EN    EN EN 
2008/MOVE/047 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
Brussels, 28.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1264 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
  
Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Re gulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a 
European Maritime Safety Agency 
COM(2010) 611 
 SEC(2010) 1263 
EN 2   EN Table of content 
Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 4 
Section 1: Procedural issues and co nsultation of interested parties .................................... 5 
1.1. Organisation and timing .............................................................................................. 5 
1.2. External expertise ......................................................................................................... 5 
1.3. Consultation of stakeholders ........................................................................................ 6 
1.4. Main results from the stakeholder consultations ......................................................... 6 
1.5. Opinion from the Impact Assessment Board ................................................................ 7 
Section 2: Problem definition .................................................................................................. 9 
2.1. Background on EMSA .................................................................................................. 9 
2.2. EMSA's current situation ............................................................................................. 9 
2.3. Need for action ........................................................................................................... 11 
2.3.1. Avoid inconsistency................................................................................................... 11  
2.3.2. Governance issues...................................................................................................... 1 5 
2.4. Affected stakeholders ................................................................................................. 16 
2.5. Consequences of inaction ........................................................................................... 16 
2.6. Legal basis for action by the EU ................................................................................ 16 
Section 3: Objectives .............................................................................................................. 17 
3.1. General policy objectives ........................................................................................... 17 
3.2. Specific policy objectives ........................................................................................... 17 
3.3. Operational objective ................................................................................................. 17 
3.4. Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 17 
Section 4: Policy options ........................................................................................................ 18 
4.1. Policy options regarding the tasks of the Agency ...................................................... 18 
4.1.1. Option 1 "do nothing" ................................................................................................ 18 4.1.2. Option 2 "minimal" revision ...................................................................................... 19 
4.1.3. Option 3 "medium" revision ...................................................................................... 20 
4.1.4. Option 4 "large" revision ........................................................................................... 20 4.2. Policy options regarding th e governance of the Agency ........................................... 22 
Section 5: Analysis of impacts ............................................................................................... 24 
5.1. Preliminary considerations ........................................................................................ 24 
EN 3   EN 5.1.1. Analysis of the policy options regarding the governance of the Agency .................. 24 
5.1.2. Analysis of the policy options re garding the tasks of the Agency............................. 24 
5.2. The economic impact .................................................................................................. 24 
5.2.1. Types of economic impact ......................................................................................... 24 5.2.2. Competitiveness of the shipping sector...................................................................... 24 5.2.3. Administrative burden for Member States................................................................. 25 5.2.4. Consequences for the EU budget ............................................................................... 26 5.3. The social impact ....................................................................................................... 26 
5.4. The environmental impact .......................................................................................... 27 
5.5. Impact of maritime accidents ..................................................................................... 27 
Section 6: Comparing the options ......................................................................................... 29 
6.1. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 29 
6.2. Added value for the EU .............................................................................................. 29 
6.3. Budgetary situation and evoluti on of the Agency's resources ................................... 30 
6.4. The preferred option .................................................................................................. 30 
Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................. 33 
7.1. Indicators of progress ................................................................................................ 33 
7.2. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 33 
Annex I: Recommendations from EMSA's Administrative Board ........................................... 34 
Annex II: Executive Summary from the external evaluation................................................ 38 Annex III: Current tasks of EMSA ....................................................................................... 42 Annex IV: Possible future tasks of EMSA............................................................................ 45 
EN 4   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Report on the impact assessment of the proposal for amending  
Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency 
Lead DG : MOVE 
Other involved services : ADMIN, BUDG, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, MARE, RTD, SG, SJ 
Agenda planning or WP reference : 2008/MOVE/047 
Executive summary 
In this impact assessment, the Commission has reviewed a number of options regarding the 
2002 Regulation establishing a European Maritime  Safety Authority (EMSA). The external 
evaluation of EMSA's past and current performa nce fully confirmed the expected added-value 
of this 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. The impact assessment shows that a number of ne w tasks should be given to EMSA and that a 
number of clarifications would be usefully introduced in the Regulation, regarding EMSA's 
tasks and its specific gov ernance arrangements.  
