22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/38

1)

the fact that substandard shipping still persists and that further action is needed to combat those flag States, classification societies, shipowners, ship managers, charterers, terminal operators and ship masters that continue to conduct their business in an irresponsible manner to further commercial gain and with disregard for international rules and safe practices;

2)

maritime accidents and incidents that resulted in loss of life and pollution of the oceans, regional and local coastal and maritime area, and thereby causing substantial economic losses, serious environmental damage and considerable public concern;

3)

the importance of a vibrant and competitive European maritime transport system for regions and cities — particularly those involved in maritime industries, exports and economic links;

4)

the need to ensure coordination with the maritime strategy of the EU, the requirement for mutual synergies and the potential for offering regional and local authorities realistic solutions.

5)

the subsidiarity and proportionality principles are of particular relevance to EU measures in the field of transport, as the EU, Member States and regions often share responsibility for legislation and implementation;

6)

the new framework of legislative proposals must:

1.1

thinks that increasing the responsibility of flag States and harmonising the interpretation of the IMO conventions including all their up-to-date assembly resolutions and amendments will be of substantial benefits to the European fleet;

1.2

is of the opinion that the specific proposals put forward to increase the pressure on sub-standard ships, rewarding well operated vessels, and increasing the pressure on the flag States to comply with their responsibilities under the IMO Conventions, are the correct way forward;

1.3

agrees revoking IMO Resolution A.847(20) and replacing it with IMO Resolution A.(…) (23) whereby Member States have to discharge effectively and consistently their obligations as flag States in accordance with IMO Conventions and taking account of IMO Resolution A.(…)(23);

1.4

believes that the economic and social distortions as well as the use of under qualified crews caused by the varying interpretation of IMO Conventions by flag States need to be corrected;

1.5

is of the opinion that the best way to harmonise the interpretation of IMO Conventions including all their up-to-date assembly resolutions and amendments, is to uniformly apply throughout the EU, IMO's own interpretation of these conventions;

1.6

argues that the syllabuses and training requirements leading to professional maritime qualifications should be harmonised throughout the EU, and that this should be made an integral part of the mutual recognition of certificates of competency;

1.7

is concerned about the possibility and practice of changing classification society and/or flag State in case of disagreement between shipowner/ship manager and the classification society and/or the flag State in matters relating to safety, manning, maintenance, equipment, and operation of the vessel;

1.8

suggests that classification societies and flag States should insist on full compliance of the vessel with IMO conventions prior to changing classification society and/or flag of registration of a vessel. Further, full compliance with IMO resolutions should be a prerequisite for acceptance of a vessel by a classification society and/or a flag State, and of the vessel's remaining in class and on the register;

1.9

expresses its agreement that the existing body of the maritime labour instruments will be embodied in this Directive;

1.10

highlights its concern over seafarers' working time, the fatigue resulting from constant overworking and the dangers of errors, accidents, damage, and possible pollution associated with overworking and inadequate rest periods may cause;

1.11

is of the opinion that leaving the right to exempt ships from the application of basic flag State rules to the sole and entire discretion of the individual administrations could and does result in different levels of safety being achieved in different Member States and distorts competition between flag States. For this reason, the right to exempt should be curtailed to, e.g. naval vessels exclusively;

1.12

recommends that the harmonised interpretations of technical safety standards, at present applicable to passenger vessels … as per Article 12 of Council Directive 98/18/EC of March 1998, should be applied to all merchant ships and fishing vessels;

1.13

advocates maximum cooperation between the maritime authorities and the local authorities in order to adopt an integrated approach towards tackling issues connected with maritime navigation and the impact on the region's economic and social development;

1.14

agrees that the maritime administrations of the Member States should be able to rely on appropriate resources for the implementation of their flag State obligations;

1.15

concurs with the Directives provision for the development of a database providing essential information on ships flying the flag of a Member State, as well as on ships which have left the register of a Member State;

