EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.7.2018 SWD(2018) 394 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 911/2014 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to marine pollution caused by ships and oil and gas installations {COM(2018) 564 final}



Table of contents 1.Introduction Purpose and scope 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of Play Description of the current situation 4.Method Short description of methodology Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 6.Conclusions



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AIS Automatic Identification System EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency CSN CleanSeaNet EODC Earth Observation Data Centre MAF Multi Annual Framework SSN SafeSeaNet EAS Equipment Assistance service VOO Vessel of Opportunity NRT Near real Time SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar HELCOM Helsinki Commission REMPEC Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Center for the Mediterranean Sea MPV Multi-purpose Vessel OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel VAC Vessel Availability Contract POLREP Pollution Report POLWARN Pollution Warning POLINF Pollution Information CECIS MP Common Emergency Communication and Information System for Marnie Pollution APM Anti-pollution Measures CAAR Consolidated Annual Activity Report Cefic European Chemical Industry Federation MAR ICE Maritime Incident Chemical Emergency HNS Hazardous and Noxious Substances MAR CIS Maritime Chemicals Information Sheets DUET Dispersant Usage Evaluation Tool SPD Single Programming Document 1.Introduction

Purpose and scope The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the European Maritime Safety Agency's (EMSA) measures to respond to marine pollution caused by ships and oil and gas installations as covered by Regulation (EU) No 911/2014. The Commission has the legal obligation to carry out a mid-term evaluation and to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report no later than 31 December 2017. The report covers the period between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016 and it presents an evaluation of the Agency’s ability to fulfil its responsibilities in an effective and cost-efficient manner in EU waters and beyond in relation to third countries sharing a seabasin with the Union. The evaluation assesses: ·the relevance of EMSA's measures to respond to pollution and whether these measures address current pollution risks and pollution response needs. In this regard the utility of the action is being looked at (to what extent different stakeholders' groups are being satisfied). ·the effectiveness of EMSA's measures to detect and respond to pollution and how effective was the use by EMSA of the Union contribution ·the efficiency of EMSA's measures to respond to pollution and of the use by EMSA of the Union contribution and whether the costs were proportionate to the benefits, notably through a quantitative assessment of actual costs and benefits of the Network of Stand-by Oil Spill Response Vessels ·the coherence of EMSA's measures to respond to pollution with other EU intervention means such as the Union Civil Protection Mechanism ·the EU added value of EMSA's measures to respond to pollution compared to interventions at regional (in particular those of regional agreements and organisation) or national levels by public authorities or the private sector. In this regard the complementarity of the intervention is being looked at. The results of this report will be used by the Commission and the Administrative Board of EMSA to discuss any relevant reorientation regarding the allocation of resources and the activities within the annual and multiannual programming exercise of the Agency. In the medium term, this report will also feed in the discussions regarding the future EU multiannual Financial Framework post 2020 and the related Commission proposal. 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives The marine environment, European coasts and European citizens have been affected by major oil spills on a regular basis. Tankers such as the Torrey Canyon (1967), Amoco Cadiz (1978), Erika (1999) and Prestige (2002), to name just a few, are in everybody's memories. Deepwater Horizon came as a sharp reminder of the major risks associated with oil and gas installations and exploratory oil drilling. The raised awareness of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of oil spills has been one of the driving forces in the evolution of preparedness and response structures in Member States and industry. As a result, contingencies for ship/installation-sourced pollution should be ready and able to mitigate the potential damage. In the aftermath of the Prestige disaster which highlighted the existing shortage of at sea oil recovery capacity in Europe at the time, the EU decided to set up a top-up capacity at EU level to help coastal States around Europe to respond quickly, effectively and efficiently to a major oil spill. EMSA was mandated in 2004 to provide this top-up capacity to Member States. It should not substitute national capacities (either at national level or at regional level) but provide the necessary additional capacities in case of a major incident. The initial framework for the creation of additional response capacity to assist Member States upon request in case of large oil spills was described in EMSA’s Action Plan for Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response . Consequently, the Network of Stand-by Oil Spill Response Vessels has been built up and maintained through annual procurement procedures starting in 2005. This service is based on the long term chartering of commercial vessels, which are adapted to become occasional oil spill response vessels. When they are not required to respond to a spill, they undertake their normal commercial activities provided that they remain within a 24 hours radius allowing them to intervene quickly in case of an emergency. EMSA supports the costs of adapting the vessel (up to a certain cap laid down in the tender specifications), pays a quarterly availability fee for providing the standby service. The pollution response equipment is also the property of EMSA. If called to action, the requesting State will pay a daily operational fee which is fixed in the contract. A summary table of the network building activities is attached as Annex 3. The service supplements the resources and arrangements that have already been set up at national and regional levels. Illegal, either incidental or deliberate, discharges of oil (and other substances) in the marine environment is a major source of marine pollution which is less visible than major oil spills but not less damageable and has therefore been subject to international regulation (IMO MARPOL Convention) and EU law. With the adoption of Directive 2005/35/EC as amended on ship-sourced pollution , the task of detecting spills including illegal discharges at sea was elaborated and incorporated into EMSA's activities to respond to marine pollution from ships. As a result, the satellite based oil spill detection and monitoring service CleanSeaNet was established in 2007. When a possible oil spill is detected in national waters, an alert message is delivered to the relevant country. In cases of high alert level spills, EMSA Maritime Support Service may call the coastal State to ensure that the alert has been received and to offer additional support. Analysed images are available to national contact points in near real time, in less than 30 minutes after the satellite acquires the image. The service includes the identification of potential polluters by combining the image taken by the satellite with vessel traffic information. After receiving the enriched information the national authority then decides on the appropriate operational response, for example, sending an asset such as an aircraft to check the area and verify the spill, or requesting an inspection of the vessel in the next port of call. Since the very beginning, the CleanSeaNet service has also had the explicit purpose of providing support during accidental large-scale pollution events. Regarding chemical pollution from ships, the need to address the risks associated with this type of pollution led to consultations with the Member States and the Commission and the resulting drafting of a specific Action Plan for Hazardous & Noxious Substances (HNS) Pollution Preparedness and Response, which was adopted by EMSA’s Administrative Board in June 2007. The added value for EMSA intervention was identified as being the rapid provision of expert information and advice on chemical substances during an emergency to support any requesting party’s decision making process. Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster involving an offshore oil drilling rig, the same logic was applied that EMSA could intervene in case of major incident not replacing the prime responsibility of the oil and gas industry to have its own response means. A review of the European preparedness to respond to oil spills from offshore installations indicated the need to further enhance the European marine pollution response capacity. Subsequently EMSA’s mandate for operational assistance was enlarged to also include response to marine pollution caused by oil and gas installations. The framework for this new task was described in the 2013 Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution from Oil and Gas Installations.

