Given that the season is in full swing, and the Adriatic is becoming busier and more challenging for safe navigation every day, we are republishing this text in order to further clarify the provisions of the new Regulations on Maritime Navigation Safety. Namely, in practice it has been shown that there is still a lack of understanding, especially when it comes to limiting moorings to a maximum of 50 meters from the shore. Since safety at sea is a priority for all of us, it is important to talk openly about the challenges that this regulation brings, but also about possible solutions that will preserve professional standards and the sustainability of the nautical sector.
The Croatian Skippers and Crew Members Association (CROSCA) also analyzed the provisions of the new Regulations on Maritime Navigation Safety and expressed support for the Croatian Association of Private Shipowners (HUPB). Both associations share a common interest in amending the disputed provisions of the Ordinance in order to protect professional standards, navigation safety, and the sustainability of the businesses of all stakeholders in the nautical sector.
The new Regulations on Maritime Navigation Safety, which have been in force since February this year, have brought significant changes to the everyday life of the nautical sector. Article 53, which for the first time regulates in detail anchoring and mooring along an unregulated coast, was particularly resounding, and in practice it opened up numerous questions and caused concern among professionals.
Vicko Ozretić, president of CROSCA, points out that it is precisely paragraphs 3. and 7. the most controversial of this article. “Paragraph 3 gives port authorities broad powers to independently determine bans or restrictions on anchoring and mooring, without clearly defined criteria and without the obligation to analyze possible consequences. Such a provision can lead to indiscriminate use of powers, often under public pressure, which creates legal uncertainty and additionally burdens port authorities,” warns Ozretić.
This kind of authority, he points out, could be useful in emergency situations, for example when announcing bad weather or at anchorages with a history of incidents, but only with clearly defined procedures and empirical evidence. “Instead, we now have a tool that can be used without accountability and transparency, which is not good for either safety or the reputation of Croatian nautical tourism,” adds Ozretić.
Paragraph 7
Even greater dissatisfaction was caused by paragraph 7, which stipulates that “vessels are prohibited from mooring along the shore in such a way that any part or accessory thereof is 50 or more meters away from the shore.” Ozretić points out that for larger vessels, safe mooring is often only possible at a greater distance, due to the length of the anchor chain and sea conditions. “This provision effectively prevents the proper anchoring of larger vessels. If you have to stay within 50 meters of the shore, you cannot ensure the proper release of the anchor chain. This leads to the ‘plowing’ of the anchor on the seabed and an increased risk of stranding, especially during sudden changes in the weather,” explains the president of CROSCA.
He also adds that the crowds will now increase at anchorages where vessels previously had space for safe mooring. “This creates new zones of insecurity, because ships do not have enough room to maneuver, which increases the risk of collisions and damage,” Ozretić points out.
In addition to safety challenges, the new Ordinance also brings additional problems for employees of port authorities, maritime police and coast guards, who, according to CROSCA, will be forced to spend time on non-violations, instead of dealing with serious safety incidents or preventive work.
Direct losses for the entire sector
Ozretić also reminds us of the broader context: “The possibility of mooring in natural bays was one of the main advantages of Croatian nautical tourism. Now, due to these restrictions, we are losing our competitive advantage compared to Greece and Turkey, where the rules are more flexible and adapted to safety requirements. A significant number of yachts could bypass Croatia, and this means direct economic losses for the entire sector.”
The associations propose reformulating the disputed provisions. Defining the distance from the coast according to the size of the vessel, clear criteria and procedure for bans, and mandatory impact analysis before new restrictions. “Safety at sea cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic regulation. A balance is needed between law and good maritime practice. Croatia must not become a destination where regulations are imposed without understanding the real needs and realities at sea,” concludes Ozretić.
The associations appeal for open dialogue and refinement of the controversial provisions of Article 53, in order to ensure a balance between safety, environmental protection and the sustainable development of Croatian nautical tourism.
