ESTONIA: PSC CEA Cover Letter and Questionnaire

Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 1 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A PILOT STUDY ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS Directive 2009/16/EC of 23 April 2009 related to Port State Control, as amended. Estonia  Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 2 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED INTRODUCTION Article 3.5 of the EMSA founding regulation provides that “where appropriate, and in any case when a cycle of visits or inspections is concluded, the Agency shall analyse reports from that cycle with a view to identifying horizontal findings and general conclusions on the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the measures in place. The Agency shall present this analysis to the Commission for further discussion with Member States in order to draw any relevant lessons and facilitate the dissemination of good working practices.” Moreover, the new methodology for visits to Member States adopted by the EMSA Administrative Board in November 2015 states that “the horizontal findings arising from the cycles of visits to the Member States will serve to analyse areas of common concern in implementation, as well as identify best practices and lessons learnt on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the measures in place”. As a consequence, EMSA has developed a cost-efficiency assessment methodology for such type of analysis. Following the presentation on the cost-efficiency assessment methodology provided during the meeting held on 17th and 18th March 2016, the EMSA Administrative Board requested the Agency to test this type of analysis with a well-established directive, such as the Port State Control Directive (PSC) 2009/16/EC as amended, from which relevant data are already available from different information sources such as THETIS and a completed cycle of visits. The outcome of this pilot study is expected to be presented to the Administrative Board at its November meeting, thus allowing a better understanding of the cost-efficiency assessment within the context of visits to Member States and have a preliminary overview on the potential added value and possible outcome from this type of assessment. This pilot exercise will provide an overall comparative analysis of the costs incurred by Member States (with focus on human resources) when complying with the requirements of the PSC Directive (cost-effectiveness analysis) as part of the overall relevant cost-efficiency assessment. In order to carry out this exercise, EMSA has preliminarily carried out relevant data collection and pre-assessment analysis of the available information from both THETIS and EMSA visits reports so as to minimise the request of information. The replies to the questionnaire shall confirm and complement the information already available for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Some of the questions require just a confirmation of the data provided during the EMSA visits and/or from the THETIS data base. Other questions require additional information. Finally, open questions have been included as an opportunity for you to convey your expert opinion on the overall PSC system with a view to gather further valuable input for the purpose of this exercise. This questionnaire focuses on the following cost-effectiveness areas of interest:  Personnel Logistics  Training  PSC Inspection  Enforcement and Sanctions  Open Questions  Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 3 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED QUESTIONNAIRE All information should be forwarded in electronic form using the tables below. 1. Personnel Logistics This process considers the general commitments undertaken for complying with the main requirements of the Directive together with the necessary arrangements, activities and actions taken by Member States: Question 1.1 Having regard to the information in relation to the current number of port districts and the correspondent number of full time equivalent PSCOs as reported during the course of the EMSA visits to your Member State in October 2014; Could you confirm that the following figures correspond to the average number of full time equivalent PSCOs in the last five years? If not, could you please update the data? Definitions: A port district is taken to mean an individual port or the geographical area covered by an inspector or team of inspectors, comprising several individual ports where appropriate. The figures provided are based on the information provided by Member States where available as referred in Annex XIV of the PSC Directive. Where the inspections carried out in the context of port State control represent only part of the inspectors' work, the total number of inspectors must be converted to a number equivalent to full-time inspectors. Where the same inspector works in more than one port or geographical area the applicable part-time equivalent must be counted in each port. Full time equivalents are used to describe the involvement of each PSCO in PSC activities, for example: A full time PSCO with 100% of the working time related to PSC activities= 1 Full time Inspector. A part time PSCO with 20% of the working time related to PSC activities= 0.2 Full time inspector. Port District No. full-Time No. part-time Full Time Equivalent PSCOs inspectors Inspectors Tallin 0 7 4.1 Virumaa 0 1 0.76 Saaremaa 0 1 0.34  Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 4 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED Haapsalu 0 1 0.32 Total 0 10 5.52 Question 1.2 In the case where your Member State has more than one port district to which the different PSCOs are initially allocated; Do you include a daily mobility policy so that the PSCOs are eventually distributed according to the traffic and inspection demands by port district? Do you include a temporary (for a certain period of time, e.g. 3 months) mobility policy so that the PSCOs are eventually distributed according to the traffic and inspection demands by port district on specific days? Question 1.3 What is the average annual travelling time (hours) per PSCOs to reach the place of inspection from the official point of departure (as defined by your competent authority) and return? Please use the ranges provided below. <50h 51h-100h 101h-150h 151h-200h 201h-250h 251h-300h * If more than 300h please provide an appropriate range Example: Average PSCO travelling time per day of inspection=1 hour Number of inspection days per year= 100 inspection days Average PSCO travelling time per year=200 hours Is this travelling time included as part of the regular working hours? 