According to its founding regulation, EMSA is tasked to: ·Support on request with additional means in a cost efficient way the pollution response mechanisms of Member States; ·Provide Member States and the Commission with technical and scientific assistance in the field of marine pollution from ships and oil and gas installations. These tasks are implemented by providing antipollution means (specialised ships and equipment), satellite images to detect pollution (CleanSeaNet), expert advice and information in case of chemical spills and through regular meetings to exchange information on best practices among the EU/EFTA Member States and Regional Agreements. Already in the early days of implementing the Agency’s legal task in the field of ship-sourced pollution and the execution of its 2004 Oil Pollution Action Plan for setting-up its operational assistance, EMSA was confronted with difficulties to reconcile the need to conclude multi-annual contracts with industry with the “annuality” of the EU /EMSA budget. Such contracts are needed in particular for stand-by oil spill response vessel arrangements, where substantial investments are required, as well as for organising the CleanSeaNet service. The Commission recognised that the Agency should be able to enter into long term financial commitments in order to offer adequate and sustainable operational support to the Commission and the Member States, using services provided by industry. Therefore, in 2005, the Commission proposed the creation of a multi-annual financial framework for the pollution response activities of the Agency, reasoning that "the development and extension of anti-pollution activities will require long-term investments and adequate financial security". The first financial envelope for the period 2007-2013 was €154 million. The envelope for the current period 2014-2020 is €160.5 million. In a complementary way to the mandate of EMSA, the objective of Regulation (EU) No 911/2014 is to facilitate the provision of an EU operational capacity supporting Member States' capacities to respond to oil or chemical marine pollution incidents from ships and oil and gas installations. It does so by laying down indicatively the financing amount and the scope of the Agency financed actions over 7 years (2014-2020). The multiannual perspective set out in Regulation (EU) No 911/2014 provides legal certainty and a stable framework to allow the Agency to conclude multiannual contracts with the industry both in relation to stand-by oil-spill response vessels and for organising CleanSeaNet. The above elements are encapsulated in the following intervention logic matrix. Figure 1: Intervention logic To achieve the objectives of providing Europe with an effective and efficient anti-pollution top-up capacity, the Agency offers a range of services to help coastal States around Europe respond adequately to oil or chemical marine pollution incidents from ships and oil and gas installations. The services offered by the Agency can be described as a “toolbox” to provide any requesting State with the most suitable response means. Through these services, EMSA aims to complement and top-up existing response resources at national and regional level. The Agency sustains the operational readiness of these services, through dedicated drills and exercises, and organises their quick mobilisation when requested. Once activated, the relevant services are operated under the control and responsibility of the requesting party. The services are available at the request of EU Member States, EFTA/EEA countries and neighbouring countries sharing a regional sea basin with the EU. EMSA provides at EU level the following operational services: ·A Network of Stand-by Oil Spill Response Vessels distributed along the European coastline with different types of oil combatting equipment arrangements, complemented by strategically positioned oil dispersant stockpiles; ·An Equipment Assistance Service, offering dedicated stockpiles of oil pollution response equipment;

·A satellite-based oil spill monitoring service known as CleanSeaNet; ·The MAR-ICE Network (Marine-Intervention in Chemical Emergencies), a service for chemical emergencies providing expert information and advice; ·The MAR-CIS database of substance-specific marine chemical information sheets. Through its Maritime Support Services centre, open 24/7, the Agency also supports decision-making at EU level providing alerts and rapid assessment in case of major accidents and risk of pollution. In addition, EMSA facilitates the exchange of best practices and the sharing of expertise through: ·The Consultative Technical Group for Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response (CTG MPPR); ·The Pollution Response Services User Group; ·The Inter-Secretariat meeting of the Regional Agreement Secretariats and DG ECHO; ·Subject-specific trainings and workshops. Last, EMSA disseminates information through the publication of inventories of Member States policies and operational response capacities, specialised information sheets and brochures. Regarding financing, Regulation (EU) No 911/2014 provides for €160.5 million over a period of seven years (2014-2020) with the following indicative spread: ·€127.445 million for the network of response vessels and anti-pollution equipment (including 6 million to combat marine pollution by oil and gas installations) ·€28.705 million for the satellite-based oil spill monitoring service known as CleanSeaNet ·€4.350 million for cooperation and coordination activities with Member States including training and studies Baseline and points of comparison The present report covers the first part of the second Multi Annual Funding Regulation concerning EMSA’s anti-pollution measures. By January 2014 and after ten years of development, EMSA had already established a comprehensive set of activities in the field of marine pollution detection, preparedness and response. This included the CleanSeaNet service and a network of contracted oil spill response vessels, which consisted of 18 vessels. This network was set-up to top-up national response capacities as third tier. The baseline scenario is the situation in which the financing regulation and the associated funding were not in place for this period (2014-2016). The Agency’s capability listed in table 1 end of 2013 including the vessel network and the CleanSeaNet routine monitoring would have had to stop. As most of EMSA activities are implemented through multi annual contracts which overlaps the previous and current Multi Annual Funding Regulations, such a scenario would have entailed identifying proper external funding in order to terminate these contracts and/or being faced with several litigations. Member States would have been left without any service, thus being forced to find alternative solutions for some of them (CleanSeaNet for instance) at increased costs. Moreover, EMSA would not have been in a position to deliver on its mandate in the field of assistance to Member States for pollution response as this task is entirely funded through the Multi Annual Funding Regulation. The beginning of the implementation of the Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution from Offshore Installations coincides with the period under review for this evaluation (2014-2016). Hence, the evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and added value of the EMSA capability against a baseline where EMSA is not in a position to deliver assistance in accordance with its mandate. 3.Implementation / state of Play

