<EntPE>EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT</EntPE>

1999

2004

<Commission>{RETT}Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism</Commission>

<RefStatus>PRELIMINARY</RefStatus>

<Date>{15-11-2000}15 November 2000</Date>

<TitreType>DRAFT REPORT</TitreType>

<Titre>on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers</Titre>

<Commission>{RETT}Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism</Commission>

Rapporteur: <Depute>Rijk van Dam</Depute>

Symbols for procedures

* Consultation procedure
majority of the votes cast

**I Cooperation procedure (first reading)
majority of the votes cast

**II Cooperation procedure (second reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the common position
majority of Parliament’s component Members, to reject or amend the common position

*** Assent procedure
majority of Parliament’s component Members except in cases covered by Articles 105, 107, 161 and 300 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of the EU Treaty

***I Codecision procedure (first reading)
majority of the votes cast

***II Codecision procedure (second reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the common position
majority of Parliament’s component Members, to reject or amend the common position

***III Codecision procedure (third reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the joint text

(The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the Commission)

<PgIndex>CONTENTS

Page

PROCEDURAL PAGE............................................................................................................... 4

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL....................................................................................................... 5

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION................................................................................... 11

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 12

MINORITY OPINION ................................................................................................................

COMMISSION POSITION/STATEMENT (Rule 66(3)) .............................................................

<PgReglementaire>PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of {22-05-2000}22 May 2000 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (COM(2000) 179 - 2000/0121 (COD)).

At the sitting of {13-06-2000}13 June 2000 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred this proposal to the {RETT}Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and the {BUDG}Committee on Budgets as well as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for their opinions (C5-0254/2000).

The {RETT}Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had appointed Rijk van Dam rapporteur at its meeting of {11-07-2000}11 July 2000.

It/The committee considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meeting(s) of ... and ... .

At the latter/last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by .. votes to ..., with ... abstention(s)/unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: ..., chairman/acting chairman; ... (and ...), vice-chairman/vice-chairmen; ..., rapporteur; ..., ... (for ...), ... (for ... pursuant to Rule 153(2)), ... and ... .

The {BUDG}Committee on Budgets as well as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs decided on 6 June and on 22 June 2000 not to deliver opinions.

The report was tabled on …. 2000DT(d MMMM yyyy)@DAT@.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session/is ... p.m. on {06-11-2000}6 November 2000.

<PgPartieA><SubPage>LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (COM(2000) 179 – C5‑0254/2000 – 2000/0121(COD))

The proposal is amended as follows:

Text proposed by the Commission [1]

Amendments by Parliament

<Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>1</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Recital 13</TitreAm>

13. The development, implementation and maintenance of a quality management system by the terminals would ensure that the cooperation and communication procedures and the actual loading and unloading by the terminal are planned and executed in accordance within a harmonised framework that is internationally recognised and auditable. In view of its international recognition, the quality management system should be based upon the ISO 9000 series of standards adopted by the International Standardisation Organisation.

13. The development, implementation and maintenance of a quality management system by the terminals for the loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes would ensure that the cooperation and communication procedures and the actual loading and unloading by the terminal are planned and executed in accordance within a harmonised framework that is internationally recognised and auditable. In view of its international recognition, the quality management system should be based upon the ISO 9000 series of standards adopted by the International Standardisation Organisation.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>This directive relates to terminals where solid bulk carriers are loaded and/or unloaded. There are other types of terminal, such as container terminals, to which this directive does not apply. That is also the intent of the BLU Code.</AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>2</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Recital 16</TitreAm>

16. It is necessary that the competent authorities of the Member States have the right to prevent or halt the loading or unloading operations whenever ship or crew safety is reported to be endangered by these operations. The authorities should also intervene in the interests of safety in the event of disagreement between the master and the terminal representative as to the application of these procedures.

