The impact of the EU on Japanese shipping

1
The impact of the EU on Japanese shipping

• Presentation to INTERTANKOs members in Japan
• By Ketil Djonne, advisor to INTERTANKO in Brussels

2
How does Brussels have an impact on Japanese
interests?

• Firstly, there is a direct effect on Japanese
  vessels when calling at European ports since
  there is a growing tendency in Europe to make
  European rules applicable to all flags through
  Port State Control
• Secondly, the EU has an indirect impact on
  Japanese shipping through its increasing
  influence on international rulemaking
  particularly in the IMO
• Thirdly, the EU has an influence on the
  competitivness of Japans European based
  competitors through it control of tonnage tax
  schemes etc.

3
The Erika accident increased Brussels presence
in shipping. Focus on
Year 2000

• Lack of flag state implementation
• Inadequate class response and control
• Lack of transparency
• Double standards with charterers
• An international system with agreed rules but
• serious lack of implementation and control

4
I can see a growing importance for the EU!
No doubt - Brussels is a place for INTERTANKO to
be..
5
In the wake of the Erika (early
2000),INTERTANKOs mission was Avoid a European
repetition of post-Exxon Valdez! Secure support
for international rules!

• Good INTERTANKO network in Brussels already
  before the accident happened (first chairman
  visit in 1993, Brussels tanker event in 1998)
• Chairman W.Hoegh immediately met Commission Vice
  President de Palacio (Jan. 2000)
• Close co-operation with Commission in initial
  phase in order to have a dialogue on the input
  behind the proposals to come

6
Brussels politicsThe three main decisionmakers
Commission (Propose and monitor implementation)
ECJ
Commission
Court
European Parliament (Opinion Veto)
Council (Decides and implements)
7
Interacting with the Commission
Loyola de Palacio (Margaritis Schinas) Commissione
r for Transport and Energy Policy
Francois Lamoureux
Director General
Director for maritime policy
Willem de Ruiter Jean. Trestour Wolfgang Elsner
Unit staff members
8
Erika I

• Proposal for an EU Regulation on (regional)
  phasing out of single hull tankers
• Proposal for radical amendments in the EU
  directive on Port State Control
• Proposal for radical amendments to the EU
  directive on Licensing of Class

9
Erika II

• Proposal for a new EU Directive on Monitoring
  Reporting of maritime traffic
• Proposal for EU Regulation establishing a
  European Maritime Safety Agency
• Proposal for a European third layer of oil
  pollution compensation (COPE) and a wish-list
  for future changes to the IOPC/CLC system

10
INTERTANKOs priorities

• Encourage international rules (phase-out, COPE,
  VDR)
• Ensure long-term EU support for the IMO
• Oppose any erosion of the power of the ship
  master
• Promote transparency on charterer in PSC-data
• Promote places of refuge
• Avoid inclusion of shipping in the directive on
  liability for restoration of environmental damage
  
• Generally improve the standing of the tanker
  industry in Brussels

11
EU Co-decision
Com
Com
Council
EP
EP
Preparation Initiative
Pre Decision
Proposal
Formal
Political Agreement Common Position
EP opinion
First Reading
EP approves or rejects
Second Reading
Commission withdraws
Council adopts
Conciliation
12
The keys for INTERTANKOinfluence Brussels

• A good understanding of the system
• Recognised as a credible partner
• Can provide valuable input from industry also in
  Asia
• The ability to get in early
• The ability to be reliable and long term
• The ability to prioritise and to steer rather
  than obstruct

13
Numerous discussions and position papers...

• Chairman Lars Carlsson meets De Palacio again in
  June 2001
• Position papers and numerous written input
• Co-operation with ECSA, ICS and others
• Chairman, other INTERTANKO members and staff meet
  all EP spokesmen other MEPs, Commission
  officials and not the least Member States
  officials frequently and regularly in order to
  put across the views of the international tanker
  industry

14
In dialogue...
MEP Theo Bouwman EP Green coordinator
MEP Dirk Sterckx, Monitoring Reporting
EP Committee. Chairman Konstantinos Hatzidakis
MEP Mark Watts Port state control, VDR
INTERTANKO Chairman staff
15
Erika I package adopted December 2001

• Regulation No 417/2002 on the phasing out of
  single hull tankers. Implementation in
  conformity with MARPOL 13G
• Directive 106/2001 on Port State Control.
  Implementation in Member States by 22 July 2003
• Directive 2001/105 on licensing of recognised
  organisations. (Class Directive)
  Implementation in Member States by 22 July 2003.

16
2/3 of Erika II package adopted in June 2002

• Directive 2002/59 on Monitoring Reporting of
  maritime traffic
• Compulsory VDR by 2007/2008 at the latest
• Compulsory AIS for tankers at first survey after
  1.1.2003
• Coordinated, and adequately equipped, system of
  places of refuge in Europe by Feb. 2004
• A electronically based reporting, monitoring and
  data surveillance system for ships entering or
  passing EU waters by end of 2008

17
Erika II package adopted in June 2002

• Establishment of EMSA with a mandate to assist
  Member States and Commission in
• Updating EU legislation on maritime safety and
  pollution
• Implementing maritime safety and pollution
  legislation
• Training of port state and flag state officials
• Facilitating EU-wide co-operation in maritime
  accident investigation
• Provision of objective, reliable and comparable
  information on maritime safety
• Providing technical assistance to new Member
  States

