Page 1

Stockholm Agreement – Past, Present & Future (Part II)

Prof. Dracos Vassalos* & Prof. Apostolos Papanikolaou**
*The Ship Stability Research Centre, NAME, The Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, UK
**National Technical University of Athens, Ship Design Laboratory, Greece

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a succinct summary of the findings ensuing the undertaking of a dedicated EU-
funded research project aiming to address the impact of the Stockholm Agreement (SA) on the EU
Ro-Ro passenger ships. This is achieved by utilising the experience gained, the data and knowledge
accumulated through the adoption of the Stockholm Agreement in NW Europe to form the basis for
predicting the likely impact of introducing this Agreement to vessels operating in EU waters not
covered yet by it. The background, including a historical overview and a detailed introspective look
at the SA, together with an assessment of its impact on passenger Ro-Ro ships safety standards,
design and operation are presented in a companion paper (Part I) in June 2002 issue of MT.

INTRODUCTION

Concerted action to address the water-on-deck problem in the wake of the Estonia tragedy led IMO
to set up a panel of experts to consider the issues carefully and make suitable recommendations.
However, the complexity of the problem and the need to take swift action to reassure the public that
appropriate steps are taken to avoid a repeat of the Estonia disaster influenced to a large extent both
the initial and final proposals. Following considerable deliberations and debate (obviously
unresolved), a new requirement for damage stability has been agreed only among the northwestern
European Nations to account for the risk of accumulation of water on the Ro-Ro deck. This new
requirement, known as the Stockholm Agreement [1] demands that a vessel satisfies SOLAS ‘90
requirements (allowing only for minor relaxation) with, in addition, water on deck by considering a
constant height calculated as shown in Figure 1. The term Hs, characterising the operational sea
state, pertains to the average of one-third highest waves (significant wave height, typically of un
undeveloped sea – hence narrow banded), a statistical average correlating very well with the
average of observed wave heights for a given sea state.

The dates of compliance with the provisions of the agreement range from April 1, 1997 to October
1, 2002. However, in view of the uncertainties in the current state of knowledge concerning the
ability of a vessel to survive damage in a given sea state, an alternative route has also been allowed
which provides a non-prescriptive way of ensuring compliance, through the “Equivalence” route, by
performing experiments in accordance with the SOLAS ’95 Resolution 14, [2].

Deriving from the above, numerical simulation models developed on the basis of systematic
research over the past 15 years, [3] and capable of predicting with good engineering accuracy the
capsizal resistance of a damaged ship, of any type and compartmentation, in a realistic environment
whilst accounting for progressive flooding were also used, offering the ferry industry the attractive
possibility of utilising such “tools” to assess the damage survivability of ferry safety, the so called
“Numerical Equivalence” route. Numerical simulation readily allows for a systematic identification
of the most cost-effective and survivability-effective solutions to improving ferry safety and hence
offers a means for overcoming the deficiency of the physical model tests route in searching for
optimum solutions and an indispensable “tool” for the planning and undertaking of such tests.

November 2001
 Page 2

Height 0.5
of Water
on Deck
Hs=4.0 m

Hs=operational

0.0 Hs=1.5 m
0.3 2.0
Residual Freeboard

Figure 1: Stockholm Agreement (Height of water on Deck)

October 1 2001 has therefore marked the beginning of the final year of the period initially allowed
for compliance with the Stockholm Agreement (SA) requirements, a period during which almost
80% of the Ro-Ro fleet in North West Europe has been subjected to calculations, model testing and
numerical simulations on the way to meeting the new requirements pertinent to the Agreement. The
experience gained has been invaluable in understanding better the problem at hand and is being
utilised to shape new developments for future Ro-Ro designs. All relevant details are presented in a
critical overview of Stockholm Agreement from its inception to its implementation and ensuing
impact in a companion paper (Part I) in the June 2002 issue of MT.