16. It is necessary that the competent authorities of the Member States have the obligation to prevent or halt the loading or unloading operations whenever ship or crew safety is reported to them to be endangered by these operations. The authorities should also intervene in the interests of safety in the event of disagreement between the master and the terminal representative as to the application of these procedures.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>Competent authorities must not only have the right to intervene where there are indications of an impending disaster; they must actually do so in order to prevent ship or crew safety from being endangered.</AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>3</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 2(2)</TitreAm>

All terminals within the territory of the Member States.

all terminals for the loading and unloading of dry bulk cargoes within the territory of the Member States.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>4</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 3(14)</TitreAm>

“competent authority” shall mean a national, regional or local public authority in the Member State empowered by national legislation to implement and enforce the requirements of this Directive;

“competent authority” shall mean a national, regional or local public authority in the Member State which has expertise in the loading and/or unloading of bulk carriers and is empowered by national legislation to implement and enforce the requirements of this Directive;

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>The authorities put in charge of inspections must have the relevant expertise.</AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>5</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 6(2)(c)</TitreAm>

The terminal representative shall without delay notify the port State control authority of apparent deficiencies on board a bulk carrier which could endanger the safe loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes.

The terminal representative shall without delay notify the port State control authority and the master of apparent deficiencies on board a bulk carrier which could endanger the safe loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>The master, having regard to his position of responsibility, must also be informed about deficiencies on his ship.</AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>6</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 7(1)</TitreAm>

Before solid bulk cargoes are loaded or unloaded, the master shall agree with the terminal representative on the loading or unloading plan in accordance with the provisions of Regulation VI/7.3 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention. The loading or unloading plan shall be prepared in the form laid down in Appendix 2 of the BLU Code, and the master and the terminal representative shall confirm their agreement to the plan by signing it. Any change to the plan shall be prepared, accepted and agreed by both parties in the form of a revised plan. The agreed loading or unloading plan and any subsequent agreed revisions shall be kept by the ship and the terminal for a period of six months and a copy of it shall be lodged with the competent authority.

Before solid bulk cargoes are loaded or unloaded, the master shall agree with the terminal representative on the loading or unloading plan in accordance with the provisions of Regulation VI/7.3 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention. The loading or unloading plan shall be prepared in the form laid down in Appendix 2 of the BLU Code, and the master and the terminal representative shall confirm their agreement to the plan by signing it. Any change to the plan which may affect the safety of the ship and its crew shall be prepared, accepted and agreed by both parties in the form of a revised plan. The agreed loading or unloading plan and any subsequent agreed revisions shall be kept by the ship and the terminal for a period of six months and a copy of it shall be lodged with the competent authority.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>It is impracticable and, in the light of the objective to be realised, unnecessary to examine every change exhaustively. Therefore only changes affecting ship and/or crew safety must be prepared and agreed.</AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>7</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 7(2)</TitreAm>

Before loading or unloading is commenced the ship/shore safety checklist shall be completed and signed jointly by the master and the terminal representative in accordance with the guidelines of Appendix 4 of the BLU Code.

Before loading or unloading is commenced the ship/shore safety checklist (Appendix 3 of the BLU Code) shall be completed and signed jointly by the master and the terminal representative in accordance with the guidelines of Appendix 4 of the BLU Code.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>In the interests of clarity, it must be noted that not only the guidelines but also the checklist itself form part of the BLU Code. </AmJust>

</Amend><LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>8</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 8(1)</TitreAm>

Member States shall ensure that, without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the master provided under Regulation VI/7.7 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, their competent authorities have the right to prevent or halt the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes whenever the safety of the ship is reported to be endangered thereby.

