Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2005)589 - Amendment of Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2005)589 - Amendment of Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2005)589  |
| date | 23-11-2005 |
- Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
For more than ten years the EU has been pursuing a proactive maritime safety policy aimed at improving ship safety, safeguarding human life at sea and protecting the marine environment. However, despite the efforts of all concerned in the maritime transport chain the risk of maritime accidents cannot be ruled out entirely. What is more, the consequences of accidents at sea very often extend beyond the wrecked ship itself and affect all coastal activities. Once the fear of seafarers alone, maritime accidents involving pollution now turn into national or even international emergencies. The “prevention” component of the EU’s maritime safety policy therefore had to be supplemented with a component permitting the operational management of maritime risk at Community level.
This was the Commission’s thinking in presenting the text which became Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. This Directive requires all the ship monitoring tools now available to be properly organised and coordinated and sets up a system of deployment of resources and coordination between national authorities, to enable Member States to take better preventive action or respond better to dangerous situations.
However, if the measures introduced into Community legislation by Directive 2002/59/EC are to remain effective a very close watch needs to be kept on them to ensure that they keep abreast of operational and technical advances in the maritime world, especially in the area of ship identification and monitoring systems and satellite technology.
Accordingly, in the Commission’s numerous exchanges with the Member States on these matters it has become clear that some of the provisions of Directive 2002/59/EC will have to be amended. In particular this is to take account of the good results obtained by novel equipment such as automatic identification systems or to ensure cohesion between national policies, for example on plans for accommodating ships in distress in places of refuge.
- General background
The time limit for implementing national measures pursuant to Directive 2002/59/EC was 5 February 2004, but in view of the particular importance of some of the Directive’s provisions the Member States and the Commission worked together from the time of its adoption in June 2002 to ensure that it was implemented in good time.
Thus, for example, with regard to the “places of refuge” provided for in Article 20 of the Directive the series of inspection visits and meetings organised by the Commission with the assistance of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) highlighted common criteria and principles for harmonised and effective implementation of the Directive. Similarly, the proposal to introduce an obligation to carry an automatic identification system (AIS) for fishing vessels of more than 15 metres is a response to the large number of collisions involving fishing vessels which have evidently not been identified by commercial vessels. This measure takes into account the work of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which several years ago adopted the principle of the carriage of AIS on board commercial vessels (Class A AIS) to limit the number of accidents.
In addition, the proposed measure takes into consideration current progress in the common fisheries policy with regard to the development of positioning and communication systems to assist in controlling the fishing fleets. It has to be examined, as a joint effort between the Member States and the Commission and with EMSA assistance, to what extent it will be possible to combine AIS functionalities with fisheries monitoring systems, mainly with a view to reducing the amount of equipment on board. Such development work must not compromise the aims and respective requirements of each of these systems, in particular the anti-collision function for AIS and the need to make possible the secure and confidential transmission of fisheries monitoring information.
The installation by the Member States concerned of mechanisms making it possible to inform seafarers as to the ice conditions and the resulting sailing conditions should, incidentally, help to prevent accidents in a particularly hostile environment.
Finally, under the provisions of Directive 2002/59/EC the Member States and the Commission started, in 2002, a project to set up a platform for data exchange between the maritime administrations of the Union, with the name of SafeSeaNet. Today this system, managed by EMSA since October 2004, has to be established expressly as a Community reference system in order to ensure it is fully utilised and legally secure.
- Provisions in force in the field covered by the proposal
Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC.
- Coherence with other policies and objectives of the Union
The enhancement of ship monitoring by means of SafeSeaNet, the laying down of measures concerning navigation in ice conditions and the implementation of a stronger framework for the accommodation of ships in distress in places of refuge will have a direct environmental impact by reducing the risks of accidents and pollution and by improving the action taken by the operational authorities in the event of pollution or a pollution risk.
The measure will also bring economic benefits as a result of the reduced accident and pollution risks. From the social angle, having AIS on board fishing vessels will reduce the risks of accidents and loss of human lives in the fishing industry.
- Consultation of the stakeholders
Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
In May 2004 and February 2005 the Commission held a double round of consultative meetings with representatives of the Member States and the maritime industry on the basis of a detailed list of questions on the amendments envisaged.