The North-South divide, however, continues to cause unrest, particularly at European level. Efforts
to assess the status quo in North West Europe and use the information amassed so far as a means to
predicting the potential impact of introducing the SA in the South, led to a dedicated call by the
Commission and to a contract being awarded to two closely collaborating research teams in the
North and South Europe, one at the Ship Stability Research Centre of the Universities of Glasgow
and Strathclyde and the other at the Ship Design Laboratory of the National Technical University of
Athens. This study was finalised in March 2001 and a detailed technical report produced,
describing comprehensively all the work undertaken, a brief account of which is presented here
following an outline description of the background and aims of the study and of the methodology
adopted in completing this work.

THE SSRC-NTUA COMMISSION STUDY

Background and Aims of the Study

At the conclusion of the second Stockholm Conference at which the Agreement was adopted, the
Commission services issued a statement, taking note of the Agreement concluded and expressing
the opinion that the same level of safety should be ensured for all Ro-Ro passenger ferries operating
in similar conditions. Noting that the Agreement is not applicable to other parts of the European
Union, the Commission announced its intention to examine the prevailing local conditions,
environmental and operational, under which Ro-Ro passenger ferries sail in all European waters and

November 2001
 Page 3

that this examination will include the extent and effect of the application of the Agreement in the
region covered by it. The statement concluded that in light of this examination the Commission
would make a decision with regard to the need for further initiatives and this statement was
confirmed at subsequent meetings of the Council highlighting the need to ensure the same level of
safety for all Ro-Ro ferries operating in similar conditions was more precisely defined by referring
to both international and domestic voyages.

Furthermore, in its latest proposal for Community legislation governing the safety of Ro-Ro
passenger ships, the Commission included a draft provision that Ro-Ro ferries shall fulfil the
specific stability requirements adopted at regional level, when operating in the region governed by
such regional rules. This proposal was endorsed by the Council with a number of adaptations to
clarify that host States shall check that Ro-Ro ferries “comply with specific stability requirements
adapted at regional level, and transposed into their national legislation,….provided those
requirements do not exceed those specified in the Annex of Resolution 14 (Stability Requirements
Pertaining to the Agreement) of the 1995 SOLAS Conference and have been notified to the
Secretary-General of the IMO, in accordance with the procedures specified in point 3 of that
resolution.”

Taking fully into account the above elements, the Commission invited tenders to a study to examine
the extent and effect of the application of the Stockholm Agreement concerning specific stability
requirements for Ro-Ro passenger ships, and the suitability of extending its scope to European
waters not covered by it. The contract to undertake this study was awarded to the NAME-
SSRC/NTUA-SDL partnership. More specifically, the overall aim of the study was to assess the
impact of the Stockholm Agreement on European Ro-Ro passenger ships by targeting the following
two objectives:

A. Impact assessment on the extent and the effect of the application of the Stockholm Agreement
concerning specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro passenger ships in the area covered by it.

B. Impact assessment on the extent and the effect of the application of the Stockholm Agreement
concerning specific stability requirements for Ro-Ro passenger ships in European waters not
covered by it.

Proposed Methodology

The methodology adopted in completing this work is shown in Figure 2, explaining for each of the
two distinct areas A and B the scope and approach to be followed to attain the results sought. The
study took one year to complete and produced two comprehensive technical reports addressing each
one of the two areas separately, [4], [5]. The key findings of this work are summarised here for
areas A and B respectively, following the format of the adopted methodology.