Member States shall ensure that, without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the master provided under Regulation VI/7.7 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, their competent authorities have the obligation to prevent or halt the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes whenever the safety of the ship or of its crew is reported to them to be endangered thereby.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

</Amend>

<LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>9</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 9(2)</TitreAm>

If the damage could impair the structural capability or watertight integrity of the hull, or the ship’s essential engineering systems, the administration of the flag State, or an organisation recognised by it and acting on its behalf, and the port State control authority shall be informed in order that it may decide whether immediate repair is necessary or whether it can be deferred. The decision shall be taken by the port State control authority, due account being taken of the opinion of the administration of the flag State, or the organisation recognised by it and acting on its behalf.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>The master, having regard to his responsibilities, must approve the repairs made before the ship leaves. In addition, this amendment is in keeping with the provisions of the BLU Code in this respect.</AmJust>

</Amend></LANG:EN>

<LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>10</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 10(1)</TitreAm>

Member States shall regularly verify that terminals are complying with the requirements of Articles 5, point (1), 6 point (2) and 7. Verification shall include the carrying-out of unannounced inspections during loading or unloading operations.	Member States shall regularly verify that terminals are complying with the requirements of Articles 5, point (1), 6 point (2) and 7. *The verification procedure shall entail unannounced inspections during loading or unloading operations*.
	*In addition, Member States shall verify at the end of the prescribed period whether terminals are complying with Article 5, point (4).*

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>Verification should also take place in the form of inspections. In addition, Member States should also ensure that quality management systems are implemented. These changes make that clear.</AmJust>

</Amend></LANG:EN>

<LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>11</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 10(2)a (new)</TitreAm>

At the same time as the report referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall provide a report on the implementation and application of the Directive itself. Should the results give cause to do so, it shall submit proposals to adapt the Directive.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>In view of the many tasks imposed on Member States and the importance which must be attached to this, there needs to be an analysis of whether those tasks are actually being carried out properly.</AmJust>

</Amend></LANG:EN>

<LANG:EN><Amend>(Amendment <NumAm>12</NumAm>)

<TitreAm>Article 15(1)</TitreAm>

Member States shall adopt and publish, not later than [18 months after its entry into force], the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Member States shall adopt and apply, not later than [24 months after its entry into force], the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

They shall apply those provisions with effect from 1 January 2003.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

<TitreJust>Justification:</TitreJust>

<AmJust>Having regard to the different legal procedures, specifying a date for entry into force is not the best solution. The Directive should preferably come into force at the same time as its provisions start to be applied.</AmJust>

</Amend></LANG:EN>

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (COM(2000) 179 – C5‑0254/2000 – 2000/0121(COD))

<ProcLect>(Codecision procedure: first reading)</ProcLect>

The European Parliament,

<Visa>– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2000) 179[2]),

– having regard to Article 251(2) and 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0254/2000),

– having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the {RETT}Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5‑0000/1999),

<Action>1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

General Commentary

Over the last year, shipping has been receiving a great deal of attention, regrettably as a result of a number of tragic events. There has been considerable outrage on the part of various organisations and governments at the causes of these disasters. At all events, this has resulted in greater attention being paid to the safety situation within shipping. Accordingly, the Commission has made various proposals to improve the situation in the sector within the limits of what the EU can do. The initial proposals related to port state control, the liability of classification bureaus and the phasing-out of older oil tankers. This report concerns the safety of ships carrying solid bulk cargoes (grain only). There have also been Commission proposals very recently on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships.

These initiatives show that the Commission takes maritime safety extremely seriously. That is to be welcomed. Parliament's basic stance on the Commission proposal should therefore be positive.

As stated above, this proposal concerns the safety of solid bulk carriers. More specifically, it concerns safety during loading and unloading of those ships. One of the most recent cases involving sinking as a result of careless loading involved the Eurobulker, which broke apart at the start of September while a cargo of cement was being loaded in the port of Halikida (Greece). That accident points up the significance of the Commission's initiative.

Before examining the Commission proposal, the global situation of dry bulk shipping will be outlined.

