be effectively monitored, as set out in Annex I-1. The article takes account of the present state of international law, in particular the SOLAS Convention, which provides that only IMO-approved reporting systems may be made mandatory for ships which are purely in transit (i.e. which are neither bound for nor sailing from Community ports).
This article is intended to increase traffic safety by requiring ships to comply with the existing IMO-approved instruments for the routing of shipping, which cover sensitive areas, areas with a high traffic density and areas which are dangerous for shipping, and to use vessel traffic services (VTS). Ships must comply with any instructions they may be given by the authorities responsible for the systems on grounds of safety. Member States must ensure that these authorities have the human and technical resources to carry out their tasks, and in particular that they comply with the IMO guidelines on the subject.
This article specifies that any ship leaving or bound for Community ports must be equipped with transponders (or automatic identification systems) to enable them to be identified and monitored along the European coasts. This requirement takes over, anticipates and extends the requirements on the carrying of equipment introduced by the revised Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention (new Regulation 19-2) by including ships on domestic voyages which are not covered by SOLAS Regulation 19 (between 300 and 500 gross tonnage) or which are covered only from 1 July 2008. In order to enable ships fitted with automatic identification systems to be monitored in their waters, the Member States must provide their coastal stations with equipment to receive and process the data from the transponders.
To facilitate enquiries into the causes of disasters at sea, the fitting of voyage data recorders ("black boxes") on board ships will make it possible to recover essential data about the movements and operation of the main installations on board. Article 8 supplements the requirements already laid down by Directive 1999/35/EC on regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services by adding the categories of passenger ships referred to in the new Regulation 20 in Chapter V of SOLAS, as well as other categories which are not covered by SOLAS (existing cargo ships, ships on domestic voyages). As far as the timetable is concerned, new ships built after 1 July 2002 will be subject to this requirement immediately, and existing passenger ships will have to be adapted by 1 January 2004 at the latest. As regards other ships (cargo ships), for which the proposed revision of the SOLAS Convention at the time of drafting this text provides for black boxes to be carried only by new ships, the Commission also proposes requiring existing ships to be adapted as from 2007 or 2008, depending on the ship's tonnage.
This article, which is similar to a provision in Directive 93/75/EEC, details the obligations on the shipper so as to be able to guarantee that accurate information about the cargo is sent to the ship's master or operator, and that the information does indeed correspond to the dangerous or polluting goods which have been loaded.
This article concerns the notification of information about the ship and its cargo to the competent authorities in the Community port of departure, or the Community port of destination in the case of ships arriving from ports outside the Community. It includes the requirements set out in Article 5 of Directive 93/75/EEC, but makes several amendments aimed at providing greater flexibility and further harmonisation:
- notification must no longer be given by the operator alone, but may also be given directly by the agent or by the ship's master in order to take account of the variety of situations encountered in practice;
- for ships arriving from ports located outside the Community, notification to the competent authorities of the port of destination in the Community is no longer regarded as a prior condition for access to the port. However, failure to provide notification is subject to a system of financial penalties (in Article 22);
- ships which do not know their destination at the time of leaving a Community port are authorised to notify the information requested as soon as they learn exactly where they are bound for;
- in order to limit the information in circulation, in particular as regards the cargo, the Member States may authorise the port authorities to receive and to retain the information transmitted by the ship, provided the procedures laid down allow immediate and continuous access to the data by the competent authority;
- the mode of transmission must be by computer-to-computer link and, if EDI formats are used, they must comply with the EDIFACT standards listed in an Annex to the Directive;
- lastly, it is specified that ships which are purely in transit and which do not call at Community ports must nevertheless communicate information about the cargo they are carrying via the ship reporting systems set up along the European coasts.
This article concerns exchanges of data between the Member States to enable information about the ship and its cargo to be transmitted and used for safety purposes. Member States must cooperate to ensure that their national information systems are interconnected and interoperable so that the information required can be exchanged electronically at any time. The Memorandum of Understanding which has been concluded between several Member States for the purpose of implementing the Hazmat Directive provides a framework of cooperation for achieving that objective.
This article lays down the conditions under which Member States may allow exemptions from the normal notification procedures for scheduled services operating within the Community. The system of exemptions laid down by Directive 93/75/EEC has been made more flexible as the requirements concerning the length of the voyage have been deleted; however, the system set up by the company must guarantee that the information requested can be transmitted immediately, and Member States must check that the system operates satisfactorily.
This article is intended to enable the Member States to take certain measures where ships which pose a potential hazard to shipping are in transit off their coasts. The article first of all defines which ships may be regarded as posing a risk and provides for an exchange of information between the Member States located along the route to be followed by the ship. The Member State concerned can then consider taking any action it sees fit, though this must be consistent with international law.
This article extends the scope of similar provisions already existing in Directive 93/75/EEC to cover other categories of ship (which do not carry dangerous goods or are in transit). Furthermore, it sets out in detail the measures which a Member State can take to prevent incidents or accidents occurring at sea and the action which can be taken if they do occur. Masters are therefore required to notify any problem relating to the safety of the ship and the safety of shipping or concerning the preventing of pollution, and will also be obliged to notify the coastal authorities of any slicks of pollutant materials or goods containers drifting at sea which would pose a hazard to the environment or to other ships.
This article states that, when the weather is so bad as to pose a serious threat to their coasts, or the coasts of their neighbours within the Union, the Member States must take the necessary steps to prohibit ships from leaving port.