These consultations and the impact studies carried out confirmed the need to amend Directive 2002/59/EC in order to flesh out in more detail how it is to be implemented. In particular they committed the Commission to take into account developments in international legislation and progress made at the Community level. The parties consulted also wanted to see new safe navigation measures integrated into the Directive, such as the establishment of a regulatory framework for equipment used for navigation in ice conditions.
As regards the carriage of AIS on board fishing vessels, the national administrations showed an interest in the positive effects which AIS on fishing vessels might have on safe navigation but had reservations as to the scope of the measure and in particular the categories of vessels concerned. The Commission had suggested applying the measure to fishing vessels of over 12 metres, raised to 15 metres in the proposal in order especially to take account of the thresholds applied in the common fisheries policy context.
As regards the places of refuge issue especially, with the help of EMSA the Commission arranged three meetings with the Member States and a series of fact-finding missions to national administrations. This work showed how useful it would be to clarify what the obligations are regarding places of refuge. The shipping industry stressed in particular the need to improve the operational procedures designed to respond effectively to emergency situations in which ships may find themselves and the importance of issues concerning guarantees for any economic damage related to the accommodation of ships.
- Collection and use of expertise
Scientific/expertise domains concerned
Maritime safety, vessel traffic monitoring, anti-collision devices and navigation in ice conditions.
With regard to this issue, the Commission’s proposal was prepared on the basis of:
- the technical analysis supplied following the 2 expert groups and the workshop organised by the Commission and EMSA for the development of the SafeSeaNet system;
- the study report on liability and compensation in connection with the accommodation of ships in places of refuge ordered by EMSA from Oslo University at the Commission’s request.
- Work undertaken by the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on Improving Safety at Sea following the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker in 2002 (conclusions of the MARE Committee).
- Results of the evaluation exercise on places of refuge conducted in the national administrations by the Commission with the help of EMSA;
- Work undertaken by the IMO (in particular the resolutions adopted by that organisation on the 'places of refuge' issue).
According to the opinions received, the following problems justify the amendments made to the Directive:
The Directive does not adequately reflect the technological developments that have taken place since its adoption. Since its implementation, the description of the system, the detailed responsibilities of the Member States and the technicalities of data exchange via the network have been defined but have not been incorporated in the Directive in force.
Fishing is one of the most dangerous activities in the maritime world, as can be seen from the many accidents in the industry. One of the main causes of collisions with other vessels stems from poor positioning and identification of fishing vessels, in particular by the commercial vessels crossing their path.
Directive 2002/59/EC introduced provisions requiring the Member States to draw up plans to accommodate ships in distress in places of refuge. The experience gained with implementing the Directive has revealed differences of understanding and implementation by the Member States as regards the content of the plans and the responsibilities of the authorities concerned, which have to be remedied by making the existing provisions clearer and more focused.
Certain sea areas of the European Union, in particular the Baltic Sea, are ice-covered for several winter months, entailing greater risks of accidents and pollution and potentially disastrous consequences for the environment. The trend observed for a number of years, of a steady increase in the transport of oil products in the Baltic, calls for more stringent protection and surveillance measures.
The data gathered and the detailed conclusions of the study are contained in the annexed document SEC .../..., which is summarised below:
- Impact analysis
Option 1 – Do nothing at this stage: this option would allow fundamental differences of interpretation to persist with regard to certain provisions of the Directive, in particular as regards the extent of Member States’ obligations concerning places of refuge.
Option 2 – Let the Member States act through regional cooperation bodies (such as Helcom for the Baltic or the Bonn Agreement for the North Sea). This would mean giving up the principle of harmonised application of the Directive between the different maritime regions of the European Union. For some measures this solution would create appreciable differences of treatment between ships without justification.
Option 3 – Completely recast the Directive to take into account the results of the work done to set up the Community maritime safety information exchange system SafeSeaNet, and to merge in particular certain report messages. However, considering the state of progress with transposing Directive 2002/59/EC and the opinion of most of the Member States, such a drastic review seems premature at this stage.
Option 4 – Carry out a specifically targeted amendment of the Directive.