Description of the current situation In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, EMSA’s tasks were enlarged to also provide pollution response assistance to Member States in case of large-scale oil spills originating from oil and gas installations. These spills, especially well blowouts, can differ substantially from ship-sourced oil pollution. One of the reasons is the potentially larger quantity and prolonged release of spilled oil, if the leakage proves difficult to stop. Environmental impacts as well as safety hazards associated with oil spills originating from oil and gas installations could be more severe than with ship-sourced oil spills due to the potential continuous release of fresh oil. Responding to such spills requires, besides the already available recovery capacities, to develop new capacities in terms of magnitude and techniques (use of dispersants, in situ burning). The main activities to prepare for EMSA’s potential intervention in the field of response to pollution as identified in the Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution from Oil and Gas Installations and implemented are: ·Adaptation of the network of stand-by oil spill response vessels; ·Provision of specialised equipment; ·Provision of oil spill dispersants; and ·Monitoring and evaluation tools, including the CleanSeaNet service. With regard to response, EMSA's capacity also covers the response to oil pollution caused by oil/mixed oil and gas installations. The response to pollution caused by gas installations is not addressed by the Agency due to the particularities of such incidents. EMSA’s expertise and response capabilities are primarily focused on oil pollution in the marine environment. Gas emissions may include liquid condensates, which evaporate into the atmosphere, with limited residues persisting on the water surface, meaning that on-site recovery is limited. Notwithstanding the extension of the mandate of EMSA to cover potential spills from oil and gas installations, the current multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020 has been slightly increased compared to the previous period (€160.5 million compared to €154 million for 2007-2014). Within this envelope, the Agency had to adapt its strategy by exploiting synergies and prioritising activities. It should be noted here though that the industry has an important role to play in the prevention of, and preparedness for and response to, oil spills caused by oil and gas installations. This is usually as part of the license conditions of the shelf State, by undertaking initiatives to improve the safety and environmental standards of oil activities and to limit the extent of incidents that can affect human life and the environment. Existing public and private pollution response capabilities and contingency plans at regional and national level are regularly updated and reviewed to be ready to respond to the challenges posed by the nature of spills from offshore operations. In line with its mandate to top-up Member States’ capacities, and also taking into account the industry resources, EMSA has therefore focussed on activities that were complementing the existing resources whilst being cost-efficient. A comparison of the situations at the beginning and end of the reporting period (2014-2016) is presented below in table 1. Table 1: Summary of the evolution of Pollution Response Services (PRS) between 2013 and 2016 N° Activity End of 2013 2014 - 2016 1 Vessel Network Number of contracted vessels and overall storage capacity for recovered oil. 18 fully equipped vessels available for pollution response, around 63,000 m3 storage capacity. 17 fully equipped vessels available for pollution response, around 62,000 m3 storage capacity. Geographical adaptation to cover areas with offshore installations Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea coverage. Relocation of vessel arrangements to cover northern North Sea, Adriatic Sea and Canary Islands and Madeira areas. Technical adaptation vessels/equipment based in areas with the presence of oil and gas installations for recovery of oil with Flashpoint (FP) < 60°C (Only) vessels based in the Mediterranean certified for recovery of oil with FP < 60°C. Seven of the 18 vessels certified for recovery of oil with FP < 60°C. All the contracted vessels based in areas with the presence of oil and gas installations certified for recovery of oil with FP < 60°C. Ten of these 17 vessels certified for recovery of oil with FP < 60°C. Contractual adaptation for extended response operations Incident Response Contract for a duration of 21 days, renewable Incident Response Contract for a duration of 30 days, renewable. 3 Dispersant Application Vessel dispersant application - Four vessel arrangements equipped with seaborne dispersant application systems. Four dispersant stockpiles, 200 tonnes each, established in Cyprus, Malta, Sines (Portugal) and Las Palmas (Spain). Airborne dispersant application - Although contracts were awarded to two companies that had submitted tenders, both eventually declined and withdrew their offers resulting in unsuccessful procurement of an aerial dispersant application service. 4 Provision of specialised equipment Setting-up a new Equipment Assistance Service (EAS) - Two Equipment Assistance Service (EAS) stockpiles established in the Northern North Sea (Aberdeen, UK) and in the Baltic Sea (Gdansk, Poland). This new service provides specialised stand-alone equipment (i.e. fire booms, trawl nets and integrated oil containment and recovery systems), which can be used by Vessels of Opportunity (VOO), ready for mobilisation and transport at short notice, around the clock. 5 CleanSeaNet Routine monitoring (average area monitored per year) 387 million km2 623 million km2 Oil Pollution Response Services Regarding operational oil pollution response services, at the end of 2016 EMSA’s oil pollution response resources comprised the following arrangements: ·17 fully equipped stand-by oil spill response vessels for mechanical recovery of oil, 4 of which equipped in addition with dispersant spraying capability; ·4 dispersant stockpiles;

·2 Equipment Assistance Service (EAS) stockpiles. The distribution of EMSA’s pollution response arrangements at the end of 2016 is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of EMSA’s pollution response arrangements in European waters at the end of 2016 Source: EMSA Oil Spill Response Vessel Network During the reporting period, the Agency completed several “improvement projects” to upgrade the response capacity of its fleet of vessels and to adapt them in line with the actions identified in the Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution from Oil and Gas Installations, mainly by adding some dispersant spraying capacities on some arrangements in areas where this response technique is accepted by the coastal States or by improving the capacity of the vessels to deal with oil with a flashpoint below 60°. Although the oil spill response vessels were not called into real action during the period under review they participated in regular exercises with the Member States (see annex 4).

Equipment Assistance Service As part of the ‘Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution from Oil and Gas Installations’, a key task for the Agency during the reporting period has been the implementation of the Equipment Assistance Service programme. This programme aims to make EMSA’s pollution response toolbox more diverse through the provision of specialised stand-alone equipment for use on board Vessels Of Opportunity and to enhance the response capabilities of the Agency with new equipment systems not available in EMSA or Member States inventories. As of 2016, two EAS stockpiles have been established in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The service is a new one and has only been operational for the last six month period under the reporting period. During this short period there was no request for the service by the Member States Dispersant Service In order to effectively carry out the new task of responding to marine pollution caused by oil and gas installations, EMSA developed a new service through the establishment of: ·Limited dispersant stocks associated to the home bases’ of selected EMSA contracted vessels; and ·Seaborne dispersant application systems on selected EMSA contracted vessels. Through the provision of dispersant and seaborne dispersant application systems, EMSA has made available additional oil spill response services at European level. The dispersant application service is intended primarily for use in the event of major pollution events originating from oil and gas installations, but it may also be deployed in the case of ship-sourced pollution, depending on the decision of the affected Member States. Drills and Exercises EMSA’s vessel contractors are obliged to train their crews and to maintain the oil pollution response equipment in order to be ready to carry out oil pollution response services efficiently. To demonstrate the fulfilment of these obligations, the contractors are bound to carry out drills, with each contracted vessel, on a quarterly basis. These drills are assessed by EMSA observers. The satisfactory performance of the drill is a condition for the payment of the quarterly availability fee by the Agency. Furthermore, contractors are also contractually bound to participate in exercises with member States up to ten days a year. Details including the number of drills during the reporting period can be found in the annual Drills and Exercises Annual Reports 2014, 2015, and 2016, which are available on EMSA’s website. A summary table of exercises is attached as Annex 4. CleanSeaNet The Agency has continued to provide its satellite based oil spill and vessel detection and monitoring service CleanSeaNet. CleanSeaNet provides support to European coastal States in the identification of illegal discharges and potential polluters, as well as response operations linked with accidental spills. The service provides regular monitoring of coastal waters through the near real time analysis of Earth Observation Synthetic Aperture Radar images to support enforcement against illegal discharges of polluting substances, and pollution resulting from accidents and emergencies. In 2014, EMSA issued new framework contracts with CleanSeaNet service providers. In parallel, during 2015 and 2016, the EMSA Earth Observation portfolio was expanded to include optical satellites that could be used to support the CleanSeaNet service during large accidental spills. Key figures for the CleanSeaNet routine monitoring service to 28 coastal States are presented below: Approximately 1,870 million km2 were monitored in the period 2014-2016: ·On average 623 million km2 per year were monitored, ·This compares with an average of 387 million km2 per year over the 6 previous years (2008-2013). In the event of accidental pollution, emergency satellite support can be provided to national response operations. During the reporting period 2014-2016, CleanSeaNet provided support to 10 accidental spills and emergencies, with the specific delivery of 38 satellite images in support to response operations. The Agency supports dedicated surveillance operations organized by Member States and Regional Agreements in European Waters. Examples include the regular Coordinated Extended Pollution Control Operations and Tour d’Horizon operations, as well as other occasional national or regional operations. These consist of intensive campaigns of aerial surveillance flights over a given maritime area. From 2014 to 2016, the Agency supported 26 surveillance operations, with 100 additional satellite images ordered specifically to monitor them. The Agency also established new framework contracts for the provision of Earth Observation optical products. These, although less used in the context of oil spill monitoring, expand the possibilities available to coastal States, who can request optical products if needed (e.g. for closer monitoring in case of incidents or emergencies, in particular near the coastline where synthetic aperture radar images are more difficult to interpret).