Regarding EMSA's tasks the following four options were considered:  - Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. l eave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged) 
- Option 2: "minimal" revision limited to tasks arising from the implementation of the third 
EU-legislation maritime safety package; 
- Option 3: "medium" revision encompassing op tion 2 plus taking over a large part of the 
activities of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding in the area of Port State Control; 
- Option 4: "large" revision encompassing option 3 plus new tasks in th e areas of security, 
research and general maritime policy.  
Regarding the Agency's governance aspects, th e following three options  were established: 
- Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. l eave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged); 
- Option 2: revision of the governance issues within the institution al framework of a 
regulatory agency; 
- Option 3: radical revision by transforming th e institutional framework in which EMSA 
currently operates. 
Regarding the governance options, it  was concluded at an early stage to pursue with a limited 
version of option 2 as the costs and difficulties raised by option 3 were considered too huge in 
comparison to the expected benefits, while option 1 does not allow improving the governance 
of the Agency. The limited version consis ts of modifying only governance arrangements 
EN 5   EN specific to EMSA, while leaving questions of  horizontal nature to  the ongoing political 
discussions between the EU Institutions. 
The Commission has opted for a limited review of  EMSA's tasks, which maintains entirely 
EMSA's existing activities. The preferred opti on is a "light" version of option 4 (which 
encompasses options 2 and 3); in which certain  specific tasks examined individually have 
been disregarded. The tasks disregarded are thos e (a) where the outcome of the third Maritime 
Safety Package changed the initial Commission proposals; (b) which ap pear of not producing 
significant enough benefits for be ing transferred from the Secr etariat of the Paris MoU to 
EMSA and (c) those that concern the extens ion of EMSA's assistance to the Commission 
regarding maritime security beyond the scope of Regulation 725/2004. 
The financial consequences of this prefe rred option are estimated at additional staff 
requirements of 18 posts to be phased in between 2012 and 2014, a significant part of which should be made available by the Agency itsel f through internal redeployment. The overall 
budgetary costs for the period 2012-2017 are estimat ed at 5.7 M EUR. It should be noted that 
EMSA has received over the past years a considerable number of additional posts (55 posts for the period 2008-2011 in comparison to 2007), of which 32 needed for the new LRIT tasks started in 2008 (see section 3.2.1). 
Section 1: Procedural issues and co nsultation of interested parties 
1.1. Organisation and timing  This proposal was part of the Commission's legislative and work  programme for 2008 
(reference 2008/MOVE/047). 
Preparations for the impact analysis star ted in 2007. An inter-service steering group was 
established to which the following DGs were  invited: ADMIN, BUDG, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, 
MARE, RTD, SG and SJ as well as EMSA. Af ter agreement on the terms of reference by 
correspondence, the kick-off meeting of th e inter-service steering group took place on 
16 October 2007 and the final meeting on 1
st April 2008.  
1.2. External expertise 
Two different independent sources of expertise have been used. Firstly, as foreseen by Article 
22 of the EMSA Regulation1, EMSA's Administrative Boar d commissioned an external 
evaluation. The call for tender was launched in April 2007 and the Commission was part of 
                                                 
1 Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 
establishing a European Maritime Sa fety Agency, OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1, amended for the last time 
by Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
on multiannual funding for the action of the European Ma ritime Safety Agency in the field of response 
to pollution caused by ships. Article 22 reads: "1. Within five years from the date of the Agency having 
taken up its responsibilities, the Administrative Board shall commission an independent external 
evaluation on the implementation of this Regulation. The Commission shall make available to the 
Agency any information the latter considers relevant to that evaluation. 2. The evaluation shall assess the impact of this Regulation, the Agency and its working practices. The Administrative Board shall 
issue specific terms of reference in agreement with the Commission, following consultations with the 
parties involved. 3. The Administrative Board sha ll receive the evaluation an d issue recommendations 
regarding changes to this Regulation, the Agency and its working practices to the Commission. Both the 
evaluation findings and recommendations shall be forwarded by the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council and shall be made public."  
