POLICY, LEGAL AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS.
Transcript of POLICY, LEGAL AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS.
P a g e | 1 16 July13
e-Compliance
Deliverable 1.2: POLICY, LEGAL AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS.
Work Package(s): 1
Task: 1.2 “POLICY, LEGAL AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS.
Task Leader.
Contributing partner (s)
WP Leader
Planned submission date
Actual submission date
Nature
Dissemination Level
Project full title
Project acronym
Grant Agreement number
Theme
ILS
ACC, DNV, DAN, BMT & PB
ACC
M4
M6
O
PU
A European Maritime e-Compliance Cooperation Model
e-Compliance
321606
SST.2012.5.2-6
Lead participant for this deliverable: ILS
Authors:
Konstantinos Vasileiou (ILS)
Takis Katsoulakos (ILS)
José Manuel Fernández Hernando (ACC)
Bert Cappuyns (PB)
Rolf Skjong (DNV)
Takis Varelas (DANAOS)
David Griffiths (BMT)
P a g e | 2 16 July13
Revision history:
Version Author Date Comment
1 Konstantinos Vasileiou,
Takis Katsoulakos (ILS)
04/10/2013 Version 1 of the document.
2 Jose Manuel Fernandez
Hernando (ACC)
Bert Cappuyns (PT)
Rolf Skjong (DNV)
Takis Varelas (DAN)
David Griffiths (BMT)
03/12/2013 Integration of contributions from all
authors. Version 2 of the document.
3 Konstantinos Vasileiou
(ILS)
29/08/2014 Corrections after suggestions from
Project Officer.
4 Albert Ruiz (PT) 17/02/2015 Contributions for port and PCS
perspective.
5 Konstantinos Vasileiou
(ILS)
06/03/2015 Corrections according to the
suggestions by MAL.
Quality Control:
Organisation Date
Checked by WP Leader ACC 29/08/14
Reviewed by MAL 06/03/15
Approved by Project
Manager BMT 05/02/14
P a g e | 3 16 July13
Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
2 Legislation European policies and Standards affecting e-Compliance .............................. 6
2.1 EU legislation affecting e-Compliance ......................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Developments associated with the EU maritime transport space without
barriers 9
2.1.2 The Ship Formalities Directive............................................................................ 10
3 Harmonisation and/or Overlapping of legislation and EU policies .................................. 15
3.1 Ship Perspective ........................................................................................................ 15
3.2 Class Perspective ....................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Classification Rules and Harmonization ............................................................. 17
3.2.2 Harmonization – IACS ......................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 The need for consistent use of terms ................................................................ 19
3.2.4 Equivalents ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2.5 Grandfathering ................................................................................................... 21
3.2.6 No need for Harmonization ............................................................................... 21
3.2.7 Overlapping and Conflicting Rules and Regulations .......................................... 21
3.3 Ports and Port Community Perspective .................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Legal – Information transfer between Ports and PCS ........................................ 24
4 Policy, Regulation and Standardisation Map ................................................................... 27
5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 32
References ................................................................................................................................ 33
P a g e | 4 16 July13
Executive Summary
This deliverable examines the current situation of the regulatory compliance in the EU
maritime domain and how European policies and legislation affect compliance. The issues
are analysed from class, ship, and port perspective, building on reports from previous
projects, in particular SKEMA, FLAGSHIP, e-Freight and the currently in progress eMAR.
The legal requirements on information transfer between different ports and PCS are
investigated for building a business case for a possible knowledge transfer between ports.
D1.2 provides a Policy, Regulations and Standardisation Map consisting of the following
components:
1. Regulatory regime analysis,
2. Review of policies that impact e-Compliance,
3. Standardisation requirements and development strategies at European and
International level.
P a g e | 5 16 July13
1 Introduction
The maritime compliance in EU remains “a mosaic of national, regional and even port-
specific reporting requirements”, an unacceptable situation in the context of a single market
[11]. As the rest of the deliverable will present in detail, the development of Rules and
Regulations follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy can only grow. Thus, in this
deliverable we provide a comprehensive overview of the most relevant legislation, EU
policies and standards, which affect e-Compliance, in particular the ones which affect
shipping and ports. The focus is the ship and the ship–port interface. There are different
types of shipping to consider, such as cargo transport or passenger transport. We also have
to consider the differentiation in regulations between short sea and deep sea.
Legislation comprises of regulations (international, EU, and national) that ships and ports
need to comply with. In this deliverable we focus mainly on the analysis of cases of
international and European regulations, although the same issues and potential solutions
apply to national regulations. EU policy includes legal and financial policy instruments. The
European Transport Policy contains a mixture of legal regulation and inter-state cooperation.
It has been based on the development of policy documents such as White Paper (2001),
Mid-term review of the White Paper (2005), Green Paper (2006), Blue Book (2007), Action
plans and programmes as well as Directives and Regulations1. The Green Paper has
suggested, for the first time, steps in building an integrated maritime policy. The Blue Book
has developed this concept further. Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s
maritime transport policy until 2018 acknowledges the importance of the systematic use of
ICTs and associated methodological developments in the creation of a barrier-free transport
market [1]. Standards can be mandated or recommended by legislation or EU policy.
Voluntary standards such as those by ISO offer industry benefits but are not directly relevant
to e-Compliance. Future e-Maritime related standards are likely to focus on safety, security
and measures to reduce the impact on the environment through pollution, discharge of
harmful substances (including emissions of greenhouse gases) and other effects of
operations or emergencies.
1 EU Transport Policy Analysis: strengths and weaknesses, SKEMA Study
(URL: http://www.transport-
research.info/Upload/Documents/201204/20120405_203905_92848_D2.1.7%20EU%20Transport%20
Policy%20GPI%2006Feb09.pdf )
P a g e | 6 16 July13
2 Legislation European policies and Standards affecting e-Compliance
The maritime regulations are described in Figure 1, which has been included in the e-
Compliance DoW and will be reproduced below for the reader’s convenience.
National authorities have a responsibility to implement and enforce regulations determined
at international and supranational levels (indicated by full lines). The dotted line represents
that, to some extent, the European Union (through EMSA) also has a direct influence on
shipping companies.
International level
•International Maritime Organisation, IMO
•International Labour Organisation, ILO
Supranational level
•European Union, EU
•European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA
National level
•National Maritime Authority, NMA
•National Environmental Protection Agency NPA
Shipping Company
Figure 1: International, Supranational, and National levels that influence shipping companies
The IMO (International Maritime Organisation), together with the ILO (International Labour
Organisation), have established a global legal framework (described in Table 1) to support
the international regulatory regime. The four pillars of the regime are internationally rooted
and apply to the majority of vessels, ensuring that shipping companies are competing on a
level playing field.