November 2001

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF STOCKHOLM AGREEMENT METHODOLOGY
AREA COVERED BY SA
A B
Scope: Comparative analysis of National
Legislation, particularly w.r.t. Article
5(2) of the SA and one-compartment
ships.
Approach: DGVII, DGIII and National
Maritime Administrations. A(a)
Scope: Inventory of Ro-Ro passenger
vessels, categorised by A/Amax and Hs.
Approach: Publications from UK and
Swedish Administrations covering North
Sea and Baltic Sea, respectively.
A(b)
Scope: Inventory of all Ro-Ro
upgradings to comply with SA by
31/12/99 and associated costs.
Approach: National Maritime
Administrations and collaborating ferry
operators. A(c)
Scope: Establish average compliance
cost per vessel as a function of Hs for
each A/Amax category.
Approach: Databases of SSRC and
NTUA-SDL and use of in-house know
how and expertise. A(d)
Scope: Assessment of overall cost, for
compliance with SA by 31/12/2002 latest,
of all ships in A(b).
Approach: Use of average costs together
with known trends and information based
on upgradings and studies done so far.
A(e)
Figure 2: Adopted Methodology for the SA Study
Page 4
EU WATERS NOT COVERED BY SA
Scope: Survey of prevailing sea conditions
and safety-critical local conditions, similar
to those found in areas covered by SA.
Approach: MEDGROUP study validated
with Met Offices data and public domain
data on shipping statistics. B(a)
Scope: Inventory of Ro-Ro passenger
vessels operating in safety-critical areas
and collection of relevant technical details.
Approach: National Maritime
Administrations, Flag States and
collaborating ferry operators. B(b)
Scope: Establish which ships need to be
upgraded to comply with SA and the
extent of modifications.
Approach: Use established trends of costs
as a function of A/Amax and Hs and know
how deriving from previous upgradings.
B(c)
Scope: Assessment of overall costs for
compliance with SA of all ships in B(b).
Approach: Use of average costs together with
known trends and information based on
upgradings and studies done so far.
B(d)
Scope: Establish the time required to
execute the necessary modifications in EU
yards.
Approach: Information from EUROYARDS
and collaborating ferry operators.
B(e)
November 2001
 Page 5

AREA COVERED BY THE STOCKHOLM AGREEMENT

Key Findings

As shown in Figure 2, the study comprises five tasks, each forming part of the methodology
adopted as explained therein and summarised here below:

Comparative Analysis of National Legislation A(a): The National Legislations of the counties
being parties to the SA were elaborated upon, aiming to: ascertain if the application of the SA is
extended to Ro-Ro passenger ships entitled to fly the flag of States non-parties to the Agreement;
assess the extent to which parties to the SA are bringing one-compartment Ro-Ro passenger ships in
compliance with technical requirements of the SA as a matter of priority; identify if Contracting
Governments to the SA apply earlier implementation dates than those specified in Annex 2 to the
Agreement for ships trading between their ports.

The main results from task A(a) showed that, in the main, all countries affected by the SA have
applied it without alterations. Exceptions to this are the UK and Norway. In the first case, it is
interesting to note that the UK also applies the Stockholm Agreement requirements to Ro-Ro
passenger ships operating on comparable domestic seagoing routes (Class II(A)). In addition the
UK decided that every ship to which the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 1996
apply in so far as it implements Chapter 2 Part B of the High-Speed Code shall comply with the
requirements of the Agreement relating to specific stability standards. In the second case, the
Stockholm Agreement requirements apply to any Ro-Ro passenger ship to which SOLAS apply.
As a result, every Norwegian Ro-Ro passenger ship should comply with the requirements of the SA
on any voyage whether or not it is within the geographical area of the SA. Furthermore, additional
requirements apply on the design of deck barriers. In all cases, no pertinent information can be
discerned addressing specifically issues pertaining to bringing either one- or two-compartment
vessels in compliance earlier than the compliance dates specified in Annex 2 to the Agreement.
Also, it is to be noted that France is the only EU country, which whereas it is not one of the
signatories of the Agreement, it is partly affected by the latter, taking into account that a large
number of French vessels operating in the channel were to be modified to comply with SA
requirements.

Inventory of Passenger Ro-Ro Vessels A(b): General information on Ro-Ro Passenger ships was
collated, along with relevant technical data, including information on compliance with relevant
stability standards. The vessels were categorised by A/Amax and operational Hs. A comparison
between the databases corresponding to North EU (NEU) and South EU (SEU), respectively, led to
the following conclusions: the NEU fleet is generally younger (Figure 3) and has on the whole
higher stability standards than the SEU (Figure 4); it is also shown that the value of A/Amax of the
North European fleet has risen considerably during the last five years, as a result of about 30% of
the relevant vessels having already been upgraded to SOLAS ‘90 and to Stockholm Agreement
standards by the beginning of the year 2000; by contrast, operational significant wave heights
values are generally evenly distributed throughout the EU fleet and are marginally higher in NEU
than the SEU (Figure 5, to be contrasted against Figure 10). As a general comment, it has been
noted that the experimental route to compliance with the Stockholm Agreement is normally
preferred (77% experimental route to 23% calculation route based on 79 upgraded vessels), since
opting for this alternative enables ship owners to obtain a margin on the attained Hs for their
vessels, without increasing the complexity or cost of the upgrading. This margin is particularly
valuable to ship owners, as it is likely to influence positively the resale value of their vessels.

