"G8 MARITIME SECURITY MEASURES"
ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 Speaking Points on Maritime Security Prepared for Mr F. Karamitsos, Director TREN G Background - Policy Considerations • The Commission’s General Policy in transport security has been framed for the last two years by a succession of policy suggestions including the “White Paper” on Transport published early 2001. • Successive Council Resolutions have highlighted this issue as a key political issue. • Following the 9.11th events, a Regulation in the sector of Aviation has been adopted and a corps of Commission’s inspectors has been constituted, similar to the well established corps of Nuclear Inspectors. • But, this is still not enough. The Commission has embarked upon ensuring security in the transport sector from the factory gate to the consumer door. This has of course to tackle all modes of transport. • The most important of them is maritime transport. : • The sector will be covered by a Regulation tackling maritime security for vessels, shipping companies and port facilities, which is currently under discussion in the Council; • And by a respective Port Security Directive which will be presented before summer. 1 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 • Finally, a security directive covering the multimodal transport sector will be introduced and will ensure that cargo is responsibly transported at all times as well as detail what information (such us cargo ownership information, carriers responsibilities, relevant dates and cargo origin and destination). General Framework • The Commission strongly supports as strategic policy approach the implementation of the maritime security measures recently agreed within the framework of the IMO Diplomatic Conference, in accordance with the respective timeframe. We expect that the recently agreed measures will be soon adopted as binding Community Legislation. • The EU approach will help and develop, within the framework of international organisations, maritime security legislation and its respective implementation, which should be globally and uniformly applied. We do not agree with unilateral measures, which can lead to adverse economic effects and damage world sea borne trade. It is important that we frame the longer term interests of all trading partners to tackle security in a mutual supportive, cost effective and reciprocally recognised manner, in order to make security an asset of transparent, fast and efficient future trade exchanges within the maritime sector. 2 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 Commission’s legislative action • The European Commission has adopted a Communication and a proposal for a regulation to ensure the obligatory application throughout the European Union (EU) of the highest security standards on maritime transport, as agreed in the International Maritime Organisation applicable to international commercial shipping, and to port facilities serving them. • The new requirements proposed by the European Commission for a strengthened security for international transport is proposed to apply to passenger ships carrying out domestic voyages, as for us there is no dilemma between cruise passengers and others. Similarly, the provisions with regard to security assessments, the drawing-up of security plans and the designation of company and ship security officers according to the Commission’s proposal would be extended to other ships used for domestic traffic. The Regulation also foresees a process of Commission inspections to check the harmonised implementation of these new security rules throughout the EU. • However, further additional work is needed in other international arenas, including within the EU, to ensure the problems are comprehensively covered and to avoid recourse to 3 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 bilateral initiatives such as those developed by some third countries. • Therefore, as mentioned above the Commission’s Communication goes further than the framework on ship security and port installations treated by the IMO, and opens the debate on the entirety of maritime transport. • The regulation goes beyond the measures adopted by IMO in that it: - Makes obligatory some requirements that are only recommendations, in order to raise the level of security sought and to avoid divergences of interpretation between Member States; - Requires a national authority to be nominated as a contact point at national level for the security of ships and port installations (of course it does not intend to adapt or assess the stucture of administrations; - Foresees an inspection process supervised by the Commission to verify the framework for implementation of national plans adopted within the framework of this regulation; - Gives the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) a role in assisting the Commission in the execution of its tasks; - Adapts various terms adopted in the IMO framework to the benefit of the national maritime traffic within Member States; - Extends all the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention and Part A of the ISPS Code to passenger ships 4 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 on national routes where they sail further than 20 nautical miles beyond the coasts; - Extends to other ships sailing nationally the requirements of the texts relating to undertaking safety evaluations, establishing safety plans, and designating safety agents for companies and for ships with the particular objective to raise “safety awareness”. In the months to come, the Commission: • Will present a proposed directive defining the complementary measures to put in place in EU ports; • In this Directive the Commission intends to expand to the entire port the security philosophy from the draft Regulation on ship and port facility security. The approach suggested in this Directive under preparation takes into account that port security measures should complement those of the ships and port facilities. It also takes into account the specificity of port areas, including attention to port industry and other activities relevant for the port security. • Furthermore we intend to support, in conjunction with Member States, the work of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) concerning increasing security in identifying seafarers and port workers, and will take, as necessary, a legislative initiative in the matter, following the adoption of a text by the ILO, foreseen for June 2003. 