REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers
(COM(2003) 1 – C5‑0006/2003 – 2003/0001(COD))

5 May 2003 - ***I

Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Bernard Poignant
Draftsman (*): Manuel Pérez Álvarez, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees - Rule 162a

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 13 January 2003 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers (COM(2003) 1 -2003/0001 (COD)).

At the sitting of 16 January 2003 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for its opinion (C5‑0006/2003).

The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism appointed Bernard Poignant rapporteur at its meeting of 21 January 2003.

At the sitting of 10 April 2003 the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which had been asked for its opinion, would be involved in drawing up the report under Rule 162a.

At its meetings of 19 March and 30 April 2003 the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism considered the Commission proposal and draft report.

At the latter meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 37 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.

The following were present for the vote: Rijk van Dam (vice-chairman and acting chairman), Gilles Savary (vice-chairman), Bernard Poignant (rapporteur), Sylviane H. Ainardi, Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (for Rosa Miguélez Ramos), Philip Charles Bradbourn, Christine de Veyrac, Jan Dhaene, Garrelt Duin, Alain Esclopé, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Giorgio Lisi, Toine Manders (for Dirk Sterckx pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Emmanouil Mastorakis, Enrique Monsonís Domingo (for Herman Vermeer pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Samuli Pohjamo, Alonso José Puerta, John Purvis (for James Nicholson pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Reinhard Rack, Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya, Ingo Schmitt, Brian Simpson, Ulrich Stockmann, Margie Sudre, Hannes Swoboda (for Danielle Darras), Joaquim Vairinhos, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (for José Javier Pomés Ruiz), Christian Ulrik von Boetticher (for Rolf Berend), Mark Francis Watts, Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (for Renate Sommer) and Jan Marinus Wiersma (for Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado).

The opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is attached.

The report was tabled on 5 May 2003.

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers (COM(2003) 1 – C5‑0006/2003 – 2003/0001(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2003) 1[1]),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0006/2003),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A5‑0152/2003),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.   Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 1 a (new)
	(1a)   In order to maintain and develop the level of knowledge and skills in the maritime sector in the EU, it is important to pay appropriate attention to the situation of maritime training and the status of seafarers in the EU.
Justification Ships flying the flag of a Member State are increasingly being manned by third country nationals. This is due in part to a shortage of qualified crew members from the EU. In order to maintain standards in respect of EU flags, ships need to be manned by crews that are well‑trained and work effectively together. It therefore remains necessary to pay attention in the EU to training for nautical occupations and to attracting students. The current proposal makes it easier to recruit crew members from third countries. That could conflict with the need to improve the availability and training of qualified EU personnel. Before a request is made to recognise training in a third country, evidence should therefore be provided of a lack of EU personnel available to perform the duties in question.
Amendment 2 Recital 5
(5)   Compliance of third countries with the provisions of the STCW Convention can be assessed more effectively in a harmonised manner. The Commission should therefore be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.	(5)   Compliance of third countries that provide training with the provisions of the STCW Convention can be assessed more effectively in a harmonised manner. The Commission should therefore be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.
Justification As the IMO itself states in its comments on the published ‘White List’ of countries, there are countries on the list that de facto provide no, or only very limited, training. Such countries should not be recognised by the Community. That does not rule out the possibility for nationals of such countries to be recognised on the basis of a certificate obtained from a recognised training institute. The objective is also to help combat fraud.
Amendment 3 Recital 6
(6)   In order to ensure that a country which is recognised continues to comply fully with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the recognition should be reviewed regularly and extended if appropriate. The recognition of a third country not complying with the requirements of the STCW Convention should be withdrawn until deficiencies are redressed.	(6)   In order to ensure that a country which is recognised continues to comply fully with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the recognition should be reviewed regularly and extended if appropriate. The recognition of a third country not complying with the requirements of the STCW Convention should be withdrawn until deficiencies are redressed. Although the country recognition principle will be the general rule, it should be permissible to withdraw the recognition of certificates issued by individual maritime training institutes that fail de facto to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 4 Recital 11
(11)   The STCW Convention specifies language requirements for certificates and endorsements attesting the issue of a certificate. The existing provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC should be brought into line with the relevant requirements of the Convention.	(11)   The STCW Convention specifies language requirements for certificates and endorsements attesting the issue of a certificate. The existing provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC should be brought into line with the relevant requirements of the Convention. To increase transparency as regards the certificates issued, a fraud‑proof European certificate of conformity should be established.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 5(9a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A) Article 5, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
“3. Certificates shall be issued in accordance with Regulation I/2, paragraph 1 of the STCW Convention.”	“3. Certificates shall be issued in accordance with Regulation I/2, paragraph 1 of the STCW Convention or shall be supplemented by a European certificate of conformity as referred to in the new paragraph 9a of Article 5.”
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 5(9a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B A) (new) Article 5, paragraph 9 a (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(ba)   the following new paragraph 9a is inserted:
	“9a. The Agency shall be empowered to issue a multilingual European certificate attesting the conformity of all certificates and endorsements issued in accordance with this Article. That certificate shall not replace the above-mentioned certificates and endorsements and shall be used as attached notification to facilitate checking thereof.”
Justification The Commission proposal stipulates that all certificates must be translated into English, in accordance with the STCW Convention. However, one possible alternative, without in any way calling the Convention into question, would be to establish a European certificate of conformity that could be issued by the European Maritime Safety Agency. The certificate of conformity could be made out in several languages and would do much to simplify the checks carried out for the purposes of port state control.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (a) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
(a)   A Member State which intends to recognise, by endorsement, appropriate certificates issued by a third country to a master, officer or radio operator, for service on ships flying its flag, shall submit a request for recognition of that third country to the Commission accompanied by complete information on, and evidence of, compliance with the criteria set out in Annex II.	(a)   A Member State which intends to recognise, by endorsement, appropriate certificates issued by a third country to a master, officer or radio operator, for service on ships flying its flag, shall submit a request for recognition of that third country to the Commission, stating its reasons.
The Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall carry out an assessment of the training and certification systems in the third country for which the request for recognition was submitted, in order to verify whether the country concerned meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention.	The Commission, assisted by the Agency and, possibly, by the Member States concerned, shall carry out an assessment of the training and certification systems in the third country for which the request for recognition was submitted, in order to verify whether the country concerned meets all the requirements of the STCW Convention as set out in Annex II and also whether the third country has taken adequate measures to prevent fraud involving certificates of competency.
Justification A study by the IMO suggests that there are currently a large number of certificates of competency in circulation which are the subject of fraud. The situation with regard to fraud involving certificates differs from one country to another. Special attention should be paid to third countries which do not implement, or do not implement properly, the recommendations for preventing fraud, as indicated in the study.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (b) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
(b)   The decision on the recognition of a third country should be taken by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23(2) within three months from the date of the request for recognition. If granted, the recognition shall be valid for a period of five years. The Member State that submitted the request shall take appropriate measures to implement the decision.	(b)   The decision on the recognition of a third country should be taken by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23(2) within three months of the date of the request for recognition. If granted, the recognition shall be valid for a period of five years. If granted, the recognition shall be valid for a period of five years and shall be automatically extended, unless there is any information that the third country concerned does not meet all the requirements of the STCW Convention.
Justification During the five years for which recognition is valid, the Commission will have enough time to reassess that recognition. See also amendment 5.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (b a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(ba)   If no decision is taken on recognition of the third country concerned within the period laid down in paragraph 3(b), recognition shall then have been deemed to have been granted and shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series.
Justification The period of three months must be applied strictly; if this is not done for any reason, the request for recognition must then be granted.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (c a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(ca)   Member States shall ensure that nationals of third countries employed on ships flying the flag of a Member State shall, in relation to continuing training and with regard to new, increased demands made of them at later stages, be offered the same opportunities as crew members who are nationals of the Member State concerned.
Justification In order to avoid inequality of treatment and at the same time to satisfy the highest safety standards, it is clear that all crew members should have the same access to continuing training.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (d) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
(d)    When a third country has been recognised by the Commission, and if, after the completion of its evaluation the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO has not been able to identify the third country as having demonstrated that full and complete effect is given to the STCW Convention, the Commission shall reassess the recognition of that country in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23(2). The Member States concerned shall take appropriate measures to implement the decision taken in accordance with that procedure.	(d)   Recognitions of certificates published in the Official Journal of the European Communities/European Union, C series, before the date on which this Directive entered into force shall remain valid.
Justification The ‘white list’ comprised 109 countries in December 2002; these included all those known to be suppliers of labour. The procedures for countries not yet on the ‘white list’ were initially introduced because at the time when Directive 98/35/EC entered into force, i.e. 25 May 1998, the ‘white list’ had not yet been established. There is no longer any need to keep these procedures. Recognitions of countries determined under the ‘old’ system should remain valid, but they are subject to withdrawal on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 18b.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (e) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
(e)   The Commission shall draw up and update a list of the third countries that have been recognised. The list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series."	(e)   The Commission shall draw up and update a list of the third countries that have been recognised, including approved training institutes. The list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C Series."
Justification The IMO’s ‘White List’ includes a number of countries which do not have their own training institutes or which provide only very limited training. That makes it important, in particular with a view to verifying certificates issued, to include all approved training institutes in this list.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 a, paragraph 1 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
Before the end of the period of validity referred to in Article 18 (3) (b), the Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned, in order to verify whether that country continuous to fulfil the requirements of the STCW Convention, and determine whether the recognition should be extended.	Before the end of the period of validity referred to in Article 18 (3) (b), the Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned, in order to verify whether that country continues to fulfil the requirements of the STCW Convention and has taken adequate measures against fraud involving certificates of competency, and determine whether the recognition should be extended.
Justification A study by the IMO suggests that there are currently a large number of certificates of competency in circulation which are the subject of fraud. The situation with regard to fraud involving certificates differs from one country to another. Special attention should be paid to third countries which do not implement, or do not implement properly, the recommendations for preventing fraud, as indicated in the study.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 a, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
The decision on the extension of the recognition shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23 (2) at the latest one month before the expiry of the period of validity of the recognition.	The decision on the extension of the recognition shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23 (2) at the latest three months before the expiry of the period of validity of the recognition.
	If no decision has been taken before the expiry of the period of validity, recognition shall automatically be provisionally extended until a decision has been taken on whether or not to renew the granting of recognition.
Justification Member States must not suffer as a result of possible delays in assessment by the Commission. If a decision is not taken in time, the existing recognition must therefore be extended until a decision has been taken. In view of the importance of good training, it would not be appropriate to automatically extend recognition for a full period. An assessment needs to be made. Until the assessment has been completed, the existing recognition must remain valid.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 1 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
1.   Notwithstanding the criteria specified in Annex II, Section A, when a Member State or the Commission consider that a recognised third country no longer complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Committee referred to in Article 23.	1.   Notwithstanding the criteria specified in Annex II, Section A, when a Member State or the Commission considers that a recognised third country or an individual maritime training institute in such a country no longer complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Committee referred to in Article 23.
Justification Especially where federal states are concerned, where responsibilities for training are decentralised wholly or in part, there can be considerable differences in quality among the certificates of competency issued in the same country. In such cases and, in general, when individual training institutes manifestly fail to comply de facto with the rules of the STCW Convention, it should be permissible to depart from the principle of across-the-board recognition of all certificates issued by a third country and suspend the recognition accorded to individual certificates of competency. To allow for this possibility, the necessary provisions concerning individual training institutes have to be incorporated in the directive. On this point see also the amendments to recital 6, Article 18b(3) and (4a) (new) of Directive 2001/25/EC, and point 6 of the Annex.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 2 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
2.   When a Member State withdraws the endorsements of certificates issued by a third country it shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of its decision, giving substantiated reasons therefor.	2.   When a Member State intends to withdraw the endorsements of certificates issued by a third country it shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of its decision, giving substantiated reasons therefor.
Justification The aim of the Commission proposal is to simplify the procedure for recognising certificates of competency issued by third countries in such a way that a single decision would entail recognition in all Member States. The same principle should also apply to withdrawal of recognition. The above amendment would require Member States to initiate the comitology procedure, as laid down in the directive, in order to withdraw recognition (in all Member States), instead of acting unilaterally.
Amendment 17 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
3.   The Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned in order to verify whether that country failed to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.	3.   The Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned or, where applicable, of the individual maritime training institute in order to verify whether that country or institute failed to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 18 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18b, paragraph 4 a (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	4a.   Endorsements recognising certificates issued by the third country concerned which were granted before the date of withdrawal of recognition shall remain valid.
Justification Seafarers serving in the fleet when recognition is withdrawn have completed their training, at least with regard to the skills referred to on their certificates. The inability of their country of origin to continue to comply with the provisions of the STCW Convention has no effect on the standard of competence that they have attained.
Amendment 19 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 A (new) Article 18 b, paragraph 4 a (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(4a)   In Article 18b the following paragraph 4a is added:
	“4a. Where the decision to withdraw recognition relates to one or more individual maritime training institutes in a third country, the Commission shall notify that decision to the third country with the request that it adopt the measures necessary to ensure full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. The Commission shall reassess the recognition on the basis of the information received from the third country regarding the measures adopted.”
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 20 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 6 Annex II, paragraph 6 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
6.   If a Member State wishes to supplement assessment of compliance of a third country by evaluating certain maritime training institutes, it shall proceed according to the provisions of section A‑I/6 of the STCW Code.	6.   If a Member State wishes to supplement assessment of compliance of a third country by evaluating certain maritime training institutes or where the new Article 18b(4a) applies, it shall proceed according to the provisions of section A‑I/6 of the STCW Code.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 21 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 6 Annex II, point B (Directive 2001/25/EC)
B.   Third countries not confirmed by the Maritime Safety Committee to have communicated information, which demonstrates that full and complete effect is given to the relevant provisions of the STCW Convention	Deleted
1.   If the Maritime Safety Committee is still in the process of identifying the third country as having demonstrated that full and complete effect is given to the provisions of the STCW Convention, the following provisions must apply:
The third country must communicate to the Member State wishing to recognise appropriate certificates issued by or under the authority of that third country:
(i)   the texts of laws, decrees, orders, regulations and instruments relating to the implementation of the STCW Convention;
(ii)   full details of the contents and duration of study courses, including a clear statement of the education, training, examination, competency assessment and certification policies adopted;
(iii)   national examination and other requirements for each type of certificate issued in accordance with the STCW Convention;
(iv)   a sufficient number of specimen certificates that comply with the STCW Convention;
(v)   information on governmental organisation;
(vi)   a concise explanation of the legal and administrative measures provided and taken to ensure compliance particularly concerning training and assessment and the issue and registration of certificates;
(vii)   a concise outline of the procedures followed to authorise, accredit or approve training and examinations, and competency assessments required by the STCW Convention, the conditions attached thereto, and a list of the authorisations, accreditation and approvals granted.
2.   The Member State must compare the information communicated with all the relevant requirements of the STCW Convention to ensure that full and complete effect is given to the provisions of the STCW Convention.
3.   The Member State must have confirmed, through all necessary measures, which may include the inspection of facilities and procedures, that the requirements concerning the standard of competence, the issue and endorsement of certificates and record keeping are fully complied with, and that a quality standards system has been established pursuant to Regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention.
Paragraphs A. 4, 5 and 6 are also applicable under this procedure.
Justification The ‘white list’ comprised 109 countries in December 2002; these included all those known to be suppliers of labour. The procedures for countries not yet on the ‘white list’ were initially introduced because at the time when Directive 98/35/EC entered into force, i.e. 25 May 1998, the ‘white list’ had not yet been established. There is no longer any need to keep these procedures.
Amendment 22 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive by [...] at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.	Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive not more than 12 months after its entry into force. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Justification The period for implementation does not appear in the Commission proposal. A period of 12 months is sufficient to allow the Member States to amend their legislation.
Amendment 23 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2 a (NEW)
	Five years after entry into force, the Commission shall submit an evaluation report to the Council and the European Parliament, on the basis of a detailed analysis and evaluation of the provisions of the IMO Convention, the implementation thereof and new insights gained with regard to the correlation between safety and the level of training of ships’ crews.
Justification In the light of the recent accidents which have occurred with a number of vessels, the new policy vis-à-vis recognised countries and their training involving the new instrument of the ‘White List’ and measures that have yet to be taken to further improve safety at sea, it is necessary to review the directive after five years in order to ensure, at least as far as the training of crews is concerned, the highest possible level of safety.

• [1] Not yet published in the OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This Commission proposal envisages a revision of the current rules concerning the recognition of seafarers from non-EU countries. The purpose of the revision is to prevent duplication, limit administrative costs and allow uniform European recognition of the training given to seafarers in third countries.

The European fleet has a genuine interest in the possibility of having seafarers from other countries come to the Union. Of the approximately 140 000 sailors serving on vessels flying a European Union flag, around one third (i.e. 47 000) come from third countries[1]. The number of sailors from countries outside the Union has increased in the light of the current situation. In many Member States shipowners have difficulty in finding crew trained at national level, which explains why the demand for sailors from countries outside the European Union is continuing to rise.

The current procedure: recognition by Member States of certificates of competency

Under the present procedure a Member State must notify the Commission of its intention to recognise a certificate of competency issued by a third country. To that end, the Member State must verify whether the country in question meets the requirements of the international STCW Convention[2]. The Commission then informs the other Member States about the notification. On the basis of this notification, the Commission and the Member States have to assess the matter and may raise objections to the decision on recognition, in which case the file is referred to a committee of experts from the Member States (comitology), chaired by the Commission.

Owing to the lack of a clear definition of the content of notifications, the content differs from one Member State to another and the assessments carried out by the Commission and the Member States do not always have the same basis.

In addition, under the present rules a separate decision is required for each of the Member States wishing to recognise a certificate of competency issued by a third country. That individual decision is binding only on the Member State submitting the request. This means that another Member State wishing to recognise the certificates issued by the same country must make its own assessment and submit the case for approval in accordance with the procedure, which entails a pointless administrative burden for the Commission and the Member States.

The proposed procedure: recognition of third countries by the Community

The new procedure proposed by the Commission envisages recognition of a third country, following an assessment of its system for training seafarers and issuing certificates to them, instead of recognition of an individual certificate of competency, as is currently the case. The assessment of requests for recognition submitted by the Member States will be carried out by the Commission, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Once the assessment has been carried out the Commission will take a decision on recognition, in accordance with the committee procedure, and that decision will be valid for five years. The decisions taken in accordance with the current procedure for the recognition of certificates of competency will remain in force.

Recognition will thus become global, Community-wide recognition of a third country's systems and procedures. Under this Community approach the Member States will recognise the certificates of competency issued by that country by means of endorsement, on the basis of a decision taken at Community level, without having to make a further assessment.

The proposal also envisages the introduction of specific procedures for the extension and withdrawal of the Community-wide recognition of third countries, as well as the continuous monitoring of compliance by third countries with the relevant provisions of the STCW Convention.

In tandem with the changes to the recognition procedure the Commission proposes to bring the directive into line with international conventions in which language requirements are imposed for the certification of seafarers. Those conventions state, for example, that endorsements must be available in English. Communications between vessels and shore-based authorities must also take place in English, unless those concerned speak another common language.

The rapporteur’s point of view

A number of serious maritime accidents, such as the sinking of the Prestige and of the Tricolor, have taken place off the coasts of Europe, and these have once again clearly highlighted the importance of maritime safety. Human error very often plays a major part in accidents at sea and in the reactions to them. It is therefore vitally important to be able to guarantee a high level of training for seafarers on European vessels, equally so when the sailors are nationals of non-Community countries. Your rapporteur therefore welcomes the Commission proposal, which embodies progress towards the goal of uniform, strict assessment of training for seafarers in non-Community countries.

Your rapporteur welcomes the Commission's initiative of simplifying the current recognition procedure, but he makes a number of proposals to clarify and further improve the approach. The purpose of the amendments is as follows:

-   to avoid duplication, given that, even in the new proposal, the activities of the Member States and the Commission still overlap, and given that the assessment of third countries is now to be entrusted solely to the Commission and the EMSA;

-   to simplify and clarify the procedure for issuing and extending recognitions (Amendments 8 and 9);

-   to indicate clearly that certificates of competency issued before the directive enters into force will remain valid (Amendment 11);

-   also to indicate clearly that certificates of competency issued before the withdrawal of any recognition will likewise remain valid (Amendment 18);

-   to confirm that only countries which meet the requirements of the STCW Convention may benefit from recognition (Amendments 11 and 21);

-   to propose a clear period for the Member States to implement the legislative proposals (Amendment 22).

• [1] ECSA 2001-2002 annual report.
• [2] International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, adopted in 1978.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

24 April 2003

for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism

on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers

(COM(2003) 1 – C5‑0006/2003 – 2003/0001(COD))

Draftsman (*): Manuel Pérez Álvarez

(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees - Rule 162a

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs appointed Manuel Pérez Álvarez draftsman at its meeting of 12 February 2003.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 20 March 2003 as well as 23 and 24 April 2003.

At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Theodorus J.J. Bouwman, chairman, Winfried Menrad, vice-chairman, Marie-Thérèse Hermange, vice-chairman, Manuel Pérez Álvarez, draftsman, Jan Andersson, Regina Bastos, Johanna L.A. Boogerd-Quaak (for Elspeth Attwooll), Hans Udo Bullmann (for Alejandro Cercas), Philip Bushill-Matthews, Proinsias De Rossa, Harald Ettl, Carlo Fatuzzo, Fiorella Ghilardotti (for Marie-Hélène Gillig), Anne-Karin Glase, Ioannis Koukiadis (for Anna Karamanou), Elizabeth Lynne, Thomas Mann, Mario Mantovani, Claude Moraes, Bartho Pronk, Herman Schmid, Miet Smet, Gabriele Stauner (for Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou), Ieke van den Burg, Barbara Weiler and Sabine Zissener (for Lennart Sacrédeus).

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

I.   Background

The main purpose of Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training for seafarers, based on the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) ‘STCW Convention’, is to lay down minimum standards for the scope and content of training for seafarers (especially those in senior positions). The directive also provides for procedures for the issue and recognition of certificates of competency and sets out minimum standards for communication on board.

II.   The Commission proposal

2.1.   Simplification of the procedure for recognising certificates issued by third countries

Under the rules currently in force, when a Member State intends to recognise a certificate issued in a third country, all the other Member States have to give their endorsement, but this does not mean that the certificate can consequently likewise be recognised in the other Member States. The administrative formalities are made even more cumbersome by the fact that there is no possibility of recognition across the board. Instead, the certificates issued by every individual training institute have to go through the recognition procedure.

The Commission is proposing to simplify the procedure in such a way that the certificates issued by a third country can be recognised as a whole by means of a single decision under the comitology procedure laid down in the directive and the resulting recognition will be valid for all Member States.

2.2.   Language requirements as regards certificates of competency and communication between ships and port authorities

The Commission proposal stipulates that English should be used as the working language when a ship’s crew and the authorities on land have no other common language. The same principle is also to apply to translation of certificates of competency.

III.   The draftsman’s proposals

Training of seafarers is a decisive factor from the point of view of enhancing safety at sea and avoiding shipping accidents. Any proposal seeking to raise their skills to the highest possible level is accordingly to be welcomed. Simplification of the inordinately complicated recognition procedure and the introduction of a standard working language are both measures that make sense.

Of course, certain other improvements could be made over and above the Commission’s proposals. One need that ought to be considered especially pressing is a campaign to improve the image of the maritime professions.

Europe is short of trained local seafarers. A package of measures aimed at increasing the attractiveness of the maritime professions would not only significantly help to combat unemployment, but also benefit safety at sea. The draftsman therefore wishes to point out to the Commission and Council that Parliament has already called several times for an action programme to promote the maritime professions.

The ten amendments which the draftsman is proposing focus on the following four priorities:

3.1.   Retaining the option of a selective approach to recognition of professional qualifications

Given that the quality standards implied in certificates of competency can differ greatly within the same country and problems connected with individual training institutes should not lead automatically to withdrawal of recognition of all the certificates issued by the country concerned, the draftsman is proposing that withdrawal of recognition of individual certificates of competency should be permissible in exceptional cases (Amendments 1, 6, 8, 9, and 10).

3.2.   Introduction of a European conformity document for certificates

The Commission proposal stipulates that all certificates of competency have to be translated into English. The alternative that the draftsman is proposing is to instruct the newly established European Maritime Safety Agency to draw up a European certificate of conformity. A (multilingual) certificate of that type would not only solve the language problem, but also simplify the work of supervisory authorities (Amendments 2, 3, and 4).

3.3.   Time limit for extension of recognition

The Commission proposal states that a decision to extend the recognition of a country must be taken no later than a month before the period of validity expires. In view of the legal consequences that would ensue for the seafarers concerned and their employers if the recognition were not extended, that time limit is probably too short. Employers and employees alike have a legitimate interest and a right to be informed with appropriate prior notice whether the recognition is to be extended. The draftsman is therefore proposing to double the time limit (Amendment 5).

3.4.   Community procedure for withdrawing recognition

Under the Commission proposal any one Member State may, without consulting the other Member States, withdraw the national endorsements of individual certificates. Given that the aim is to pursue a consistent recognition policy, the draftsman favours decisions taken at Community level rather than unilaterally (Amendment 7).