November 2001
 Page 6

Inventory of Passenger Ro-Ro Vessels Upgrading and Related Costs A(c): A comprehensive
inventory was undertaken of the technical modifications and adaptations carried out to all ferries,
which had to comply with the SA by 31/12/99 or earlier, and of the associated costs. This part of
the study showed that although a large number of the ships affected by SOLAS ‘90 and SA need
major modifications in order to comply with these stability standards (80% major, 13% minor and
7% none based on 61 vessels), a good part of these is due to the specific requirements related to
SOLAS ’90 standard. Although this is not necessarily the case if larger values of operational Hs
need to be attained, in practice this indicates that the main effect of the SA in the NEU has been to
accelerate the schedule of compliance with SOLAS ‘90 requirements.

Distributions of major and minor modifications are shown in Figure 6 whilst the cost distribution is
presented in Figure 7, this varying from €60k to €5.5M with an average of €2.1M per vessel, based
on 58 vessels.

Average SA Compliance Cost for NEU Ro-Ro Vessels A(d): Studies aiming to establish average
compliance cost per vessel as a function of the operational sea state and A/Amax category for a
given vessel were undertaken, based on the experience accumulated by the application of the SA in
the NEU. Statistical trends in this respect were established, which provided a useful input for
evaluating the extent of modifications required by the SEU fleet. The results of this task (Figure 8),
showed that: in the NEU there are comparatively more ships belonging to the lower upgrading cost
brackets than to the higher ones; there is good correlation between average overall cost of
upgrading and GDP per capita (GDP per capita referring to the country in which the ship was
upgraded or – in absence of this information – the country where the ship operates from); cost of
upgrading and A/Amax values are well correlated and since there is good correlation between age
and A/Amax, it is reasonable to use the first as an indicator of a ship stability standard, all other
data being unavailable; the variation of cost of modification with ship size is generally best
represented by a logarithmic law, GT seemingly giving the best fit to the data available; it is
virtually impossible to detect a trend of variation of cost of modification versus significant wave
height. It is to be noted that since the sample data available for achieving this task was limited, the
regression linking the cost of upgrading to GT and A/Amax implied an unacceptably large error.
For this reason, this analysis was repeated and verified in greater detail, as explained next.

Assessment of Overall SA Compliance Cost for NEU Ro-Ro Vessels A(e): In this task it has been
attempted to further demonstrate and better quantify the link between upgrading cost and relevant
parameters such as A/Amax and GT, continuing from the results presented in A(d) by using a
sample representing about 70% of the NEU fleet that needs to comply with the SA. On this basis,
statistical trends were established, representative of the present status of the implementation of SA
in the NEU, to be used for estimating on the whole the possible effect of introducing the SA to
SEU. Furthermore, an estimate of the cost of the modifications still required to complete the SA
upgrading in NEU was provided. In general this part of the project corroborate all the findings of
part A(d), offering a better regression formula linking A/Amax and GT to overall cost of upgrading
(Figure 9). Moreover, a detailed analysis of the cost of each type of modification has also been
attempted, leading to similar results in terms of overall cost of modifications per ship. On the basis
of this analysis and estimating that about 28 vessels were still undergoing upgrading in the NEU,
the total cost of the outstanding upgrading was calculated to be approximately €11.7M. This raised
the total cost of upgrading of the NEU fleet to about €85M, with 36% of the fleet not requiring any
upgrading and about 69% of the vessels having been upgraded for less than €1.0M.