After a detailed analysis of the situation taking into account the impact of the proposed measures and in particular the urgent need for harmonisation of the Member States’ different “places of refuge” procedures, a targeted amendment of Directive 2002/59/EC would seem to be the best way to make sure that it is implemented properly.
This impact analysis is part of the Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme and is available on the Commission’s Internet website: europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact .
3)
Contents
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- 2) CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
- Methodology used
- Main organisations/experts consulted
- Summary of advice received and used
- Means used to make the expert advice publicly available
- 4) BUDGETARY IMPACT
- 5) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Summary of the proposed action
This amendment is intended to:
- incorporate in Directive 2002/59/EC additional measures for better ship safety and environmental protection;
- harmonise the implementation of the “places of refuge” plans to ensure they are applied uniformly in the different Member States, which will help in preventing serious pollution. There is a need, in particular, to clarify the rules for applying these principles;
- integrate in the Directive the principles defined in the work done by the Member States and the Commission to set up the Community maritime safety information exchange system SafeSeaNet. In particular, the principles have to be established on the one hand for the systematic exchange of maritime safety information at Community level via the SafeSeaNet system and on the other hand for cooperation between the Member States on monitoring and developing the system. All national systems will have to be compatible with SafeSeaNet and any information of Community interest will have to be presented in a harmonised manner;
- prepare the Community legal framework for future technological developments, especially the space applications such as ship monitoring beacons, imaging systems or Galileo. This progress has to make it possible to extend surveillance of maritime traffic into European waters and, in particular, provide better coverage of the open sea.
- Legal basis
Article 80 i of the Treaty.
- The principle of subsidiarity
The subsidiarity principle applies since the proposal does not affect an area of sole Community competence.
The proposal’s objectives cannot be attained satisfactorily by Member State action for the following reasons:
- the proposed action seeks to bolster the Community vessel traffic monitoring system with a scheme requiring close cooperation on the exchange of information, in particular on the nature of ships’ cargoes or the management of places of refuge;
- insufficient coordination and piecemeal management of ship information increase the risks of accidents and pollution. To allow differences to persist in the implementation of 'places of refuge' plans would be detrimental to the safety of human life at sea or the protection of the environment.
The proposal’s objectives can be best achieved by Community action for the following reasons:
- the specific function of the proposed measures is to allow Member States access to accurate knowledge of the vessels in the waters under their jurisdiction, enabling them to take more effective action to prevent the potential risks where necessary. Sharing the information will help improve the quality of the data and make processing easier;
- implementing the “places of refuge” plans will make a decisive contribution to raising the present level of maritime safety in the European Union;
- reducing the number of collisions involving fishing vessels, which are not currently required to be fitted with an AIS, will make possible better protection of fishermen;
- the new harmonised rules for winter navigation in the Baltic are necessary for reducing the very high accident risk in that area;
- improving the exchange of information on dangerous goods being carried by ships will enable all Member States to improve their ability to anticipate and prevent risks.
The principle of subsidiarity is maintained since the proposal complements existing Community measures so as to guarantee that they are put into effect in a harmonised way.
The proposal is therefore consistent with the subsidiarity principle.
- The principle of proportionality
The proposal complies with the principle of proportionality for the following reasons:
- in fleshing out the existing provisions in more detail the proposal is in line with the proportionality principle. Accordingly, the Member States have for the most part already committed the resources and expenditure necessary for implementing measures under Directive 2002/59/EC or international instruments which they have themselves ratified within the IMO;
- the proposal does not involve financial and/or administrative burdens for economic operators (e.g. certain adaptations will be necessary for certain vessels sailing in the Baltic in winter). At the level of the national administrations, the infrastructure necessary for implementing the new measures is (or should be) already in place due to the existing legislation.
- Choice of instruments
Proposed instrument(s): directive.
Other instruments would not have been appropriate for the following reasons:
- the proposal is for an amendment to an existing directive.
The proposal has no implications for the Community budget.
- Simulation, pilot phase and transition period
The proposal has been, or will be, the subject of a transition period.
- Review/revision/sunset clause
The proposal includes a revision clause.
- Correlation table
The Member States are required to communicate to the Commission the text of national provisions transposing the Directive as well as a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.
- European Economic Area
This draft instrument concerns an area covered by the EEA Agreement and must therefore be extended to the European Economic Area.