1.16

agrees with the IMO proposed Member State Audit Scheme, however, requests for this audit scheme to be made compulsory, and be part of a quality certification scheme in accordance with ISO or equivalent standards as specified by the EC;

1.17

expresses concern at the criminalisation and vilification of ship masters. While there are occasions where criminal culpability may be evident, this is generally incorrect, inappropriate, and very damaging to a profession who is doing a rather difficult, stressful, and sometimes dangerous job very successfully;

1.18

identifies concern about the possible curtailment of ‘right of innocent passage’ and ‘freedom of navigation’ of ships passing through the waters of European States without calling at one of their ports. These rights ought to be respected as far as possible in the interests of safety. It should be made clear to the shipping industry that passing vessels have the obligation to navigate correctly within VTS schemes and follow reporting procedures;

1.19

is concerned about the possible additional administrative burden on senior officers if the ship has to report that it is due for inspections as well as providing a certificate of insurance. IMO's proposal to reduce the certificate inspections by streamlining the process with online electronic certification processes should be expanded to include insurance and be made compulsory. Comment 1.18 also applies to the proposed Directive on Port State Control.

—

Timber deck cargo is liable to shifting in heavy weather,

—

During winter time, in high latitudes, timber deck cargo is liable to icing.

2.1

believes that reinforcing and improving the effectiveness of port state control would be beneficial to the community;

2.2

agrees that the reinforcement of ship inspections will have a direct environmental impact and positive economic and social repercussions including fairer competition conditions for maritime transport;

2.3

expresses concern at the use of pilots in strengthening port state control through reporting of deficiencies and by supplementing port- and flag State inspections. Pilots are skilled in navigation and in conning a vessel. They are not trained as port- or flag State inspectors;

2.4

draws attention to the fact that the ship's age should not be taken as sole criteria for the need for expanded inspections. The management of the maintenance of the vessel, the cargoes it carried, and the sea areas it transited during its voyages, all affect the condition of the vessel. A relatively new, but badly built vessel suffering substandard or little maintenance and careless operation due to inadequate management and a less able, under qualified, but cheap crew, being over-stressed during loading, discharging, and ballasting operations and subjected to generally bad weather during its passages will be in a worse condition and presents a considerably larger risk for accidents and pollution than an older vessel that has been well built, well maintained, manned, and operated according to best practice;

2.5

calls for an inspection rate of 100 % of the vessels calling at EU ports in anyone year. However, it suggests that each ship will generally be inspected only once during anyone year, unless circumstances warrant more frequent inspections. The results of inspections will immediately be made available to EU port- and flag States upon completion of said inspection(s);

2.6

totally agrees with the intentions to tightening up provisions concerning the human element.

3.1

applauds the introduction of a ‘prevention’ component permitting the operational management of maritime risk at Community level as part of the EU's maritime safety policy;

3.2

recommends the introduction of AIS systems on all fishing vessels, inshore as well as off-shore, and not just on those above 15 m length. It is the smaller ones that are most at risk as they are difficult to identify visually as well as by radar if they are built from timber or GRP;

3.3

is in total agreement with catering for the need to improve the operational procedures designed to respond effectively to emergency situations in which ships may find themselves and of the importance of issues concerning guarantees for any economic damage related to the accommodation of ships in distress.

4.1

agrees with the general objective of the Commission's proposal to improve maritime safety by establishing clear Community-wide guidelines on the technical investigations to be carried out following maritime casualties and incidents and the importance of such investigations;

4.2

supports the provision that accident investigations should focus on risk prevention and be based on IMO's principles and recommendations, and be targeted at how legislation, the operation of vessels, preparedness for, and conducting emergency responses can be improved;

4.3

emphasises the need for extensive use of the relevant models and methods developed in the framework of the IMO to investigate maritime accidents.

5.1

agrees with the need for effective monitoring and an audit of classification societies, their subsidiaries and participating undertakings and to introduce penalties for failure to comply with their obligations and to establish, at international and Community level, exhaustive technical inspection mechanisms which provide reliable information about the real state of ships.