Table 1: The four pillars of the international regulatory regime
Name Authority Key issues
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
United Nations, International Maritime Organization
Requires Flag States to ensure that their ships comply with minimum safety standards in construction, equipment and operation.
STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping
United Nations, International Maritime Organization
Establishes basic requirements on training, certification and watch keeping for seafarers.
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of
United Nations, International Maritime
Designed to minimize pollution of the seas, through dumping, oil and exhaust
P a g e | 7 16 July13
Pollution from Ships Organization pollution.
MLC Maritime Labour Convention
United Nations, International Labour Organization
Sets minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship, from minimum age to conditions of employment, hours of work and rest, and social security.
Other important IMO and ILO conventions are the following four, as they establish the
playing field for shipping companies and are the instruments for Port State control:
a) the International Convention on Load Lines (ILLC), 1966;
b) the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
c) the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (ITC 69);
d) the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO No 147);
e) the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC 92).
2.1 EU legislation affecting e-Compliance
There are two interrelated EU directives affecting e-Compliance:
Directive 2002/59/EC for vessel traffic monitoring (the "VTM Directive") aimed to
improve safety and environmental protection in European seas;
Directive 2010/65/EU (ship formalities directive), describing the actions that Member
States should implement to make efficient use of electronic data transmission and
information exchange systems [2].
One of the main objectives of the VTM Directive is to guarantee the interconnection of the
member states via the Community maritime information exchange system SafeSeaNet (SSN),
in order to monitor movements of ships and dangerous/polluting cargoes in European
waters2. National Single Windows have been developed to provide a single national interface
for mandatory reporting to SSN, e-Customs, and other electronic systems in European
waters associated with the ship formalities directive.
Linked to the above is Maritime Surveillance, i.e. putting in place an integrated information
management system to enable the:
identification,
monitoring,
tracking, and
2 The eFreight Single Window (URL: http://www.shortsea.dk/defaultinfo.aspx?topicid=173&index=2 )
P a g e | 8 16 July13
reporting
of all vessels at sea and on inland waterways to and from European ports and in transit
through or in close proximity to EU waters. This system belongs to the e-Maritime Initiative
and offers a number of e-services at the different levels of the transport chain. In that
regard, the system should be able to interface with the e-Freight, e-Customs and Intelligent
Transport Systems. Existing information resources (AIS, LRIT, SafeSeaNet or CleanSeaNet)
were taken into account, as well as resources under development (Galileo and GMES)3.
Also related is the Legislative framework regarding to ship inspection and control:
2009/16/CE Port State Control.
Commission regulation (eu) no 428/2010: implementing Article 14 of Directive
2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards expanded
inspections of ships
Other types of inspections applying to passenger vessels:
Directive 1999/35/EC: On a system of mandatory surveys for safe operation of
regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services.
R 1907/2000: Regulations about compulsory inspections to guarantee safe operation
in passenger vessels. It is the transposition of the European directive into Spanish
legal framework.
As described by EMSA in [5], THETIS is the information system that supports the new Port
State Control inspection regime (NIR). THETIS provides a unified picture for the user
(inspector) by consolidating data from a number of databases and information sources
(maritime safety databases, including those of the EU-recognised classification societies,
Community and national information systems and other port State control regimes).
This information system is crucial for the implementation of the new regime, as described in
a number of directives (Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control and its four
implementing regulations, Directive 99/35/EC on ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger
crafts, Directive 2009/17/EC on vessel traffic monitoring, Directive 2009/15/EC on
Recognised Organisations and the related Regulation (EC) No 319/2009 and, Directive
2009/20/EC on insurance for maritime claims and Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on liability
for the carriage of passengers).
However, THETIS is available only to a very limited audience: Port State control officers.
There are other databases that are available for the wider shipping community, for free or
3 2009/2095(INI) - 21/01/2009 Non-legislative basic document (URL:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1084533&t=e&l=en )
P a g e | 9 16 July13
for charge, such as the inspection database of Paris MoU, Equasis, database of Korean
register KR-Con, etc.
Further, the European Union has its own special regulatory requirements:
Council Directives 1998/18 covering the safety rules and standards for passenger
ships operating domestic servicing;
Directive 96/98/EC covering marine equipment;
Regulation (EC) n. 782/2003 covering the prohibition of organisation compounds;
Directives 2003/24/EC and 2003/25/EC relevant to compliance with Stockholm
Agreement. These directives cover Ro-Ro Passenger Ships flying a flag of the
European Community or operating to or from a port of a Member State on a regular
service regardless of their flag.
European legislation regarding custom procedures:
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code).
2.1.1 Developments associated with the EU maritime transport space without barriers
The European policy European maritime transport space without barriers established an
action plan for the simplification of formalities for vessels sailing between EU ports as well
as a facilitation for vessels making a call in a port located in a third country or free zone. As
part of the action plan, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 177/2010 introducing
streamlined procedures for the so-called "regular shipping services" (RSS) performed by
authorised companies.
Another part of the action plan is the e-Maritime initiative, which aims to foster the use of
advanced information technologies for the maritime transport sector by investigating
regulatory rationalisation arising from the use of new ICT capabilities for interoperability and
electronic communication between the different actors involved in maritime transport. Even
though the EU e-Maritime programme will be specified through industry engagement, an
early priority for the e-Maritime initiative has been support for the implementation of
Maritime Single Windows.
In a broader context, the White Paper for the future of transport advocates a Single
European Transport Area in which all residual barriers between modes and between borders
P a g e | 10 16 July13
are to be eliminated. In particular, it calls for a Blue Belt in the seas around Europe which
would simplify the formalities for ships travelling between EU ports [10].
2.1.2 The Ship Formalities Directive
Directive 2010/65/EU for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States
[2], describes the Member States’ actions for efficient use of electronic data transmission
and information exchange systems [4]. Such actions will contribute to the achievement of a
European maritime transport space without barriers.
Article 1 (Harmonizing Administrative Procedures): the goal is to simplify the
administrative procedures applied to maritime transport by standardizing the
electronic transmission of information. Both reference domain models (class
diagrams) and standard messages are being developed by various working groups
and projects. Standard messages include the electronic FAL forms thus harmonizing
international legislation, such as the IMO/FAL Convention.
Article 3 (Commission – MS co-operation): the goal is for Member States to
harmonise their reporting formalities and to co-operate with the Commission for the
coordination of reporting formalities within the Union.
Article 5 (National Single Windows): Member States need to implement a single entry
point for all reporting obligations conducted using electronic data transmission. To
further facilitate maritime transport and reduce administrative burdens National
Single Windows must be interoperable, accessible and compatible with the
SafeSeaNet system, and other EU systems such as e-Customs.