November 2001
 Page 7

EU WATERS NOT COVERED BY THE STOCKHOLM AGREEMENT

Key Findings

As shown in Figure 2, the study comprises five tasks, each forming part of the methodology
adopted as explained therein and summarised here below:

Survey of Prevailing Sea Conditions and Safety-Critical Local Conditions B(a): The prevailing sea
conditions and other safety-critical local conditions in SEU geographical areas not covered yet by
the SA were investigated. The wave heights were determined following two alternative, yet
essentially complementary, approaches. In the first approach the main ferry routes between ports
involving at least one SEU state were analysed. In the second approach, whole geographical
regions have been associated with characteristic wave height values. Results of this study show
(Figure 10) that relevant significant wave heights (Hs) in the Mediterranean are generally lower
than 3.0m, with the exception of the region west of the island of Corsica where the obtained Hs was
approximately 3.25m. However, larger wave heights, even exceeding 4.0m, were noted in the
Atlantic routes to Madeira and the Azores. Concerning other, possibly safety-critical local
conditions, such as wind, air and sea surface temperatures, visibility, traffic densities and other
similar conditions it can be concluded, based on the collected data, that the local sea conditions are
less safety-critical, when compared to the corresponding conditions in NEU waters, due to the
higher average air and sea surface temperatures and the generally less significant traffic densities in
the pertinent local areas.

Inventory of Passenger Ro-Ro Vessels in SEU Waters B(b): A comprehensive inventory was
undertaken of Ro-Ro passenger vessels operating in SEU, along with relevant technical data,
including information on compliance with relevant stability standards. The vessels were
categorized by means of a variety of technical, stability sensitive characteristics and economic
indicators. It is to be noted that since information on A/Amax values for several registered vessels
was very limited (not available or not reliable), the relevant analysis was mainly based on the
stability standard of compliance, thus providing indirectly an indication of the actual A/Amax
values of the vessels under consideration. Results are shown in Figures 3 and 4, where they are
contrasted against results from NEU vessels.

Ships to be upgraded to Comply with SA B(c): The scope of this task was to establish which of the
ships that operate in SEU would need to be upgraded to comply with the provisions of The SA and
the possible extent of required modifications. Based on the inventory of the ships under
investigation (Task B(b)), their current stability standard of compliance, area of operation (Task
B(a)) and corresponding A/Amax values, the results provided a categorisation of the affected ships
according to their current stability standards of compliance, relevant A/Amax values and year of
built or major modification. On this basis, it was established which ships need to be upgraded in
order to comply with the SA, the extent of the required modifications in relation to relevant
provisions of the SOLAS regulations and the expected dates of compliance (if formally the
requirements of the presently valid SOLAS ’90–2 compartment standard are met independently of a
possible extension of the provisions of the SA to EU regions not covered by it), (Figure 11). Based
on the technical characteristics and the area of operation of the affected ships it was concluded that
the techno-economic effort to upgrade these ships to SOLAS ‘90, 2-compartment standard, would
not deviate much from the effort required to ensure compliance with the provisions of the SA.

November 2001
 Page 8

Assessment of Overall Cost of SEU Vessels for Compliance with SA B(d): The objective of this
task was to assess the costs associated with the necessary modifications of SEU Ro-Ro passenger
ships, identified and analysed under B(b) and B(c), for compliance with stability requirements
similar to those of the SA. Taking into account that SEU Ro-Ro passenger ships are generally
operating in waters of comparably lower Hs and also available scientific evidence indicating that
ships complying with the SOLAS ‘90 standard will survive SOLAS damages of at least 2.5m Hs, as
derived from model tests according to the “Equivalent Model Test Procedure” of Resolution 14,
SOLAS ‘95, it has been concluded that the modification cost of SEU ships for compliance with the
provisions of the SA will be approximately the same as the associated cost for compliance with the
requirements of the SOLAS ‘90 2-compartment standard. Based on the results of a detailed cost
analysis of modifications for the NEU ships (task A(e)) and the derived regression formulae therein,
the A/Amax values and GT values of the inventory ships and the GDP of the flag state, the itemised
cost/ship as well as the overall cost for the SEU ships has been deduced. Based on this, the total
modification for the whole SEU fleet (264 ships) is estimated to range between a minimum of
€106M and a maximum of €250M. It is to be noted that these estimates do not consider the
possible removal from service of aged SEU ships, which is to be expected since it might prove
economically more advantageous for ship owners to replace some of these ships with new buildings
instead of undertaking onerous extensive modifications.