Figure 3: CleanSeaNet 2014–2016: Class A (red): “most probably oil” and Class B (green): “possibly oil or chemical product” detections in EU coastal State waters (except French Outermost Regions), Iceland, Norway, Turkey and Montenegro Cooperation and Information activities relating to Pollution Preparedness and Response to promote best practices and enhance information sharing The work of the Consultative Technical Group for Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response (CTG MPPR), a group of Member States technical experts, continued during the period of 2014-2016. EMSA also sustained its cooperation with the pollution response experts of EU Member States, EFTA/EEA coastal Countries, EU Candidate Countries, the Regional Agreements Secretariats (Bonn Agreement, HELCOM, Barcelona Convention (REMPEC), Black Sea Commission, Copenhagen Agreement and Lisbon Agreement), the Commission (DG ECHO) and, on behalf of the Commission, with the International Maritime Organization (IMO). EMSA furthermore continued to coordinate the Inter-Secretariat meetings. These meetings provide the only forum which brings together all the Regional Agreements in Europe along with DG ECHO and EMSA, and as such are much appreciated by the Regional Agreements. The meetings focus on exchanging information on marine pollution preparedness and response activities and projects undertaken within the various Regional Agreements, while promoting the dissemination of best practices in this field and identifying issues of common interest across the European regions, which could potentially lead to common actions that could benefit all or several of the regions. Cooperation with the Commission / DG ECHO

The Agency continued to provide assistance for the Commission’s activities on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism regarding maritime incidents. More specifically, EMSA worked closely with DG ECHO since late 2015 on the improvement of the Common Emergency Communication and Information System for Marine Pollution (CECIS MP). This included a complete revision of the resource tree for pollution response equipment and the entering of all EMSA and EU/EFTA Member States resources in the CECIS MP database. In 2016, EMSA also supported DG ECHO in the development of the course content and training curricula for the Technical Expert Course for Maritime Incidents. The prime objective of this course is to prepare maritime experts for interventions and deployments in an affected country as part of a Union Civil Protection Team. Activities with regard to Hazardous and Noxious Substances EMSA pursued its activities with respect to marine incidents involving chemicals, which are different in content from the activities related to oil spills and involve technical and scientific expertise and information activities that can be mobilised during an emergency rather than dedicated response assets . Notably the MAR-ICE Network (Marine-Intervention in Chemical Emergencies) which had become operational in January 2009 following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by Cefic, Cedre and EMSA, continued providing a 24/7 service free of charge to the EU Member States and coastal EFTA States. The MAR-ICE 24/7 service can advise and support Member States upon request with timely information on scientific, technical, and operational aspects of a spill involving hazardous and noxious substances. Furthermore, EMSA continued developing the so-called MAR-CIS datasheets on chemical substances frequently transported by sea, which provide information for the initial stage of incidents involving chemical substances to all EU and EFTA/EEA coastal countries as well as the coastal EU Candidate Countries. A follow-up MAR-CIS 2 project started in 2015 helps to broaden the dissemination and improve the MAR-CIS information. Since December 2016, the MAR-CIS information is available through a web portal. The information is also linked to the SafeSeaNet Central Hazmat database enlarging its distribution. The MAR-CIS datasheets are also provided to Member States through the MAR-ICE network. In addition, EMSA has developed in-house modelling capacity to predict the trajectory and fate of oil and chemical spills at sea. The information is currently provided to EMSA’s management and the Commission. It is also available to Member States upon request as they usually have access to local and higher resolution modelling tools. The Agency also continued its information and support activities in the field of oil spill dispersants. More specifically, the Dispersant Usage Evaluation Tool (DUET) was improved and training on its use provided to Member States. Inventories of Member States Policies and operational response capacities One of the Agency’s tasks is to “maintain a list of the public and, where available, private pollution response mechanisms and associated response capabilities in the various regions of the Union”, as defined by Regulation (EU) No 911/2014. Following up on it, EMSA published the updated information for the “Inventory of national policies regarding the use of oil spill dispersants in the EU” and the “Inventory of EU Member States Oil Pollution Response Vessels” on its website in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The data of EMSA’s inventories on EU/EFTA Member States pollution response resources was used by the Agency to populate the CECIS Marine Pollution database, managed by DG ECHO. Financial Summary of Activities implemented during 2014 – 2016 Table 2: EMSA Pollution Preparedness and Response Activities: Financial summary (€) 2014 - 2016 Commitments Payments Network of Stand-by Oil Spill recovery vessels 33,921,449 39,043,483 Oil and Gas Installations (Platform) 2,697,471 2,606,866 Exercises 758,725 747,130 Equipment Assistance Service 8,950,479 5,919,380 Earth Observation Services and Licenses 10,364,585 10,024,900 CSN Service Developments 1,582,001 1,175,703 Support to CSN Users 112,966 104,935 Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems 179,246 0 Cooperation and Coordination Meetings 389,430 197,592 HNS Information and activities 558,643 384,556 Related missions of EMSA staff 332,500 250,311 Total: 59,847,495 60,456,232 Budget execution for anti-pollution measures was challenging in all three years under review due to unforeseen events. Examples of such challenges were the withdrawal of one ship owner following the contract award for an oil spill response vessel, the bankruptcy of another company that had been awarded a vessel contract, the last minute withdrawals of the awarded offers for aerial dispersant spraying services, and the non-renewal of a contract for an oil spill response vessel. To understand the discrepancies between the commitments appropriations and the payments appropriations during the period under review, it has to be reminded that most of the activities are taken place under multiannual contracts which trigger a 4 year commitment in year A whereas payments will be scheduled along the years A, B, C and D. This also means that, for commitments undertaken under the previous multiannual financial period, payments appropriations had to be allocated in the first years of implementation of the current multi-annual financial period. EMSA has managed to overcome these challenges by modifying major projects and tenders, which resulted in adaptation of the payment appropriations over the years in order to maintain the level of service and implement the new strategic projects as approved by the Administrative Board of the Agency. It should be noted that most of the contracts used for services are multiannual: 4 years renewable once for Vessel Availability Contracts and two years renewable for 2 additional years for Equipment Assistance Services. The balance between the amount of commitments and payments for these contracts is to be seen therefore on a 2-, 4- or even 8-year time basis. The deviation from the initial schedule of commitments has resulted also in changes in the payment appropriations throughout the years. The use of the Union contribution by EMSA is monitored through the Agency's annual reports concerning the financial execution for this particular activity and through the general monitoring of the Agency's accounts by the budgetary authority and the European Court of Auditors. 4.Method Short description of methodology The analysis is based on the evidence gathered by the Agency which has some extensive and strict obligations regarding planning and reporting on the implementation of its activities. The Agency’s planned activities are outlined in the annually updated Single Programming Document for the next three-year period and the detailed work programme is thoroughly discussed and approved at the Administrative Board each November. The annual reporting obligations of the Agency’s activities are also addressed in detail in an Annex to EMSA’s Consolidated Annual Activity Report as required under Regulation (EU) No 911/2014. Furthermore, the present evaluation is supported by an external independent study on the cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of EMSA’s operational pollution response services consisting of the network of contracted standby oil spill response vessels, the stockpiles of specialised oil pollution response equipment, and the stockpiles of oil spill dispersants. The study was contracted by EMSA and conducted by the consulting firm Ramboll.