5.2

concurs with the suggestion that the recognised organisations should establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. The joint body must be independent, have all the necessary resources to enable work to be carried out in-depth and on a continuous basis, and be in a position to propose both individual and collective measures in order to improve the quality of the recognised organisations' work;

5.3

agrees that cooperation between the recognised organisations should be extended to ensure that their technical regulations are compatible and that these regulations and international conventions are interpreted and applied in a uniform manner to provide a common basis for evaluation and instruments which will enable corrective measures to be taken as required to achieve a uniform level of safety in the Community, technical cooperation between Classification Societies, compatibility between regulations, the application of IMO's interpretation of international conventions throughout the EU, and thus lead to genuine mutual recognition of class certificates and marine equipment;

5.4

requests that the last line in item (31) ‘and inform the flag State when necessary’ be changed to ‘and make this information immediately available to the flag State’.

6.1

agrees with the initiative to incorporate the Athens Convention into Community law for compulsory insurance rather than to leaving it to the discretion of the shipowner through P&I clubs;

6.2

welcomes the initiative to extend the application of the provisions of the Athens Convention to domestic traffic but feels that including all inland waterways may not be appropriate and asks the Commission to clarify the definition of inland waterway and advices it less extensive measures would suffice here;

6.3

expresses agreement that for shipping incidents, the 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention introduces a strict liability regime. That strict liability is aimed at improving the position of claimants, that the liability is not dependent on an act of fault or negligence by the carrier and that therefore there is no need for the claimant to prove the liability of the carrier;

6.4

notes the reservation expressed by shipowners and P&I clubs regarding Article 3 (1) of the Athens Convention on the liability for incidents caused by terrorism;

6.5

stresses the need to find internationally acceptable proposals as the only solution in the impasse reached owing to the refusal of the insurance industry to accept the new liability limits and related insurance requirements provided for in the Commission's proposal for a regulation;

7.1

agrees with the call of the European Parliament for ‘a comprehensive and cohesive European maritime policy, which would have as its objective the creation of a European maritime safety area based on the introduction of a system of liability covering the entire maritime transport chain’

7.2

nevertheless considers that any arrangement regarding the issue of liability and compensation for maritime pollution must be international;

7.3

supports possible amendments to the applicable rules in order to render parties other than shipowners liable, as well as the introduction of unlimited liability of shipowners in the event of severe or deliberate infringement of their safety and anti-pollution obligations;

7.4

underlines the need for any amendment of the Civil Liability Convention to maintain the balance of participation between each side (shipowners and cargo operators) based on the arrangements promoted through the voluntary proposals/undertakings of ship operators;

7.5

requests that ‘parties other than shipowners’ is to include ship managers and charterers;

7.6

expresses concern that the compatibility with international law in the application of the Directive should be recognised;

7.7

suggests that ship masters should not be included in the definition of ‘parties other than shipowners’ unless they behaved grossly negligent in the execution of their duties;

7.8

expresses concern about the disparity between this Directive and the Hague/Hague–Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules, governing shipowners' liability under Bills of Lading, Sea Waybills and Charter parties as used in international maritime transport, which may give rise to confusion as to which liability regime would apply as it is felt that the wording of this Directive does not make it totally clear whether it applies to pollution damage only, or whether it includes other damage to third parties;

7.9

agrees with the Commission that establishing an obligatory insurance system will help tackle the problem of substandard ships;

7.10

requests that the wording of the insurance policy the ship is to carry, clearly states that it covers damage to places of refuge.

—

Ensure that charterers have an obligation not to use substandard vessels.

—

The commercial advantage gained by a charterer of using a substandard vessel, at a lower freight rate, is lost due to the increased costs of the financial guarantee as it involves the added risk of using a substandard vessel.

—

It becomes financially unattractive to charterers to use substandard vessels and fewer cargoes will be available to them.

—

The incentive to operate, charter, and use substandard vessels is therefore diminished, and the owners of such ships will be forced to either bring the ship, its manning and operation into full compliance with international regulations, or to scrap them.