What changed

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE procedure

Follow up to the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/21/EC on compliance with flag State requirements

(COM(2023)0272 – C90188/2023 – 2023/0172(COD))

1. Rapporteur: Vera TAX (S&D / NL)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

2. Reference numbers: 2023/0172 (COD) / A9-0418/2023 / P9_TA(2024)0203

The European Parliament,

3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 10 April 2024

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0272),

4. Legal basis: Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90188/2023),

5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN)

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

6. Commission's position: accepts all amendments.

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 20 September 2023,

– after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0418/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 a (new)

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 a (new)

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14 a (new)

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16 a (new)

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a – paragraph 3

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4b – paragraph 4

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4c – paragraph 2

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4c – paragraph 2 a (new)

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 2

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6a – paragraph 4

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6a – paragraph 5

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 2

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a – paragraph 2 – point c

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b – paragraph 1

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv a (new)

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv b (new)

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b – paragraph 1 a (new)

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Rapporteur welcomes the Commission proposal to revise the Directive 2009/21/EC on compliance with flag State requirements. It should improve the quality of inspections of EU-flagged ships, provide for a better oversight of recognised organisations carrying out work under the responsibility of a flag state and set up a more harmonised training system for the European inspectors. In turn, this should lead to a better enforcement of safety rules, less pollution from shipping and better compliance of the EU Member States with their obligations as flag States under the IMO regime.

The Rapporteur supports the obligation to have a quality management system as well as a broader use of modern digital technologies, in particular in the field of electronic certificates and interoperability of EMSA databases that could be consulted by European port state authorities in preparation for a port state inspection of a European flagged ship.

The Rapporteur believes that digitization and automation of the maritime sector have a significant potential to contribute to the reduction of its emissions and play a key role in its decarbonisation, in line with the ambitions of the Green Deal. She is also convinced that in order to preserve the competitiveness, the European maritime transport sector must participate in the Union's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest, in line with the Paris Agreement. To this end, she is of the opinion that Member States should use the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System (SafeSeaNet) and services established by Directive 2002/59/EC and proposes that electronic certificates become mandatory for all member states already after three years from the date of entry into force of this Directive.

In order to improve safety and ensure level playing field, the rapporteur is also convinced that training programs provided by EMSA to flag State authorities should favour more harmonised approach and should be continued, reinforced and extended to cover Maritime Labour Convention- related aspects in more detail. EMSA should facilitate coordination, as well as an exchange of information and of good practice between flag State authorities in this regard. The Rapporteur would like to see the inspections to reflect on the working conditions, safety and environmental performance of all ships flying the flag of Member States and therefore include accurate data on crews’ working and resting hours. Flag states should revise the guidelines provided to their inspectors and those authorised to act on their behalf to include systematic verification of these records' accuracy.

The rapporteur is of the opinion that to eliminate unwanted practices like the reflagging of vessels and the use of open registries, there should be a 'genuine link' between the actual owner of a vessel and the flag the vessel flies, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS Article 5 of the 1958 Convention and Article 91(1) of the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Accordingly, shipowners should be obliged to pay social security contributions under the flag they are sailing unless the employee pays them according to the law of the state in which they reside.

Finally, the Commission proposal sets up an expert group on flag state requirements to provide a platform for the exchange of best practice and in order to develop a joint approach to flag state inspections and a common reporting format. While the rapporteur agrees with this idea and believes that adequate capacity and competence building should be maintained and promoted, she considers that the solutions and recommendations developped by the expert group should should not penalise well-performing administrations.

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

29.11.2023

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES

for the Committee on Transport and Tourism

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/21/EC on compliance with flag State requirements

(COM(2023)272 – C90188/2023 – 2023/0172(COD))

Rapporteur for opinion: Ana Miranda

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The current proposal forms part of a wider package of measures aimed at improving maritime safety. Whilst other elements of the package involve specific changes for the fisheries sector, it is equally apparent that the flag State Directive is of vital importance to fishing communities; flags of convenience, for example, cause major problems with regard to safety, working conditions, traceability of fisheries products and a level playing field.