EN 6   EN the Board's selection and steering group. The st udy was carried out by the consultant COWI 
and the final report was presented to EMSA's  Administrative Board in March 2008. On the 
basis of this report, the Administrative Boar d adopted recommendations at its subsequent 
meeting of 12 June 20082. As foreseen by the Regula tion, both the findings and the 
recommendations have been published3. 
Secondly, in order to complete the evaluation by a study of the possible impact of the policy 
options under consideration, DG MOVE commissioned a study unde r its framework contract 
for assistance regarding impact assessment. This study was undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCoopers Advisory (PwC). 
1.3. Consultation of stakeholders 
Stakeholders have been consulted in the prepar ation of the two external studies. In addition, 
the Commission has held ad-hoc consultation. 
Regarding the first study, COWI consulted EMSA  twice, sent a questionnaire to the 27 EU 
Member States (response rate of 89%) and organi sed interviews with 18 representatives from 
Member States, 12 representatives from the Commission, 4 members of the European 
Parliament and 4 industry representatives. EMSA 's Administrative Boar d had set up a steering 
committee to accompany the activities of th e consultant, to which the Commission 
participated. The consultant pres ented its intermediate and fina l findings to the entire Board. 
Regarding the second study, PwC consulted EMSA and sent a detailed questionnaire to the 
members of EMSA's Administrative Board (27 EU Member States, Norway, Iceland as well 
as 4 industry representatives) and to the Secretariat of the Pa ris Memorandum of 
Understanding on Port State Control. The part icipation rate was 56%, with 36 % of the 
consulted parties filling the questionnaire. 
During the preparation of the proposal and the impact assessment, the Commission has 
consulted the Directors of the Maritime Tran sport Administrations of the 27 EU Member 
States as well as Norway and Iceland. The topic was also rais ed at various meetings of 
EMSA's Administrative Board in the context of the Agency's evaluation. The Commission 
received written contributions from two Member States. 
1.4. Main results from the stakeholder consultations 
Based on the input from the stakeholder consu ltation, the external eval uation of the Agency 
attributes excellent marks to the Agency summarised in the following quote: 
"It is the overall conclusion from  the evaluation that the estab lishment of EMSA has filled a 
gap in the maritime safety area in the Eur opean Union. The Agency has quickly grown in 
terms of its tasks and importance to become a significant actor in the maritime safety area. The Agency has added value to the sector in ge neral, and, in particular, to its two main 
stakeholders, the Member States and the Commission."
4 
                                                 
2 See Annex I. 
3 See EMSA's website at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end179d003d002.html . Additionally, the executive 
summary of the external evalua tion can be found in Annex II. 
4 See the external evaluation study, p. 6. 
EN 7   EN Furthermore, the stakeholders consider th e EMSA Regulation and EMSA itself as highly 
relevant. EMSA's effectiveness and efficiency  are considered above average - and EMSA's 
effectiveness is considered as high in many areas . The external evaluation indicates that most 
Member States have experienced administrative savings or expect, in the future, to be able to save administrative resources as a consequence of EMSA's work in certain areas and that 
EMSA has contributed to making legislative pr oposals technically feasible and acceptable. 
However, the external evaluation highlights that  EMSA's effectiveness and efficiency can be 
further improved in a number of  areas and that some clarifications are desirable. Those 
remarks concern mainly the internal organisation of the Agency, in part icular the management 
of projects with a high IT component
5. Furthermore, the study not es the duality of EMSA's 
role in carrying out inspections of Member States on behalf of the Commission on the one 
hand and providing technical assistance to  the Member States on the other hand6.  
Based on these findings, EMSA's  Administrative Board issued a set of recommendations on 
12 June 2008 (see Annex I). One recommenda tion requires definitely a change to the 
Regulation while other recommendations would be nefit from an appropriate legal basis in 
EMSA's founding Regulation.  
The stakeholder consultation dur ing the second study confirme d the excellent standing of 
EMSA. The replies showed that EMSA shoul d be able to perform effectively an 
overwhelming majority of the potential new tasks under consideration in the impact 
assessment (see section 6).  