This article requires Member States to take all necessary measures permitted under international law to tackle the risk of accident or pollution at sea off their coasts, and obliges the parties concerned (operator, cargo owner, master) to cooperate fully in order to minimise the consequences of the accident. Furthermore, as soon as such an incident or accident occurs, the master must contact the company, which must place itself at the disposal of the competent authorities.
This article stipulates that the Member States must draw up emergency plans to simplify decision-making with regard to the provision of a port of refuge for ships in distress, and to make these plans available to interested parties. The Commission must also be kept informed about the action taken by the Member States with regard to drawing up such plans.
Article 18 extends to all ships the provisions in Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 93/75/EEC (concerning the broadcasting of warnings to shipping and providing information to other Member States concerned); initially, these provisions applied only to ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods and bound for or leaving Community ports.
This article states that the Member States must designate the competent authorities, port authorities and coastal stations responsible for the application of this Directive and must inform the shipping industry and the Commission in an appropriate manner.
This article deals with the creation of a framework for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States for the future development of the Community monitoring and information system for maritime traffic. It therefore provides for the development of computer links between coastal stations and the port authorities, and between coastal stations themselves, in order to optimise the management of information on the movement of ships in Community waters. It also recapitulates the need to extend the cover provided by the system, which is still not comprehensive, so that any ship entering Community waters can be identified and monitored as fully as possible. To this end, it will be necessary for the Member States to cooperate on the submission of appropriate proposals to IMO. Lastly, efforts should be made to improve the management of information about shipping, which is one of the tasks of the European Maritime Safety Agency, in order to provide easier access to information of common interest for States in the area concerned and to develop the necessary instruments for better traffic management in the area concerned.
This article recalls that the principle of the confidentiality of commercial transactions must be observed when collecting and using the information notified under the Directive and that the information must be used for purposes of maritime safety and protection of the environment.
This article sets out the measures required for satisfactory implementation of the Directive. Member States are thus required to carry out regular checks on the operation of the information systems set up for the purposes of the Directive and to provide in their national laws for financial penalties to act as a deterrent against infringement of the Directive's requirements regarding notification or the carrying of equipment. Particular emphasis is also placed on checking, where an incident at sea occurs, that the company's safety management system was in compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code. If any major instance of non-compliance is found, the ISM certificate should be withdrawn immediately.
These articles concern the establishment of a regulatory committee for the purposes of the Directive and define its scope.
No comment.
This article specifies that Directive 93/75/EEC, some of whose provisions are included in the present Directive, is to be repealed twenty-four months after the adoption of the Directive.
Annex I
The first part of Annex I gives details of the operational information which must be transmitted to the competent coastal station. In accordance with IMO Resolution A.851(20), the information concerns the identification of the ship, its movements, the cargo and the number of people on board. The harmonisation is minimal since the Member States have the right to demand other information for the purposes of safety or the protection of the environment. However, the aim is also to minimise the amount of information which the master is required to give as the operational centres are able to obtain a host of information by consulting the EQUASIS database.
The second part of Annex I sets out the information which, in accordance with the new SOLAS Regulation 19, may be transmitted by automatic identification systems.
Lastly, it is recalled that any changes to the information notified, in particular any change to the ship's planned voyage, must be notified to the coastal authority.
Annex II sets out the timetable according to which ships must carry automatic identification systems (AIS) and voyage data recorders (VDR) on the basis of the provisions of Chapter V of SOLAS, which is being revised and extended to cover other categories of ships and voyages which are not covered by the corresponding SOLAS Regulations.
Annex III lists the information to be notified by the operator, agent or master of a ship bound for a Community port. This list corresponds to Annex I to Directive 93/75/EEC, except as regards certain items of information which have been deleted:
- Since the essential aim is the management of information about cargo, information such as the nationality of the ship and the length and draught is no longer necessary; such information can in any case be obtained from EQUASIS.
- Similarly, information relating to shipping (intended route) is already demanded for all ships under Title I. This information is of no use in the context of a cargo information management system and is not included in the formats for EDIFACT messages which are used for notifications to port.
- Indication of the number of crew members has been deleted for similar reasons, but also because there is no reason to require this information only in the case of ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods. This requirement is nevertheless included in the notification requirements set out in Title I of the Directive concerning the number of people on board.
- The information to be notified with regard to ships' times of arrival and departure has been made clearer. Directive 93/75/EEC was creating confusion: the estimated time of departure, required by point 6 in Annex I to Directive 93/75/EEC, was on some occasions being understood as either the time of departure from the Community port of departure or the time of departure from a port of departure outside the Community. The information required by the competent authority is the time of departure from a Community port or, for ships bound for a port in the Community but coming from a port outside the Community, the estimated times of arrival and departure in order to enable the intended length of stay to be determined.
Annex IV contains a list of the EDIFACT electronic messages which must be used for the transmission of information where the transmission is based on EDI protocols.
Annex V sets out a (non-restrictive) list of measures available to Member States depending on their assessment of the local situation and in accordance with international law, to prevent or reduce the risks or consequences of an incident at sea. As with Directive 93/75/EEC, these are measures to restrict the movements of a ship or require it to adopt a specific itinerary, but also to oblige the master to take steps to put an end to the risks, to instruct him to put in at a port of refuge or agree to have his ship piloted or towed, or even to have an evaluation team placed on the ship if the facilities on board are from all evidence insufficient to remedy the situation.