2.1.2.1 Development of the eManifest
In general, the cargo manifest is the document used to declare all cargo, ordered by bill of
landing and by destination. The declaration is done when the ship departures from the port
in order to:
Fulfil the obligations of with customs procedures (for shipping companies), and
Carry out the liquidation of port taxes applied to the goods (for port authorities).
Information relating to cargo, which is required by customs and other authorities, is
collected via a range of cargo declarations. Despite the adoption of a standardised cargo
declaration in the FAL Convention and the existence of an electronic format (FAL2), there is
no harmonised structure for the cargo manifest agreed by the Member States to be used for
electronic administrative clearance systems. FAL2 is for Maritime Authorities but not used in
practice, as Member States use manifests with more items to address national legislation.
P a g e | 11 16 July13
The process associated with cargo release normally starts with the submission of a CUSCAR
message4 (specific for each country) by the carrier to a PCS to facilitate the control of goods.
In each country there is a large number of authorities (often over ten) that can put ‘HOLDS’
on the release of goods. Customs Import Declaration (CUSDEC message5) normally
submitted to a Customs’ system by import agent is the last stage of the cargo clearance from
authorities.
The electronic cargo 'eManifest' with information on the EU status of goods is being
considered as a practical solution to achieve a consolidated view of what is carried on-board
concerning a specific Port. The latest Commission position is that the eManifest would take
the form of a harmonised and electronic cargo manifest further facilitating maritime
transport for vessels calling at EU and also at third country ports by:
Facilitating re-use of data previously provided
Eliminating multiple reporting of the same data to different authorities in a ship’s
departure/ arrival port.
The eManifest will be implemented in a phased approach [3]:
“Proof of Union Status6” and “Identification of post-Export goods” and the
requirements of the maritime authorities are in the first phase;
Improvements for supply chain security (processes, interaction with Import Control
Systems and data) will be designed from the outset but implemented in subsequent
phases.
When the eManifest is lodged in an EU port, the Union status of the goods on board will be
indicated and, if confirmed, customs controls will no longer be needed for Union goods apart
from random checks. For the Proof of Union status, status information will be entered in the
eManifest. The credibility of the information is to be either ensured by an Authorised
Consignor for the Proof of status, or by endorsement of the status by customs. Given the
multiple cargo related messages and particularly the different channels for message
transmission used today and actual Customs systems in operation any changes particularly
arising from work flow may be very costly to implement. This makes decisions whether the
eManifest should be structured as one message or multiple messages (which will reduce
work flow changes) particularly difficult. Overall, an agreement to the eManifest by all
stakeholders is difficult to achieve. The benefits need to be clearly articulated. Possibly it
4 Customs cargo report message, Development of the Customs Co-operation Council, (URL:
http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d00a/trmd/cuscar_c.htm ) 5 URL: http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d03a/trmd/cusdec_c.htm
6 Whether the origin of goods under question is an EU member.
P a g e | 12 16 July13
should be remembered that the MSW provides an opportunity to design in the required
changes aiming to reduce costs in the long run.
2.1.2.2 Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) and Trade Control and Expert System
(TRACES)
To clear veterinary consignments entering the EU, a validated CVED is needed. This
certificate verifies the completion of the relevant checks, as the EU and UK laws describe, so
that the consignment’s contents can be circulated freely. For products that are not fit for
human consumption, the certificate also includes the delivery address7.
Similarly, for veterinary health issues, TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System) has been
established8. TRACES is a trans-European web-based network for veterinary health which is
responsible for the notification, certification and monitoring of imports, exports and trade in
animals and animal products. TRACES is used by economic operators (private sector) and
competent authorities all over the world, in order to trace back and forth animal and animal
product movement. TRACES support applications for ITAHCs for exporting and CVEDs for
importing live animals and their products.
2.1.2.3 MSW Messages and Data models
The information elements that come under the reporting obligations and therefore under
consideration for the development of MSW data models and standard messages are:
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) and Estimated Time of Departure (ETD) reporting
Actual Time of Arrival (ATA) and Actual Time of Departure (ATD) reporting
Notification for ships arriving in ports of the Member States/ Norway/ Iceland
(submitted at least 24 hours before arrival and including ETA and persons on board
information)
Notification for ships departing from ports of the Member States / Norway/ Iceland
(submitted before or on departure and including ETD and scheduled destination
information)
Persons on board lists (passengers, crew, stowaways)
Notification of dangerous or polluting goods carried on board (for inbound voyage
submitted at least 24h before ship arrival and for outbound voyage before or on ship
departure)
7 Border Inspection Posts for live animals and animal products, Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs.
(URL: https://www.gov.uk/overseas-veterinary-certificates-and-border-inspection-posts ) 8 TRACES presentation, European Commission.
(URL: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/traces/about/index_en.htm )
P a g e | 13 16 July13
Notification of waste and residues
Notification of security information (including e.g. the information on ship security
level and on last 10 calls at port facilities. It is submitted at least 24 hours before
arrival)
Entry summary declaration (ENS) for non-Union goods
Cargo manifest (see also 2.1.2.1)
Declaration of temporary storage
FAL form 1: General Declaration
FAL form 2: Cargo Declaration
FAL form 3: Ship’s Stores Declaration
FAL form 4: Crew’s Effects Declaration
FAL form 5: Crew List
FAL form 6: Passenger List
FAL form 7: Dangerous Goods
Maritime Declaration of Health
Given the urgency of developing National Single Windows in all EU Member States a number
of projects are developing MSW models. Notable examples are:
• the eMS group9, which is an expert group on maritime administrative simplification
and electronic information services;
• the ANNA (Advanced National Networks for Administrations) project10. This EU
Member States driven project - in close co-operation with the European Commission – is
aimed to support the effective implementation of the ship formalities Directive. ANNA is
developing the Business to Maritime Single Window (B2MSW) Messages which will be tested
by a number of member states in MSW pilots.
2.1.2.4 Electronic port clearance (EPC)
The IMO Facilitation Committee (FAL) decided in April 2013 to list ISO-28005 as a reference
for XML based electronic port clearance systems (EPC) in the FAL Compendium, as described
in depth in the ISO specifications in [7] and [8].
9 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/e-maritime_en.htm
10 http://www.annamsw.eu/about.html
P a g e | 14 16 July13
EPC currently consists of two parts: Part 1 is "Message structures – Implementation of a
maritime single window system" [7] and part 2 is "Core data elements" [8]. ISO/PAS 28005-
1:2012 allows different configurations of the single window (SW), from a minimum solution
to support basic clearance requirements to a more complex system to facilitate more
extensive cooperation between ship and shore organisations.