Furthermore, a majority of stakeholders wished to keep the Paris Memorandum of 
Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU) in its existing structure as an 
intergovernmental body. The Commission has take n account of this opinion (see section 6.4. 
below for further details). EMSA's multi-annual  strategy adopted in March 2010 foresees " to 
maximise management efficiency "7 for both EMSA and the Paris MoU Secretariat. Different 
actions are envisaged for the near future. In or der to respond to the concerns expressed by 
Member States that EMSA's focus could be detracted from its current assistance to the 
Commission and the Member States to new activiti es like the assistance to third countries, the 
Commission services conclude th at any revision or extension of EMSA's tasks should not 
jeopardise the current achievements of the Agency and the services provided to the 
Commission and the Member States, thus a ny new tasks require a ppropriate additional 
resources for EMSA. 
1.5. Opinion from the Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment Board issued its opinion on 22 June 2008 providing a number of 
recommendations for improvements. The majo r changes to the report are the following: 
• The description of the baseline scenario has been extended; 
• Considerations on the principles of subsidia rity and proportionality have been introduced; 
                                                 
5 While regulatory agencies benefit from a huge degree of administrative autonomy regarding their 
internal management, this aspect will be addressed indirectly below under options 2, 3 and 4, in particular in tasks B7, B8, B11, B12, C5 and D4. 
6 See the external eval uation study, p. 35. 
7 To be published on EMSA's website.  
EN 8   EN • The presentation of policy options has been restructured; 
• The assessment of the economi c impact has been improved. 
EN 9   EN Section 2: Problem definition 
2.1. Background on EMSA The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) was created in 2002 as part of the second 
maritime safety package in a general effort to improve maritime safety in European waters after a number of maritime accide nts, some of them leading to  environmental catastrophes in 
Europe. The Commission proposed  the creation of EMSA with  the main objective to " provide 
the Commission and Member States with suppor t in applying and monitoring compliance with 
Community law and in assessing the effectiveness of the measures in place. The Agency will 
have a staff of around 50 […] "
8. After the entry into force of  the Regulation in August 2002, 
the Agency started activities in  early 2003 with the Executive Director taking up his duties. 
The first full year of operations was 2004.  
Previous modifications of the EMSA Regulation 
The maritime legislation of the EU has consider ably evolved since the creation of EMSA in 
2002, as witnessed by the three modifications  of the founding Regulation already adopted9. 
While the first modification  to the EMSA founding Regulati on was of a horizontal nature 
and concerned financial and budgetary proc edures as well as transparency, the second 
modification  which entered into force in May 2004 br ought considerable new tasks to the 
Agency in the areas of maritime security a nd pollution preparedness and response. Under the 
terms of that Regulation, the Agency is requi red to provide the Member States and the 
Commission with technical and scientific assist ance in the field of accidental or deliberate 
pollution caused by ships and, in particular, to support, on request, in a cost-efficient way, the 
pollution response mechanisms of the Member  States. In order to  provide an overall 
framework for its action in the field of prev ention and response to oi l pollution, the Agency 
adopted an Action Plan in October 2004 for o il pollution preparedness and response. The 
third modification  introduced by Regulation 2038/2006 pr ovided the funding of 154 M EUR 
in a multi-annual financial framework fo r these activities for the period 2007-201310. 
However, these previous modifica tions have not been sufficient to address the new challenges 
ahead for EMSA, most of the challenges being ex ternal either to EMSA or to EMSA and the 
EU as a whole. 
2.2. EMSA's current situation 
This report is not the appropriate place to provide a full  description of EMSA's current 
activities. Comprehensive information on EMSA is available at its we bsite including annual 
work programmes, annual reports, budgetary information, the Action Plan for Oil Pollution 
Preparedness and Response (initial adoption in 2004), the Action Plan for Hazardous and 
                                                 
8 COM(2000)802 of 6.12.2000, p. 5. 
9 First modification by Regulation (EC) No 1644/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
22 July 2003, OJ L 245 of 29.9.2003, p. 10; 
Second modification by Regulation (EC) No 724/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
31 March 2004, OJ L 129 of 29.4.2004, p. 1; 
Third modification by Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18 December 2006, OJ L 394 of 30.12.2006, p. 1, see also the corrigendum in OJ  L 30 of 3.2.2007, p. 