The study has examined and evaluated whether the oil pollution response services established by the Agency are effective when compared against the objectives outlined in the Regulation, and whether they are cost efficient in comparison with existing or potentially equivalent services performed by other governmental agencies and private organisations. Based on an input-output model, the cost-efficiency analysis is based on the allocation of real costs of EMSA’s oil spill response service (adjusted to inflation) per unit of output i.e. per cubic metre (m3) of oil storage capacity, per contract arrangement (per region and type of vessel), per type of equipment in Equipment Assistance Service stockpiles, per tonne of dispersant, per exercise and per vessel. Furthermore, the study distinguishes the different parts of the service: Oil Spill Response Vessels, dispersant application capability, and the Equipment Assistance Service. Further, the cost of recovering one tonne of oil at sea is compared with the cost of shoreline-clean-up. Ramboll also conducted a multi-criteria analysis to compare the EMSA model (of chartered oil spill response vessels) to alternate options such as building dedicated response vessels or multi-purpose vessels9. The findings of the study rely on the assessment of evidence based on triangulated data collected from a range of different sources, including internal and external documentation, a targeted stakeholder consultation conducted by EMSA consisting of a survey administered to Member States, plus interviews with key stakeholders conducted by Ramboll. In addition, industry and cost data provided by shipyards and shipbrokers were collected and expert assessments were provided by oil pollution response experts subcontracted by Ramboll. In telephone interviews with relevant stakeholders of EMSA’s services, questions were asked to assess EMSA’s oil pollution response services and to compare EMSA’s capabilities with that of Member States. Countries that had not responded to EMSA’s online survey were asked additional questions in line with the EMSA consultation. Additionally, third countries that may also utilise EMSA’s services were interviewed as well. Further information regarding these interviews could be found in Annex 5 to this report. Regarding consultation processes, EMSA conducted directly an online targeted survey with the EU/EFTA coastal Member States as the main stakeholders of the Agency. In 33 questions, the Member States were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Agency activities by subject. Scores between 1 (very poor) and 5 (very good) allowed an assessment of the level of satisfaction. In addition to the numeric scores, each question invited written comments. A total of 23 individual sets of answers were received from 19 out of 23 EU Member States and the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway. More details on the outcome of this survey can be found in Annex 5 of this report. In order to also consider the opinion of the public at large, the Commission conducted a public online consultation between August and October 2017. In overall 48 questions covering all of EMSA’s activities but focussing on pollution detection preparedness and response, survey participants were asked for their opinion with five options between “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Overall, 23 replies from 13 EU countries were received. Of these, 3 were from private citizens, 2 from NGOs, 1 from the unions, 5 from industry associations, 2 from companies (of which one is an oil spill response organisation) and 10 from governmental organisations (this included 4 from different ministries of 1 country). Further information regarding these interviews can be found in Annex 6 to this report. Limitations and robustness of findings One of the key limitations of this evaluation is linked to the difficulty to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and added-value of a capacity which is essentially a cover in case of major oil spill and for that reason is not activated as long as there is no such major incident. It has to be recalled that the mandate of the Agency is to provide Member States with additional means, i.e. the Agency’s resources are not (should not be) deemed to constitute the first line of response. In order to overcome the lack of real data, the support study opted for assessing the compared costs of shore-side clean-up for the cost-benefit analysis of the vessels which appeared as a useful assessment to help substantiating the added-value of the EMSA cover economically. With regard to evaluating the ecological impact of EMSA’s action at European level, the assessment of the amount of economic and ecological damage that can be avoided thanks to EMSA’s response services should be considered with utmost caution as past cases show that there is a considerable discrepancy between estimated damages and damages actually assessed and compensated. The data available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (the Funds) only reflect the claims addressed to and settled by the Funds, leaving aside what has been paid in compliance with Courts decisions or out of Court settlements where the Funds were not a Party. On top of this consideration, the cost of environmental damage as such is not eligible to the Funds except for reasonable reinstatement costs or ecological impact and remediation studies. In the Erika incident for instance, figures vary greatly from one source to another: according to an audit performed by Mazars et Guérard at the request of the affected local authorities , the total prejudice (without environmental damage) caused by the incident was estimated to € 1 billion. According to the IOPC Fund records, compensation was paid for approximately € 130 million to claimants. In the civil court procedure against the ship owner (the limitation fund proceedings), the total amount of claims against the ship owner was approximately € 500 million. This amount included the claim by the French State for € 154.5 million, the claim by the French oil company Total for € 143 million (corresponding to the costs of clean-up, the treatment and disposal of waste directly undertaken) and the subrogated claims by the ship owner’s insurer for € 13 million (corresponding to the individual claimants the insurer had directly compensated under the Civil Liability Convention). None of these claims was related to environmental damage. Another study , requested by the same local authorities and used before the Criminal Court proposed to value the environmental damage to an amount of € 370 million. However, the Criminal Court awarded € 192.5 million to the claimants (including € 154.5 million to the French State), this amount included for some claimants compensation for environmental damage. To sum up, based on the studies mentioned above, the overall damage resulting from the incident was estimated in various studies to € 1.370 million whereas, on the basis of the compensation paid, the overall recognised damages are in the range of € 322,5 million. Therefore, in view of such considerable discrepancies, the report did not focus on trying to value the socioeconomic and ecological implication of the Agency’s response preparedness relating to marine pollution caused by ships and oil and gas installations, as requested by the co-legislator. One of the recommendations of Ramboll based on its consultations and analysis is that EMSA should work with all the regional agreements and coastal Member States to determine the environmental risk of oil spills and their potential impacts, in order to provide input for the decisions that must be made regarding response options. There is a similar recommendation that has been formulated by the Administrative Board of EMSA on the basis of the overall external evaluation of the Agency's mandate and activities. To follow-up on the Board recommendation, EMSA has proposed to undertake a kind of “stress test” of the regional capacities and mechanisms to assess the situation. This can be based on the analysis of maritime traffic and the kind of response actions triggered (with or without EMSA response capacities). Extensive risk assessment exercises have recently taken place for the North Sea and Baltic Sea (the BRISK and Be Aware projects) whose results will be used. EMSA will work with Member States and Regional Agreements and the intention is to have this exercise finalised by the end of 2019. Despite these acknowledged weaknesses, an attempt was made in the external study conducted by Ramboll by using hypothetical scenarios and the available data of costs as described above. Regarding CleanSeaNet, the analysis can rely on usage and measurable outputs and the findings are therefore considered as sufficiently robust. Another limitation of this evaluation relates to the low response rate of the open public consultation and consequent lack of input from stakeholders beyond national administrations. The latter are however the main stakeholders as beneficiary of the Agency's assistance and they were consulted extensively both by Ramboll and EMSA. Some still responded to the open public consultation. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions Effectiveness How effective was the use by EMSA of the Union contribution and to what extent were EMSA's measures effective to respond to marine pollution?