2. Training Question 2.1 As part of the national PSC training scheme, could you provide the average number of annual training hours/per person provided to the new inspectors (without counting those provided at EMSA, by PMoU and via the DLP programme) in order to become authorised PSCOs? Please, differentiate between the number of theoretical training hours and the practical training hours (ship inspections). Question 2.2 As part of the national PSC training scheme, could you provide the average number of annual training hours/per person for the existing PSCOs (without counting those provided at EMSA, by PMoU and via the DLP programme)?  Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 5 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED 3. PSC inspection Question 3.1 Could you indicate the average number of man-hours spent in the different types of inspections? Please bear in mind that the number of man-hours refers to the actual number of hours spent on board. If the team consisted of more than one PSCO, the man-hours corresponds to the number of hours of the inspection multiplied by the number of PSCO involved. Please use the ranges below Initial inspections <2h 2h-4h 5h-7h 8h-10h 11h-13h 14h-16h >16h More Detailed <2h 2h-4h 5h-7h 8h-10h 11h-13h 14h-16h >16h inspections Expanded <2h 2h-4h 5h-7h 8h-10h 11h-13h 14h-16h >16h inspections Question 3.2 How many PSCOs are regularly involved for each expanded inspection? Question 3.3 What is the regular number of full time equivalent PSCOs on duty during weekends/holidays in your Member State? Question 3.4 Does the PSCO on duty have only a coordinating function or does this PSCO also perform regular PSC inspections during weekends/holidays? 4. Enforcement and Sanctions Could you confirm the following number of detentions per year as reported by your Question 4.1 Member State in TETHIS? Could you also indicate the total amount collected via the reimbursement of inspection costs for detained ships and the total No. of hours of detention from 2011 to 2015?  Doc. no. QCEA.1.00 Version: 1.0 Issue date: 17/05/2016 Section B.1.4 & B.3.1 Page: 6 of 6 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PILOT STUDY RELATING TO Title: DIRECTIVE 2009/16/EC AS AMENDED 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No. Detentions 1 1 1 0 0 Total No. of hours of Detention Total Amount of money collected Question 4.2 Could you confirm the number of lifted bans per year as reported by your Member State in TETHIS? Could you also indicate the total amount collected via the reimbursement of inspections costs for banned ships from 2011 to 2015? 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No. lifted bans 0 0 0 0 0 Total Amount of money collected Could you indicate the annual number of penalties applied from 2011 to 2015 as a Question 4.3 result of implementing and enforcing the PSC Directive, and the total amount of money collected? 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No. Penalties Total Amount of money collected 5. Open Questions Question 5.1 Could you indicate, in your opinion, which particular activities are most costly in relation to implementing and enforcing the PSC Directive? Question 5.2 Could you indicate, in your opinion, what measures or proposals could be implemented in order to improve the efficiency (relation between costs and effects) of the PSC inspection regime? EMSA Ref: B.1 ANM 2016 223676 4TEMSA European Maritime Safety Agency Estonian Maritime Administration Valge 4 11413Talinn Estonia [email protected] Letter sent via email only Lisbon, 2 7 MAYO 2016 Subject: Pilot Study on Cost-Effectiveness of Directive 2009/16/EC as amended (Port State Control Directive) Dear Sir/Madam, Within the context of visits to Member States and the task entrusted to EMSA in its Founding Regulation to carry out effectiveness and cost-efficiency analysis of the measures put in place, following the discussions held in this respect during the last meeting on 17"' and 18th March 2016, the EMSA Administrative Board has requested the Agency to carry out a pilot study on Cost- Effectiveness for a well-established Directive, the Port State Control Directive, from which considerable information is available, and from which Member States have extensive implementation and enforcement experience. As a starting point, and in order to avoid duplication of requests for data, EMSA has carried out data collection and pre-assessment analysis of the available information in relation to the PSC Directive, from both THETIS and EMSA visits reports. Following this pre-assessment, a simplified questionnaire has been generated in order to fine tune and complement the available data, in order to support the requested cost-effectiveness analysis for the PSC Directive. Some of the questions just require a confirmation of the data already in possession of EMSA, whilst other questions require the provision of additional information. We kindly ask your services to complete the attached questionnaire and return it to EMSA by 30 June 2016 (psc.cea(5)emsa.europa.eu). Your active contribution will be essential for the success of this pilot study. Yours sincerely, ;G^VV Manuela Tomassini Head of Department Safety and Standards Annex: Questionnaire for a pilot study on cost-eltecliveness - Directive 2009/16/EC of 23 April 2009, as amended, related to Port Slate Control ~ ''"" ~~"' ~~ -.-.---' Page 1 of 1 [email protected] Tel+351 21 1209 418/Fax+351 21 1209482 EMSA, Pra^a Europa 4, 1249-206 Lisbon, Portugal / emsa.europa.eu From: Keiu Leopard Sent: 6. juuni 2016 10:20 To: Airi Kontson Subject: FW: ESTONIA: PSC CEA Cover Letter and Questionnaire Attachments: 6 CN EE.pdf; PSC Pilot CEA Questionnaire Estonia.docx From: MAKOWSKA Anna (EMSA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 5:29 PM To: VA_eva <[email protected]> Cc: Rene Arikas <[email protected]>; Eha Urbas <[email protected]>; Karlis Goldstein <[email protected]>; TOMASSINI Manuela (EMSA) <[email protected]>; MIFSUD Mario (EMSA) <[email protected]>; CALCAGNO Guido (EMSA) <[email protected]>; QUINONES DELGADO Pablo (EMSA) <Pablo.QUINONES- [email protected]> Subject: ESTONIA: PSC CEA Cover Letter and Questionnaire On behalf of Ms Manuela Tomassini, Head of Department Safety and Standards. Dear Sir/Madam, Following the discussion held during the last EMSA Administrative Board meeting on 17-18 March 2016, please find attached a note and a questionnaire for the Pilot Study on Cost-Effectiveness in relation to Directive 2009/16/EC (Port State Control Directive). You will find all the instructions in the body of the Letter and the Questionnaire itself. Please kindly note that this correspondence will be sent via email only, therefore no hardcopy will follow. Kind regards, Anna Makowska Administrative Assistant Visits & Inspections EMSA / Pra?a Europa 4 / 1249-206 Lisbon / Portugal Tel +351 21 1209 291 / Fax +351 21 1209 215 [email protected] / emsa.europa.eu