12. 
10 For more information see EMSA's first financial repo rt published in early 2008. The report is available 
at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end645.html  under the heading "Pollution preparedness & response".  
EN 10   EN Noxious Substances Pollution Preparedness and Response (initial adoption in 2007) as well as 
information for the general public11.  
The following two tables illustrate EMSA's rapid growth over the past years: 
EMSA Budget in million Euros: 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
 2011 
Draft12 
Authorised CA 2.650 13.304 35.360 44.738 48.249 50.203 48.335 53.791 56.598 
Authorised 
PA 2.650 13.340 35.360 44.738 48.249 50.228 53.300 50.014 57.644 
Committed 1.043 7.503 29.714 34.287 43.280 46.466 45.42713 n. a. n. a. 
Paid 0.507 4.666 15.175 23.969 32.982 37.213 43.04013 n. a. n. a. 
CA = Commitment appropriations / PA = Payment appropriations 
EMSA's human resources 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
 2011 
planned 
Authorised posts under the establishment plan 40 55 95 132 153 181 192 200 208 
Posts occupied at year's 
end 8 34 80 111 135 149 179 n. a. n. a 
Total staff including 
seconded national experts, auxiliaries and contractual agents at year's end 14 50 100 131 161 179 212 n. a. n. a. 
As from 1st June 2008, EMSA has been organised in the following three departments, each 
one composed of three units: 
− Corporate Services (Finance, Human Resour ces, Legal, IT, External Communication and 
Facilities Management); 
− Implementation (maritime safety and pr otection of marine environment acquis); 
− Operations (Pollution response, CleanSeaNet, SafeSeaNet, LRIT). 
                                                 
11 See http://www.emsa.europa.eu/  
12 Figures from the Draft Budget 2011 as adopted by EMSA's Administrative Board on 9-10 March 2010. 
13 The budget execution figures for 2009 are provisional. 
EN 11   EN Some key figures from 2009 illustra te EMSA's different activities: 
114 inspections in the areas of maritime sa fety, maritime security and prevention of 
pollution by ships 
88 events organised with over 2.250 participants. This includ es 694 people trained in 34 
training sessions. 
65 substantial technical reports  
13 contracts covering 18 stand- by oil spill recovery vessels (16 in the stand-by phase and 
2 in the preparatory phase) for the different regional seas of the EU. Participation in 47 
drills. 
Over 3 million messages are exchanged per month in the EU vessel traffic monitoring 
system SafeSeaNet, with 2.000 users. 
CleanSeaNet: 2.107 possible oil slic ks detected, 751 oil slicks verified by Member States 
and 194 oil slicks confirmed. 
Long-Range Identification and Tracking of vessels (LRIT): Establishment and management of the EU LRIT data centre which covers more than 6.000 EU-flag ships. 
Finally, the appreciation from the shipping sector  of EMSA's contribution should be noted, 
confirming EMSA's increasing role in maritime sa fety at the European scene as the following 
example demonstrates: EMSA established in 2004 a High Level Panel of Experts on Double 
Hull Tankers with the active participation of the main stakeholders14. The Panel met 6 times 
and adopted a report15 with 8 recommendations which were transmitted to the regulators and 
the tanker industry. The open and informal way of work has proven to be effective in 
addressing the issues that were raised, to carry out analyses, come to conclusions and – what is important for the future implementation of the recommendations – unanimously present 
solutions to the concerns raised. 
2.3. Need for action 
From this situation two differe nt sets of problems arise:  
1) to which extent does the EMSA Regulatio n provide the appropriate basis for EMSA 
carrying out its tasks as expected  by its main stakeholders and  
2) how to deal with a number of governance issu es which have been ex perienced in the first 
years of EMSA's existence. 