The standard has been developed through a number of EU-projects, and lately e-Freight has
been responsible for the finalisation of the standard and the work towards IMO FAL
approval.
P a g e | 15 16 July13
3 Harmonisation and/or Overlapping of legislation and EU policies
3.1 Ship Perspective
Ship operators in general have to comply with all rules and regulations applicable to the
types of ships they operate, the cargo they carry and the regulations applicable to the areas
the vessels are trading.
Although the master onboard the vessel has the overall responsibility for the regulatory
compliance, every company has to adjust the corporate safety management system (SMS)
with all new regulations applicable to the fleet.
The issues for this compliance are as follows:
1. There is not a uniform way for shipping companies to be updated for all new or
existing rules and regulations applicable for a particular type of vessel, a
particular trade, etc.
2. The shipping company using its own resources or external consultants has to
understand the scope of the rule or regulation and modify the corporate SMS to
comply with it.
3. The internal ship management system has to be modified in order to record the
information for reporting purposes and to check the compliance.
4. All the above have to be distributed to the vessels and the offices have to be
briefed and trained to the changes.
5. Ships are going to be inspected from the authorities for compliance and any
deficiencies have to be incorporated by repeating the cycle from item 2.
It is obvious that any overlap or conflict in regulations will create chaotic situations
both in the office and on board. Therefore, ruling bodies must have processes in
place to avoid overlaps and conflicts in rules and regulations. A possible approach
could be the creation of single electronic document, covering all required
information in the current administrative forms, like for example FAL forms. This
would permit a reduction of administrative burden for the ship.
3.2 Class Perspective
A general description of classification societies can be found at www.iacs.org.uk. IACS is the
International Association of Classification societies. The 13 IACS members classify more than
P a g e | 16 16 July13
90% of the world fleet. Classification certificates are required by regulation (SOLAS) and by
Insurance.
The main objective of classification relates to verification of structural strength, reliability of
propulsion, power generation, electrical system and steering. Classification societies develop
own rules for this purpose, and inspect ships from the construction at the yard and
throughout the service life. Classification societies have global presence, and are able to
survey ships wherever they sail.
The experience feedback loop is important for maintaining and developing the Rules. In
addition all major class societies are participating in the development of international
standards.
The most important forum for adoption such international standards is the IMO (United
Nation (UN) body) and in some aspects (decent work, economic and working conditions) the
International Labour Organization (ILO), another UN agency.
All international conventions adopted by IMO and ILO should obviously be ‘harmonized’
from the outset, since they are developed and adopted by the same body. However, as
illustrated below and known from other regulatory bodies, developing and maintaining a
clear harmonized, consistent non-conflicting regulatory system is not an easy task.
Furthermore, the member states implement the convention in national legislation. This may
also introduce inconsistencies. When it comes down to practices, as mentioned previously,
the tasks related to implementation are delegated by the flag states to their Recognized
Organizations (RO). The ROs are mostly Classification Societies (CS) and the classification
societies that are members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)
today carry out around 80% of the statutory surveys, in addition to their class surveys. SOLAS
II-1, 3-1 states In addition to the requirements contained elsewhere in the present
regulations, ships shall be designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with the
structural, mechanical and electrical requirements of a classification society which is
recognized by the Administration in accordance with the provisions of regulation XI/1, or
with applicable national standards of the Administration which provide an equivalent level of
safety. So the requirements of the classification societies needs to be adhered to according
to the regulations. Classification societies refers to their requirements as Rules, but the Rules
are mandated by the Regulations (e.g. SOLAS).
The requirements to ROs are now specified in the RO Code [9], which was adopted at MSC92
in May 2013, MSC.349(92), and will take effect from 1 January 2015. The requirements to
Flag States (FS) are specified in the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code), to be
adopted as an IMO Assembly Resolution in 2013 (Available as Annex 16 to MSC91 Report).
The III Code contains a drafted standard contract between Flag States and their ROs, which
presumably will help harmonizing this relation. Today there are many differences related to
P a g e | 17 16 July13
delegation from FS and ROs, and the ROs will need to have internal procedures in place to
ensure that the RO act in agreement with its FS Agreements.
The existence of clear limits to harmonisation can actually be illustrated by comparing
formulation in the RO and III Codes with formulations in Reg. (EC) 391/2009 [6] containing
these paragraphs:
“Recognised organisations shall ensure that the Commission has access to the information
necessary for the purposes of the assessment referred to in Article 8(1). No contractual
clauses may be invoked to restrict this access.
Recognised organisations shall ensure in their contracts with ship-owners or operators for
the issue of statutory certificates or class certificates to a ship that such issue shall be made
conditional on the parties not opposing the access of the Commission inspectors on board
that ship for the purposes of Article 8(1).”
The RO Code contains the following paragraph (and the same formulation is in the II Code):
“3.9.3.3 No flag State shall mandate its ROs to apply to ships, other than those entitled to fly
its flag, any requirement pertaining to their classification rules, requirements, procedures or
performance of other statutory certification processes, beyond convention requirements and
the mandatory instruments of the IMO.”
So in brief, the RO Code forbids flag states to apply to ships, other than those flying their
flag, a requirement which the 391/2009 mandates ROs to include in their contacts with the
ship owners. All FS that are parties to SOLAS will have to comply with the RO Code, and all
EU FS are parties to SOLAS. All EU FS and all EU ROs will therefore have to comply with
conflicting international law. For some time, the EU ROs and FSs will therefore be in a
squeeze relating to which international law to follow, until this issue is resolved, maybe in a
court of law. It is worth mentioning that this is only one of a few conflicts between the RO
Code and 391/2009 used here as an illustration only and there may be other conflicting
regulations.
3.2.1 Classification Rules and Harmonization
As stated above, the objective of ship classification is to verify the structural strength and
integrity of essential parts of the ship’s hull and its appendages, and the reliability and
function of the propulsion and steering systems, power generation and those other features
and auxiliary systems which have been built into the ship in order to maintain essential
services on board. Classification Societies (CS) aim to achieve this objective through the
development and application of own Rules and by verifying compliance with international
and/or national statutory regulations as ROs on behalf of flag Administrations. The CS
publishes their rules on their web-pages. (This is different from the IMO, which earns 20% of
its budget from selling publications, about £9 m. The electronic version of IMO regulations is
prepared by DNV and IMO: IMO-Vega and can be purchased.)
