2. SAFETY AT SEA
(24165)
5111/03
COM(02) 780
|
Draft Regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 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.
|
| Legal base: | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | 20 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 13 January 2003
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 3 February 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see (24077) 15301/02: HC 63-vi (2002-03), paragraph 1 (8 January 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | June 2003
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | For debate in European Standing Committee A (together with the Commission Communication on improving safety at sea in response to the "Prestige" accident already recommended for debate)
|
Background
2.1 After the loss of the oil tanker "Erica"
in December 1999 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
agreed to accelerate the timetable for phasing out single hull
oil tankers. Regulation (EC) No. 417/2002 implemented the agreement
in the EU. Following the sinking of the oil tanker "Prestige"
in November 2002 the Council decided to accept a number of administrative
and legislative actions proposed in a Commission Communication,
which we considered on 8 January and recommended for debate.[4]
The document
2.2 One of the proposed actions is the amendment of Regulation
(EC) No. 417/2002. The present document is a draft amending Regulation
which would provide for:
- prohibition of the transport of heavy grades of oil in single
hull tankers of 600 tons deadweight to or from EU ports (originally
administrative arrangements were proposed on this matter);
- accelerated phasing out of single hull oil tankers of 5,000
tons deadweight and above, involving a range of deadlines and
maximum age limits; and
- the Condition Assessment Scheme, an enhanced inspection regime
which tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above must satisfy
to be able to operate after certain dates, to apply to all single
hull tankers down to 5,000 tons deadweight from the age of 15
years.
The Government's view
2.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Mr David Jamieson) tells us:
"The Commission has yet to produce the regulatory impact
of its proposals (which it is required to do under its own rules)
and we, and other Member States, are pressing on this matter.
However we are concerned about the economic effects of certain
of the Commission proposals and are preparing our own analysis
of their impact on the UK. We are particularly concerned at the
proposals to:
- set the lower boundary on the size of single hull vessel which
may not transport heavy grades of oil at 600 tons deadweight.
This class of vessel is particularly significant in coastal traffic
(for example, supply of fuel oil to Scottish islands) and bunkering
(ship refuelling). The Commission's proposals:
- may well cause real difficulties in finding sufficient double
hull tonnage of this type to avoid dislocations in energy supply;
and
- perversely, run counter to UK and Community policy on modal
shift; in particular the encouragement of short sea shipping as
a more environmentally friendly alternative to road transport.
- specify the API grade for heavy crude oil at a figure which
has little scientific or technical basis and is likely to be unnecessarily
onerous. Some crude oils do have similar properties to heavy fuel
oil, for example, they are difficult to disperse after a spill.
However, we feel that a lower threshold may be more appropriate
and are working with like-minded Member States to produce a more
rational approach in terms of defining the point at which heavy
crude and fuel oils are caught by the ban on carriage in single
hulls.
"Another area of concern is the disruption to international
arrangements which is likely to result from an EU decision to
depart from the accelerated phase out agreement only recently
secured in IMO. An EU decision to accelerate further the phasing
out of single hull tankers may not cause great economic dislocation
within the EU but the effect could be greater if other regions
decided to adopt a similar line, thus increasing the competition
for double hull tonnage. Moreover, 'dumping' single hull tonnage
from the EU to other parts of the world which may be as environmentally
sensitive but have less ability to police the use of poorly maintained
ships and to deal with pollution incidents, is unlikely to enhance
the EU's reputation for environmental responsibility.
"However we shall continue to press the advantages of international
agreements over regional arrangements; principally that an EU
Regulation which applies only to vessels operating to or from
EU ports will not protect EU coastlines against passing tankers
travelling between non-EU ports, for example, the PRESTIGE.
"We have little difficulty in principle with the proposal
to extend the CAS; the more rigorous test had been developed as
part of a joint UK/Dutch/Danish initiative. However there are
resource implications and, if overall inspection levels are not
to fall, there might be practical short-term difficulties given
that this longer test would require the training of additional
inspectors".
2.4 On the financial implications of the draft Regulation
the Minister says:
"The proposals will affect both the UK shipping and oil supply
industries, as producer and consumer of oil. An initial assessment
of the proposal to ban the carriage of the heaviest grades of
oil in single hull tankers suggests that the greatest impact would
be felt in the small (600- 5000 tons deadweight) vessel sector,
engaged mainly in the coastal and short-haul operations, and in
the form of 'bunker barges', in ship-refuelling. Since few of
these vessels are fitted with a double hull an outright, almost
immediate, ban in respect of some products would cause problems
of availability in shipping capacity which would have significant
effects on supply. At present it is difficult to quantify the
likely effects but it is reasonable to assume that there would
be an increase in costs for all users of oil, and, as has already
been noted, increased tanker traffic on the roads as suppliers
seek alternative means of transport. We are working with the Department
of Trade and Industry, and other interested Departments, to gain
a clearer understanding of the Commission's proposals.
"The proposals to accelerate the phasing out of single hull
tankers have less immediate impact on both industries, although
again we are obtaining data to allow the effects to be quantified.
The tanker industry has provided some global figures suggesting
that for tankers above 5000 tons deadweight there would be a large
peak in shipbuilding demand in 2003/4 which would be difficult
to meet in the short term. There would be another peak in 2010
but the effects would be less serious as, in practice, the replacement
could be carried out more smoothly. We are refining these and
other data to show the effects on EU-registered vessels and those
calling at EU ports.
"The benefits of the proposals are difficult to assess since
they are quantifiable mainly in terms of avoiding the potential
costs of cleaning up after an oil spill. The situation is complicated
by the fact that the proposals will apply only to EU-registered
vessels or those operating to or from an EU port. If the Regulation
had been in force it would not have prevented the PRESTIGE incident."
Conclusion
2.5 We share the Minister's concerns about the lack
of a regulatory impact assessment of this proposal from the Commission;
about the lack of information on its, possibly significant, costs;
about disruption to IMO- led international arrangements; and about
the ineffectiveness of the proposal in relation to ships, such
as the "Prestige", passing an EU coastline whilst travelling
between non-EU ports.
2.6 We have already recommended the earlier package
of proposed responses to the "Prestige" incident for
debate in European Standing Committee A. We recommend that this
document be debated at the same time so that Members may express
their views on the concerns relating to this proposal.
4 See
headnote. Back
| 