Assessment of Modification Time for Compliance of SEU Vessels with SA B(e): The objective of
this task was to assess the time required to execute the necessary modifications for the affected SEU
ships, identified and analysed under B(b), B(c) and B(d), considering the capacity of European
shipyards, anticipated delivery times and the need to ensure continuity of service. Taking into
account the fact that the process of upgrading the affected ships is not a continuous function of time
and that the relevant shipping companies will rather choose to wait until it is absolutely necessary to
modify ships, it is concluded that the time required for the modifications will be strictly following
the ‘phase in’ procedure for compliance with the provisions of Stockholm Agreement, to be decided
by the European Council. Therefore, the present task has been based on the assumption of an
accelerated compliance schedule for the affected SEU ships with the full provisions of SOLAS ‘90
(Reg. 8-1 and Reg. 8-2) based on the deduction outlined in B(d) above. The assumed time schedule,
ranging from 1 October 2002 for ships with lower values of A/Amax, to 1 October 2005 for those in
the highest A/Amax category, appears feasible in all respects, as this compliance schedule does not
deviate from the existing compliance with Regulation 1 of SOLAS ‘90 (provisions for one
compartment standard compliance). More importantly, this holds true for the large majority of
existing vessels (78.1%, 235 out of 301 existing ships), whereas for the remaining ships already
complying with Regulation 1, SOLAS ‘90 (21.9%, 66 out of 301 ships) the impact is considered to
be less severe and feasible within the set accelerated time schedule. From the point of view of
availability and capacity of European shipyards in order to accomplish the requested modifications
and the seamless continuation of service, it can be concluded that, since the time schedule for
compliance with the provisions of SOLAS ‘90 is practically unchanged, no additional negative
effects would result from the introduction of Stockholm Agreement in SEU. However, the
feasibility of the first compliance date being 1 October 2002 would need to be critically examined,
considering that 59% of the ships identified for upgrading would be affected.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The North-South divide concerning safety of Ro-Ro passenger ships continues to trouble shippers
and regulators alike and a way forward is actively being sought. Serving this need, an SSRC-
NTUA partnership has undertaken on behalf of the European Commission a study to assess the

November 2001
 Page 9

impact of the Stockholm Agreement on the areas covered by it with the view to evaluating the
likely impact of introducing it to areas not covered by it. This introspection on the Stockholm
Agreement led to the following key conclusions:

• SOLAS ’90 ships appear to be capable of surviving sea states at least 2.5m Hs and that
SOLAS ’90 is a “good” standard reflecting meaningfully the safety of Ro-Ro vessels.

• The Stockholm Agreement appears to be unrealistically stringent, in general demanding levels

of safety well beyond those determined through performance-based methods and, at times,
simply unattainable.

• Considering that a SOLAS ’90 ship survives 2.5 m Hs and accounting for the comparative
lower Hs distribution in South European waters, it would appear that the upgrading cost to
Stockholm Agreement would not be dissimilar to the cost and time for upgrading to SOLAS
’90 2-compartment standard.

• Projections based on the upgrading experience and incurred costs in North Europe reveal that
the estimated overall cost of upgrading the South European fleet would be between €106M
and €250M.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the European Commission DG Transport for the
financial support of the research described in this paper under Contract No. B99-B2702010-
SI2.144738. The work was undertaken by two collaborating teams: the Ship Stability Research
Centre team of the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, comprising Prof. D. Vassalos, Dr. O.
Turan, Dr. L. Letizia and Dr. D. Konovessis; the Ship Design Laboratory team of the National
Technical University of Athens, comprising Prof. A. Papanikolaou, Ass. Prof. K. Spyrou, Ms E.
Eliopoulou and Ms A. Alissafaki.

