Considerations on COM(2000)142-2 - Amendment of Council Directive 95/21/EC 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) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2000)142-2 - Amendment of Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2000)142  |
| date | December 19, 2001 |
(2) It is necessary to take account of the changes that have been made to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions and of developments in the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
(3) It is understood that nothing in this Directive has the effect of transferring to port States the responsibilities of flag States including those of the recognised organisations acting on behalf of the flag States.
(4) Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment because of their poor condition, flag and history; among which in particular, ships flying the flag of a State described as 'very high risk' or 'high risk' in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU. They should therefore be refused access to Community ports, unless it can be demonstrated that they can be operated safely in Community waters. Guidelines must be established setting out the procedures applicable in the event of the imposition of such an access ban and of the lifting of the ban. In the interests of transparency, the list of ships refused access to Community ports should be made public.
(5) Ships with a high target factor present a particularly serious accident or pollution risk, justifying the need to inspect them frequently at Community ports of call.
(6) The categories of ships listed in Annex V to Directive 95/21/EC also present a major accident or pollution hazard when they reach a certain age. The broad discretionary power of the inspection authority as to whether to select such ships for expanded inspection prevents the achievement of uniform practices within the Community. It is therefore necessary to make inspection of these ships mandatory. In particular, given the risks of major pollution caused by oil tankers and in view of the fact that the great majority of deficiencies leading to detention concern ships older than 15 years, the expanded inspection regime should be applied to oil tankers from the age of 15 years.
(7) The content of the expanded inspections for which guidelines have been laid down may vary considerably at the discretion of the inspection authority. In order to achieve uniform practices within the Community, these guidelines should therefore be made mandatory. However, there should be provision for making an exception when the conduct of an inspection of such ships, in particular in view of the state of the ship's cargo tanks or of operational constraints relating to loading or unloading activities, is impossible or would involve excessive risks for the safety of the ship, its crew, the inspector or the safety of the port area.
(8) Member States should be entitled to organise the mandatory inspections efficiently so as to achieve the highest value added from a strengthened inspection regime, taking into account the various operational conditions and making use of cooperation between ports and Member States, while adhering to the overall quantitative inspection targets.
(9) As the recruitment and training of qualified inspectors requires some time, the Member States should be allowed to build up their inspection service gradually; given the characteristics of the port of Rotterdam, particularly the volume of traffic calling there, provision should be made for the possibility of extending slightly the period for recruiting and training inspectors for this port.
(10) Structural defects in a ship are likely to increase the risk of an accident at sea. In the case of a ship carrying a bulk cargo of oil, such accidents can have disastrous consequences for the environment. The inspection authority should carry out a visual examination of the accessible parts of the ship in order to detect any serious corrosion and take whatever follow-up action may be necessary, in particular vis-à-vis the classification societies responsible for the structural quality of ships.
(11) Expanded inspection based on mandatory verification of certain aspects of the ship takes a considerable amount of time and organisation. The task of preparing the inspection should be facilitated, which in turn will improve its effectiveness. To this end, the master or operator of any ship entering a Community port should notify certain information of an operational nature.
(12) The growing importance of port State control in the battle against sub-standard practices is resulting in an overall increase in inspectors' tasks. A particular effort should therefore be made to avoid redundant inspections and to improve the information available to inspectors on the content of inspections performed in previous ports. Consequently, the inspection report produced by the inspector on completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection should state which parts of the ship have already been inspected; the inspector at the following port of call will thus be able, where appropriate, to decide to refrain from inspecting a part of the ship if no deficiency was detected during the previous inspection.
(13) Essential technological progress has been made in the field of on-board equipment, which enables voyage data to be recorded (by means of voyage data recorder (VDR system) or 'black boxes') in order to facilitate post-accident investigations. In view of the importance of such equipment for maritime safety and in parallel with the efforts being made on this subject within the IMO, it should be made mandatory after a period of up to five years after the entry into force of this Directive for cargo ships built before 1 July 2002 calling at Community ports and, when compulsory, its absence or failure should warrant detention.
(14) The administration of the flag State of a ship inspected or the classification society concerned should be informed of the result of inspection in order to ensure more effective monitoring of the development and, where appropriate, the deterioration in the state of the ship in order to take the necessary remedial action while there is still time.
(15) Accidental pollution by oil is likely to cause considerable damage to the environment and the economy of the region concerned. It is therefore necessary to verify whether oil tankers calling at European Community ports have appropriate cover for such risks.
(16) The transparency of information relating to ships inspected and detained is a key element of any policy designed to deter the use of ships that fall short of the safety standards. It is necessary in this context to include the identity of the ship's charterer in the list of information published. The public should also be given fuller and clearer information on the inspections and detentions carried out in Community ports. This concerns in particular information on the more extensive inspections performed on-board ships, both by the port State authorities and by the classification societies, and an explanation of the measures taken by the port State authorities or the classification societies concerned following a detention order under the Directive.
(17) It is essential to monitor the application of the Directive in order to avoid the risk of varying levels of safety and distortion of competition between ports and regions of the European Community. The Commission should therefore have more detailed information, particularly on the movements of ships in ports, in order to be able to carry out a detailed examination of the conditions under which the Directive is being applied. Such information should be provided to the Commission sufficiently frequently to enable it to intervene more rapidly whenever anomalies are found in the application of the Directive.
(18) The measures necessary for the implementation of Directive 95/21/EC 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(6).