Bulk carrier indicators[3]

The global bulk carrier fleet comprises 5329 vessels (1999). That is an increase of 512 over 1990. Together they have carried 3.2 bn tonnes of cargo. Within the bulk carrier fleet, a distinction is made between four size classes: Handysize, from 10 000 to 35 000 dwt; Handymax, from 35 000 to 50 000 dwt; Panamax, from 50 000 to 80 000 dwt; and Capesize, over 80 000 dwt. The most important commodities carried are ores (iron), grain and coal.

In the ten years from 1990 to 1999, 146 bulk carriers were lost. Seven hundred and eighty crew members died or are missing (vessel sunk without trace). In percentage terms, the dry bulk sector accounts for a smaller proportion of the fleet than the wet bulk sector (inter alia oil). The category of vessels most affected by losses is the Handysize class, i.e. the smaller vessels, which account for 46% of the fleet but 84% of losses. Sixty-nine percent of that fleet is more than 15 years old, 47% more than 20 years old. A possible explanation for the increased risk affecting older vessels is that they are more likely to come into the possession of negligent owners than newer vessels.

There are various reasons for these losses (146 in total). The most important causes are as follows:

1. Sinking as a result of hull-related problems - 52 cases

2. Navigational errors resulting in the vessel running aground - 28 cases

3. Fire and explosion in the engine room - 17 cases

4. Navigational errors resulting in a collision - 15 cases

It is striking, if we look at the age of the vessels lost, that only a very small percentage (13%) of the vessels sank are less than 15 years old. Accordingly, 87% of the vessels sank are more than 15 years old. More specifically, 28% were between 15 and 19 years old, 45% between 20 and 24, and 14% were more than 25 years old. The average age of the vessels which sank was 19.3 years.

We may conclude from these figures that the physical condition of vessels and/or crew abilities must have been major factors in the sinkings. In the case of bulk carriers, defective physical condition is an additional problem because, given the typical design, (rapid) sinking is virtually inevitable if water is taken on. However, the time it takes a bulk carrier to sink, as a rule, must be measured in minutes rather than hours.

To a large extent, then, sinking is accounted for by hull condition. It is therefore best to treat the hull with due care. This primarily involves maintenance, secondly damage incurred during loading/unloading or overstressing of a particular section of the vessel. In many instances the effect of the last two factors may not be visible; rather, in conjunction with the dynamic forces generated by sea swell, there may be unwanted consequences.

Accidents can never be entirely ruled out. However, preventive measures are certainly possible. Improved seaworthiness of the fleet will be brought about by enforcing existing maritime legislation and carrying out appropriate maintenance. In addition, a proper reading and understanding of the circumstances in which vessels have sunk is conducive to preventing this sort of 'accident'. To that end, it would be helpful if voyage data recorders (VDR) were located on board vessels. This is presently not always the case, but, at the end of November 2000, an amendment to Chapter 5 is likely to be adopted within the IMO to make VDRs mandatory for all new vessels and all passenger vessels. A number of parties concerned (United States, Australia and the European Commission) propose to introduce this obligation for existing bulk carriers too.

International action

Rules in shipping are determined within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Virtually all countries in the world with a shipping register (flag states) are members. Accordingly, the rules established within the IMO apply on a global basis.

The problem of the disappearance of bulk carriers is recognised worldwide, and is therefore of significance within the IMO and other organisations. As a result, research has been carried out and measures taken at international level to reduce the scope for incorrect loading of bulk carriers.

In a guide[4] on the loading and unloading of bulk carriers, IACS has provided an insight into the forces at work on the various sections of a vessel with various loading methods in conjunction with wave movement. Essential conditions for safe loading and unloading are also set out, including conditions relating to communication.

Within the ILO, at all events, this issue has been addressed since 1991. In Resolution A.713(17), member countries, classification bureaux and shipowners are called on to be vigilant so as to prevent incorrect handling of ships' hulls during loading and unloading. Interim measures to this effect have been introduced. Resolution A.797(19) involves an extension of these measures and may be termed the forerunner of the Bulk Loading and Unloading (BLU) Code. The BLU Code is annexed to Resolution A.861(20). That resolution established a number of fundamental principles for loading and unloading (appointment of terminal representatives, possibility for port authorities to stop loading/unloading). The BLU Code contains detailed provisions on the obligations of both masters and terminal representatives and describes the procedures to be complied with before, during and also after loading and unloading.