In the absence of actual spills the assessment has been carried out with a view to estimate to what extent EMSA has developed an appropriate toolbox to achieve the objective of an adequate pollution response capacity at EU level. Consultations have illustrated that a majority of respondents amongst national administrations were satisfied with the way the Agency addressed its task of topping-up Member States resources in responding to large-scale incidents (Figure 4). Figure 4 Source: EMSA survey to Member States Worth noting that the reasons for a lower degree of satisfaction were: -The country has never requested assistance from a stand-by oil response vessel; -The available response capacity should be better taken into account; -Capacity gaps should be better identified regionally through a new standard method. The replies to the open public consultation confirmed this overall positive perception of EMSA's capacity at EU level to respond to marine pollution, in particular from ships. The rate of satisfaction appears as more mixed in relation to oil and gas installations and this can be explained by the relatively recent extension of EMSA's mandate and the lack of awareness and ability by stakeholders to assess EMSA's capacity. The reporting from EMSA regarding the use of the Union contribution shows that, in terms of geographical coverage, there is a balance. On one side, it is based on risk analyses made and location of vessels where the ratio risks/existing capacities is the less favorable (solidarity of the EU funds) and, on the other side, it is based on an even distribution of vessels to cover all sea areas and benefit to all Member States. The success of a response operation being dependent on the fast availability of response means, the regional approach to cover risk is paramount. The storage capacity of oil recovery vessels and the type of equipment has been fixed based on an analysis of available capacities and needs and in consultation with experts from Member States and regional organizations leading to the drafting of Action Plans subsequently adopted by the Administrative Board of the Agency. As shown by the interviews carried out (please see Annex 5), Member States appear as rather satisfied with the geographical coverage of European waters by EMSA's stand-by oil recovery vessel network. Among the national administrations consulted that poorly rated that geographical coverage, some of them pointed out that the location of the vessels is inadequate, since their location is too far from their area of interest. On the other hand, some Member States found the location of the vessels extremely convenient. Moreover, some questioned whether the coverage of all EU waters was necessary. The assessment of the newly established Equipment Assistance Service by stakeholders appear as less positive and this could be related to the relative novelty of this service and the lack of awareness and understanding of its features. Generally speaking the Equipment Assistance Service is considered useful, but some Member States have commented on the fact that equipment is already shared at regional level. National administrations were widely satisfied with the type of equipment that has been or will be purchased in the context of the Equipment Assistance Service – however this is especially if it complements the types already available in Member States' stockpiles. There is a more diverse appreciation regarding the location (currently North Sea and Baltic Sea) and also the number and the comments go towards a better coverage with more depots where there is a need. Like for the stand-by oil recovery vessel network, the key factors to assess the effectiveness of the equipment assistance service appears to be the complementarity in relation to the available response capacity at national and regional level in terms of geographical location and level of capacity. In adapting to the needs of spills originating from oil and gas installations, vessels based in areas with offshore activities have been equipped to respond to spills with oil of flashpoints below 60°C. Capabilities were further enhanced by establishing strategically located stockpiles of oil spill dispersants and dispersant application capabilities on EMSA’s vessels in selected areas. Furthermore the procurement of specialised oil spill response equipment (rarely available in Member States) to be used from Vessels of Opportunity further enhanced EMSA’s capacity to assist Member States. Regarding CleanSeaNet, evidence shows that the service has been very effective in providing near real time detections of potential oil spills due to illegal discharges as well as supporting response operation to accidental spills. According to reports by national authorities, the scheduling of satellite images improves their ability to plan aerial surveillance operations. The CleanSeaNet images can indeed be integrated with data from other EU information sources available at EMSA (e.g. traffic monitoring information from SafeSeaNet, satellite Automatic Identification System data, weather information, etc.). Combining data makes the overall information provided to Member States more valuable operationally and can assist in the identification of polluters. The awareness in the maritime community that there is a high quality / high volume operational activity with respect to the detection of marine oil spills across European waters provides a strong deterrence to potential polluters; the “deterrent” effect. The deterrence is most effective when supported by consistent follow-up throughout the response chain e.g. from detection to enforcement of the relevant legal framework. Member States have all a positive experience with CleanSeaNet as illustrated in Figure 5, since it is considered a useful, unique and valuable service by many of them. The performance of the service in terms of timeliness of product delivery, quality of delivered products and daily support and training provided by EMSA for the use of the service were all rated very positively by the national administrations. This good rating was confirmed by the results of the open public consultation.

Figure 5 Source: EMSA survey to Member States Finally through the work of the Consultative Technical Group for Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response and the meetings of the InterSecretariat, the Agency is providing effective platforms for EU/EFTA coastal Member States, coastal EU Candidate Countries and the Regional Agreements including the Commission (DG ECHO) to promote best practices and share relevant information. Regular feedback by participants and the results of the consultations have shown that there is general appreciation of these meetings which are considered as useful. Again though important in itself this activity is a minor part of the use of the Union contribution and has not been analysed extensively. Efficiency How efficient was the use by EMSA of the Union contribution and to what extent were the costs of EMSA's measures proportionate to the benefits? The costs of EMSA’s measures over the period are listed in table 2 under chapter 3. The analysis to what extent these costs have been proportionate to the benefits is hampered by the methodological limitations mentioned before (such as the difficulty to assess cost savings related to minimising environmental damage). The benefits of EMSA’s measures can be described in qualitative terms: availability on request of a top-up capacity with the network of vessels and the equipment assistance service, detections alerts provided by the CleanSeaNet service, knowledge building and access to information about hazardous and noxious substances, etc. This does not allow undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the EMSA anti-pollution capacity. However, an attempt was made to assess the efficiency of the use by EMSA of the Union contribution and the efficiency of the measures consuming the bigger part of the budget (the network of vessels and the CleanSeaNet service) as presented below. Network of oil pollution response vessels and Equipment Assistance Service The inherent limitations of the existing model of chartering oil spill response vessels have been highlighted in the support study: there are not many existing suitable vessels that can be contracted for an effective third tier capacity and this has been typically a created market. It should be stated again here that EMSA’s “top-up” capacity is a cover the EU has decided to take, difficult to justify economically as long as there is no major spill. In case of an incident and activation however, the charter rates are pre-established and fixed, thus protecting the requesting party from opportunistic increases in hire rates and guaranteeing that costs are proportionate to the benefits and primarily that the service exists. Regarding the inherent efficiency of the chartering by EMSA, the external study has concluded and recommended exploring potential improvements to the current service model and the procurement procedures that are being applied. Beyond the inherent efficiency of the current model of chartering oil spill response vessels that conduct their normal commercial activities unless activated for pollution response, one main question raised in the external study was whether EMSA could have achieved its set objectives and be as cost-efficient as this model, considering alternative models. First, a comparative analysis of the costs of an at-sea clean-up of 1 tonne of oil with the costs of a shore-line clean-up of 1 tonne of oil was performed. This analysis allowed concluding on whether EMSA’s oil spill response services provide value for money by improving the effectiveness of interventions in cases of large spills, preventing drifting oil from reaching the shore. In the absence of major spills in European waters in the past decade EMSA’s capacities have not been mobilised in an oil pollution response operation. Therefore, in order to estimate the costs of recovery of one tonne of oil at sea for the network of EMSA vessels, theoretical scenarios of intervention have been constructed to simulate the intervention of a typical EMSA vessel to an oil pollution incident. In comparison to the average cost per tonne of oil recovered on-shore of € 5,744 (based on the data available on historical costs), the total costs per tonne when using of EMSA at-sea-recovery vessels is € 287- 681 / tonne, so between 20 to 8 times lower. The above findings indicate that EMSA’s oil pollution response activities would be cost-effective when compared to the fall-out resulting from an absence of capacity to adequately recover oil before reaching the shoreline. The external study also conducted a comparative analysis of EMSA’s current service arrangements versus other potential service models. The main question raised and answered by this section is whether EMSA could have achieved its set objectives and be as cost-efficient as the current service model, considering alternatives. In this sense, the models are tested as if they had been implemented during the same financial period (i.e. from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020).