The 2009 maritime safety package was in large part a response to a series of marine disasters, not least of which was the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia in 2002. This disaster was unprecedented in nature and had a devastating effect on sea life, birds and the wider environment. This, in turn, severely impacted all those involved in fisheries, particularly those engaged in inshore and artisanal fishing and the shellfish sector.

The disaster also highlighted major shortcomings in the Spanish government’s response – highlighted in Parliament’s resolution in the wake of the disaster – as well as disparities in maritime safety across the EU. Parliament raised serious concerns at that time regarding flags of convenience and the 2009 flag State requirements Directive went some way to remedying this.

The Commission considers that the 2009 Directive has in general been well transposed by Member States and has created a more level playing field in the shipping sector. It has not however remained fully up-to-date with developments at IMO level and there are still inconsistencies in relation to inspections and monitoring.

The Commission proposal therefore aims to update the Directive to conform more fully with IMO standards, to harmonise inspections and monitoring, to promote digital solutions and to improve cooperation between Member State authorities. The proposal also aims to improve flag State training.

Your rapporteur fully supports the Commission’s aim to update the current legislative regime and to ensure that it remains fully aligned with international standards. She also welcomes the moves to more fully embrace digital technologies.

Equally, however, she highlights recent resolutions where the European Parliament has continued to express concerns as regards the issue of reflagging and flags of convenience. This remains a major issue for the environment and, from a fisheries perspective, for those whose livelihoods are dependent on that environment. These views are reflected in wider civic society, for example in Galicia, where the Nunca Máis platform continues to campaign in the wake of the Prestige disaster for all shipping in EU waters to comply with IMO standards.

Europe contains some of the world’s busiest international shipping channels and the issue of ships using flags of convenience passing through sensitive marine areas such as the Fisterra corridor remains live.

Needs vary between waters as diverse as the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast. All these areas however support communities dependent on a clean maritime environment – and all are dependent upon a properly functioning maritime safety regime. The current proposal should form a part of ongoing efforts to improve the EU’s work to protect our vital marine environment – as well as the economy, food security and communities dependent upon fisheries, aquaculture and shellfish.

On a final note, your rapporteur regrets the truncated procedure which has been faced by the Fisheries Committee. The Committee should have been given full oversight within a reasonable timescale for a package of such importance to the fishing industry.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to take the following into account:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1 a (new)

Justification

This Directive rightly emphasizes the safety of Union shipping and environmental protection. However, it could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the importance of fair labour conditions and the welfare of seafarers, which are critical aspects of maritime operations.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 a (new)

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Justification

The Directive maintains the independence of maritime accident investigations, which is essential. Still, it should also underscore the significance of thorough reporting, transparency, and accountability in these investigations to ensure that lessons are learned and applied to prevent future accidents.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Justification

Whereas theoretical experience may not be the most useful for inspections, observational experience can significantly benefit Member States in implementing a best-case scenario based on the modus operandi in other countries by providing practical insights, learning opportunities, and a foundation for informed decision-making.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Justification

The capacity-building program for flag State surveyors and inspectors is a positive step. To enhance this, ongoing professional development and training opportunities could be emphasized to ensure that these professionals remain well-equipped to adapt to evolving safety and environmental standards.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 a (new)

Justification

Ensuring access to information for relevant authorities is crucial for monitoring purposes. In addition to this, provisions could be made to protect whistle-blowers who report safety or environmental violations, contributing to a culture of transparency and accountability.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 b (new)

Justification

The Directive should also provide clear mechanisms for workers to report safety and environmental concerns, fostering a proactive approach to safety.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Justification

Establishing a high-level group for flag State matters is a positive development. Still, it could be strengthened by including representation from workers and their representatives to ensure a holistic approach to maritime governance.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Amendment 15

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 16

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 17

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 18

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 19

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 20

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 21

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 4a

Amendment 22

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 23

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 24

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 25

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 26

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 27

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 28

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 29

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 30

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 31

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 6

Amendment 32

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 33

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 34

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 35

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 36

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 37

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9a

Amendment 38

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b

Amendment 39

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b

Amendment 40

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b

Amendment 41

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Directive 2009/21/EC

Article 9b

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE