REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels

27.2.2012 - (COM(2011)0439 – C7-0199/2011 – 2011/0190(COD)) - ***I

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Satu Hassi

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels

(COM(2011)0439 – C7-0199/2011 – 2011/0190(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0439 ),

–   having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0199/2011),

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

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 January 2012[1],

–   after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0038/2012),

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

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

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

Amendment  1 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1a) Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that Union policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 1 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1b) Acidification remains a widespread problem in Europe. Significant European regions remain particularly sensitive to acidification issues and the Union has not yet achieved its objectives regarding critical loads and levels.
Justification
SOx emissions are one of the key factors causing acidification in Europe.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) Emissions from shipping due to the combustion of marine fuels with a high sulphur content contribute to air pollution in the form of sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, which harm human health and contribute to acidification.	(3) Emissions from shipping due to the combustion of marine fuels with a high sulphur content contribute to air pollution in the form of sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment and contribute to the formation of acidic precipitates.
Justification
dioxide itself (not as precursor of acidic precipitate) is harmful not only for the human health, but it is also a powerful corrosive agent with respect to metals and alloys, concrete, and carbonate-based historic monuments and rock-lining materials. For the sake of clarity – acidic precipitates are formed and they contribute to the acidification of surface water and soil.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(3a) Air pollution caused by ships at berth, in particular by cruise ships, is a major concern for harbour cities when it comes to their efforts to meet the Union’s air quality limit values for particulate matter and NO2.
Justification
Auxiliary engines provide electricity to ships when they are at berth. Air pollution resulting of the ship power generation in ports is a very acute air quality problem for harbour cities. This issue is particularly important for cruise ships that have a relatively high electricity demand compared to cargo ships.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(3b) Member States should support the development of infrastructure needed for shore-side electricity, as the electricity for present day ships is usually provided by auxiliary engines.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 3 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(3c) Emissions from land-based sources have been reduced, while air pollution from shipping is projected to increase dramatically. By approximately 2020, SOx and NOx emissions from shipping would, without further action, therefore be higher than emissions from all land-based sources.
Justification
The maritime sector is an important source of air pollution in the EU. Under a business as usual scenario, the emissions of the sector will surpass emissions from all land-based sources. This reinforces the need to rapidly reduce SOx emissions from shipping and also address NOx emissions in the nearest future.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 3 d (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(3d) Damage to human health as a consequence of air pollution in ports and nearby towns and cities should be remedied by using fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 0,10% by mass for docking and departure manoeuvres.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) According to Directive 1999/32/EC the Commission is to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive and to table any proposals for amendments, in particular as regards the reduction of sulphur limits for marine fuel in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs), taking account of work within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).	(4) According to Directive 1999/32/EC the Commission is to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive and to table any proposals for amendments, in particular as regards the reduction of sulphur limits for marine fuel in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs), in accordance with the work of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
Justification
The reduction of sulphur content in marine fuels is determined by the IMO; it is a major task and the most appropriate decision-making level for its completion is the international level. In its proposal the Commission should insist on the importance of the international dimension and should accordingly not give the impression that the IMO’s work is merely secondary and might be amended without first notifying the other international parties.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) It is also important that the Commission assess the consequences of ensuring compliance by the maritime transport sector on the basis of reports drawn up by the Member States, in order to permit the upstream planning of appropriate accompanying measures, particularly by carrying out studies on the availability of fuels, their prices, the risks of a modal backshift and the impact of this Directive on all economic operators in the maritime transport sector. The results of those studies would make it possible to clarify the Commission’s proposals on the deployment in practice of its 'toolbox', as referred to in the Commission staff working paper of 16 September 2011 entitled 'Pollutant emission reduction from maritime transport and the sustainable waterborne transport toolbox'*, and the implementation of the arrangements for sustainable water transport.
	_____________
	* SEC(2011)1052 final.
Justification
The accompanying measures seem essential in order to help the maritime transport sector adapt: this is the meaning of the Commission’s communication COM(2011)441. Any reduction in maritime services should be avoided and therefore there is a need for upstream evaluation of the consequences of this directive in terms of ensuring compliance, in order to consider possible appropriate measures to follow up the Commission's proposal on accompanying measures for operators in this sector.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4b) Some SOx abatement methods can generate waste, in particular wastewater containing mercury, selenium, and other trace elements that may necessitate treatment of the wastewater before discharge. The Commission should adopt guidelines for the harmonised development of reception facilities in Union ports.
Justification
While SOx scrubbers can be efficient tools to reduce emissions, they may generate waste that should not be discharged in the seas. The Commission should promote the development in EU ports of the infrastructure required to receive and threat wastewater from scrubbers.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) The revised Annex VI to MARPOL introduces, inter alia, stricter sulphur limits for marine fuel in SECAs (1.00% as of 1 July 2010 and 0.10% as of 1 January 2015) as well as in sea areas outside SECAs (3.5% as of 1 January 2012 and, in principle, 0.50% as of 1 January 2020). Most Member States are obliged to require ships to use fuel with maximum 1.00% sulphur content in SECAs as of 1 July 2010 based on their international commitments. In order to ensure coherence with international law as well as to secure proper enforcement of new globally established sulphur standards in the Union, the provisions of Directive 1999/32/EC should be aligned with the revised Annex VI to MARPOL. In order to ensure a minimum quality of fuel used by ships either for fuel or technology based compliance, marine fuel the sulphur content of which exceeds the general standard of 3.5 % by mass should not be allowed for use or placing on the market in the Union.	(6) The revised Annex VI to MARPOL introduces, inter alia, stricter sulphur limits for marine fuel in SECAs (1.00 % as of 1 July 2010 and 0.10 % as of 1 January 2015) as well as in sea areas outside SECAs (3.5 % as of 1 January 2012 and, in principle, 0.50 % as of 1 January 2020). Most Member States are obliged to require ships to use fuel with maximum 1.00 % sulphur content in SECAs as of 1 July 2010 based on their international commitments. In order to ensure coherence with international law and a global level playing field, as well as to secure proper enforcement of new globally established sulphur standards in the Union, the provisions of Directive 1999/32/EC should as a minimum be aligned with the revised Annex VI to MARPOL. Because of the need to ensure that all Member States have effective and equal access to the internal and international market it is vital to recognise the challenges some industries will be confronted with when different sulphur emission levels are introduced in the Union. Also, it is important to monitor the situation closely and to create solutions which would achieve a minimum level playing field. In order to ensure a minimum quality of fuel used by ships either for fuel or technology based compliance, marine fuel the sulphur content of which exceeds the general standard of 3.5 % by mass should not be allowed for use or placing on the market in the Union.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(7) Passenger ships operate mostly in ports or close to coastal areas and their impacts on human health and the environment are significant. Those ships are required to use marine fuel with the same maximum sulphur content as is applicable in SECAs (1.5%). Given that stricter sulphur standards will apply in SECAs, it is justified by the need to improve air quality around ports and coasts in the non-SECA territories that the same standards apply to passenger ships. However, the introduction of a new SECA standard for passenger ships would be delayed by 5 years in order to avoid potential problems with fuel availability.	(7) Passenger ships operate mostly in ports or close to coastal areas and their impacts on human health and the environment are significant. Those ships are required to use marine fuel with the same maximum sulphur content as is applicable in SECAs (1.5%). Given that stricter sulphur standards will apply in SECAs, it is justified by the need to improve air quality around ports and coasts in the non-SECA territories that the same standards apply to passenger ships. However, the introduction of a new SECA standard for passenger ships would be delayed by 5 years in order to avoid potential problems with fuel availability. Where this would result in a significant negative social impact on local communities living on islands in the outermost regions of the Union and on the whole or part of the territory of Greece, Member States concerned may postpone by a further maximum of five years the application of the standard with regard to a limited number of passenger ships operating on regular services on routes between Union ports, provided that the relevant air quality standards are respected.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 7 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(7a) In order to ensure air quality benefits to the Member States whose coasts are not part of SECAs, the introduction of any new emission control areas should be subject to the IMO process under Annex VI to MARPOL and be underpinned by a well-founded case based on environmental and economic grounds and supported by scientific data.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 7 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(7b) In order to ensure air quality benefits to the Member States whose coasts are not part of SECAs, and to establish a minimum level playing field for the sector across the Union, the same fuel quality requirement should be extended to the territorial seas of Member States and to pollution control areas outside SECAs.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 7 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(7c) In order to facilitate the transition to new engine technologies with the potential for significant further emission reductions in the maritime sector, the Commission should prepare without delay a comprehensive liquefied natural gas deployment strategy to enable and encourage the uptake of gas-powered engines in ships.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 11 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(11a) Preventing modal backshift is particularly important given that an increasing share of goods being transported by road would run counter to the Union’s climate change objectives and increase congestion.
Justification
Average CO2 emissions per tonne kilometre from road haulage are more than seven times that of marine transport. As a result, measures should be taken to avoid this Directive causing goods to move from sea transport to the road as a result of higher fuel costs for ships. Increased road transport would also cause congestion and higher noise levels both of which are already serious problems for European citizens.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 11 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(11b) The costs of the new requirements to reduce sulphur emissions risks modal backshift, which is of particular concern for areas and industries heavily dependent on marine transport. The Commission should make full use of existing instruments such as Marco Polo and TEN-T, particularly in Member States adjoining SECAs, to provide targeted assistance so as to minimise the risk of modal backshift. In view of the current economic situation and this Directive’s possible effects, the Commission should present concrete measures that will provide the industry with economic and financial assistance to support environmentally-friendly maritime technologies before January 2015, particularly taking into account the availability of fuels, their prices, the risks of modal backshift and the impact of the measures provided for in this Directive on all economic operators in the maritime transport sector.
Justification
Higher shipping fuel costs are a particular concern for goods that have a high volume to value ratio including paper and ores. While projects to support the deployment of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or scrubber technologies are already eligible for funding from Marco Polo or the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea programme, this support needs to be sustained and enhanced if modal backshift is to be minimised.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(12) Access to emission abatement methods should be facilitated. Those methods can provide emission reductions at least equivalent to, or even greater than, those achievable using low sulphur fuel, provided that they have no significant negative impacts on the environment, such as marine ecosystems, and that they are developed subject to appropriate approval and control mechanisms. The criteria for use of emission abatement methods should be established either by the IMO, subject to supplementation or amendment by the Commission Decision or, in the absence of the IMO instruments, by the European Commission. The already known alternative methods, such as the use of on-board exhaust gas cleaning systems or the mixture of fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG) should be recognised in the Union. It is important to promote testing and development of new emission abatement methods.	(12) Access to emission abatement methods should be facilitated and supported through incentives. Those methods can provide emission reductions at least equivalent to, or even greater than, those achievable using low sulphur fuel, provided that they have no significant negative impacts on the environment, such as marine ecosystems or CO2 emissions, or on human health, and that they are developed subject to appropriate approval and control mechanisms. The criteria for use of emission abatement methods should be established either by the IMO, subject to supplementation or amendment by the Commission Decision or, in the absence of the IMO instruments, by the European Commission. The already known alternative methods, such as the use of on-board exhaust gas cleaning systems or the mixture of fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG) should be recognised in the Union. It is important to promote and financially assist the testing and development of new emission abatement methods and to secure their cost-efficiency and availability on a large scale, in order, among other reasons, to avoid environmentally counter-productive modal shifts from short sea shipping to trucks.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12a) The use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) virtually eliminates sulphur emissions. A new code for LNG-fuelled ships is expected to be introduced in 2014 together with the next revision of the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention. Member States should pay particular attention to the need to ensure the safety and availability, as well as safe bunkering operations, of LNG-powered ships while preventing the revised SOLAS Convention from creating unnecessary barriers to the use of LNG. The Commission should deploy European funds such as Marco Polo as widely as possible to encourage the use of low-sulphur LNG as a maritime fuel. Member States should contribute to this trend by making fiscal facilities available for ship owners who invest in the use of LNG or in the development and use of scrubbers.
Justification
It is important to take account of the experience when revising Annex VI to the Marine Pollution (MARPOL) convention (agreed in 2008 but with the Commission proposal only arriving almost three years later and some Member States subsequently questioning what had been agreed). As IMO Members, unlike the Commission, Member States should ensure that the new LNG code encourages the use of this cleaner fuel source without compromising safety standards. Safety rules for bunkering operations and availability of bunkering installation should be taken into account.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12b) Member States may, as an alternative solution for cutting emissions, facilitate the use by docked vessels of onshore power supply systems instead of shipboard-generated power.
Amendment  21 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12c) In order to encourage early adoption of emission abatement methods achieving at least the same reductions in sulphur emissions as laid down in this Directive, alternatives, such as the use of on-board exhaust gas cleaning systems and LNG technologies, should be promoted by the Union and Member States through appropriate financial incentives.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12 d (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12d) Member States should also make use of mechanisms such as differentiated dues and kilometre charges based on emissions performance until the 0,50 % global requirement with respect to the maximum sulphur content of fuel enters into force.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12 e (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12e) It is necessary to require Member States to apply "no special fee" policies to effluents from exhaust gas cleaning systems in ports to ensure proper care of any waste generated by the use of alternative abatement methods.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12 f (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12f) Any financial incentives provided by Member States for emission abatement methods that achieve emissions reductions which are at least equivalent to those achieved through the use of low sulphur fuel, should take account of investments made prior to 5 July 2011, provided that the equipment complies with the IMO criteria, pending the adoption of supplementary criteria by the Commission.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 g (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12g) In order to facilitate investment decisions being made in a timely manner, incentives should support early adaptation. To avoid the potential risk of modal backshift and to limit competitive disadvantages it is necessary to introduce Member State funding programmes for the implementation of new requirements regarding the use of low-sulphur fuel.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 h (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12h) Alternative abatement methods such as scrubbers could generate waste that should not be discharged in the sea. The Commission should therefore adopt common guidelines to ensure proper care of any such waste.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12 i (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12i) Member States should ensure the availability and balanced distribution of compliant fuel in accordance with Regulation 18 of the revised Annex VI to MARPOL.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 12 j (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12j) Given the difficulties experienced by Member States in achieving air quality targets established in Union law and the gap that still exists between those targets and the recommendations of the World Health Organisation, the Commission should assist in preparing the necessary analysis for an application to the IMO for a designation of additional European sea areas as SECAs, namely in the Mediterranean, the North-east Atlantic (including the Irish Sea) and the Black Sea. The Commission should also investigate the merits of designating European sea areas as NOx Emission Control Areas.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a directive – amending act Recital 13
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(13) In order to determine the date of the application of 0.50% sulphur limit, to designate new SECAs, to approve new alternative abatement methods and to establish the appropriate conditions for their use, to ensure appropriate monitoring of sulphur content of fuels and the harmonized content and the format of Member States' reports and to adapt the provisions of the Directive to scientific and technical progress, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specification of the date from which the maximum sulphur content of fuel of 0.50% by mass should apply in the Union, designation of new SECAs on the basis of the decision of the IMO, approval of new emission abatement methods not covered by Council Directive 96/98/EC and establishment, supplementation or amendment of conditions for their use, the specification of the means of sampling and emission monitoring and the content and the format of the report and the amendment of Article 2, points 1, 2, 3, 3a, 3b and 4 or Article 6 paragraph 1(a) and 2 in the light of scientific and technical progress and, where relevant, the instruments of the IMO. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.	(13) In order to designate new SECAs, to approve new alternative abatement methods and to establish the appropriate conditions for their use, to ensure appropriate monitoring of sulphur content of fuels and the harmonized content and the format of Member States' reports and to adapt the provisions of the Directive to scientific and technical progress, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of designation of new SECAs on the basis of the decision of the IMO, approval of new emission abatement methods not covered by Council Directive 96/98/EC and establishment, supplementation or amendment of conditions for their use, the specification of the means of sampling and emission monitoring and the content and the format of the report and the amendment of Article 2, points 1, 2, 3, 3a, 3b and 4 or Article 6 paragraph 1(a) and 2 in the light of scientific and technical progress and, where relevant, the instruments of the IMO. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 14 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(14a) In view of the global dimension of environmental politics and shipping emissions, this Directive encourages the Union and its Member States to actively advance, in the IMO, the objective of achieving uniform emission standards for all maritime areas of the world.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 2 – point -a (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 2 – point 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (-a) point 3 is replaced by the following:   '3. marine fuel means any petroleum-derived liquid fuel, as well as bio-fuels, intended for use or in use on board a vessel, including those fuels defined in ISO 8217. It includes any petroleum-derived liquid fuel in use on board inland waterway vessels or recreational craft, as defined in Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery and Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, when such vessels are at sea;'
Justification
The use of bio-fuels is already today technically possible and such fuels are also available for vessels. Therefore the Directive should be clear as to its wordings on also allowing bio-fuels to be used.
Amendment  32 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 3a
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment Member States shall ensure that marine fuels are not used or placed on the market within their territory if their sulphur content exceeds 3.5 % by mass. Member States shall ensure that marine fuels are not used or placed on the market within their territory if their sulphur content exceeds 3.5 % by mass, except for fuels supplied to ships using the emission abatement methods subject to Article 4c with closed systems.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside the Union. This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside the Union, without prejudice to exemptions contained in Annex VI to MARPOL.
Amendment  34 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   Member States may adopt financial measures in favour of sectors or subsectors determined to be exposed to a risk of economic hardship due to the implementation of the requirements set out in point (b) of Article 4a(1) and to compensate for the costs of implementing those requirements.   The Commission shall adopt at the latest by the end of 2013 guidance on applicable state aid rules to be followed in this regard.
Justification
Complying with lowering sulphur limits for marine fuel results significant increase of marine freight charges. That has severe negative impact on competitiveness of the industries that are depend on shipping services. SECA bordering Member states must be allowed to compensate temporarily by the state aids the costs for the enterprises that are under global competition and which are exposed to significant costs related to sulphur regulation.
Amendment  35 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point c Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1a
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 1a. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds:   1a. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds:   (a) 3.50 % as of 1 January 2012; (a) 3,50 % as of 1 January 2012; (b) b) 0.50 % as from 1 January 2020. (b) 0,50 % as from 1 January 2015;   (ba) 0,10 % as from 1 January 2020. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a of this Directive concerning the date from which the sulphur standard laid down in point (b) of this paragraph applies. Based on the assessment by the IMO of the availability of marine fuel to comply with the maximum sulphur content of fuel of 0.50% by mass, referred to in Regulation 14(8) of Annex VI of MARPOL, this date shall be 1 January 2020 or 1 January 2025.   This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside of the Union, without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 4 and Article 4b. This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside of the Union, without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 4 and Article 4b.
Amendment  36 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point d Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a of this Directive concerning the designation of sea areas as SOx Emission Control Areas on the basis of the decision of the IMO in accordance with Regulation 14(3)(2) of Annex VI to MARPOL. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a of this Directive concerning the designation of sea areas as SOx Emission Control Areas in conformity with the designation by the IMO in accordance with Regulation 14(3)(2) of Annex VI to MARPOL.
Amendment  37 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   4a. In the event of non-compliance with the limits set in paragraphs 1, 1a and 4, and after examination of all pieces of evidence, authorities exercising Port State Control shall be empowered to detain the ship until the violation has been rectified.   Non-compliant vessels shall be required to de-bunker and be subject to a penalty for each violation per day.   Member States may also take additional enforcement action in accordance with international maritime law.
Amendment  38 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 4 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   4b. By way of derogation from paragraph 4 and 4a, where conformity with the limit values referred to in paragraph 4 will result in a significant negative social impact on local communities living on islands in the outermost regions of the Union and on the whole or part of the territory of Greece, the Member States concerned may postpone by a maximum of five years the deadlines referred to in that paragraph with regard to a limited number of passenger ships operating on regular services on routes between Union ports, provided that the relevant air quality standards are respected.    Member States intending to make use of this provision shall establish a list of vessels and routes eligible for benefiting from this derogation and submit it for approval to the Commission. The Member States concerned shall make the approved list public.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 4 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   4c. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in their territorial seas and pollution control zones falling outside SOx Emission Control Areas by any ships to or from any Union port if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds 0,10 % as from 1 January 2015.   This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside the Union.
Amendment  40 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3a. As from 1 January 2015, Member States shall take all necessary steps to align the sulphur content of marine fuels used by ships on inland waterways, in the territorial seas of the Union or by any ships at berth in Union ports with the values contained in Article 4(2) of Directive 98/70/EC.
Justification
Under the current regime, different sulphur limit values apply to ocean-going ships and inland vessels, even if they sail in the same estuary. This loophole needs to be closed and the limit values for ocean-going vessels should be aligned with the provisions on inland shipping and non-road mobile machinery currently enforced by the EU fuel quality directive. Given the local health effects of ship emissions (especially PM) and the concentration of populations in the coastal regions, it is necessary to take measures to reduce local air pollution. Similar sulphur standards for coastal and inland shipping are justified by the need to improve air quality around ports and costal areas.
Amendment  41 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   Article 4ba   Availability of marine fuels   1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the availability and balanced distribution of marine fuels:   - where the sulphur content does not exceed 0,10 % as from 1 January 2015;   - where the sulphur content does not exceed 0,50 % as from 1 January 2015;   2. Paragraph 1 shall not preclude the introduction of such measures from an earlier date.
Amendment  42 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   Article 4bb   Equivalents   The Administration of a Member State may allow any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedure, alternative fuel oil or compliance method used as an alternative to that required by this Directive if such fitting, material, appliance or apparatus or other procedure, alternative fuel oil or compliance method is at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as that required by this Directive, including any of the standards laid down in Articles 4a and 4b.
Justification
Regulation 4 of the MARPOL Annex VI on equivalence includes non-technical or operational procedures by which compliance methods used as an alternative can be adopted. This should be incorporated in the revised EU Directive to encourage developments and investment in innovative technologies.
Amendment  43 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. Ships using the emission abatement methods referred to in paragraph 1 shall continuously achieve reductions of sulphur dioxide emissions that are at least equivalent to the reductions that would be achieved by using marine fuels that meet the requirements of Articles 4a and 4b. The sulphur dioxide emissions resulting from the use of the emission abatement methods shall not exceed the limit values set out in Annex 1. 2. Ships using the emission abatement methods referred to in paragraph 1 shall achieve reductions of sulphur dioxide emissions that are at least equivalent to the reductions that would be achieved by using marine fuels that meet the requirements of Articles 4a and 4b.
Justification
The deletion of "continuously" would ensure that scrubbers which may temporarily fall out of compliance are still permitted under the Directive. The deletion would also allow for the use of other compliance methods such as averaging. Industry is actively exploring the feasibility of averaging in certain geographic areas where it makes most sense, such as the North American ECA. Not all alternative compliance methods will achieve “continuous” reductions, but their overall health and environmental impact will, by definition, be equivalent to, or even better than, using compliant fuel. The European Parliament should ensure that the EU does not inadvertently close the door to further exploration of innovative solutions. The last sentence needs to be removed from Article 4c as it is specific only to the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems and would therefore be better placed in the relevant section of the table in Annex 2.
Amendment  44 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   2a. Member States shall, as an alternative solution for reducing emissions, encourage the use of onshore power supply systems by docked vessels.
Amendment  45 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3a. Member States shall ensure that port authorities include in the harbour fee or other charges any costs of reception, handling and disposal of effluents from exhaust gas cleaning systems in accordance with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 20001 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, irrespective of whether or not wastes are delivered.   __________________   1 OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.81.
Amendment  46 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3b. Member State support for the installation of on-board exhaust gas cleaning systems that are ordered before 31 December 2013 shall be considered compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Amendment  47 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a concerning: The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a and with the relevant standards and instruments adopted by the IMO, concerning:
Justification
The wording seems to imply that the Commission is allowed to adopt, by means of delegated acts, measures which may differ from IMO decisions. However, it is essential to retain full compliance with Annex VI to MARPOL, since divergences within the EU concerning emission reduction methods might result in failure to promote alternatives to the use of low-sulphur fuels, which is an essential aspect of the directive.
Amendment  48 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 8 a (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4e a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   8a. The following Article is inserted:   'Article 4ea   Fuel oil availability   Notwithstanding the provisions laid down in Articles 3 and 4:   1. If a ship is found by a Member State not to be in compliance with the standards for compliant fuel oils set out in this Directive, the competent authority of the Member State may require the ship to:   (a) present a record of the actions taken to attempt to achieve compliance; and   (b) provide evidence that it attempted to purchase compliant fuel oil in accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made available for purchase.   2. The ship shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage or to delay unduly the voyage in order to achieve compliance.   3. A Member State may desist from control measures if the ship can document that it attempted to obtain in good faith compliant fuel, providing the information set out in paragraph 1.   4. A ship shall notify its administration and the competent authority of the relevant port of destination when it cannot purchase compliant fuel oil.   5. Member States shall notify the Commission when a ship has presented evidence of the non-availability of compliant fuel oil.   6. Such documentation shall be considered in the enforcement of this Directive.'
Amendment  49 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 – point a Directive 1999/32/EC Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment Member States shall take all necessary measures to check by sampling that the sulphur content of fuels used complies with Articles 3, 3a, 4, 4a and 4b. The sampling shall commence on the date on which the relevant limit for maximum sulphur content in the fuel comes into force. It shall be carried out with sufficient frequency and in such a way that the samples are representative of the fuel examined, and in the case of marine fuel, of the fuel being used by vessels while in relevant sea areas and ports. Member States shall take all necessary measures to check by sampling that the sulphur content of fuels used complies with Articles 3, 3a, 4, 4a and 4b. The sampling shall commence on the date on which the relevant limit for maximum sulphur content in the fuel comes into force. It shall be carried out periodically with sufficient frequency, in sufficient quantities and in such a way that the samples are representative of the fuel examined, and in the case of marine fuel, of the fuel being supplied and used by vessels while in relevant sea areas and ports.
Amendment  50 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 9 – point a Directive 1999/32/EC Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (ca) sampling and analysis for verification that the use of marine fuel for onboard combustion is in accordance with guidelines to be developed by the IMO;
Amendment  51 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 – point c and point c a (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 7 – paragraphs 2 and 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (c) paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted. (c) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:   '2. On the basis, inter alia, of:   (a) annual reports submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 1a;   (b) observed trends in air quality, acidification, fuel costs and modal shift;   (c) progress in reducing emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides from ships through IMO mechanisms following Union initiatives in this regard;   the Commission shall, by 31 December 2013, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council which shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. The Commission shall consider in its report:   - potential impacts on the internal market, in particular regarding competitiveness, from the application of different emissions standards in the Union ;   - the designation of additional SOx and NOx Emission Control Areas   - quality standards for marine fuel oils along the lines of those applicable to Directive 98/70/EC;   - additional or alternative complementary measures to further reduce emissions from ships.'   (ca) paragraph 3 is deleted.
Amendment  52 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 10 – point c b (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 7 – paragraphs 2 a and 2 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (cb) the following paragraphs 2a and 2b are added:   '2a. The Commission shall carry out an impact assessment of this Directive and by the end of 2012 propose a set of compensatory measures to diminish the negative impacts on shipping industries throughout the Union.   2b. If the IMO decides before 1 January 2015 to amend Annex VI to MARPOL, the Commission shall automatically submit a new proposal to incorporate that amendment into Union law.'
Amendment  53 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 9a – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4a(1a) and (2), 4c(4), 6(1), 7(1a) and 7(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [the date of entry into force of this Directive]. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4a(2), Article 4c(4), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1a) and (4) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [the date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment  54 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 9a – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4a(1a) and (2), 4c(4), 6(1), 7(1a) and 7(4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4a(2), Article 4b(3a), Article 4c(4), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1a) and (4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
Justification
To ensure consistency with the remaining text.
Amendment  55 Proposal for a directive – amending act Article 1 – point 13 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 9a – paragraph 5
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4a(1a) and (2), 4c(4), 6(1), 7(1a) and 7(4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4a(2), Article 4c(4), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1a) and (4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
Amendment  56 Proposal for a directive - amending act Annex Directive 1999/32/EC Annex 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment – document thoroughly that any waste streams discharged into the sea, including enclosed ports, harbours and estuaries have no significant negative impacts on and do not pose risks to human health and the environment." – document thoroughly that any waste water, including waste water in compliance with the waste water requirements set out in IMO Resolution MEPC.184(59), discharged into the sea, including enclosed ports, harbours and estuaries have no significant negative impacts on and do not pose risks to human health and the environment.

• [1]               Not yet published in the Official Journal.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission's proposal

The main purpose of the proposal is to implement the upper limits agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2008 on the sulphur content of marine fuels.

This is perhaps the most important health reform in this legislative period. Air pollutants from ships are estimated at present to cause some 50 000 premature deaths per year in Europe.

The sulphur limits in Annex VI to the IMO’s MARPOL Convention are 0.1% in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) from 2015 and 0.5% in other sea areas from 2020. Countries accounting for 85% of the world’s shipping tonnage have ratified these limits.

Europe’s SECAs are the North Sea, the English Channel and the Baltic Sea. Both coasts of the USA and Canada have also been designated as emission control areas 200 miles in breadth. The sulphur limit in SECAs currently stands at 1%. Fuel used on the open seas may contain as much as 4.5% of sulphur until the end of 2011 and thereafter 3.5% until 2019.

Sulphur and nitrogen oxides give rise to secondary particulates in the air which are harmful to health. Reducing emissions from ships will make it easier to achieve air quality standards in a number of Member States.

If sulphur oxide emissions from ships are not reduced, these emissions in the EU's sea areas will exceed the combined emissions from the EU's land areas before the end of this decade. These emissions from land areas have been reduced by some 90% from their peak, and by 72% between 1990 and 2008.

The maximum permitted sulphur content in fuel for land vehicles is 10 ppm, 100 times less than the limit which will come into force in SECAs from 2015.

In line with what has been agreed within the IMO, it would also be possible to reduce marine emissions in an alternative manner. Flue gases may be cleaned with scrubbers, which act on the same principle as the devices which have been in use for decades now to clean sulphur oxides from flue gases emitted by land-based factories and power stations. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) may also be used.

All these methods for reducing sulphur oxide emissions also reduce nitrogen oxide and black carbon (soot) emissions. Nitrogen oxides cause not only atmospheric pollution and acid precipitation but also eutrophication in water and land areas, while black carbon is a warming agent.

It is estimated that using flue gas scrubbers will bring down the cost of reducing emissions by at least half if the ship is mostly travelling in SECAs. It is estimated that LNG will come into widespread use as fuel for new ships as and when the necessary fuelling infrastructure becomes widespread in ports.

According to the Commission’s estimate the monetary value of the health benefits that can be achieved exceeds the costs of reducing marine emissions by a factor of between 2 and 25. The Commission estimates the monetary value of the health benefits at EUR 8 to16 billion and the cost at EUR 0.6 to 3.7 billion.

The monetary value of the environmental benefits has not been estimated, but in Finland, for example, acid precipitation would fall by 60% from present levels.

The current directive on the sulphur content of marine fuels contains, over and above the limits agreed earlier in the IMO, sulphur limits for ships in port (0.1%) and for vessels engaging in regular passenger transport (1.5%). The last-named of these is the same as the first limit for SECAs agreed upon in the IMO.

The Commission proposes that the new 0.1% sulphur limit for SECAs should also apply to all passenger vessels regularly entering any EU ports, but this limit would enter into force in 2020.

Rapporteur’s proposed amendments to the Commission proposal

The rapporteur welcomes and supports the main thrust of the Commission’s proposal, and stresses that the limits agreed in the IMO will enter into force at any rate, even if no directive is enacted. However, the directive could clarify and standardise the implementation and monitoring within the EU of the limits agreed in the IMO, level the playing field for competition, facilitate the transition stage and encourage innovations.

By switching to more stringent sulphur limits, it would be possible to achieve significant health and environmental benefits in a cost-efficient way by implementing the 0.1% limit more widely than just in Europe’s existing SECAs.

So the rapporteur supports the Commission's proposal that the 0.1% sulphur limit should be extended to vessels engaged in regular passenger transport. However, the rapporteur proposes that the limit should come into force in 2015, at the same time as in the SECAs.

The rapporteur also proposes that the 0.1% sulphur limit should apply to all territorial waters of EU Member States up to 12 nautical miles from their coasts. In other words the limit currently applicable in EU ports would be extended to territorial waters.

These amendments would make it possible to achieve significant health and environmental benefits and would also create a level playing field as regards the cost impacts of reform.

In those EU Member States whose coasts lie wholly or partly within SECAs the proportion of sulphur oxide emissions accounted for by shipping is as follows: Denmark 39%, Netherlands 31%, Sweden 25%, UK and France 18% and Belgium 13%. However, several countries outside SECAs also show a high proportion: Ireland 21%, Portugal 20%, Italy and Spain 15%. The proportion for several Mediterranean islands and coasts is over 20%, in some cases over 30%.

The rapporteur proposes that the Commission should explore, by the end of 2013, the establishment of new emission restriction areas in European sea areas as well as methods for further reducing emissions, should report on this to Parliament and the Council and should make proposals for possible new sulphur and nitrogen oxide emission control areas.

Because during the transition period some operators will have to bear significant additional costs, particularly in the case of journeys undertaken mainly or largely in SECAs, the rapporteur proposes that the use of state aid for investment should be facilitated. Normally the upper limit on state aid is 10% for environmental investments made less than three years before the measures become compulsory.

The rapporteur proposes that in this case more state aid should be permitted until the end of 2013. This is justified because reducing marine emissions is a major economic benefit for the public sector owing to the accompanying reduction in health expenditure. This would also help to set in motion the market in flue gas scrubbers.

List of stakeholder meetings on the Sulphur Directive with Rapporteur Satu Hassi

Governments and Permanent Representations:

Danish Environment Minister Ida Auken

Danish Permanent Representation

Finnish Environment Minister Ville Niinistö

Finnish Permanent Representation

French Permanent Representation

Polish Permanent Representation

Swedish Environment Minister Lena Ek

Swedish Permanent Representation

European Commission:

DG Environment, civil servants responsible for the Sulphur Directive

Industries and Non-Governmental Organisations:

Armateurs de France

Brittany Ferries

Confederation of Finnish Industries

Couple Systems

European Environmental Bureau

European Cruise Council (ECC)

European Petroleum Industry Association

Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association

ExxonMobil

Finnish Forest Industries Federation

Finnish Shipowners' Association

FIPRA International (representing Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd)

Germanischer Lloyd

Port of Rotterdam

Scandline

Stena AB

Total

Transport & Environment (T&E)

TT-Line GmbH & Co. KG

Wärtsilä

OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (17.1.2012)

for the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels
(COM(2011)0439 – C7‑0199/2011 – 2011/0190(COD))

Rapporteur: Vilja Savisaar-Toomast

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

In 2008 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) agreed new maximum values for the sulphur content of marine fuel. For Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), the maximum was reduced from 1.5% to 1% from 1 July 2010 and 0.1% from 1 January 2015. In the EU, the Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel are SECAs.

The limit for other sea areas will come down from 4.5% to 3.5% as of 1 January 2012 and 0.5% as of 1 January 2020. The start of the 0.5% limit could be delayed by five years if a review scheduled for 2018 found that there was an imbalance between the supply and demand of suitable fuels.

Passenger ships on regular service currently need to meet the SECA limits whether or not they are travelling in these areas. The Commission proposes that these ships would be subject to the 0.1% limit from 2020. The five year delay relative to SECAs is to avoid potential problems with fuel availability.

International Obligations

It seems clear that, EU Member States having supported the tightening of IMO limits and the designation of the three European SECAs, Union legislation needs to be aligned with its international obligations. Failing to do so would not only create legal uncertainty but would weaken Union negotiators’ credibility, both in the IMO and in other international fora, when seeking to persuade third countries to adopt and implement international standards.

Health Benefits

In addition, the lower sulphur limits should lead to significant improvements in European citizens’ health. The cost-benefit analysis undertaken for the Commission suggests that a 0.1% limit in the SECAs would avoid more than 17 000 premature deaths per year in 2020. There would also be substantial reductions in respiratory illnesses.

As passenger ships on regular service are normally travelling close to the coasts, applying the 0.1% limit would have a significant impact on air quality in coastal regions and therefore seems justified.

Indeed, the extent of the health benefits raises the question of whether the lower sulphur limit should not apply to other European seas.

Fair Competition

Extending the geographical scope of the 0.1% limit would also address concerns about different limits applying in different European coastal waters. It can be argued that this places shipping firms operating in SECAs at a competitive disadvantage both relative to those in other areas and relative to land transport.

The EU could restrict emissions up to a certain distance from the coast without requiring IMO endorsement. However this would risk diverting traffic from European ports to those in North Africa. While the US and Canada have fixed a 200 nautical mile limit, they did seek IMO designation for this.

Member States and the Commission should therefore seek to promote the designation of other European sea basins as SECAs by the IMO.

Maintaining Sea Transport’s Competitiveness

Parliament has consistently supported the objective of encouraging sea transport in view of its reduced environmental impact. If lower sulphur limits were to cause goods currently being transported by sea to be moved on trucks (so-called “modal back shift”), this would be very undesirable in terms of environmental damage (particularly in terms of greenhouse gases) and increased congestion.

Different studies have produced widely varying estimates of the likely impact of the new limits on the proportion of goods being transported by sea. However what seems clear is that effect will vary according to the product being shipped and the route. Products with relatively high volume to value ratios (for example wood or metal ores) could be more severely affected than industrial goods. Targeted assistance may therefore be appropriate.

The IMO agreement and the Commission proposal already help to limit the impact on shipping’s competitiveness by allowing abatement methods (so-called “scrubbers”) or the mixture of fuel and liquefied natural gas (LNG). This will allow shippers to choose the most economical means of meeting the limits, taking account of the vessel’s age and size as well as the routes it is expected to serve.

While ship owners and equipment suppliers differ about the availability and reliability of scrubbers, delaying the introduction of the 0.1% limit would reduce incentives to undertake the necessary research and development. In addition, everyone would wonder whether the new deadline might be postponed once more. This would further undermine the case for investment in this technology.

Those considering using LNG are faced with a chicken and egg situation: ship owners do not want to equip vessels so they can use LNG without an assurance that supplies will be available in sufficient ports while ports are equally reluctant to invest in view of uncertainties about demand. Support from state aid, TEN-T and/or Marco Polo could help to unblock this situation.

A new code for LNG and similar fuels is currently under development at the IMO. It should be introduced in 2014 together with the next revision of the Safety Of Life At Sea convention. Given that LNG is a clean fuel which virtually eliminates sulphur dioxide emissions, Member States should pay particular attention to ensuring that sufficient LNG fuel is available and that safety requirements, including the possibility of refuelling whilst passengers are embarking or disembarking, can be met.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the challenges the new limits will pose for ship owners, operators and ports, the EU has to fulfil its international obligations and introduce the 0.1% limit from 2015. Given that half the preparation time for this limit has already passed, the key now is for the Commission to further develop the tool box of accompanying measures and for industry to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the options of low sulphur fuel, scrubbers or LNG.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) According to Directive 1999/32/EC the Commission is to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive and to table any proposals for amendments, in particular as regards the reduction of sulphur limits for marine fuel in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs), taking account of work within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).	(4) According to Directive 1999/32/EC the Commission is to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive and to table any proposals for amendments, in particular as regards the reduction of sulphur limits for marine fuel in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs), in accordance with the work of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
Justification
The reduction of sulphur content in marine fuels is determined by the IMO; it is a major task and the most appropriate decision-making level for its completion is the international level. In its proposal the Commission should insist on the importance of the international dimension and should accordingly not give the impression that the IMO’s work is merely secondary and might be amended without first notifying the other international parties.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) It is also important that the Commission assess the consequences of ensuring compliance by the maritime transport sector on the basis of reports drawn up by the Member States, in order to permit the upstream planning of appropriate accompanying measures, particularly by carrying out studies on the availability of fuels, their prices, the risks of a retrograde modal switch and the impact of this Directive on all economic operators in the maritime transport sector. The results of those studies would make it possible to clarify the Commission’s proposals on the deployment in practice of its 'toolbox', as referred to in the Commission staff working paper of 16 September 2011 entitled 'Pollutant emission reduction from maritime transport and the sustainable waterborne transport toolbox', and the implementation of the arrangements for sustainable water transport.
Justification
The accompanying measures seem essential in order to help the maritime transport sector adapt: this is the meaning of the Commission’s communication COM(2011)441. Any reduction in maritime services should be avoided and therefore there is a need for upstream evaluation of the consequences of this directive in terms of ensuring compliance, in order to consider possible appropriate measures to follow up the Commission's proposal on accompanying measures for operators in this sector.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 4 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4b) Some SOx abatement methods can generate waste, in particular wastewater containing mercury, selenium, and other trace elements that may necessitate treatment of the wastewater before discharge. The Commission should adopt guidelines for the harmonised development of reception facilities in Union ports.
Justification
While SOx scrubbers can be efficient tools to reduce emissions, they may generate waste that should not be discharged in the seas. The Commission should promote the development in EU ports of the infrastructure required to receive and threat wastewater from scrubbers.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) The revised Annex VI to MARPOL introduces, inter alia, stricter sulphur limits for marine fuel in SECAs (1.00% as of 1 July 2010 and 0.10% as of 1 January 2015) as well as in sea areas outside SECAs (3.5% as of 1 January 2012 and, in principle, 0.50% as of 1 January 2020). Most Member States are obliged to require ships to use fuel with maximum 1.00% sulphur content in SECAs as of 1 July 2010 based on their international commitments. In order to ensure coherence with international law as well as to secure proper enforcement of new globally established sulphur standards in the Union, the provisions of Directive 1999/32/EC should be aligned with the revised Annex VI to MARPOL. In order to ensure a minimum quality of fuel used by ships either for fuel or technology based compliance, marine fuel the sulphur content of which exceeds the general standard of 3.5% by mass should not be allowed for use or placing on the market in the Union.	(6) The revised Annex VI to MARPOL introduces, inter alia, stricter sulphur limits for marine fuel in SECAs (1.00% as of 1 July 2010 and 0.10% as of 1 January 2015) as well as in sea areas outside SECAs (3.5% as of 1 January 2012 and, in principle, 0.50% as of 1 January 2020). Most Member States are obliged to require ships to use fuel with maximum 1.00% sulphur content in SECAs as of 1 July 2010 based on their international commitments. In order to ensure coherence with international law as well as to secure proper enforcement of new globally established sulphur standards in the Union, the provisions of Directive 1999/32/EC should be aligned with the revised Annex VI to MARPOL.
Justification
Final sentence would be moved to Recital 6 b (new) so as to improve clarity and avoid any suggestion that this 3.5% limit would affect the transport of high sulphur fuel by ship.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 6 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6a) In view of the improved air quality and health benefits of lower sulphur emissions and in order to establish a level playing field for the maritime transport sector across the Union, the Commission should propose, with a clear timetable, the extension of the 0,10% limit to other seas bordering on Member States’ landmass or so as to cover a fixed distance from the Union coastline.
Justification
An evaluation study for the Commission suggests that lowering the sulphur emission limit to 0.1% in the Baltic, North Sea and Channel could avoid more than 17 000 premature deaths per year in 2020. Applying this limit to other seas or adopting a limit based on distance from the coast (the Canadian and US limits apply up to 200 nautical miles from the coast) could save more lives and help Member States meet air quality requirements.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 6 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6b) In order to ensure a minimum quality of fuel used by ships either for fuel or technology-based compliance, marine fuel the sulphur content of which exceeds the general standard of 3,50% by mass should not be allowed for use or placing on the market in the Union. That limit should apply only to fuel being used to power ships and not to fuel being transported by ship.
Justification
The use of fuel with excessively high sulphur content could lead to the discharge of waste water that would cause a negative impact on the marine environment. However it is important to be clear that the limit imposed by Article 3a only applies to fuel that is used to power ships. The transport of high sulphur fuel by ship should not be affected by this Article.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(7) Passenger ships operate mostly in ports or close to coastal areas and their impacts on human health and the environment are significant. Those ships are required to use marine fuel with the same maximum sulphur content as is applicable in SECAs (1.5%). Given that stricter sulphur standards will apply in SECAs, it is justified by the need to improve air quality around ports and coasts in the non-SECA territories that the same standards apply to passenger ships. However, the introduction of a new SECA standard for passenger ships would be delayed by 5 years in order to avoid potential problems with fuel availability.	(7) Passenger ships operate mostly in ports or close to coastal areas and their impacts on human health and the environment are significant. Those ships are required to use marine fuel with the same maximum sulphur content as is applicable in SECAs (1.5%). Given that stricter sulphur standards will apply in SECAs, it is justified by the need to improve air quality around ports and coasts in the non-SECA territories that the same standards apply to passenger ships.
Justification
The 0.1 % sulphur limit should be extended to vessels engaged in regular passenger transport. In order to avoid any distortion of competition, this limit should enter into force in 2015, at the same time as in the SECAs.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 8 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(8a) Enforcement of the 0,10% limit in the years immediately following 2015 should take account of uncertainty about the availability of low sulphur fuel and differing views on the effectiveness and reliability of abatement technology. In particular, the Commission and Member States should provide support for the introduction of scrubber technology and refrain from acting against firms which are making genuine efforts to comply with the rules. Member States should ensure that compliant fuel is available and distributed in a balanced manner in accordance with Regulation 18 of the revised Annex VI to MARPOL. In the event that compliant fuel might not be available in some ports, the ship should be permitted to invoke the exemption provided for in the revised Annex VI to MARPOl applicable to ships that , despite best efforts to purchase compliant fuel oil, have been unable to obtain such fuel oil. The ship should not be required to deviate from its intended voyage or to delay unduly the voyage in order to achieve compliance.
Justification
While the limits resulting from the revised annex VI to the Marine Pollution agreement are international obligations that have been endorsed by the Member States, it is important that, in the years immediately following 2015, enforcement takes account of the availability of appropriate fuel and technology. A certain tolerance should be shown towards firms who are seeking to obey the rules but encountering practical difficulties.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 11 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(11a) Preventing modal backshift is particularly important given that an increasing share of goods being transported by road would run counter to the Union’s climate change objectives and increase congestion.
Justification
Average CO2 emissions per tonne kilometre from road haulage are more than seven times that of marine transport. As a result, measures should be taken to avoid this Directive causing goods to move from sea transport to the road as a result of higher fuel costs for ships. Increased road transport would also cause congestion and higher noise levels both of which are already serious problems for European citizens.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 11 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(11b)The costs of the new requirements to reduce sulphur emissions risks modal backshift, which is of particular concern for areas and industries heavily dependent on marine transport. The Commission should make full use of existing instruments such as Marco Polo and TEN-T, particularly in Member States adjoining SECAs, to provide targeted assistance so as to minimise the risk of modal backshift. In view of the current economic situation and this Directive’s possible effects, the Commission should present concrete measures that will provide the industry with economic and financial assistance to support environmentally-friendly maritime technologies before January 2015, particularly taking into account the availability of fuels, their prices, the risks of modal backshift and the impact of the measures of this Directive on all economic operators in the maritime transport sector.
Justification
Higher shipping fuel costs are a particular concern for goods that have a high volume to value ratio including paper and ores. While projects to support the deployment of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or scrubber technologies are already eligible for funding from Marco Polo or the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea programme, this support needs to be sustained and enhanced if modal backshift is to be minimised.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a directive - amending act Recital 12 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12a) The use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) virtually eliminates sulphur emissions. A new code for LNG-fuelled ships is expected to be introduced in 2014 together with the next revision of the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention. Member States should pay particular attention to the need to ensure the safety and availability, as well as safe bunkering operations, of LNG-powered ships while preventing the revised SOLAS Convention from creating unnecessary barriers to the use of LNG. The Commission should deploy European funds such as Marco Polo as widely as possible to encourage the use of low-sulphur LNG as a maritime fuel. Member States should contribute to this trend by making fiscal facilities available for ship owners who invest in the use of LNG or in the development and use of scrubbers.
Justification
It is important to take account of the experience when revising Annex VI to the Marine Pollution (MARPOL) convention (agreed in 2008 but with the Commission proposal only arriving almost three years later and some Member States subsequently questioning what had been agreed). As IMO Members, unlike the Commission, Member States should ensure that the new LNG code encourages the use of this cleaner fuel source without compromising safety standards.
Safety rules for bunkering operations and availability of bunkering installation should be taken into account.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a directive- amending act Recital 12 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(12a) Member States may, as an alternative solution for cutting emissions, facilitate the use by docked vessels of onshore power supply systems instead of shipboard-generated power.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 4 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 3a
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment Member States shall ensure that marine fuels are not used or placed on the market within their territory if their sulphur content exceeds 3,5 % by mass. Member States shall ensure that marine fuels are not used within their territory if their sulphur content exceeds 3.50% by mass. The use of ships’ fuels whose sulphur content exceeds 3,50% by mass should only be permitted in conjunction with emission reduction procedures which have at least the same positive impact on the environment as can be achieved by using low-sulphur fuels.
Justification
Fuels which have a sulphur content of more than 3.5% should not be generally banned if at the same time emission reduction technologies are to be promoted which can use fuels that contain higher levels of sulphur. The use of fuels containing higher levels of sulphur should be permitted in the Union only in conjunction with the appropriate technical procedures to reduce emissions.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point a Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – title
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 'Maximum sulphur content of marine fuels used in territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones of Member States, including SOx Emission Control Areas and by passenger ships operating on regular services to or from Union ports' 'Maximum sulphur content of marine fuels used in territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones of Member States, including SOx Emission Control Areas and by passenger ships operating to or from Union ports'
Amendment  15 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment '1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling within SOx Emission Control Areas if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds: '1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling within SOx Emission Control Areas and in their territorial waters which do not fall within SOx Emission Control Areas if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds:
Amendment  16 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point b Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside the Union. This paragraph shall apply to all vessels of all flags, including vessels whose journey began outside the Union.   Vessels operating in short sea shipping shall be excluded from the arrangement referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph. The arrangement referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall continue to apply to them for a transitional period of five years.   If necessary for the purposes of the application of this exception, Member States shall be expected to create the legal preconditions for it at the IMO.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point c Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment '1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds: '1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in the areas of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling outside SOx Emission Control Areas if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds:
Justification
To avoid any distortion of competition, the SECA limit value for sulphur content in marine fuels should uniformly apply in the territorial seas of all Member States.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point c Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 1a – point b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (b) 0.50 % as from 1 January 2020. (b) 0,10 % as from 1 January 2015.
Justification
To avoid any distortion of competition, the SECA limit value for sulphur content in marine fuels should uniformly apply in the territorial seas of all Member States.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point d Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a of this Directive concerning the designation of sea areas as SOx Emission Control Areas on the basis of the decision of the IMO in accordance with Regulation 14(3)(2) of Annex VI to MARPOL. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a of this Directive concerning the designation of sea areas as SOx Emission Control Areas on the basis of the decision of the IMO in accordance with Regulation 14(3)(2) of Annex VI to MARPOL. The introduction of any new Emission Control Areas shall go through the IMO process under Annex VI to MARPOL with a properly worked out case supported by scientific data on an environmental and economic basis.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 – point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 4 - introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 4. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling outside SOx Emission Control Areas by passenger ships operating on regular services to or from any Union port if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds: 4. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are not used in their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling outside SOx Emission Control Areas by passenger ships to or from any Union port if the sulphur content of those fuels by mass exceeds:
Amendment  21 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 - point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4a – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (ca) 0,50% as of 1 January 2015;
Justification
Under the Commission proposal, the limit for passenger ships operating on regular services (currently aligned with the SECA limit) should be reduced to 0.1% in 2020, five years later than the SECA limit reaches that value. While this is justified in terms of ensuring the availability of sufficient low sulphur fuel, as these passenger ships typically operate close to the coast, there would be significant health benefits in reducing the limit to an intermediate value in 2015.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 6 - point e Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4 a – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (da) permit a ship that does not comply with the provisions of this Directive to benefit from the measures under paragraphs 2.2. and 2.3 of Regulation18, if the conditions listed in paragraph 2.1 of that Regulation are met;
Justification
Regulation 18 of the MARPOL Convention provides that a ship that can prove it has not been able to take on fuel will not be forced to change or delay its itinerary to comply with the provisions of the Convention. This amendment therefore seeks to include in the Directive this exemption for ships exceptionally needing to stop in an EU port without being able to take on fuel earlier.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment 3. Member States shall ensure that marine gas oils are not placed on the market in their territory if the sulphur content of those marine gas oils exceeds 0.10 % by mass. deleted
Justification
The new Article 4b should be deleted as marine gas oil with a sulphur content greater than 0.1% but less than or equal to 0.5% by mass is expected to be delivered by the oil industry to meet the global requirements for sulphur content as from 2020 or 2025.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3a. The Administration of a Member State may allow any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to that required by this Directive if such fitting, material, appliance or apparatus or other procedures, alternative fuel oils or compliance methods are at least as effective in terms of emission reductions as required by this Directive, including any of the standards set out in Articles 4a and 4b.
Justification
Regulation 4 of the MARPOL Annex VI on equivalence includes non-technical or operational procedures by which compliance methods used as an alternative can be adopted. This should be incorporated in the revised EU Directive to encourage developments and investment in innovative technologies.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   Article 4ba   Availability of marine fuels   1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that marine fuels are available and distributed in a balanced manner:   - where the sulphur content does not exceed 0,10% as from 1 January 2015;   - where the sulphur content does not exceed 0,50% as from 1 January 2020.   2. Paragraph 1 shall not preclude the introduction of such measures from an earlier date.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (2a) Member States shall, as an alternative solution for reducing emissions, encourage the use by docked vessels of onshore power supply systems.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3a. Member States shall ensure that port authorities include in the harbour fee or other charges any costs of reception, handling and disposal of effluents from exhaust gas cleaning systems in accordance with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues*.   _____________   * OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.
Justification
The Port Reception Facilities Directive is currently under revision process, any reference to the disposal of wastes from exhaust gas cleaning systems should refer to the dedicated directive.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 7 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4c – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a concerning: In order to implement the relevant standards and instruments adopted by the IMO, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9a concerning:
Justification
The wording seems to imply that the Commission is allowed to adopt, by means of delegated acts, measures which may differ from IMO decisions. However, it is essential to remain fully in line with Annex VI of MARPOL, since divergences within the EU concerning emission abatement methods might result in not promoting alternatives to the use of low-sulphur fuels, which is an essential aspect of the directive.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 8 a (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 4e a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (8a) The following article is inserted:   "Article 4ea   Fuel oil availability   Notwithstanding Articles 3 and 4:   1. If a ship is found by a Member State not to be in compliance with the standards for compliant fuel oils set out in this Directive, the competent authority of the Member State is entitled to require the ship to:   (a) present a record of the actions taken to attempt to ensure compliance; and   (b) provide evidence that it attempted to purchase compliant fuel oil in accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made available for purchase.   2. The ship shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage or to delay unduly the voyage in order to ensure compliance.   3. If a ship provides the information set out in point 1 of this Article, Member States shall take into account all relevant circumstances and the evidence presented in order to determine the appropriate action to take, including not taking control measures.   4. A ship shall notify its Administration and the competent authority of the relevant port of destination when it cannot purchase compliant fuel oil.   5. Member States shall notify the Commission when a ship has presented evidence of the non-availability of compliant fuel oil."
Amendment  30 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 9 – point a Directive 1999/32/EC Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment b) sampling and analysis of the sulphur content of marine fuel for onboard combustion contained in tanks and in sealed bunker samples on board ships; b) sampling and analysis of the sulphur content of marine fuel for onboard combustion in sealed bunker samples on board ships;
Justification
The MARPOL Convention provides only for the analysis of ‘sealed samples’, which is the only way to guarantee the homogeneity of the fuel used. The IMO does not any need for the taking of fuel samples ‘contained in tanks’. It seems premature to require the analysis of samples of fuels contained in tanks. The Commission may use delegated acts to bring this directive into line with any future development in this area.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 10 - point c Directive 1999/32/EC Article 7 – paragraphs 2 and 3
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (c) paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted. (c) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:   '2. Within [two] years of the entry into force of this Directive the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council based, inter alia, on:   (a) annual reports submitted in accordance with paragraph 1;   (b) observed trends in air quality (concentrations, exposure and deposition of air pollutants), acidification, fuel costs and modal shift;   (c) progress in reducing emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides as well as particulate matter including black carbon from ships through IMO mechanisms following Union initiatives in this regard;   (d) a new cost-effectiveness analysis, including direct and indirect environmental benefits, of measures contained in Article 4a(4) and of possible further emission reduction measures; and   (e) the possible use of economic instruments to complement lower sulphur limits, such as fiscal mechanisms to reduce emissions with clear health and environmental benefits;   (f) the implementation of Articles 4c, 4d and 4e;   (g) the use and availability of scrubbers, both on-board and on-shore; and   (h) developments regarding fuel availability.   In its report to the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission shall give particular consideration to proposals for the designation of additional SOx and NOx Emission Control Areas. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal to further reduce emissions from ships.'   (ca) paragraph 3 is deleted
Amendment  32 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 10 Directive 1999/32/EC Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   3a. By 1 January 2013, the Commission shall submit an extensive survey of the impact of the introduction of this legislation, particularly with regard to a possible modal switch from water to land transport. This shall also include an investigation of the impact of introducing the 0,1% sulphur standard for all European seas. If that survey shows that water transport is being replaced by land transport, the Commission shall submit an alternative legislative proposal which does not entail any switch from water to land transport.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a directive - amending act Article 1 – point 10 - point c b (new) Directive 1999/32/EC Article 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment   (cb) the following paragraph 3a is inserted   3b. If the IMO decides before 1 January 2015 to amend Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, the Commission shall automatically submit a new proposal to incorporate that amendment into Union law.
Amendment  34 Proposal for a directive - amending act Annex Directive 1999/32/EC Annex 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Text proposed by the Commission Amendment – document thoroughly that any waste streams discharged into the sea, including enclosed ports, harbours and estuaries have no significant negative impacts on and do not pose risks to human health and the environment." – documents thoroughly that any waste water, including waste water in compliance with the waste water requirements in IMO Resolution MEPC.184(59), discharged into the sea, including enclosed ports, harbours and estuaries have no significant negative impacts on and do not pose risks to human health and the environment."

PROCEDURE

Title	Amendment of Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels
References	COM(2011)0439 – C7-0199/2011 – 2011/0190(COD)
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 13.9.2011
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	TRAN 13.9.2011
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Vilja Savisaar-Toomast 30.8.2011
Discussed in committee	22.11.2011	19.12.2011
Date adopted	20.12.2011
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	39 2 0
Members present for the final vote	Inés Ayala Sender, Georges Bach, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Antonio Cancian, Michael Cramer, Philippe De Backer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Saïd El Khadraoui, Ismail Ertug, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Jim Higgins, Juozas Imbrasas, Ville Itälä, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Werner Kuhn, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Gesine Meissner, Hubert Pirker, David-Maria Sassoli, Vilja Savisaar-Toomast, Debora Serracchiani, Brian Simpson, Keith Taylor, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Peter van Dalen, Dominique Vlasto, Artur Zasada
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Isabelle Durant, Michael Gahler, Zita Gurmai, Dominique Riquet, Anna Rosbach, Oldřich Vlasák, Janusz Władysław Zemke
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Kristiina Ojuland

PROCEDURE

Title	Amendment of Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels
References	COM(2011)0439 – C7-0199/2011 – 2011/0190(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	15.7.2011
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 13.9.2011
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	ITRE 13.9.2011	TRAN 13.9.2011
Not delivering opinions        Date of decision	ITRE 5.10.2011
Discussed in committee	22.11.2011	16.2.2012
Date adopted	16.2.2012
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	48 15 0
Members present for the final vote	János Áder, Elena Oana Antonescu, Kriton Arsenis, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sergio Berlato, Nessa Childers, Yves Cochet, Chris Davies, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Christa Klaß, Holger Krahmer, Jo Leinen, Peter Liese, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Gilles Pargneaux, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Kārlis Šadurskis, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Margrete Auken, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Christofer Fjellner, Vicky Ford, Gaston Franco, Julie Girling, Jutta Haug, Jiří Maštálka, Marisa Matias, Judith A. Merkies, Eva Ortiz Vilella, Britta Reimers, Eleni Theocharous, Marita Ulvskog, Kathleen Van Brempt, Peter van Dalen, Andrea Zanoni
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Sampo Terho
Date tabled	27.2.2012