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 )