A number of features of the BLU Code have been incorporated into Chapters VI and XII of the SOLAS Convention[5]. When the 1996 amendments to Chapter VI of the SOLAS Treaty were adopted, a number of requirements concerning the loading, unloading and stowing of bulk cargoes were laid down. Structural and service life requirements for solid bulk carriers, intended to prevent them from sinking if, for whatever reason, they take in water, were incorporated into new Chapter XII. The BLU Code is not mandatory. Member countries are urged to declare the code applicable to vessels on their registers and to terminals located on their territory. To date, implementation is far from complete.

The BLU Code was brought to the attention of dry bulk carrier operators in circular MSC/Circ. FAL/Cir. 91, 'Safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers'[6].

With the document under consideration the Commission, on behalf of the 15 Member States, proposes to make its contribution to the fight to prevent bulk carriers from vanishing. To that end, the sections of the BLU Code which have not been incorporated into the SOLAS Convention are to be transposed into Community law.

Explanatory memorandum – COM document

The increasing number of accidents involving bulk carriers in recent years (146 for the period 1990-1999) remains a cause of major concern for the Commission. This problem was reported in a communication as long ago as 1993[7]. That document formulated suggestions for possible measures. The Council commented favourably on the communication and supported its objectives. According to both institutions, a major weapon in the fight against continuing losses is effective and uniform application of international rules, in particular those formulated within the IMO which relate to port state control. Bulk carrier losses continued after 1993. The Commission therefore made a number of proposals to tighten up requirements concerning port state control so as to give back-up to international rules on the safety of solid bulk carriers.

As has been stated, this matter has been addressed in an international context. That has led to various research into the nature and cause of bulk carrier losses. It has been learned in the process that the use of correct procedures for loading and unloading dry bulk carriers can help to scale down bulk carrier sinkings.

In the light of the results, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) made amendments in 1996 to Chapter VI of the SOLAS Convention. Those amendments laid down the principal requirements concerning the loading, unloading and stowing of bulk cargo. In line with the nature of the SOLAS Convention, however, no provisions were incorporated on ship-shore communication before and during loading. In the relevant chapters of the SOLAS Convention, only a number of footnotes make reference to the voluntary Bulk Loading and Unloading (BLU) Code annexed to IMO Resolution A.862(20).

Having regard to developments (in research) at international level, the Commission has contracted a study[8] comprising a review of accepted terminal procedures in the Community in the light of the relevant international recommendations. That study indicated that the collection of information on a mutual basis and the utilisation thereof, involving ship and terminal or, as the case may be, authorities and vice-versa, is open to improvement. An international survey of terminal procedures[9] also reveals such problems. The conclusion reached in the survey is that many problems can be avoided if it is made clear to loading and unloading terminals that they are also responsible for the safety of bulk carriers. In particular, attention should be paid to poor communication between ship, shipping agent, shipper and terminal. According to the report, better communication before arrival is essential in order to improve this situation.

In response to this information, the Commission has decided that additional measures must be adopted in order to scale down bulk carrier sinkings. As the shipping sector is extremely global in nature, it is important that there should be no distortions of competition as a result of legislation at sub-global level.

What is wanted, then, is a link-up with the international initiatives that have been taken, and are being taken, in this area. Specifically, this means that the Commission is taking its cue from IMO Resolution A.862(20) and the associated IMO BLU Code. It views the mandatory imposition of the provisions of the BLU Code as the most appropriate and effective way of bringing about an improvement in the safety of loading and unloading of bulk carriers in European ports. Having regard to the scope of what is involved, and hence with an eye to distortions of competition, the Commission considers a directive to be the most obvious legal instrument.