REFERENCES

[1] IMO Resolution 14, “Regional Agreements on Specific Stability Requirements for Ro-Ro
Passenger Ships” – (Annex: Stability Requirements Pertaining to the Agreement), adopted on
29 November 1995.
[2] IMO Resolution 14, “Regional Agreements on Specific Stability Requirements for Ro-Ro
Passenger Ships” – (Appendix: Model test method), adopted on 29 November 1995.
[3] Vassalos, D, Pawlowski, M and Turan, O, “A Theoretical Investigation on the Capsizal
Resistance of Passenger/Ro-Ro Vessels and Proposal of Survival Criteria”, Final Report, The
Joint North West European Project, University of Strathclyde, Department of Ship and
Marine Technology, March 1996.
[4] D. Vassalos, O. Turan, L. Letizia and D. Konovessis, “Impact Assessment of Stockholm
Agreement on EU Ro-Ro Passenger Vessels Covered by it”, (B99-B2702010-SI2.144738),
Final Report Part I, NAME-SSRC, March 2001.
[5] A. Papanikolaou, K. Spyrou, E. Eliopoulou and A. Alissafaki, “Impact Assessment of
Stockholm Agreement on EU Ro-Ro Passenger Vessels not Covered by it”, (B99-B2702010-
SI2.144738), Final Report Part II, NTUA-SDL, March 2001.

November 2001
 Page 10

Others Bahamas/Bermuda
Period 1961-1970 8% 7%
Denmark
13%
After 1991 6% UK
17%
28% Estonia
4%

Period 1971-1980
36%

Finland
Sweden 10%
10%
France
Norway Germany 4%
Period 1981-1990 10% Netherlands Lituania Italy Ireland 5%
5% 3% 2%
2%
30%

(NEU - 286 sampled vessels) (NEU - 295 sampled vessels)

Tunisia Canary Islands

Croatia 0% 6%
2%
After 1991 Period 1961-1970 Bahamas Cyprus
Spain Spain (Crs)
21% 22% 1% 5% France
6% 1%
4%

Portugal (Mar)
Panama 2%
Hellas
1%
34%

Period 1981-1990 Malta

14% 2%

Period 1971-1980 36%

43%
Italy

(SEU - 302 sampled vessels) (SEU - 302 sampled vessels)

Figure 3a: Distribution of Year of Built Figure 3b: Current Flag Distribution

November 2001
 Page 11

A.265
9%
SOLAS 60
2%

SOLAS 74
22%

NEU-Original A/Amax NEU-Current A/Amax SEU-A/Amax

1.05

1.00
SOLAS 90
67% 0.95

0.90

A/Amax
(NEU - 128 sampled vessels)
0.85
A. 265 SOLAS 60
5% 4% 0.80

0.75

0.70
SOLAS 74
35% 0.65

103
109
115
121
127
133
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
1
7
SOLAS 90/92
54%

SOLAS 88
2%
(SEU - 85 sampled vessels)

Figure 4a: Compliance with SOLAS Regulations Figure 4b: Distribution of A/Amax

November 2001
 Page 12

Figure 5: Distribution of Hs is NEU

November 2001
 Page 13

SIDE CASINGS BUOYANCY TANKS MAKING ROOMS WT

CROSS-FLOODING ARG HEELING TANKS
9% 7%
6% 4% BELOW CD
STERN BOXES INFLOODING VALVES
1%
0% 1%
ADDITIONAL SUBD.
BALLAST TANKS
SUBDIVISIONS 14%
0%
12% TRANSVERSE BUOYANCY TANKS
DOORS 15% FW TANKS
0%
46%
B/5 BULKHEADS
4%

TANK RE-ARRANGEMENT
CENTRE CAS. On CD
10%
2%
SPONSONS/DUCKTAIL
STABILISING TANKS
0%
32% MAKING ROOMS WT ON
CD SMALL SIDE CASINGS
30% 7%

Figure 6a: Distribution of Major Modifications (NEU - 49 vessels) Figure 6b: Distribution of Minor Modifications (NEU - 53 vessels)
6000

5000
Overall Cost (kEURO)

4000

3000

2000

Average Overall Cost = €1335

1000

0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
Ship sample

Figure 7: Distribution of Overall Cost of Upgrading (NEU – 58 sampled vessels)

