Luxembourg, 02/10/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Transport Council defined on Monday in Luxembourg its "common position" on the phasing out of single hull oil tankers, a position that the EU will defend before the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which is meeting all this week in London. The transport ministers thus reached a compromise on the three measures proposed in March for enhancing maritime safety. They then expressed their position during a public debate on the new measures envisaged by the European Commission. All agreed that maritime safety must be stepped up, but most Member States urged for these efforts to be developed as a matter of priority at international level beyond EU borders, in order to take into account the international nature of maritime transport.
The compromise on oil tankers defined by the Council provides for:
- The elimination of single hull oil tankers by 2015 (instead of 2026, the deadline currently fixed by the Marpol agreement of the IMO) according to the following timetable: 1) between January 2003 and January 2005 for large oil tankers (over 20,000 tonnes) before the Marpol agreement, with exemption until 2007 for vessels that will not be 25 years of age in 2005; 2) by January 2010, or when the oil tankers are 28 years old, for single hull vessels complying with Marpol norms. The use of ships younger than 28 may, however, be authorised until 2015 on condition that they successfully pass the strengthened controls; 3) by January 2015, or when they are 28 years of age, for oil tankers from 5,000 to 30,000 tonnes. The tankers which go through strengthened inspection controls may obtain exemption until 2010 or 2015 according to size; 4) in January 2010 for oil tankers without double hull but with other adjustments such as double bottoms or double ballast and form.
Greece, which expressed considerable reticence, rallied to the compromise thanks to the postponement until 2015 of the elimination of single hulls of less than 30,000 tonnes, and the exclusion of boats of less than 5,000 from the package.
The EU will defend this timetable before the IMO. Failing an international agreement, the Union is expected to continue its efforts at Community level.
- Strengthened control on boats by the port State, according to criteria stricter than those defined by the current legislation but less than those advocated by the European Commission. The compromise makes it possible to go from the quantitative criteria for selection of ships to the control of qualitative criteria, notes the Council Presidency. Thus, there would be compulsory control of: 1) the vessels presenting a risk coefficient higher than 50 according to the definition given by the Paris Memorandum on maritime safety. Around one hundred European vessels come into this category; 2) vessels whose coefficient is above 12 and defined in annex to the directive (gas tankers over 10 years of age, bulk carriers over 12 years, oil tankers over 30,000 tonnes and over 15 years and passenger ships over 15 years of age). By crossing these two criteria, some 3,000 vessels should be systematically inspected instead of 5,500 covered by the Commission proposal. The compromise would cover vessels such as the Erika, the oil tanker which sunk in France in December 1999, stresses the French Presidency.
The Council foresees, in addition, an element of flexibility: ports temporarily saturated may allow 5% of the ships that fulfil the criteria to go through without inspection, on condition that they are inspected in the next port.
A more rigorous selection of classification companies charged with inspecting the ships on behalf of the Member States (the Council did not go back on this point which had been the subject of an agreement during its session in June).
Most Member States give priority to international action during open debate
During a long public debate, the Member States presented their first impressions on the new measures announced in March by the European Commission and specified in the report that it will present to the Biarritz Summit on 13 and 14 October (see EUROPE of 28 September, p.11). The debate showed the commitment of all parties in favour of a global approach from the European Union, the president of the Council, French Transport Minister Jean-Claude Gayssot, told the press. Certainly, all noted the need to take international legislation into account, but one must note that a large part of maritime traffic is along our coasts and that the EU must make all its influence to bear in international negotiations, he insisted. The ministers nonetheless replied with utmost caution to the questions presented by the Council Presidency. Thus:
- Should signalling measures for ships carrying dangerous substances be stepped up upon entry into European waters? Luxembourg, Ireland, Spain, Italy and France are in favour of adopting measures at European level, but most of the Member States (Sweden, Greece, Denmark, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands) insist that international law should be respected as a matter of priority in order to avoid competition distortion in this sector of international dimension. The Netherlands and Sweden felt it is necessary to ensure that the current legislation is effectively applied before envisaging its reinforcement. In addition, according to Denmark, it will be necessary to act as a priority with States with flags of convenience.
- Should a European fund for compensating victims in the event of pollution be set up, thus completing the international compensation fund (Fipol and CLC)? Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio stressed in opening the discussions that the sinking of the Erika demonstrated the insufficiency of these funds: "when compensation goes up to $1 billion in the United States, it reaches a maximum of $200 million in Europe".
The majority of States (notably, Sweden, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, Spain) also placed emphasis on the EU foremost acting at international level. The United Kingdom recalled that the legal committee of the IMO had to decide, at its meeting from 16 to 20 October, on the 50% increase of the compensation fund. "The EU would provide a mistaken signal by adopting measures at regional level", according to the Danish minister. Belgium, on the other hand backed the idea, proposing a system of funding based on contributions proportional to the respect of international standards of vessels. "By increasing the fund by 50%, we nevertheless remain far from the American level of compensation", remarked Commissioner de Palacio at the end of the debates, pleading for joint European and international action.
Should the liability of all players be strengthened (ship and cargo owners, shipbuilders, etc.) in case of accident? The stakes would be to provide "unlimited" liability to owners in case of prejudice vis-à-vis victims of an oil-slick and harm to bio-diversity, the Commissioner recalled. Member States remained evasive on this point. Germany considered that the "liability of shipowners, the most easily identifiable, has to be at the heart of the system", "while remaining within the limits of international law". The Netherlands suggested using the role of the insurers to encourage the use of vessels answering to the most advanced standards.
Should a European bureau or agency on maritime safety be created?: Several Member States, like Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom, fear too much bureaucracy and call for a precise cost/benefit analysis.
The majority insist for such an agency to limit itself in any case to the coordination of national efforts, without in any case "replacing national authorities", insisted Greece. Portugal noted that "nobody has shown that this agency is necessary; it would be more important to "strengthen the technical assistance to candidate countries".
- It is necessary to reinforce social legislation concerning sailors? While Portugal, Italy and Germany await "with impatience" proposals from the Commission to free up this dossier on the social harmonisation of maritime transports, Denmark, followed by the Netherlands and Ireland, propose that the Commission draw-up, to start with, a report on the implementation of the present legislation and of the state of transposition of the conventions from the International Labour Organisation. Greece which traditionally opposed the measures proposed in this field, felt that this point lies especially with the International Labour Organisation. Belgium has adopted the most extreme position by proposing to ban from European waters all ship upon which the social conventions and the rest time for sailors are not respected.