2.3.1. Avoid inconsistency 
Evolution of maritime safety acquis 
The third maritime safety package proposed by the Commission in late 2005 and finally 
adopted in March 2009 further enhances EMSA's  tasks and its assistance to the Commission 
and the Member States, although the final result of the legislative pr ocedure requires les 
assistance than the initial Commission proposals would have required in particular regarding 
                                                
 
14 Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO),  Community of European Shipyards’ Association 
(CESA), European Commission (DG TREN), Internat ional Association of Classification Societies 
(IACS), International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) , International Maritime  Organization (IMO), 
International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) and Oil Companies 
International Marine Forum (OCIMF). 
15 The report is available at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end185d007d002d003d002.html   
EN 12   EN flag state responsibilities and liability of shipowners. In its communication on the third 
maritime safety package, the Commission indicated: "Implementation of the measures 
contained in this package will, where appropriate, involve the European Maritime Safety 
Agency set up by Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council. Some of the measures are already provided for in that Regulation. The others will be the subject of a proposal to amend the Regulation setting up the Agency which the 
Commission intends to subm it in the coming months"
16. 
Without acting, the inconsistency between EMSA 's founding Regulation and recently adopted 
EU legislative acts in the area of maritime safe ty, will lead to uncertainties regarding EMSA's 
tasks and to a lack of visibility in  the sense of "who is doing what?"  
It is necessary to better specify  EMSA's tasks and to define precisely EMSA's assistance to 
the Commission and the Member States in the light of various new developments. 
Other developments at EU level 
The Commission presented in January 2009 its Maritime Transport Strategy for the period up 
to 201817. Beside the intention to "revise the ma ndate and the functioning of the European 
Maritime Safety Agency, in order to further enha nce the technical and scie ntific assistance it 
can give to the Member Stat es and the Commission" (p. 8) , the Commission announced also 
its plans in the area of human resources, seam anship and maritime know-how (point 3 of the 
communication), where EMSA is expected to make different contributions. The Council 
welcomed this communication18 and supported "enhancing th e work of the European 
Maritime Safety Agency for providing technical a nd scientific assistance to Member States 
and the Commission". The EP opinion on the communication is  under preparation. 
In developing the Integrated EU maritime policy , the Commission has stated its intention to 
take forward an integrated approach to mar itime surveillance at EU level, which brings 
together and makes interoperable the various  surveillance systems which are in place or 
planned, building on the ongoing technical work by the EU Ag encies EMSA, FRONTEX, and 
the Communities Fisheries Control Agency19. EMSA's contribution to this new and wider EU 
policy objective has not been foreseen in its founding Regulation (for details see below under 
option 4). 
Following an invitation by the EU legislator20, the Commission services are working on a 
feasibility st udy regarding a European Coastguard service . The Commission services are 
currently considering that s ynergies at EU level could be  reinforced through EMSA's 
activities. This could be further supported by extending EMSA's tasks in selected areas, in 
                                                 
16 See COM(2005)585, 23.11.2005, p. 5. 
17 See COM(2009) 8 from 21.1.2009: "Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime 
transport policy until 2018". 
18 See Council conclusions of the meeting in Brussels on 30 and 31 March 2009, p. 24-30 of the press 
release. The European Parliament is currently  finalising its report on the communication. 
19 See Action Plan in SEC(2007)1278 of 10.10.2007, p. 7-8 and Communication "Towards the integration 
of maritime surveillance: A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain" 
COM(2009)538 final. 
20 See article 11 of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 
2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, OJ L 255, 
30.09.2005, p. 11 and point 15 of the EP resolution on improving safety at sea of 21.04.2004. 
EN 13   EN particular regarding the survei llance of coastal waters and shipping routes as well as 
assistance for tracking possible polluters (for details see below under options 2 and 4). 
While the current EMSA Regulation foresees  "the analysis of research projects"21, it is felt 
that at EU level there is a gap between maritime research  and the follow-up to research 
projects from a regulatory point of view. An enha nced role for EMSA could help to close this 
gap. In analysing research proj ects, EMSA could pay particular  attention to the question to 
which extent the successful implementation of research results requires regulatory action and 
assist the Commission in pr eparing appropriate action. Th e external evaluation report 
identified research as one of the possible new tasks for EMSA22 (for details see below under 
option 4). 