November 2001
 Page 14

(NEU - 58 sampled vessels) All Ships (South and North)

4500 120
Average Overall Cost of Modifications 1.05
4000 AOC/GDP

100 1.00
3500
0.95
3000 80 0.90

A/Amax
Cost (kEURO)

AOC/GDP
2500 0.85
60
2000
0.80
0.75
1500 40
0.70 y = -0.0037x + 1.006
1000 2
20 0.65 R = 0.4924
500
0.60
0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
UK France Netherlands Finland Sweden Norway Denmark
Age

Figure 8a: Cost and Normalised Cost Distribution with Country Figure 8b: A/Amax Vs. Vessel Age
6000 Cost A/Amax Log. (A/Amax) Log. (Cost)

6000 1.200
y = 0.0614Ln(x) + 0.7659
5000 R2 = 0.9503

5000
1.000
4000
Overall Cost (kEURO)

4000

Overall Cost (kEURO)

y = 828.35Ln(x) - 6747.6
2
0.800
R = 0.2092
3000
3000

A/Amax
y = -694.24Ln(x) + 3403
R2 = 0.1917
0.600
2000
2000

0.400
1000 1000

0.200
0 0

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-1000 0.000
-1000
GT (tonnes)
Ship sample (NEU - 40 sampled vessels)

Figure 8c: Cost of Upgrading Vs. GT (NEU - 40 sampled vessels) Figure 8c: Cost of Upgrading and A/Amax Distribution

November 2001
 Page 15

Rationalised Overall Cost (Keuro)

5000
y = 0.0195x + 212.4
4500
2
R = 0.6662
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000

500
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000

GDP Per Capita*GT*(1-Orig. A/Amax)

Figure 9: Rationalised Overall Cost of Upgrading vs. GDP*GT*(1-A/Amax) (NEU - 84 sampled vessels)

November 2001
 Page 16

2.50
2.25
1.75

4.25 2.25 2.0m

3.25 2.5m
2.50 2.75
3m 2.5m
3.75
1.75 2.75

Figure 10: Distribution of Hs in SEU

November 2001
 Page 17

Regulation 8-1 Regulation 8-1 Regulation 8-2

Compliance of 2-comp std ships Compliance conditionally Compliance conditionally (Reg. 8-1)

Oct 1998 Oct 1998 Oct 2000

Oct 2002 Oct 2012
8% 0%
8% Oct 2004 14% 3%
Oct 2005 0%
Oct 2000 Oct 2005
32%
Oct 2000 38% Oct 2005 Oct 2010
24%
30% 0% 34%

Oct 2006
Oct 2004 35%
Oct 2002 11% Oct 2002 Oct 2004
19% Oct 2008
19% 11% 14%

Figure 11a: Ships with Recorded A/Amax Values (37 2-compartment standard ships out of 54 with conditional compliance)

Regulation 8-1 (simulated ships) Regulation 8-1 (simulated ships) Regulation 8-2 (simulated ships)
Compliance of 2-comp std ships Compliance conditionally Compliance conditionally (Reg. 8-1)

Oct 2000 Oct 2004 Oct 2002 Oct 2012

Oct 2005 Oct 2005
Oct 2004 5% 0% 4% 3%
3% 16% Oct 2011
Oct 2000 14% Oct 2005
2%
31% 0%
Oct 2004
Oct 2010
14% 23%
Oct 2006
43%
Oct 2002 Oct 2002 Oct 2008
52% 65% 25%

Figure 11b: Ships with Simulated A/Amax Values (101 2-compartment standard ships out of 148 with conditional compliance)

November 2001
 Page 18

GDP per capita, in kEURO

source: Eurostat

25 21.395 20.449
16.953
20 15.111
14.277
15

10

0
Greece Spain France Italy Portugal

Figure 12a: GDP per Country in SEU

South European Ro-Ro Passenger Fleet

Overall cost of upgrading

2000
1800
Overall Cost, in kEURO

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Figure 12b: Overall Cost of Upgrading = 0.0195*(GDP Per Capita *GT*(1- A/Amax))+212.4±610.2

November 2001