P a g e | 18 16 July13
Classification Rules (CR) are developed by the CS individually and the CS have their own
procedures for developing and maintaining the CR. There are instances where only a few CS
have Rules at all – typically for innovative solutions and new technology. For example, only a
few CS have Rules for LNG Fuelled Ships. DNV had such Rules more than 10 years ago, whilst
others started developing their Rules after the IMO had issued a MSC Circular on LNG fuelled
ships, yet others still have no own Rules. Obviously the quality of the services from CS will be
different in such situations, and harmonization activities between CS will mean a transfer of
knowledge between the leading classifications and those investing less in R&D and Rule
development. Harmonization is therefore in conflict with the need for incentives to invest in
research and development to develop CR for innovative solutions. When technologies are
matured there is less need for a CS to maintain its own rules that are different from other
classification societies’ rules. In such cases harmonization may be relevant.
Since there are many overlaps between IMO Conventions and CR, the CS will develop their
CR in ways that comply with the IMO regulations. All CS therefore have internal procedures
to ensure that their CR is not conflicting with the IMO regulations, and CS actively
participates in the development at IMO. A tool that could help preventing formulating CR
that are not consistent with all IMO requirements or conflicting with them would be of
interest to CS and IMO/ILO should also possibly be interested in such a tool.
3.2.2 Harmonization – IACS
The IACS can trace its origins back to the International Load Line Convention (ILLC) of 1930
and its recommendations. The Convention recommended collaboration between CS to
secure "as much uniformity as possible in the application of the standards of strength upon
which freeboard is based". It may therefore be observed that harmonization is one of the
purposes of the IACS.
At IMO there is currently a trend to developed Goal Based Standards (GBS), rather than
prescriptive. IMO has so far only developed a goal-based regulatory framework for hull
structures of oil tankers and bulk carriers >150 meters and IACS members have developed
the Harmonized Structural rules for Bulkers and Tankers in response to this. These IACS rules
are common and therefore fully harmonized. However, the rules are implemented in
software by the individual CS, so there will be a limit to how harmonized also the common
rules will be in practice. The decision to respond to the IMO GBS by Common Rules is a
decision made by the IACS members, and not a requirement by the IMO. GBS represents a
significant change to the current complex system of largely prescriptive statutory
international and national regulations.
A goal-based approach aims at moving the regulatory framework from a culture of
compliance, governed by prescriptive Rules, to a culture of benchmarking, backed by
functional risk-based requirements. It is intended that those goals may be achieved by
alternative designs that offer an equivalent level of safety, while promoting new technology
P a g e | 19 16 July13
and greater innovation within the shipping industry. So, whilst the goal-based approach has
resulted in more harmonized rules, the intention of this regulatory ideology is the opposite.
What is harmonized in a goal based standard is limited to the goals and functional
requirements.
Unified Requirements (UR) are minimum technical requirements adopted by the IACS
Members. URs are relevant to matters directly connected to or covered by specific Rule
requirements and practices of Classification Societies and the general philosophy on which
the Rules and practices of Classification Societies are established. URs are not mandatory for
IACS members. Since each Member has its own Governing Body, USs may be found
unsuitable to the Governing Body of a Member Society. In such cases, that Society is
committed to notify the others of the situation by declaring a reservation. The status of each
UR is posted on the IACS website. Within IACS there is an on-going activity to reduce the
number of reservations, resulting in more harmonization and less conflicting Rules and
Procedures.
IACS Unified Interpretations (UIs) are Resolutions on matters arising from implementing the
requirements of IMO instruments. They provide uniform interpretations of Convention
Regulations or IMO Resolutions on those matters which in the Convention are left to the
satisfaction of the flag Administration or where more precise wording is found to be
necessary.
UIs are circulated to the flag Administrations concerned, as appropriate, and submitted to
IMO for information and any follow-up action.
UIs shall be applied by Member CS to ships whose flag Administration has not issued definite
instructions on the interpretation of the Regulations concerned.
3.2.3 The need for consistent use of terms
An obvious need for tools that could help harmonisation relates to the consistent use of
terms. There could be advantages for all users of the regulations if key terminology had the
same meaning in all rules and regulations. The problem is quite basic. All regulations have
some limited scope, for example they may apply only to a specific ship type (of a certain size,
constructed or with keel laid after a specific date). The ambiguous use of terms introduces
the possibility of misinterpretations by the stakeholder that has to understand and apply the
regulations. Examples of the inconsistent use of terms in actual maritime directives and
regulations are analysed in the two sections below: the use of the same term to define
different concepts and the use of disparate terms for the same concept. The e-Compliance IT
system, and in particular the subsystems that assist the users during the creation of the
regulations, can lead to the correct, precise, and unambiguous use of terms across different
regulations.
P a g e | 20 16 July13
3.2.3.1 Different concepts under the same term
A case of inconsistent use of terms in the current situation is the following: a concept, e.g. a
bulkcarrier or bulk carrier is defined differently in Chapter II-1, IX, and XII of SOLAS, and
there may be other definitions in MARPOL, ILLC, and Classification Rules etc. This is an
example of how different the definitions are (one definition referring to how the ship is
constructed and one to what type of cargo the ship is intended to carry):
SOLAS Chapter IX: “Bulk carrier” means a ship which is constructed generally with
single deck, top-side tanks and hopper side tanks in cargo spaces, and is intended
primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk, and includes such types as ore carriers and
combination carriers.
SOLAS Chapter XII: Bulkcarrier means a ship which is intended primarily to carry dry
cargo in bulk, including such types as ore carriers and combination carriers.
The consequence, besides the general confusion that may be generated is that a ship is a
bulkcarrier according to one chapter in the regulations, and something else according to
some other rule or regulation. For a discussion of the case of bulkcarrier there is a separate
MSC Resolution on the topic MSC.277(85). Obviously an e-Compliance tool cannot resolve
such issues (MSC was unable to resolve this within SOLAS), but could support the user on
informative level. In relation to Goal Based Standards, an idea could also be to make the
definition of ship types goal based, using the function of the ship in the definition rather
than how the ship was built.
3.2.3.2 Different terms for the same concept
Another problem is the use of different terms used for the same concept or entity,
illustrated by these more or less arbitrary terms:
MSC/Circ.765, MEPC/Circ.315. Safety measure: a means that contributes in resolving
the safety issue. A safety measure may be an operational requirement, a
requirement for an item of equipment or a constructional requirement.
MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12.Risk control measure: A means of controlling a single element
of risk.
3.2.4 Equivalents
As mentioned in the Guidelines for the approval of alternatives and equivalents11, there is a
number of provisions in many IMO conventions for acceptance of alternatives and/or
equivalents to prescriptive requirements in many areas of ship design and construction.
Examples of such publications are: Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for
11
MSC.1/Circ.1455: Guidelines for the approval of alternatives and equivalents as provided for in various IMO
instruments. IMO, 2013. (URL: http://www.gl-
group.com/pdf/GL_Focus_News_Equivalents_complete.pdf )
P a g e | 21 16 July13
fire safety (MSC/Circ.1002), Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for SOLAS
chapters II-1 and III (MSC.1/Circ.1212) and Interim guidelines for the approval of alternative
methods of design and construction of oil tankers (resolution MEPC.110(49)).