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 5
(5)   Compliance of third countries with the provisions of the STCW Convention can be assessed more effectively in a harmonised manner. The Commission should therefore be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.	(5)   Compliance of third countries that provide training with the provisions of the STCW Convention can be assessed more effectively in a harmonised manner. The Commission should therefore be entrusted with this task on behalf of the whole Community.
Justification As the IMO itself states in its comments on the published ‘White List’ of countries, there are countries on the list that de facto provide no, or only very limited, training. Such countries should not be recognised by the Community. That does not rule out the possibility for nationals of such countries to be recognised on the basis of a certificate obtained from a recognised training institute. The objective is also to help combat fraud.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 6
(6)   In order to ensure that a country which is recognised continues to comply fully with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the recognition should be reviewed regularly and extended if appropriate. The recognition of a third country not complying with the requirements of the STCW Convention should be withdrawn until deficiencies are redressed.	(6)   In order to ensure that a country which is recognised continues to comply fully with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the recognition should be reviewed regularly and extended if appropriate. The recognition of a third country not complying with the requirements of the STCW Convention should be withdrawn until deficiencies are redressed. Although the country recognition principle will be the general rule, it should be permissible to withdraw the recognition of certificates issued by individual maritime training institutes that fail de facto to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 3 RECITAL 11
(11)   The STCW Convention specifies language requirements for certificates and endorsements attesting the issue of a certificate. The existing provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC should be brought into line with the relevant requirements of the Convention.	(11)   The STCW Convention specifies language requirements for certificates and endorsements attesting the issue of a certificate. The existing provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC should be brought into line with the relevant requirements of the Convention. To increase transparency as regards the certificates issued, a fraud‑proof European certificate of conformity should be established.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 5(9a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A) Article 5, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
“3. Certificates shall be issued in accordance with Regulation I/2, paragraph 1 of the STCW Convention.”	“3. Certificates shall be issued in accordance with Regulation I/2, paragraph 1 of the STCW Convention or shall be supplemented by a European certificate of conformity as referred to in the new paragraph 9a of Article 5.”
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 5(9a) (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B A) (new) Article 5, paragraph 9 a (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(ba)   the following new paragraph 9a is inserted:
	“9a. The Agency shall be empowered to issue a multilingual European certificate attesting the conformity of all certificates and endorsements issued in accordance with this Article. That certificate shall not replace the above-mentioned certificates and endorsements and shall be used as attached notification to facilitate checking thereof.”
Justification The Commission proposal stipulates that all certificates must be translated into English, in accordance with the STCW Convention. However, one possible alternative, without in any way calling the Convention into question, would be to establish a European certificate of conformity that could be issued by the European Maritime Safety Agency. The certificate of conformity could be made out in several languages and would do much to simplify the checks carried out for the purposes of port state control.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 Article 18, paragraph 3, point (e) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
(e)   The Commission shall draw up and update a list of the third countries that have been recognised . The list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series."	(e)   The Commission shall draw up and update a list of the third countries that have been recognised, including approved training institutes. The list shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series."
Justification The IMO’s ‘White List’ includes a number of countries which do not have their own training institutes or which provide only very limited training. That makes it important, with a view to properly verifying certificates, to include all approved training institutes in the list.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 a, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
The decision on the extension of the recognition shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23(2) at the latest one month before the expiry of the period of validity of the recognition.	The decision on the extension of the recognition shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 23(2) at the latest three months before the expiry of the period of validity of the recognition.
Justification If a company recruits third country personnel whose certificates of competency are not recognised, it will face legal penalties. An employer must therefore be in a position to make the appropriate crew manning arrangements. Employees, on the other hand, have the right to be told in good time whether their certificates of competency will continue to be recognised in the future.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 1 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
1.   Notwithstanding the criteria specified in Annex II, Section A, when a Member State or the Commission consider that a recognised third country no longer complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Committee referred to in Article 23.	1.   Notwithstanding the criteria specified in Annex II, Section A, when a Member State or the Commission considers that a recognised third country or an individual maritime training institute in such a country no longer complies with the requirements of the STCW Convention, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Committee referred to in Article 23.
Justification Especially where federal states are concerned, where responsibilities for training are decentralised wholly or in part, there can be considerable differences in quality among the certificates of competency issued in the same country. In such cases and, in general, when individual training institutes manifestly fail to comply de facto with the rules of the STCW Convention, it should be permissible to depart from the principle of across-the-board recognition of all certificates issued by a third country and suspend the recognition accorded to individual certificates of competency. To allow for this possibility, the necessary provisions concerning individual training institutes have to be incorporated in the directive. On this point see also the amendments to recital 6, Article 18b(3) and (4a) (new) of Directive 2001/25/EC, and point 6 of the Annex.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 2 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
2.   When a Member State withdraws the endorsements of certificates issued by a third country it shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of its decision, giving substantiated reasons therefor.	2.   When a Member State intends to withdraw the endorsements of certificates issued by a third country it shall without delay inform the Commission and the other Member States of its decision, giving substantiated reasons therefor.
Justification The aim of the Commission proposal is to simplify the procedure for recognising certificates of competency issued by third countries in such a way that a single decision would entail recognition in all Member States. The same principle should also apply to withdrawal of recognition. The above amendment would require Member States to initiate the comitology procedure, as laid down in the directive, in order to withdraw recognition (in all Member States), instead of acting unilaterally.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 Article 18 b, paragraph 3 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
3.   The Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned in order to verify whether that country failed to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.	3.   The Commission, assisted by the Agency, shall reassess the recognition of the third country concerned or, where applicable, of the individual maritime training institute in order to verify whether that country or institute failed to comply with the requirements of the STCW Convention.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 4 A (new) Article 18 b, paragraph 4 a (new) (Directive 2001/25/EC)
	(4a)   In Article 18b the following paragraph 4a is added:
	“4a. Where the decision to withdraw recognition relates to one or more individual maritime training institutes in a third country, the Commission shall notify that decision to the third country with the request that it adopt the measures necessary to ensure full compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention. The Commission shall reassess the recognition on the basis of the information received from the third country regarding the measures adopted.”
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).
Amendment 12 ANNEX Annex II, paragraph 6 (Directive 2001/25/EC)
6.   If a Member State wishes to supplement assessment of compliance of a third country by evaluating certain maritime training institutes, it shall proceed according to the provisions of section A‑I/6 of the STCW Code.	6.   If a Member State wishes to supplement assessment of compliance of a third country by evaluating certain maritime training institutes or where the new Article 18b(4a) applies, it shall proceed according to the provisions of section A‑I/6 of the STCW Code.
Justification See justification for amendment to Article 18b(1) (Directive 2001/25/EC).

• [1] Not yet published in OJ..