10 The European Maritime Safety Agency
| (32150)
15717/10
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(10) 611
| Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency
|
| Legal base | Article 100(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 28 October 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 November 2010
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 29 November 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
10.1 The major oil pollution caused by wreck of the
"Erika" in 1999 led to the adoption of Regulation (EC)
No 1406/2002,[47] setting
up a European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) as a technical body
with the aim of ensuring a uniform and effective level of maritime
safety and prevention of pollution by ships in the EU. Since its
adoption the Regulation has been modified three times. The first
modification concerned financial and budgetary procedures and
transparency.[48] The
second modification was in response to the "Prestige"
incident in 2002 and increased the Agency's responsibility in
regard to pollution preparedness and response. It also took account
of the development of EU competence in maritime security and tasked
the EMSA with greater responsibility in the field of training
of seafarers.[49]
The third modification gave the EMSA a multi-annual financial
framework of €154 million (£129 million) for pollution
response activities for the financial period 2007-2013.[50]
The document
10.2 The Commission presents
this draft Regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 to
clarify the existing tasks and roles of the EMSA and to extend
those tasks to new areas under development at the international
and/or EU level — it considers that the previous amendments
are not sufficient to address what it sees as new challenges on
the horizon for EMSA. The Commission proposes that:
· the
Agency's current objectives and tasks be maintained, but 14 new,
largely technical, tasks be added, primarily as a result of the
implementation of recent maritime safety legislation;
· the
EMSA should be more involved in EU maritime research, and in particular,
analysis of research projects and identifying areas of possible
regulatory follow-up;
· the
Agency could use its comprehensive technical knowledge to help
the Commission identify research actions
· the
EMSA's assistance to the Commission and to the Member States in
various international and regional organisations be amended to
ensure that the Commission and the Member States receive appropriate
technical advice;
· asserting
that certain operational services operated by the EMSA could contribute
more fully to other EU policies, having, for example, an integrated
approach to maritime surveillance under the integrated EU maritime
policy,[51] which would
bring together existing, "in development" or planned
surveillance systems and allow each to be interoperable with one
another;
· citing
the recent Gulf of Mexico oil disaster as evidence of the risks
of offshore oil operations to maritime transport and marine environment,
making a revision that would allow the Agency's response capabilities
to be available in all cases of marine pollution, not just that
caused by a ship, and that specifically targets offshore oil platforms;
· the
legal basis for technical cooperation with neighbouring countries
be made less restrictive, saying that only Norway and Iceland
are participating in the EMSA and that other countries which share
a regional sea with the EU have expressed an interest in technical
cooperation with EMSA in various fields; and
· changing
the Agency's role in respect of maritime security, by removing
direct reference to specific articles of Regulation(EC) No 725/2004,
on enhancing ship and port facility security, so as to allow the
EMSA greater flexibility when acting under that Regulation, but
whilst not exceeding the provisions of that Regulation.[52]
10.3 The draft Regulation is
accompanied by the Commission's impact assessment (and a summary
of that assessment). In the assessment the Commission:
· reviews
a number of options regarding the Regulation and is of the opinion
that the external evaluation of the EMSA's past and current performance
has confirmed the expected added value of the Agency to the Commission
and to the Member States regarding maritime safety, maritime security,
the prevention of pollution and the response to pollution caused
by ships;
· argues,
however, that a number of amendments are required that would clarify
the tasks and the governance of the Agency;
· highlights
what it sees as the potential added benefit the Agency could give
by undertaking the new tasks;
· says
that, whilst proposing alignment of certain parts of the text
with similar Regulations for other EU agencies, it has opted for
a limited modification of the governance arrangements —
preferring to leave questions of a horizontal nature (that is
those related to all EU agencies) to discussions between the EU
institutions;
· says
that the combined effect of the changes proposed would result
in an additional 18 staff posts to be phased in between 2012 and
2014, that a significant number of these posts should come from
internal redeployment of staff and that six posts will be so filled;
and
· says
that the overall budgetary costs for the period 2012-2015 are
estimated at €3.9 million (£3.3 million).