The use of such provisions will in most cases be relevant because an innovative and novel
solution is needed. Such an innovative design will not fulfil prescriptive requirements, and
the guidelines therefore specify a lot of requirements to the analysis that need to be carried
out, the qualification of persons involved, the documentation, the reporting to IMO, the
documentation on-board etc.
In all such cases there will be a lack of harmonization, and this is intentional because the
traditional prescriptive Rules and Regulations have a tendency to stifle innovation.
3.2.5 Grandfathering
Article VIII(e) of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 and
article 16(6) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), state that,
unless expressly provided otherwise, any amendment to the Conventions, which relates to
the structure of a ship, shall apply only to ships which can be considered to be built on or
after the date on which the amendment enters into force. These so called "grandfather
clauses" provide the shipping industry with some certainty when making investments12. The
consequence of grandfathering is in practice the need to know not only the current
regulations, but also the regulations that applied when the keel of a specific ship was laid (or
building contract signed), since this regulation may apply to that ship for its whole
operational life.
At first glance this may look like a clear principle. However, also this principle will not always
be followed, as it defines in the same guideline the procedures for deciding if the
grandfather clauses are not followed, because the differences in safety level between new
and existing ship may become too large.
3.2.6 No need for Harmonization
As explained above, referring to development of Rules and Regulations relating to the
introduction of new technology, the harmonization is conflicting with incentives needed to
encourage the use of new technology (except that also in this case consistent use of
terminology would be advantageous).
3.2.7 Overlapping and Conflicting Rules and Regulations
An e-Compliance tool that could help detecting that rules and regulations are overlapping
and possibly conflicting by automating the semantic analysis of the existing corpus of
12
MSC 66/24/Add.2: Interim guidelines for the systematic application of the grandfather clauses. Annex 26,
IMO, 1996 (URL: http://www.crs.hr/Portals/0/docs/eng/imo_iacs_eu/imo/msc_reports/MSC66-24-Add-2.pdf )
P a g e | 22 16 July13
regulations, processing the current draft of the new regulation that is created within the
system, and displaying their semantic overlapping to the user in a clear way. Such a feature
of e-Compliance system would be welcome for the case of unintentional conflicts. However,
in cases such as EU versus IMO on the III/RO Code [9] versus Reg. (EC) 391/2009 [6], the e-
Compliance tool would not be of much assistance. At IMO, everyone involved knew that the
RO and III Codes would be in conflict with Reg. (EC) 391/2009. The purpose of certain
paragraphs in the RO and III Codes was to put an EU activity to an end, because according to
all non-EU member states it was in conflict with the sovereignty of states (Flag States
Sovereignty principle in e.g. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)).
3.3 Ports and Port Community Perspective
As mentioned in a previous section (see 2.1.2), in order to reduce the administrative burden
of vessel reporting, EU directive 2010/65 on Ships’ Reporting Formalities has been launched
to require member states to implement National Single Windows by 1 June 2015 [2]. These
National Single Windows require the information needed by law to be reported only once.
According to EU policy established by DG Move, no authorities should come and ask the
same information again. Once that information has been submitted, the relevant authorities
should go to the national system and get the information from there, and not go back to the
vessel and ask for it again. That is, the information has to be made available to all the
competent authorities.
For that reason, Port Community Systems play an important role in ports. Without them,
planning and executing ship, cargo and passenger movements in ports and with their
hinterland connections is difficult. If the National Single Windows will be important for
reducing the administrative burden, Port Community Systems remain the core of improving
the overall operational efficiency in the ports.
P a g e | 23 16 July13
Nevertheless, National Single Windows are being implemented by each member state
according to local member state regulation and national conditions, reducing but not
eliminating the harmonisation problem. Establishing connections for information transfer
between ports and PCS belonging to different member states can bring further relief to this
problem, awaiting final harmonisation into one single European regulation about vessel
reporting formalities.
Figure 2: Port Network
Figure 3: Current Port Community
P a g e | 24 16 July13
3.3.1 Legal – Information transfer between Ports and PCS
Vessel Reporting formalities EU directive 2010/65 [2] does not mention any restrictions on
data movement between ports and PCS, leaving up to the Member States the work of taking
the necessary measures to ensure the confidentiality of commercial and other confidential
information exchanged in accordance with this Directive.
In Spain, this EU directive has been developed under national law (RD 2012/1334) that
allows for data movement between ports, port platforms (PCS) and national single windows,
so no additional restrictions have been specified, except for the existing ones that are
covered by a specific contract among the local PCS and the port, and among each PCS and
the private operators that are using the PCS services. From our analysis regarding ports in
other member states, Port Community Systems are actively involved as a key partner in
national single window projects – as per consultation of national single window project
documentation published under the ANNA project umbrella13.
To establishing data exchange between PCS (especially if the PCS serve port communities in
different member states), some legal issues will need to be settled, being data ownership
the major one to address. It is mostly not the PCS but rather the legal owner of the
information who decides what to share and who to share it with, so each PCS will need to
have contractual coverage from the data owners for sharing certain data with other PCS.
Further on, the “new” relationship among PCS exchanging data will need to be governed by
a specific type of regulation called “Memory of Understanding” (MoU), addressing issues
such as confidentiality, level of service, intellectual property and data usage, limitation of
liability, and indemnity. On top of the MoU, existing and new contractual obligations for
each PCS with its respective clients would apply.
Regarding the vessel arrival procedures, the ship agent is the official representative and legal
responsible for the official agencies (customs, port authorities, ship master offices, etc.). For
this reason, the PCS’s exchange information between them, to be shared only with the ship
agents. Once the ship agent has the necessary information, performs the procedures and
submits the required documents directly with the corresponding agency.