5 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 • The Commission is also in the course of looking into intermodal security. It is the intention of enhancing security throughout the entire logistic chain, irrespective of whether a maritime leg is included or not. Even although maritime security is the first focus at this point in time, it is the clear objective not to hamper short sea shipping in its development because of costly security measures. Therefore security will rapidly be extended to the land-leg of transport, both for maritime pre- or post- haulage as well as for completely land-based logistical chains. Container Security Initiative • On 4 June 2002, the United States' House of Representatives adopted a Bill introducing the Maritime Transportation Anti-terrorism Act of 2002. Among other things, this legislation envisages a number of measures aiming at enhancing cargo and container security conditions for containers bound for US ports and the respective Container Security Initiative. • Furthermore, the CSI involves placing US Customs inspectors at foreign seaports to target and pre-screen US-bound cargo containers before they are shipped to the US. Such containers are likely to benefit from a fast track importation procedure. The United States is initially focusing on 6 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 20 "mega ports" on the basis that roughly 68 per cent of the 5.7 million sea containers entering the US annually arrive from these 20 foreign seaports. It is recalled that thus far, the US have concluded bilateral agreements with a number of EU Member States covering the following ports: Member State Ports involved in agreement The Netherlands Rotterdam Belgium Antwerpen France Le Havre Germany Hamburg and Bremerhafen Italy La Spezia and Genua United Kingdom Liverpool, Felixstowe, Southampton, Tilbury and Thamesport Spain Algeciras Sweden Gothenburg • On 19 December 2002, the European Commission launched infringement procedures against those Member States that have signed declaration of principle with the US Customs. Still today the Commission has concerns on the negative effects the measures taken by the Member States will have on trade flows and that the measures will lead to competition between EU ports and indeed could lead to potentially shifting terrorism onto ports not covered by CSI. Any difference in treatment would also run counter to EU 7 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 trade and transport policies, which are based on equal treatment across the Community and worldwide. • On 18 March 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission to negotiate an extension of the scope of the 1997 EU - US customs co-operation agreement so as to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to security controls on the movement of goods. Areas where co- ordination could be established would include: - the definition of key information for the identification of high-risk consignments and agreement on how to collect and exchange it between competent authorities so as to ensure the effective application of risk management techniques; - the establishment of common definitions for controls and agreement on how these definitions could be used to identify high-risk movement of goods; - the co-ordination of positions to be taken on these issues in multilateral discussions; - the development of a common approach for the carrying out of practical actions in this domain in conformity with international commitments. • The objective is to strengthen security while facilitating legitimate trade in conformity with international commitments and the principle of reciprocity. 8 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 • As international security is only as effective as its weakest link, we support international co-operation within relevant fora to ensure a more co-ordinated approach for all ports handling international cargo and indeed suggest that all international agreements be modified to tackle all security issues in order to assist trading partners representing developing economies to enhance the security level of their sea borne trade. Expected Costs for Port Security • A port is a unique geographical area composed of many diverse elements. It is both a centre of commerce and a centre of population. It is the beginning or terminus for many modes of transportation that have become closely integrated and interdependent. • The economic benefits emanating from a port system extend far beyond its general geographic area. The security of a seaport is clearly a complicated matter, perhaps the most difficult security challenge that exists within a nation’s infrastructure. • The overall cost of security measures for ports includes the costs for port facilities and the port itself. The costs may be subdivided into elements that can be associated directly 9 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 with the port facilities, such as equipment that may be installed into screen vehicles or provide perimeter protection, as well as staffing, planning activities, and training. Additionally, ports and governments will incur additional costs related to the administration of maritime security matters. We will further identify these costs in our proposal. • MS have already integrated those costs within their policy priorities following the IMO Diplomatic Conference of December 2002. But it is not our intention –at this stage- to propose EC money for that. We think this is a matter of subsidiarity. Conclusions • The EU Regulation when adopted will provide the necessary legislative frame for the implementation of maritime security requirements. Each MS may have after that to adopt only secondary legislation in order to tackle respective administrative issues. Indeed, no time should be lost in view of the July 2004 deadline. We believe that the draft Regulation currently under consultation in the Council will be proven in this respect a very efficient tool. • Authority will also be needed for the ministries that are implementing and enforcing the requirements, maybe through additional legislative acts. In this respect for many of the proposed security measures to be meaningful, port 10 ESPO / FEPORT ‘PORT SECURITY WORKSHOP’, ANTWERPEN , 22-05-03 facilities must have the right to search and detain vehicles, cargo, and persons; the right to seize suspect or illegal materials; the support of local police authorities; etc. • There must also be an efficient means to properly return, reject, or dispose of suspect cargo and persons. Relevant information on the parties involved must be captured and shared. These changes must be made in conjunction with the implementation of new measures. • Major review efforts to understand the current situation and identify gaps seem to be underway in all EU MS and all indicate that that their overall goal is to meet the July 2004 deadline, although they recognise that there is virtually no time to spare in the schedule. • For the proper implementation of maritime security requirements a lot of additional work is expected by all of us. 11