In terms of content, the Commission is being guided by five key features of the BLU Code in order specifically to prevent overstressing of, and physical damage to, bulk carriers calling at Community terminals:

1. Terminal operators are required to comply with the relevant IMO Codes and recommendations on ship/port cooperation;

2. Terminal operators are required to appoint a terminal representative;

3. The master is responsible at all times for the safe loading and unloading of the ship; the details of this should be laid down in a loading/unloading plan agreed on by both parties;

4. Should the loading/unloading plan not be complied with, or in the event of any other situation which endangers the safety of the ship, the master has the right to stop the operation;

5. Port authorities have the right to stop loading or unloading if the safety of the ship is endangered.

In addition, the proposal requires terminals to establish and maintain a quality management system (ISO 9001:2000 standards) ensuring that the quality of loading and unloading operations is constant and of a sufficiently high level. The second aspect of this quality management system is that it is intended to be equivalent to the international safety management system (ISM) applicable to bulk carriers pursuant to the provisions of Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention. In this way, it can ensure that both ship and shore make the same efforts to apply internationally agreed safety and quality control principles.

Lastly, the proposal for a directive contains stipulations for reporting on the procedures established.

The BLU Code is broader in scope than the five points referred to above. Because a number of features of the BLU Code have already been incorporated into the SOLAS Convention (Chapters VI and XII), however, it is not necessary to give further prominence to them in this connection. The elements from the BLU Code in this proposal focus on safety in practice, while the provisions of the SOLAS Treaty relate to design, fitting-out and operational aspects of ships.

Rapporteur's comments

After studying the material and after various discussions with parties involved, your rapporteur's conclusion is that the Commission has launched a very sensible initiative. Having regard to the urgency of the problems, this legislation should be established as quickly as possible.

As set forth in the Commission document and in a report by Intercargo[10], an unacceptably large number of ships are being lost at sea, slipshod loading or unloading presumably being a factor in this. The most significant conclusion is that the oldest vessels (15 years plus) run the greatest risk of sinking, though in particular the category between 20 and 24 years old has been badly hit over the last ten years. In about one third of cases over the last ten years, sinking has been caused by hull-related deficiencies. The main causes are cited as being defective maintenance, but also careless loading of vessels. The organisations involved also report that information is currently not complete on all incidents. With a view to maximising the preventive effect of rules and regulations, all information on shipping disasters should be made available to relevant bodies.

Damage to bulk carriers does not happen without a reason. Carelessness while loading and unloading is a factor which can be influenced. Recent research[11] has shown that, on average, damage to a ship occurs every 15 visits to a terminal. An analysis of loading flows shows that the main cargo (apart from grain) is oil and coal. These commodities are chiefly extracted in two areas of the world: South America and Australia. They are shipped from there to the industrialised regions, including Western Europe. The greatest risk of damage during the loading and unloading process is when commodities are loaded quickly (10 000 to 20 000 tonnes an hour) and if cargo spaces are emptied by using large grabs and pneumatic hammers (damaging the anti-rust coating in the process). The inevitable conclusion is that this, at least in part, is the cause of accidents within the EU. In that respect, nothing can be changed by the introduction of legislation at EU level.

Despite the fact that the IMO has been making efforts for years to enhance safety, the position has not yet greatly improved. In its Resolutions A.713(17), A.797(19) and A.862(20), it advocated the adoption of measures in this area. That led to the BLU Code annexed to Resolution A.862(20). The code is voluntary. Contracting countries are called on to incorporate the code into their own legislation. Because of various circumstances (competition, voluntary nature, Commission initiative), not much is being achieved in practice through the code, though all involved acknowledge its importance.

Shipping is an international business sector in particular. To a major extent, law-making takes place in an IMO context. As is the case in other global sectors, including air transport, law-making at sub-global level means a competitive drawback for those affected by that legislation.