This comparative assessment of the current model and potential alternative service models for EMSA was based on a multi-criteria analysis. The baseline was considered to be the average level of service and average costs related to it over the period (2014 - 2020). All alternative options are assessed against it. In Table 3, indicators of costs and level of service for the alternative models are compared with those in the baseline scenario. The line “Short description” explains what is the envisaged model, the lines below are the difference for each criterion in the figures for the alternative models (in plus or minus) compared to the baseline. Table 3: Multi criteria analysis scorecard Table 3 shows that, overall, Model 1.2 is the least costly to implement with some positive budgetary effect from the baseline (current model) and minor difference in the level of service, however these differences are likely to be within the margin of error of the model used. Model 5.2 appears to be an advantageous model: although it is more expensive to implement for EMSA than the baseline, the potential gains in the services associated with the use of Multi-purpose Vessels are particularly interesting as these assets could be shared with other EU agencies and the Member States in the context of multi mission operations under the scope of the Coast Guard Functions.. CleanSeaNet service The use of European Space Agency managed satellites has brought considerable cost reductions to the service as licenses are available free of charge. EMSA only pays service providers for the near real time generation of the CleanSeaNet Earth Observation products (acquisition, processing and analysis of the satellite imagery). Over the period 2014-2016, the costs of the service per 1,000 km 2 monitored decreased approximately by 22%. It should be noted that following the loss of contact with the ENVISAT satellite in 2012 and until the entry into operations of the Sentinel-1A satellite in 2015, EMSA had to rely solely on commercial satellites, which implied a significant increase in the overall costs of the service. Following the entry into operations and initial ramp-up phase, from the second half of 2016, EMSA has been ordering proportionally more Sentinel-1 Earth Observation products, and this is due to increase further in the coming years. The figures are already beginning to reflect the decreasing costs per 1,000 km2 monitored, and this should be even more apparent from 2017 onwards. By using Sentinel 1-A and 1-B, the CleanSeaNet service can provide improved satellite coverage, while simultaneously reducing the costs of the service. Relevance Are EMSA's measures relevant and to what extent do these measures address current pollution risks and pollution response needs? It should be noted first that EMSA's additional oil spill response capacity to assist EU/EFTA coastal Member States in case of large scale spill from vessels and oil and gas installations has been developed because it became apparent in the context of major disasters that there were not enough resources available in the coastal EU Member States. The results of the targeted consultation carried out by EMSA show that all but two Member States support continuing the current activities for pollution response and consider them of continued relevance. From the open public consultation (with the limitations related to representativeness), it appears that other stakeholders such as NGOs and companies concur as well that EMSA's capacity is relevant and should be maintained. In relation to risks, the establishment and maintenance of the network of contracted oil spill response vessels was initially based on a number of factors including the trading routes of oil tankers and historic tanker incident (spills). Regular reviews have illustrated that the pattern of oil transport routes has not significantly changed over the past decade. Figure 6 shows the oil tanker routes based on Automatic Identification System positions (from EMSA’s SafeSeaNet, the vessel traffic monitoring and information system) for the month of September 2016 (as an example).

Figure 6: Tanker traffic density based on SafeSeaNet data: September 2016. Source: EMSA There is also evidence of the increase in traffic and the shift towards bigger units (Figure 7). According to UNCTAD review of maritime transport 2016 , continued increase in the volume of seaborne transport is taking place, the threshold of 10 billion tonnes of seaborne cargo having been passed in 2015. In a highly competitive market, a shift towards newly built larger vessels can be observed. Furthermore due to a significant overcapacity of the world fleet, freight rates are affected negatively and operators are not able to cover their fixed costs in certain segments, which may have an implication on maintenance policy. The sinking of the Sanchi tanker in Chinese waters mid-January demonstrated that the risks of a major accident with a significant spillage and potential marine pollution remain high. In recent years, there has not been any such major disaster in EU waters but several incidents illustrated the relevance of maintaining a diverse and effective oil spill response capacity, such as the sinking of the Agia Zoni II tanker in Greek waters in September 2017. Figure 7: World seaborne trade by cargo type, 2000–2016 (Estimated billions of ton–miles) Source: UNCTAD/RMT/2016 page 7 Regarding oil and gas installations, in addition to the over 1000 offshore oil rigs and platforms present in European waters, hydrocarbon exploration is expanding to new areas. Figure 8 shows the areas of oil and gas installations as well as EMSA’s pollution response resources (2016). Since offshore oil and gas activities in European waters began, a number of oil spills originating from oil and gas installations have been recorded. With the increase and expansion of offshore oil and gas activities, as more regions are considered for exploratory drilling and extraction, the map of the European oil and gas industry is changing and the number of oil and gas installations is increasing, which may increase the probability of incidents that could lead to oil spills. Figure 8: EMSA’s services (and 24 h vessels’ radius) and oil and gas installations, 2016. Source: EMSA CleanSeaNet Figure 8 indicates the total number of possible spills detected in the years 2008 through 2016, while the line graph indicates the average number of detections per million km2 monitored. The overall trend over most of the past decade has been a year-on-year reduction in the number of possible spills detected per million km2 monitored, with a marked decrease per year in the period 2008-2010 (which coincided with the economic downturn in Europe, as well as an increase in awareness of maritime pollution related issues and an improvement in the provision of port reception facilities across the continent), and a more gradual decrease in the period 2010-2015. While illustrating the impact of the CleanSeaNet service in terms of deterrent effect, this figure also shows that spills and discharges have continued leading to possible pollution detection and hence sustain the continued relevance of the service. In 2016, the trend reversed, with an increase in the number of possible spills detected.

There are a number of possible reasons why the trend may have reversed in 2016. ·The introduction of the Sentinel-1 satellites has resulted in improved detection capabilities. With the improved spatial resolution of Sentinel-1 it is now possible to detect much smaller spills than before; these smaller spills are more numerous and would not have been detected previously. The average size of spills detected in 2016 was 25% smaller than in 2015. In 2015, no spills below 0.1 km2 were detected whereas this threshold decreased to 0.04 km2 in 2016. ·Optimisation of CleanSeaNet planning, due to use of new tools, increased the ratio of sea surface to land surface captured on the images in 2016. ·To a lesser extent, an increase in shipping volume could have caused the increase in detections; SafeSeaNet registered a 5% increase in the number of ship calls from 2015 to 2016, while Eurostat also records an increase in seaborne goods handled in European ports over recent years . Activities with regard to hazardous and noxious substances The main challenge faced by responders when facing a chemical incident is access to cargo data and emergency response specialized advice, including short risk assessment as chemicals beside being transported in bulk are transported in parcels and substances may interact when in contact. By developing the MAR-ICE service and being available to assist Member States 24/7 in case of a chemical incident, EMSA has demonstrated the relevance of its action in the field of HNS response.

