Not Logged In, Login,

Wednesday, October 17, 2018



Following the EU Council common position agreed in October last year, the Parliament had a second reading at which it could not endorse the Council’s principles on fee collection.  The issue was thus sent to a conciliation committee made up of representatives from both sides, where a compromise was reached last week.  While the text is not available yet, it is understood to include that a “significant” proportion of the costs of port reception facilities shall be contributed by all ships calling at an EU port – such that each port will have the obligation to see to it that the significant part of the fee is paid by all users of the port, whether they use the reception facilities or not.  Secondly, the working of the Directive and particularly the method of collecting fees will be reviewed after three years.  The Commission has allegedly also attached a Declaration stating that the Commission considers “significant” to mean not less than 30%.  Since the Declaration is not legally binding, ports would appear to have a high degree of flexibility on collecting fees at least until the next Commission review.

The directive is expected to be finally adopted in September this year and we will come back with more accurate information as soon as it is available.

Phasing out of single hull tankers

The much talked about French paper has now been tabled to the IMO in its expected form (EU proposal moved forward with two more years) co-sponsored by Germany and Belgium.  The EU Transport Working Group (member states experts) discussed the issue at a meeting end of last week and will do so again on the 25 of July.  It now seems clear that although a majority of the EU member states are basically behind the Commission's proposal, intense co-ordination will take place from now and until the MEPC in October in order to reach a common EU position to defend at the meeting. 


A meeting was held in the EQUASIS Editorial Committee last week, and the topic of inaccurate information was addressed.  It was reported that the number of complaints received was small (some 40 on ship entries and 10-15 relating to PSC) and that technical problems in loading the latest information from Lloyd's Register could be contributing to the problem. It was accepted however that the accuracy of the data on ships had yet to be checked in relation to the majority of companies. It was agreed that a proper complaints procedure be implemented whereby an asterisk would be inserted when an owner queried the accuracy of particular information ,indicating that it was under scrutiny, with the complainant being identified.

For further information, please contact