In addition, the proposal will support flag State administrations of EU Member States by:
• Providing for more enhanced monitoring of Recognised Organisations (ROs) – private companies or entities that carry out technical survey tasks on ships on behalf of a flag State administration.
• Introducing requirements on digitalisation for flag State inspection reports that ensure better oversight and greater sharing of safety information with other EU Member States and the Commission.
• Requiring that national administrations maintain sufficient oversight of their fleet, thus helping to retain core technical staff for monitoring and carrying out checks on ships, even when these are outsources to third parties.
A Member State group will be established to increase common understanding of flag State issues, to share information, views and experience, including ways to modernise the way in which flag State performance is measured. Finally, the legislation will provide for the provision of capacity-building support by the European Maritime Safety Agency to Member States’ flag State inspectors.
specific EU legislation). Port State control is considered the second line of defence, after flag State.
Port State control in the EU is based on an intergovernmental structure: the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (‘Paris MoU’). All 22 EU Member States with sea-ports, as well as Canada, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom are members of the Paris MoU. Russia is also a member, but its membership was suspended in May 2022 following Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine. EMSA works closely with EU and Paris MoU Member States to implement the port State control regime. On average, over 15,000 port State control inspections are carried out annually by the Paris MoU Member States.
//
Port State
control in the EU is based on an inter- governmental structure
//
What changes are proposed to the Directive on port State control and why?
What is the aim of the Directive on
port State control? Port State control is a system of inspection of foreign merchant ships (cargo or passenger) in ports. The checks are intended to verify that crew competence and the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions on the safety of life at sea, working and living conditions on board and on the protection of marine environment. As such, it is a vital part of the maritime safety chain. Port State control is an enforcement tool and the standards that it applies are set at IMO l level (or in some cases by
The proposal to revise Directive 2009/16/EC seeks to improve the EU port State control regime by aligning it with developments at IMO and Paris MoU level to ensure there are no contradictions between the Member States’ obligations at EU and international level. It will also incorporate two important environmental international legal instruments, namely the IMO Ballast Water Management and the Nairobi Wreck Removal conventions, meaning that ships will now be inspected to check they comply with these Conventions’ provisions.
The proposal further provides for the development of a voluntary port State control regime for those EU Member States that want to inspect larger foreign-flagged fishing vessels (over 24 metres in length).
The amended text will also encourage the uptake and use of electronic ship certificates by providing for a central repository and common validation tool to allow for better prepared and more targeted inspections. Legislative amendments are put forward to
address problems which have been encountered in the implementation of the current port State control regime, relating to missed inspections (either for operational or force majeure reasons), the number of inspectors required for more complex inspections and the validation and sharing of inspection reports.
THE REPORT | DEC 2023 | ISSUE 106 | 83
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
