SAFETY OF SEABORNE OIL TRADE
(21146)
7245/00
COM(00) 142
|
Commission Communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade,
including:
(a)
A Draft Directive amending Directive 95/21/EC concerning the
enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing
in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of
international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and ship
board living and working conditions (Port State Control);
(b)
A Draft Directive amending Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and
standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the
relevant activities of maritime administrations;
(c)
A Draft Regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or
equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers
|
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| SEM of 1 November 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 5 (17 May 2000);
HC 23-xxiii (1999-2000), paragraph 5 (28 June 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| June 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared in respect of proposals (a) and (b) (decision reported 17 May 2000);
Not cleared in respect of proposal (c); further information requested
|
Background
6.1 In our earlier reports of 17 May and
28 June 2000, we reported on a Commission Communication which
put forward three legislative proposals, all related to improving
the safety of seaborne oil trade and reducing the risk of pollution
in the event of accidents at sea. We noted that the framework
for international action on maritime safety is provided by the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO), but that the Community
had taken some action in this area where IMO standards were deemed
to be inadequate or lacking. The Erika oil tanker disaster
in December 1999 prompted the European Parliament and the Council
to call on the Commission to review the maritime safety of oil
tankers. Some 70% of the European Union's oil imports are transported
along the Brittany Coast and through the English Channel, so these
areas are particularly at risk.
6.2 Of the proposals we considered in our
earlier reports, we cleared two. These were for:
— amendment of
Directive 95/21/EC on port state control inspection to ensure
more rigorous inspection of ships using Community ports; and
— amendment of Directive 94/57/EC on classification
societies[18]
to provide for stricter monitoring of their performance in inspecting
the quality of ships when acting for Flag State Administrations.
The changes proposed provided for centralised recognition and
supervision of these bodies by the Commission, assisted by a comitology
committee.
6.3 The third proposal was for a Regulation
to provide for an accelerated phasing out of single hull tankers
(such as the Erika). The Commission proposed to synchronise
withdrawal requirements with the existing US legislation rather
than the later dates in the IMO Convention. The Government had
concerns about this proposal because it contravened the general
principle that the IMO should set international standards for
maritime safety and because the timetabling involved could lead
to a shortfall in the numbers of tankers required for EU oil imports.
The Government told us that the IMO had indicated that it would
give early consideration to revising the existing Marine Pollution
Convention (MARPOL) in order to accelerate the phasing out of
single hull tankers and that discussions would be held in the
autumn. We left this proposal uncleared and asked to be kept in
touch with its progress.
The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
6.4 In his Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 1 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Keith
Hill) confirms that the UK shares the Commission's concerns to
reduce pollution and safety risks. He notes that a particular
problem with the Commission's proposals is that the phase out
dates envisaged would create uncomfortable tonnage replacement/scrapping
peaks around 2003 and 2010. He says there are genuine fears that
the ship building/scrapping industries would not have the capacity
to deal with those peaks, with a consequent disruption of energy
supplies. He says that to deal with that problem, the UK, working
with Denmark and the Netherlands, drew up a compromise proposal,
the purpose of which was to smooth out those peaks. The compromise
would give the younger tankers affected by the accelerated phase-out
the prospect of an extension to their life (from 2010 to 2015)
if they can pass a rigorous quality survey, while at the same
time ensuring that all single hull tankers are withdrawn by 2015.
This compromise was agreed at the Transport Council on 2 October.
The Minister also says that the IMO's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) reached agreement in October to amend the MARPOL
Convention to accelerate the phasing out of single hull tankers
in a timetable that broadly follows that envisaged by the Transport
Council. Outstanding details should be resolved in time to allow
for formal agreement to amend the MARPOL Convention at the April
2001 meeting of MEPC, with the amendments coming into effect in
2003. In that event, the Minister argues that there would be no
need for a "regional solution imposed by EU regulation".
The Minister says that he would then expect it to be possible
to agree on a Common Position on a revised EU regulation to implement
the IMO text for these standards at the June 2001 Transport Council.
6.5 As for cost, the Minister says that
earlier replacement of tankers would increase ocean transport
cost of crude oil and oil products but the effect on prices at
the pump is likely to be "imperceptible" as transport
costs are only a small proportion of the oil price. Few UK tanker
owners would be affected by the measure. He points out that the
costs of accelerating phasing-out must be considered against the
cost of major oil spill disasters such as the Erika. Whilst
the final cost of the Erika pollution is unlikely to be
known for some time the Minister says that it may well be as high
as £240 million. He concludes that the potential benefits
in terms of cost savings from tightening the regulations are expected
to exceed the short-term cost of implementing the proposed IMO
standards.
Conclusion
6.6 We thank the Minister for bringing
us up to date on the position regarding the phasing out of single-hull
tankers. We are glad to see that an acceptable compromise appears
to have been reached which respects the role of the IMO in international
standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention. We note
from another related document on which we report (paragraph 37)
that, as regards the proposed Directive on tightening port state
control, the Commission is concerned that Member States are trying
to water down its proposals because, it claims, they are reluctant
to employ the staff needed in order to meet the additional commitments.
It claims that, as a result, ships identical to the Erika
would not be inspected. Whilst this proposal is not subject to
scrutiny, as we cleared it in the summer, we are concerned by
the Commission's comments and would be grateful for the Minister's
views on them and an explanation of the UK's approach. Public
concern about inspection has inevitably increased following the
recent sinking of the cargo ship, Ievoli Sun, and it is
important that any trade-off between cost and safety checks is
both well-judged and transparent. Meanwhile, we leave the Draft
Regulation on phasing out single hull oil tankers uncleared, pending
further information from the Minister on the progress of this
proposal.
18 Classification societies are private organisations
to which Flag States may delegate some inspection functions. Back
|
