Considerations on 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. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2000)802  |
| date | June 27, 2002 |
(2) Council Directive 93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods(5) introduced a system whereby the competent authorities receive information regarding ships bound for or leaving a Community port and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, and regarding incidents at sea. That Directive requires the Commission to produce new proposals for the introduction of a fuller reporting system for the Community, possibly covering ships transiting along the coasts of Member States.
(3) The Council Resolution of 8 June 1993 on a common policy on safe seas(6) agreed that the main objectives of Community action included the adoption of a fuller information system.
(4) Setting up a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system should help to prevent accidents and pollution at sea and to minimise their impact on the marine and coastal environment, the economy and the health of local communities. The efficiency of maritime traffic, and in particular of the management of ships' calls into ports, also depends on ships giving sufficient advance notice of their arrival.
(5) Several mandatory ship reporting systems have been set up along Europe's coasts, in accordance with the relevant rules adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). It ought to be ensured that ships comply with the reporting requirements in force under these systems.
(6) Vessel traffic services and ships' routing systems have also been introduced and are playing an important part in the prevention of accidents and pollution in certain shipping areas which are congested or hazardous for shipping. It is necessary that ships use vessel traffic services and that they follow the rules applicable to ships' routing systems approved by the IMO.
(7) Key technological progress has been made in the area of on-board equipment allowing automatic identification of ships (AIS systems) for enhanced ship monitoring, as well as voyage data recording (VDR systems or 'black boxes') to facilitate investigations following accidents. Given its importance in the formulation of a policy to prevent shipping accidents, such equipment should be made compulsory on board ships making national or international voyages which call at Community ports. The data provided by a VDR system can be used both after an accident to investigate its causes and preventively to learn the necessary lessons from such situations. Member States should encourage the use of such data for both purposes.
(8) Member States should ensure that the coastal stations of the competent authorities have available, in addition to appropriate technical equipment, sufficient and properly qualified staff.
(9) Accurate knowledge of dangerous or polluting goods being carried on board ships and of other relevant safety information, such as information relating to navigational incidents, is essential to the preparation and effectiveness of operations to tackle pollution or the risk of pollution at sea. Ships leaving or bound for Member States' ports must notify this information to the competent authorities or port authorities of those Member States.
(10) To streamline and accelerate the transmission and utilisation of what may be huge amounts of information on cargo, such information ought to be sent, whenever practicable, electronically to the competent authority or port authority concerned. For the same reasons, exchanges of information between the competent authorities of the Member States should take place electronically.
(11) Where the companies concerned have, to the satisfaction of the Member States, introduced internal procedures to ensure that information required by the Directive is sent to the competent authority without delay, it must be possible to exempt scheduled services between two or more States, of which at least one is a Member State, from the reporting requirement for each voyage.
(12) Because of their behaviour or condition, some ships pose potential risks to the safety of shipping and the environment. Member States should pay particular attention to the monitoring of such ships, take the appropriate measures to prevent any worsening of the risk they pose, and send any relevant information they possess on these ships to the other Member States concerned. Such appropriate measures could be measures provided for by port State control activities.
(13) Member States need to guard against the threats to maritime safety, to the safety of individuals and to the marine and coastal environment created by incidents, accidents or certain other situations at sea and by the presence of polluting slicks or packages drifting at sea. To this end, masters of ships sailing within Member States' search and rescue region/exclusive economic zone or equivalent, should report such occurrences to the coastal authorities, supplying all appropriate information. In the light of their specific situation, Member States should be given flexibility in choosing which of the abovementioned geographical areas should be covered by the reporting obligation.
(14) In the event of an incident or accident at sea, full and complete cooperation by the parties involved in the carriage contributes significantly to the effectiveness of operations by the competent authorities.
(15) Where a competent authority designated by a Member State considers, upon a sea state and weather forecast provided by a qualified meteorological information service, that exceptionally bad weather or sea conditions are creating a serious threat for the safety of human life or of pollution, it should inform the master of a ship, which intends to enter or leave the port, of the situation and may take any other appropriate measures. Without prejudice to the duty of assistance to ships in distress, these might include a prohibition to enter or to leave port, until the situation returns to normal. In the event of a possible risk to safety or of pollution and taking into account the specific situation in the port concerned, the competent authority may recommend ships not to leave the port. If the master chooses to leave the port, he/she does so in any case under his/her own responsibility and should state the reasons for his/her decision.
(16) Non-availability of a place of refuge may have serious consequences in the event of an accident at sea. Member States should therefore draw up plans whereby ships in distress may, if the situation so requires, be given refuge in their ports or any other sheltered area in the best conditions possible. Where necessary and feasible, these plans should include the provision of adequate means and facilities for assistance, salvage and pollution response. Ports accommodating a ship in distress should be able to rely on prompt compensation for any costs and damage involved in this operation. The Commission should therefore examine the possibilities for introducing an adequate system of compensation for ports in the Community accommodating a ship in distress and the feasibility of requiring a ship coming to a Community port to be adequately insured.
(17) A framework for cooperation between the Member States and the Commission needs to be established to enhance the implementation of the monitoring and information system for maritime traffic, with proper communication links being established between the competent authorities and ports of the Member States. Moreover, the coverage of the ship identification and monitoring system needs to be supplemented in those shipping areas of the Community where it is insufficient. In addition, information management centres ought to be set up in the Community's maritime regions so as to facilitate the exchange or sharing of useful data in relation to traffic monitoring and the implementation of this Directive. The Member States and the Commission should also endeavour to cooperate with third countries to achieve these objectives.
(18) The effectiveness of this Directive depends greatly on the Member States enforcing its implementation strictly. To this end, Member States must regularly carry out appropriate inspections or any other action required to ensure that the communication links established to meet the requirements of this Directive are operating satisfactorily. A system of sanctions should also be introduced to ensure that the parties concerned comply with the reporting and equipment carrying requirements laid down by this Directive.
(19) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(7).
(20) Certain provisions of this Directive may be amended by that procedure so as to take account of the development of Community and international instruments and of experience gained in implementing this Directive, in so far as such amendments do not broaden the scope of the Directive. A useful tool for the Commission to evaluate the experience gained in implementing the Directive is an adequate reporting by Member States on such implementation.
(21) The provisions of Directive 93/75/EEC are significantly reinforced, extended and amended by this Directive. Accordingly, Directive 93/75/EEC should be repealed.
(22) Since the objectives of the proposed action, namely the enhancing of the safety and efficiency of maritime traffic, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.