In strictly formal terms, establishing the IMO BLU code as legislation involves a competitive disadvantage for European ports and terminals. That is so, however, only with regard to the financial position of ports and terminals, which will be disadvantaged only if they have operations outside the EU. It is therefore best to transpose the BLU Code into EU legislation by reproducing the original text as faithfully as possible. The annexes to the BLU Code must also be taken over with as few changes as possible.

An important point in the debate on the maritime sector is the capacity of port state controls and Member States to carry out the requisite (unannounced) inspections. In the debates on the reports on the disaster involving the 'Erika', it was pointed out that many Member States are unable to carry out the number of inspections they are required to carry out under 95/21/EC. Having regard to the tasks stemming from that Directive, there are legitimate doubts that this can be sufficiently enforced on the basis of current capacity. Skimping on safety is unacceptable, however. Member States will therefore have to make additional efforts to be able to comply with the provisions. At the same time, Parliament must not disregard this signal. When legislating, Parliament must have regard not only for the adoption process, but also for enforcement. For these reasons, implementation of this Directive must be subject to regular verification.

Proposed amendments

Having regard to the situation in the industry and the seriousness of the draft, your rapporteur can endorse the approach taken by this proposal for a directive. Nonetheless, a few points in the proposal must be clarified or adapted.

In line with the IMO Resolutions and BLU Code, the provisions of this Directive would only apply to terminals loading and/or unloading dry bulk carriers. Other terminals, such as container terminals, would not be covered by this Directive. The various provisions in this connection must contain wording to that effect.

Article 7(2) makes reference to the ship/shore safety checklist. That list is better known as Appendix 3 to the BLU Code. In the interests of clarity and consistency, a reference to this should be incorporated.

Article 8 states that the competent authorities shall have the right to stop loading/unloading if the safety of the ship is endangered. That wording is not a shining model of clarity. This wording makes prevention of a 'disaster', or not, dependent on the competent authority. It appears more appropriate to formulate this right in more binding terms and require the competent authorities to intervene in response to a report of an irresponsible situation.

Article 9 addresses the repair of damage incurred. If damage is such as to present a potential risk, immediate repair is called for. As the master bears considerable responsibility as regards his ship and loading, a ship should only be allowed to leave port, after urgent repairs, if the repairs have been carried out to the master's satisfaction.

Article 10 addresses verification and reporting under the Directive. The present text only establishes reporting requirements for verification inspections by Member States. There is no verification that a quality management system has been established and maintained, nor is there an evaluation of the Directive. In terms of verifying the effectiveness of the Directive, it would be beneficial if there were mandatory reporting in this connection, too, by Member States and the Commission respectively.

Article 15 sets the time limits for implementation and application. Having regard to the various legal stages that are needed prior to legislation, it makes sense to replace the specific date by a period of 24 months after entry into force, by which time these provisions must also be applied.

In addition, a number of drafting changes have been made to clarify provisions and intentions to some extent.

[3] Bulk carrier Casualty Report, An analysis of vessel losses and fatalities, Statistics for 1999, and ten years of losses 1990-1999, Intercargo, 2000.

[4] Guidance and Information on Bulk Cargo Loading and Discharging to Reduce the Likelihood of Over-Stressing the Hull Structure, IACS, 1997.

[5] The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention relates to minimum standards on the design, fitting out and original aspects of vessels, with a view to the safety thereof. Compliance is usually verified by the port state control.

[6] IMO, June 2000.

[7] COM(93)66 final.

[8] Bulk Carrier Safety Study, by Burness Corlett & Partners (IOM) Ltd.

[9] Bulk Carrier Terminal Report, Intercargo, September 2000.

[10] Bulk Carrier Casualty Report, An analysis of vessel losses and fatalities, Statistics for 1999, and ten years of losses 1990-1999, Intercargo 2000.

[11] Bulk Carrier Terminal Report, Intercargo, September 2000.