The Government's view
10.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State, Department for Transport, (Mike Penning) notes that
the Commission maintains that the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality are fully respected in the draft Regulation and
that the independent external evaluation confirmed the need for
EU intervention in order to assist Member States and the Commission
to attain the required level of maritime safety, maritime security
and protection of the marine environment within the EU. He comments
that, although the effectiveness of the Agency's activities has
been acknowledged, it is arguable, however, whether all the proposed
measures are absolutely necessary and that this is something that
will need to be addressed in negotiations.
10.5 Turning to the policy implications the Minister
tells us that:
· the
Government agrees that some elements of this proposal are sensible,
for example some amendments bring the wording into line with that
used in legislation for other EU agencies;
· it is,
however, cautious about any further amendment to the EMSA's founding
Regulation that results in a need to increase both its staff and
its expenditure;
· in terms
of staff numbers, the EMSA has increased in size by 40% over the
period 2008-2011, with the addition of 55 new posts — of
these, 32 were needed for new Long Range Identification and Tracking[53]
tasks;
· similarly
the budget has also been increasing — there is already a
proposed additional €3 million (£2.5 Million), or 6%,
increase in the Agency's 2011 budget over its 2010 budget, to
about €53 million (£44.4 million);
· the
budgetary impact of these proposals, estimated at an additional
€3.9 million (£3.3 million) over the period 2012 -2015,
will be on top of this;
· at present
the proposals have not been discussed in detail with officials
of Member States — a presentation was given at a maritime
working group on 21 October 2010 and at the EMSA Administrative
Board Meeting on 18 November 2010;
· advice
is being sought from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, whose
inspectors are responsible for undertaking tasks within the scope
of the Agency's objectives, to understand what impact the proposals
would have on their work;
· it is
proposed that, in line with Government policy on any increase
to the EU budget, those amendments that can be directly attributable
to an increase in budget and staffing numbers will be opposed;
· the
Government believes that a number of other Member States are also
concerned at the speed and the size of the proposed increases,
particularly when measured against the current global and eurozone
economic climate;
· the
Commission's own impact assessment makes clear that the duties
of the EMSA with regards to maritime security should not go beyond
the scope of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 — however, proposed
wording in two articles is ambiguous in this respect and could
be misinterpreted and the Government will press for this to be
rectified;
· the
Commission proposals to extend the EMSA's emergency response role
to cover all marine pollution, which would include offshore oil
platforms, and to allow the EMSA's response vessels to be used
to help out in an emergency is a pragmatic approach;
· but
the Government would oppose any proposed increase in these resources
for the purposes of carrying out these tasks —this is because
most coastal states already have robust emergency procedures in
place and are best placed to manage any such incidents in their
waters;
· it is
also arguable whether the EMSA has the necessary expertise in
these areas —which could mean that it would have to buy
this expertise in; and
· the
Commission has given little justification delete requirements
for the Agency's Executive Director to produce an annual report,
detailing the financial execution of the detailed plan for the
Agency's pollution preparedness and response activities and to
give an update of the status of all actions funded under that
plan, for the Commission and the Agency's Administrative Board
and for the Commission to submit this report to the European Parliament
for information — the Government feels for this loss of
financial scrutiny is not satisfactory given the current economic
climate.
10.6 On the financial implications
of the draft Regulation the Minister says that the Government
is preparing an impact assessment, which is expected to be available
early in the New Year.
Conclusion
10.7 We recognise that the
Government's consideration of this draft Regulation appears to
be at an early stage and that negotiations on it have not begun.
So before considering the matter further we should like to hear
about developments in the Government's thinking and in preliminary
negotiations, particularly on subsidiarity and proportionality,
the financial implications of the expanded role proposed for the
EMSA and the Government's impact assessment. Meanwhile the document
remains under scrutiny.
47 OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1. Back
48
Regulation (EC) No 1644/2003, OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 10. Back
49
Regulation (EC) No 724/2004, OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 1. Back
50
Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006, OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, p. 1 and corrigendum
in OJ L 30, 3.2.2007, p. 12. Back
51
(31028) 14365/09 + ADD 1: see HC 5-x (2009-10), chapter 12 (9
February 2010). Back
52
Regulation (EC) No 725/2004, OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6. Back
53
See http://www5.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=905.
Back
| 