18
So, what has been achieved?

• Phase-out moved from EU to IMO
• Retrofitting of VDR partly moved from EU to IMO
• Third layer COPE moved from EU to IOPC
• Weather ban from bad to acceptable
• Port of refuge obligation imposed on
  governments
• Naming of charterer in PSC detention data
• Shipping exempted from environmental damage
  directive
• The need to take a global approach to air
  pollution broadly accepted

19
Whats next?

• Implementation of Erika regulations
• PSC, Licensing of class, phase-out, monitoring,
  PRF
• A shift from maritime safety to (horizontal)
  environmental issues
• Environmental liability issues
• Air pollution from sea going vessels
• Consolidation of EU role in global maritime
  politics
• EU membership of the IMO and the establishment of
  the European Maritime safety Agency (EMSA)
• Co-ordination of EU reactions to US security
  initiatives

20
BrusselsThe main players
Commission (The executive)
ECJ
Commission
Court
European Parliament (Direct election)
Council (Member States)
21
Erika I The remaining issue of liability

• Proposal for a European third layer of oil
  pollution compensation (COPE) and a wish-list
  for future changes to IOPC/CLC system
• Annex to IOPC close to adoption
• Amended Commission proposal from June 2002
• The other issues (distribution of financial
  contributions, the limitation rights, criminal
  fines)
• Liability for restoration of environmental
  liability (relationship with IOPC, HNS, Bunkers)

22
INTERTANKO Goal Strategy

• Safeguard the international system of IOPC and
  CLC
• Retain current sharing of financial
  responsibility
• Avoid introduction of liability for restauration
  of environmental damage in Europe
• Work closely with PI, ITOPF, ICS and others to
  demonstrate for European decision makers that the
  current international system should be preserved

23
Air pollution
Under the EUs air emissions policy, land-based
sources have substantially reduced their air
emissions. Now the focus turns to shipping.
24
EU Commission on air pollution

• Communication on air pollution strategy to be
  presented end of 2002
• 1.5 sulphur cap on fuel in EU territorial waters
  by 1.1.2005
• Amendment of EU directive 99/32 on sulphur in
  heavy fuel. Focus on use of 0.2 in ports
• Special regime for ferries
• EU Member States ratification of MARPOL Annex VI
• The future NOx, VOC, climat gases?

25
INTERTANKO Goal Strategy

• To encourage ratification/implementation of Annex
  VI
• To limit European rules on 1.5 in HFO to IMO
  SECA areas
• To encourage abolition of 0.2 cap on MDO under
  Directive 99/32 or to limit 0.2 to use in
  ports
• To seek exemptions for fuel utilised for tankers
  main engines whilst in ports
• To inform decision-makers on practical realities
  and to build alliances

26
EU membership of the IMO?
Commission Recommendation to the Council
9.4.2002 Currently the Commission has observer
status but can not speak or vote Strong legal
arguments in favour but resistance amongst EU
Member States Better coordination NOW is the
key objective, especially on security issues
27
INTERTANKO Goal Strategy

• Encourage active EU support for the IMO
• Avoid a regionalisation of IMO
• Work closely with EMSA in order to ensure
  continued support for a European global approach
  to regulatory affairs
• Work closely with EMSA on implementation of the
  Erika-decisions in order to secure efficient,
  smooth and fair implementation for international
  tanker operators

28
Maritime securityThe US is acting on many levels
ILO
IMO
OECD
Multilateral

• CSI
• C-TPAT

Bilateral

• ADVANCE
• NOTICE
• 24 H. RULE
• SHORE
• LEAVE

Unilateral
29
EU Maritime Security Policy From Reaction to
Action

• In December 2002 the Commission will present two
  Communications.
• A Communication on maritime security which will
  include
• An EU regulation making the IMO agreement
  mandatory under EU legislation.
• An EU Directive on Seafarers ID.
• The Communication will also address the
  issues of
• Possible government guarantees for terrorist
  insurance.
• An EU programme for port terminal security
• A possible coordinating role for EMSA in the
  field of maritime security

30
EU Maritime Security Policy (Cont.)

• A second Communication on EU external border
  control. This will examine the following issues
• Possible EU routines for controlling people and
  cargoes in ports.
• The results of the EU-US customs negotiations on
  CSI and cargo-manifest rules as well as other
  transparency and information exchange rules.
• A joint EU police commando, trained and ready to
  intervene on-board vessels and also in
  international waters.

31
Conclusions (I)

• Throughout the Erika debate INTERTANKO has fought
  regional initiatives and turned most of these
  into sensible solutions to the benefit of the
  Japanese tanker industry
• Europe, not the least the Commission and the
  Parliament, have come a long way in accepting the
  role of the IMO
• The EU has gained self-confidence, however, and
  EMSA will develop this further. EMSA will
  therefore become a key partner for INTERTANKO
• The shift of focus to broader environmental
  issues creates new challenges for the tanker
  industry.

32
Conclusion (2)

• The EU will continue to exert its influence on
  the world stage by increasing its activity in the
  IMO. This development should not be seen as a
  threat only, INTERTANKO can also make use of
  the EUs bargaining power.
• The EU will also increase its contribution to
  global maritime regulations by making IMO
  maritime security rules mandatory EU legislation.
• With the advent of EMSA, and of better
  coordination within the IMO, the EUs importance
  for Japanese shipping will increase.
• Japan and INTERTANKO need to be active in EU

33
The futureTriangle of power in shipping
politics?
Japan
USA
EU