13
See: http://www.annamsw.eu/documenten.html
P a g e | 25 16 July13
In this case, the legislation for Spain and France is featured in the following list:
Spain
1. Informative formalities in Spanish Ports (source: Royal Decree 1334/2012) [http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/09/22/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-11895.pdf]
2. European directive about informative formalities in European Ports [http://content.portdebarcelona.cat/cntmng/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/ca5150a4-
240b-4a3e-a419-13685e03d86e/2010_65_UE.pdf]
3. Monitoring and information system for maritime traffic [http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2004-2752]
4. Receiving ship-generated waste and cargo residues [http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2002-24910]
5. Regulation of integrated procedure of layover and ships in national general interest harbors [http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2011-8339]
6. Procedure specification for port calls at Port of Barcelona [http://content.portdebarcelona.cat/cntmng/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/678e7044-
5050-407a-af92-d42db34c595f/PIDE_v20.pdf]
France
P a g e | 26 16 July13
1. Code des ports maritimes / National text for port regulations [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=CBC6024A39427064D3B03
41D487E2685.tpdjo11v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006843396&idSectionTA=LEGI
SCTA000006143931&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074233&dateTexte=20090719] 2. Code des transports / National text for transport
[http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000022990793&
categorieLien=id]
3. Déchets / National text for waste management [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=F03EE016F9B2C6D708C8
B94802FEDF96.tpdjo11v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000243755&categorieLien=id]
4. Zone Maritime et Fluviale de régulation (ZMFR) / Local maritime and river shipping regulations [http://www.marseille-
port.fr/fr/Resources.File.ashx?sn=Private&id=1149&ct=Inline&ah=true&ex=2014-12-
01T15:14:28&cr=tzJL7AY8qdLjRjk9N0swOQ==]
P a g e | 27 16 July13
4 Policy, Regulation and Standardisation Map
It is almost impossible to provide a complete set of regulations applicable to different ship
situations including sailing, repairs, etc. due to the large number of different directives,
national transpositions, etc. Thus, in this section we provide a comprehensive summary of
some of the most important and representative regulations, in tabular format, to denote the
current situation in the maritime compliance domain.
International Conventions being relevant instruments of the Paris MoU
1. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as amended 1974, (SOLAS-74)
2. Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Protocol,
1978)
3. Protocol of 1988 Relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Protocol,
(HSSC) 1988)
4. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and its Protocol, 1978
Annex I
Annex II
Annex III
Annex IV
Annex V
Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships,1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978
5. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992, as amended
(Helsinki Convention, 1992)
6. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (COLREG,
1972)
7. Merchant Shipping (Minimum StandardsConvention,1976) ILO 147
8. Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention,1976
9. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as
amended (STCW, 1978)
10. International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (Tonnage, 1969)
11. International Convention on Load-Lines, 1966 (LL, 66)
12. Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966
13. International Convention for the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001
14. Maritime Labor Convention 2006
15. International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001
P a g e | 28 16 July13
Respective codes
1. MSC.4(48), MEPC.19(22)
International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
2. MSC.5(48) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk
3. MSC.23(59) International Code for the Safe Carriage of Grain in Bulk
4.
MSC.36(63) International Code of Safety for High- Speed Craft
5. MSC.97(73) 2000 International Code of Safety for High- Speed Craft
6. Conference Res. 2 International Code for the Security of Ships and Port Facilities
7. A.741(18) International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention
8. MSC.255(84) International Code of the International Standards and Recommended Practices for a Safety Investigation into a Marine Casualty of Marine Incident
9. MSC.267(85) International Code on Intact Stability, 2008
10. MEPC.177(58) NOx Technical Code, 2008
11. Conference Res. 2 Seafarers’ Training, certification and Watchkeeping Code, (Part A – Mandatory standards)
12. MSC.48(66) International Life-Saving Appliances Code
13. MSC.61(67) International Code for Application of Fire test Procedures;
14. MSC.98(73) International Code for Fire Safety Systems
15. MSC.122(75) International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
16. MSC.268(85) International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes
17. MEPC.20(22) Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
18. MSC.88(71) International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code)
16. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969
17. Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC
Prot.1992)
18. Agreement Concerning Specific Stability Requirements for ro-ro Passenger Ships Undertaking Regular
Scheduled International Voyages Between or to or from Designed Ports in North West Europe and Baltic
Sea, 1996 (Stockholm Agreement, 1996)
P a g e | 29 16 July13
EU maritime legislation
Directive 2012/33/EU: amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
Directive 2002/59/EC (Consolidated Version - 16/03/2011): This document is the latest consolidation Directive
2002/59/EC, as amended (including amending Directives 2011/15 and 2009/17). The purpose of Directive
2011/15 was to make a number of amendments to Directive 2002/59/EC, including: the replacement of Article
12(1), point (b) on the subject of substances referred to in Annex I to the MARPOL Convention; the
replacement of Annex II (Requirements applicable to on-board equipment) and; the replacement of Annex IV
(Measures available to Member States in the event of a threat to maritime safety and the protection of the
environment). The purpose of Directive 2009/17 was to make a number of amendments, including: facilitating
the implementation and operation of SafeSeaNet in a uniform way across Europe, establishing European LRIT
data centre, and extending the Directive to fishing vessels over 15m long. This document is the consolidated
version, which merges the text of the amendment with that of Directive 2002/59/EC.
Directive 2011/15/EC: Amending Directive 2002/59/EC. The purpose of this Directive was to make a number of amendments in order to improve Directive 2002/59/EC, including: the replacement of Article 12(1), point (b) on the subject of substances referred to in Annex I to the MARPOL Convention; the replacement of Annex II (Requirements applicable to on-board equipment) and; the replacement of Annex IV (Measures available to Member States in the event of a threat to maritime safety and the protection of the environment).
Regulation 1286/2011/EC Common Methodology - adopting a common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents developed pursuant to Article 5(4) of Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance).
Common Decision 2010/769/EU: on the establishment of criteria for the use by liquefied natural gas carriers of technological methods as an alternative to using low sulphur marine fuels meeting the requirements of Article 4b of Council Directive 1999/32/EC relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels as amended by Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sulphur content of marine fuels (notified under document C(2010) 8753).
Directive 2009/45/EC: on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (Text with EEA relevance).
Regulation 391/2009/EC: on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (Text
with EEA relevance)
Regulation 392/2009/EC: on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (Text with
EEA relevance)
Directive 2009/17/EC: Amending Directive 2002/59/EC. The purpose of this Directive was to make a number of
amendments in order to improve and extend the original, including: facilitating the implementation and
operation of SafeSeaNet in a uniform way across Europe, establishing European LRIT data centre, and
extending the Directive to fishing vessels over 15m long.
Directive 2009/21/EC: on compliance with flag State requirements (Text with EEA relevance)
Directive 2009/20/EC: on the insurance of ship-owners for maritime claims (Text with EEA relevance)
Directive 2009/15/EC: on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the
relevant activities of maritime administrations (Text with EEA relevance)
Directive 2009/16/EC: Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control was implemented on 1 January 2011. Its
provisions have entered into force on 17 June 2009. Detentions and Preventions of Operation which occurred
after that date were taken into account for the refusal of access.
The measure concerns detentions following a PSC inspection in any of the Paris MoU members States. Preventions of Operation may be issued by EU member States following an inspection according Directive
P a g e | 30 16 July13
99/35/EC.