Coherence Are EMSA's measures coherent with other EU intervention means? Although the focus of EU maritime transport and maritime safety policy and legislation is on prevention including with the assistance of EMSA, incidents resulting in huge spillage causing high economic and environmental damages could still happen as illustrated above hence the complementarity of an effective preparedness and disaster response capacity at EU level. EMSA's response capacity is also coherent with EU civil protection policy. In case of a major incident and subsequent request by a State, EMSA's capacities will be mobilised through the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism, the overarching framework for civil protection from manmade and natural disasters. This will ensure coherence of the EU response on the maritime side with the potential response made on the shore / coastal side. On a more technical level, EMSA’s work to link its SafeSeaNet system to CECIS MP (the Common Emergency Communication and Information System for Marine Pollution) in relation to relevant pollution notification by competent national authorities increased the coherence between the various systems. However, the synergy between the two components (EU Civil Protection Mechanism and EMSA anti-pollution measures) could be further improved with a view to offer enhanced support to Member States in case of emergency. Some Member States indicated that the pollution response equipment transportation cost may set back or delay their decision for mobilization of EMSA assets. Transport co-financing provision through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism currently cannot be applied in this case due to the limitations in the current legal base of the Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU). There is furthermore coherence with the EU environmental policy as the intervention aims at preventing the deliberate release of pollutant from ships as well as minimizing as much as possible the effect of an accidental release in marine waters. Another area which benefits from EMSA's pollution preparedness and response activities is the EU Neighbourhood partnerships policy. EMSA's capacity may be mobilised upon request of a third country sharing a regional sea basin with the EU in case of a major disaster. EMSA is integrating preparedness activities in its technical assistance provided to neighbouring partner countries through the SafeMed (for Mediterranean countries) and the Black and Caspian Sea projects. European Neighbourhood partner countries are also benefitting from the CleanSeaNet shared European capacity and the investments made in Earth Observation services. In the latter area of earth observation for maritime purposes, based on the experience and competences developed over the years, EMSA is also now able to deliver Earth Observation products to users of EMSA’s Integrated Maritime Services. Such Integrated Maritime Services are provided for purposes beyond marine pollution monitoring and detection, such as maritime safety and security, fisheries control, border control, law enforcement, customs, and other Coast Guard functions. More recently, the Agency became the Entrusted Entity for implementing the Copernicus Maritime Surveillance service . EU added value To what extent do EMSA's measures provide added-value compared to interventions at regional (in particular those of regional agreements and organisations) or national levels by public authorities or the private sector? Network of oil pollution response vessels and Equipment Assistance Service The network of oil pollution response vessels is based on a regional approach which complements the national approaches. The additional Equipment Assistance Service providing specialised oil spill response equipment that is not typically (or not at all) available in Member States further improves the preparedness level that can be best achieved at a European scale. The following tables show the EU added value to the national capacities. According to its mandate, EMSA has focused on assets designed for spills of a significant amount, an investment that Member States could not have achieved at national level.

Table 4 Member States’ and EMSA’s oil pollution response vessels Number of vessels Storage capacity (m3) Storage Capacity Member States and EFTA (MS) EMSA MS EMSA < 200 m3 172 0 8,861 0 200 m3 - 700 m3 56 0 17,311 0 700 m3 - 1500 m3 23 1 24,935 997 > 1500 m3 19 17 70,553 62,475 In accordance with its mandate, EMSA has contracted oil recovery vessels with large storage capacity thus ensuring less frequent need for port calls to offload recovered oil thereby optimising the at-sea recovery periods. In other words, the Agency’s 17 vessels nearly equal the storage capacity of all Member States vessels of comparable capacity. Table 5 Member States’ and EMSA’s oil pollution response equipment Quantity Member States EMSA Containment and Recovery Systems 16 12 Weir Booms 2 2 Fire Booms 1 8 Sweeping arms 12 19 Dispersant (tonnes) ~ 3,500 800 Table 6 Numbers of Member States’ and EMSA’s oil skimmers by recovery capacity Number of skimmers Capacity Member States EMSA Less than 100 m3/h 196 0 100 - 250 m3/h 20 19 > 250 m3/h 16 10 In terms of oil recovery capacity, the figures clearly show that EMSA has selected powerful equipment for major crises according to its mandate. The Agency’s capacity quasi tallies the overall capacity of Member States, a trend that will be even strengthened by the upcoming replacement of first generation skimmers by high capacity ones. Regarding complementarity of EMSA means with capacity under regional agreements and/or the private sector, the tiered approach has been applied to ensure such complementarity. EMSA's response means have been established as tier 3, topping up existing capacity by other actors. Furthermore, the external study by Ramboll has concluded that the existence of EMSA’s oil pollution response services topping up national and private resources does not seem to be having an adverse impact on the level of preparedness of the EU Member States and EFTA countries. This has remained stable over the period analysed, and appears set to follow the same trend looking ahead towards 2020. In an attempt to try to simulate the added value of the recovery capacity of the vessel network, EMSA has developed four different scenarios during two hypothetical and two past oil spills in different areas in Europe. The results are summarised in the following table. More details regarding each scenarios and the methodology used for the calculation can be found in Annex 7. However, although several conservative assumptions have been taken for building the scenarios, it has to be emphasized that the figures resulting from these simulations should not be taken for granted. As a matter of fact, except in close areas, the probability to recover most of the oil at sea in any incident in the open sea is low. In the Prestige incident for instance, out of an amount of 63.000 tonnes released, the amount of oil and water mixture (i.e. considerably less pure oil) recovered is estimated to 18.000 tonnes. The figure needs to be considered in the context in which the removal of 1tonne of oil from the sea could avoid up to 10 tons of oil and debris ashore. Table 7: simulation of EMSA added value in several oil spill scenarios Area Incident Incident area Pure oil Spilled (tons) Type of oil Storage capacity mobilised by MS (m3) Storage capacity mobilised by EMSA (tonnes) Quantity of pure oil recovered by EMSA (tonnes) Black Sea Hypothetical Off Bourgas, Bulgaria 50,000 Bunker C HFO 2,392 23,802 11,270 Med Sea Hypothetical Off Genoa, Italy 50,000 Bunker C HFO 4,830 14,140 12,141 Atlantic Prestige Cape Finisterre, Galicia, Spain 63,000 IFO 650 18,895 33,801 21,657 Baltic Sea Baltic Carrier Kadet fairway, Jutlans islands, Denmark 2,700 HFO 3,125 2,880 609 Source: EMSA If the results related to the two past real incidents are considered, the figures of recovered oily- water mixture compare as follows. Incident Real amount of oil water mixture recovered at sea (according to official sources) Result from simulation (oil-water mixture) Prestige 18,000 m3 67,723 m3 Baltic Carrier 940 m3 913 m3