Efficient Classification: Picking the “low hanging fruit” for a better future

In the aftermath of the 2nd international conference on efficient classification, the marine equipment industry considers that the time is over for questioning the necessity and usefulness of harmonisation and mutual recognition.

Stakeholders are now called to acknowledge the changes in the regulatory framework, assume their role in the implementation process and comply with the obligations stemming from Article 10 of Regulation 391/2009.

All players should be aware that EU law defines a precise time frame for the implementation of Article 10: indefinite procrastination is not an option that Regulation 391/2009 considers. On the other hand, ROs should appreciate the fact that the said Regulation entrust them with the responsibility of e-shaping the regulatory framework, which is not only an important mission but also a great opportunity that should not be missed.

In the absence of results at the end of the four-year period set by the Regulation, it should be expected that the Commission step into the process and introduce harmonization and mutual recognition through strict regulatory measures. In this respect, while everyone tend to agree that a bottom-up approach is preferable to regulation, nobody should forget that with opportunities come responsibilities and that, with Article 10 in force, harmonization and mutual recognition are no longer theoretical concepts but a reality for the industry.

Against this background, it is not encouraging to see the same arguments being repeated over and over again, and new arguments being created with the purpose of preventing the implementation of legislation approved by the European Parliament and the EU Council. At the end of the day, the Regulation reflects practices that are well established within the industry and legal principles that have been in force for some years already. Harmonisation and mutual recognition are not news. The real innovation is that they have to be applied consistently and in efficient and predictable way, giving certainty to the players and improving the efficiency of classification as suggested at the workshop on the 21st of October with relation to the ‘ripe low hanging fruit’. (See Annex I)

Indeed, mutual recognition and harmonization are already at the core of the Marine Equipment Directive. This measure, whose scope includes important safety-sensitive equipment, pursues the objective of fostering maritime safety, while favouring free movement of marine equipment. Under the MED, marine equipment bearing the “wheelmark” has to be recognised by all EU notified bodies and be allowed to circulate within the EU, once its compliance with the applicable international standards is established.

The MED has produced valuable results for the industry, making certification more efficient. Nobody could possibly argue that creating a harmonised European framework for certain important type of equipment has determined any negative consequence on safety: indeed, safety is not a private affair of classification societies. Safety is a general interest of society and it is time to move on to an organic approach where a uniform and general high standard of safety is guaranteed by each RO to any supplier with benefits for everyone.

The MED is a very good benchmark to foresee and measure the potential advantages deriving from harmonisation and mutual recognition. It should be pointed out that, pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulation, marine equipment bearing the “wheelmark” shall be recognised by ROs for MED but also for classification purposes. Therefore, the industry can already see today some results of the new Regulation: indeed, for “wheelmark” equipment, mutual recognition of class certificates is already applicable without any further activity by ROs or stakeholder.

It has also been said, recently, that mutual recognition may create problems for the preservation of industry know-how. The marine equipment industry values knowledge as one of its most important assets and would never support a legislative act that undermines the integrity of its IPRs. On the contrary, suppliers expect that the situation in relation to information and know-how will improve with mutual recognition, since ROs shall not repeat testing on marine equipment that has already been certified. In any case, it is certain that know-how and IPRs will not be less protected than they are today. As a matter of fact, knowledge related to marine equipment is already copiously shared by manufacturers with ROs: the need of obtaining multiple certificates makes it necessary, for the industry, to reveal a significant amount of information to surveyors. This, in the view of suppliers, is a serious factor of risk for any investment on innovation the industry makes.