Note: Directive 2009/16 entered into force on 17 June 2009 and started being applied from 1 January 2011. This Directive replaced the Directive 95/21.
Directive 2009/29/EC: amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas
emission allowance trading scheme of the Community
Directive 2008/106/EC: on the minimum level of training of seafarers (Text with EEA relevance)
Regulation 536/2008/EC: giving effect to Article 6(3) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships and amending
that Regulation.
Regulation 2006/1013/EC: on shipments waste
Regulation 336/2006/EC: on the implementation of the International Safety Management Code within the
Community and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 3051/95
Directive 2005/65/EC: on enhancing port security.
Directive 2005/33/EC: amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
The Directive 1999/32/EC establishes limits on the maximum sulphur content of gas oils, heavy fuel oil in land-based applications as well as marine fuels for which it serves as the EU legal instrument to incorporate the sulphur provisions of the MARPOL Annex VI. The Directive furthermore contains some additional fuel-specific requirements for ships calling at EU ports, obligations related to the use of fuels covered by the Directive, and the placing on the market of certain fuels (e.g. marine gas oils). The Directive does not contain provisions to regulate ship emissions of NOx or PM.
By the amendment 2005/33/EC parallel requirements in the EU to those in MARPOL Annex VI in respect of the sulphur content of marine fuels was introduced. In addition, it also introduced a 0.1% maximum sulphur requirement for fuels used by ships at berth in EU ports from 1st January 2010. This directive is currently under reviewed and the review is expected to align the Directive with the 2008 MARPOL Amendment.
Regulation 725/2004/EC: on enhancing ship and port facility security
Directive 2003/24/EC: amending Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships
Directive 2003/25/EC: on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (Text with EEA relevance)
Regulation 782/2003/EC: on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships.
Regulation 417/2002/EC: on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for
single hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94
Directive 2001/96/EC: establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and
unloading of bulk carriers.
Directive 2000/59/EC: In 2000 the European Community adopted Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception
facilities, with the aim of substantially reducing discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the
sea. This Directive especially aims at reducing illegal discharges from ships using ports in the EU, by improving
the availability and use of port reception facilities, thereby enhancing the protection of the marine
environment.
Directive 1999/95/EC: concerning the enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers' hours of work on
board ships calling at Community ports
Directive 1999/35/EC: on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-
P a g e | 31 16 July13
speed passenger craft services
Directive 1999/32/EC: relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending
Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 121, 11.5.1999, p. 13).
Directive 1997/70/EC: setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and
over.
Directive 96/98/EC: on marine equipment.
P a g e | 32 16 July13
5 Conclusions
In the previous sections we presented an analytical overview of the current situation of
maritime compliance in the European Union. Also, it was presented how the introduction of
ICT systems and of relevant legislative frameworks could improve the current status of
regulation processes. This analysis leads to a number of interesting conclusions.
The number and the variety of the different regulations on international, European, and
national level, is a burden for reporting parties, not only during the submission time, but also
during the maintenance period of the requested documentation (certificates, etc.). Currently
there is a massive amount of work involved in preparing and presenting the relevant part of
the rules and regulations to the right persons. Such processing of information is today done
by a large amount of manual work. This fragmentation also makes the submission process
error-prone and inconsistent from country to country or even from port to port. Of course,
not only the reporting parties are affected by this situation, as the ambiguity of the
fragmented domain propagates to the enforcers (who have, for example, to tackle additional
workload due to errors) and to regulators (who have to manually cross-check for
inconsistencies with a considerable number of existing documents).
An important factor for the simplification of the process is the assistance of the human users
by an IT system, such as the e-Compliance tool, and the modification of the related business
processes. This application should operate on a common basis of regulations that the
involved parties (reporting parties, regulators, and enforcers) can access. A number of
important requirements could be extracted from a relevant analysis of the domain, such as
the study done in the current deliverable. For example, in relation to the conflicting
definitions (a topic presented in depth in the relevant paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.2.7), the e-
Compliance tool could support in the prevention of this issue by making regulators aware of
the conflict prior to adoption of a new regulation. Another potential requirement could be
the selection of the relevant part of the regulations and its presentation to the specific user:
electronic systems tend to use rather broad categories to ensure that all information
relevant for a specific user is presented after a search, because a false negative (something
left out) is much more serious that a false positive (something irrelevant included). For the
compliance and reporting process, we have to consider both the latest technological
innovations in the area (such as the introduction of the NSW and the use of a single
electronic message), the possibilities for automation (such as the redundancy of data
reported from one PCS to the next), but also the constraints and the complexities of the
domain (the need for confidentiality of sensitive commercial data and the legal dimensions
of the reporting process).
The vision of the e-Compliance project is particularly important for the promotion and the
growth of the maritime commerce and transportation without unnecessary administrative
obstacles.
P a g e | 33 16 July13
References
1. Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport policy until
2018. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
2009. (URL: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0008:FIN:EN:HTML)
2. Directive 2010/65/EU: On reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing
from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC. European
Parliament and the Council, 2010. (URL: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:283:0001:0010:EN:PDF )
3. Considerations for the Implementation of the eManifest. European Commission.
(URL: http://www.protect-
group.org/assets/Uploads/130916WorkingdoceManifestV1-0clear.pdf )
4. eMAR White Paper MSW 1: EU Maritime Single Window Development Guide and
Check-list. Dr Takis Katsoulakos (URL:
http://www.ebos.com.cy/uploadfiles/EU_Maritime_Single_Window_Development_
Guide_Version_1.pdf )
5. THETIS presentation. EMSA. (URL: http://emsa.europa.eu/implementation-
tasks/port-state-control/thetis.html )
6. Regulation 391/2009: on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations. European Parliament and the Council, 2010. (URL: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:131:0011:0023:EN:PDF )
7. ISO 28005-1:2012, Security management systems for the supply chain - Electronic
port clearance (EPC) - Part 1: Message structures. ISO, 2012.
8. ISO 28005-2:2011, Security management systems for the supply chain - Electronic
port clearance (EPC) - Part 2: Core data elements. ISO, 2011.
9. Resolution MSC.349(92): Code for Recognized Organizations (RO code), IMO,
Maritime Safety Committee, 2013. (URL:
http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/MSC%2
0-%20Maritime%20Safety/349(92).pdf )
10. COM(2013) 510: Blue Belt, a Single Transport Area for shipping, European
Commission, 2013. (URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/news/doc/com(2013)510_en.pdf )
P a g e | 34 16 July13
11. Europe – a mosaic of requirements, Damian Viccars, World Shipping Council (URL:
http://www.epcsa.eu/content/download/1214/4730/Presentation+7+-
+Damian+Viccars.pdf )