External influences on EMSA 
The growing influence of the EU and its Member States in international organisations  
relevant for maritime transport, mainly the In ternational Maritime Organization (IMO), makes 
it also necessary to review EMSA tasks and reso urces in order to ensure that the Commission 
and the Member States receive th e best possible technical advice. It should also be noted that 
the International Labour Office (ILO) adopted  in 2006 a comprehens ive Maritime Labour 
Convention. The EU social partners agreed in 2008 to introduce this  Convention into EU 
legislation through the procedure foreseen in Article 139 of the Treaty. The Council adopted 
Directive 2009/13/EC in early 200923. The implementation and enforcement of this 
Convention establishing minimum working conditi ons for seafarers will require adaptations 
from Flag States, Port States and Labour Su pplying States, where EMSA's assistance is 
required. Furthermore, IMO is working on the revision of the International Convention on 
Standards of Training, Certific ation and Watchkeeping for Seaf arers (STCW). A diplomatic 
conference will take place in Manila in June 2010 to agree on the new text. The Commission 
assisted by EMSA has been coordinating substa ntial EU input and the EU positions in this 
process and EMSA will assist the Commission in the preparation of the revision of Directive 
2008/106 on the minimum level of training of seaf arers, once the text of the new Convention 
has been adopted. 
To a certain extent, EMSA is a victim of its ow n success as its contribution to maritime safety 
has created expectations for a nd interest in cooper ation with EMSA amo ngst a large group of 
stakeholders. In part icular the maritime neighbouring countries  of the EU sharing a regional 
sea with the EU Member States like the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea or the Mediterranean have been voicing their interest in technical c ooperation with the Agency. The EMSA Regulation 
makes such technical cooperation difficult (for details see below under option 4). 
                                                
 
21 See article 2 (a) of the EMSA Regulation. 
22 See box 3.1 on page 28 of the external evaluatio n , where "complex tech nical assistance to the 
Commission in cooperation with research and devel opment programmes" and "scientific research and 
climate change (in particular mitigating the eff ects of climate change on coastal regions)" are 
mentioned. 
23 Council Directive 2009/13/EC of 16 February 2009 implementing the Agreement concluded by the 
European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) and the European Transport Workers’ 
Federation (ETF) on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC, OJ 
L 124, 20.05.2009, p. 30. 
EN 14   EN The Joint Declaration of the Paris Summit for the Mediterr anean adopted on 13 July 2008 
may serve as a prominent example24. In its annex, the importance of maritime safety and 
security as well as of civil protection is stre ssed. EMSA makes an im portant contribution to 
all these areas. 
Furthermore, EMSA supports the Commission in regional organisations . At technical level, 
EMSA may even represent the Commission due to  its technical exper tise and its resources. 
While the current Regulation foresees this in the case of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
25, EMSA's assistance is releva nt also for other regional 
organisations in which the Commission is active, in particular regarding the prevention of and 
response to pollution by ships (Helsinki Co mmission for the Baltic Sea, Barcelona 
Convention for the Mediterranean, etc.). For example, EMSA is active in the regional 
maritime traffic data exchange (AIS data = Auto matic Identification System of vessels) in the 
Baltic and Mediterranean Sea and assists the Commission in the implementation of a regional 
maritime safety project in the Mediterranean (SafeMed). 
LRIT as a case study 
Another prominent case for interaction between various regulatory levels is the Long Range 
Identification and Tracking of vessels (LRIT). Th is project will be discussed in more detail 
below under option 2, but it has to be mentione d here that the initia tive was launched and 
agreed at international  level; the implementation was discussed at EU level and the technical 
and operational management was given to EMSA . Within IMO, the contracting parties agreed 
on the introduction of this new system within given deadlines. The EU Member States decided in October 2007 to set up an EU LRIT data centre to be " managed by the 
Commission, in cooperation with Member States through EMSA "
26. The Council adopted 
further guidelines regarding the EU LRIT data centre in December 200827. With the Member 
States agreeing to convey the implementation of  international obligations to the Commission 
and EMSA, the Commission had to provide a dditional budgetary resources in the EU budget 
for financing this new project through an amending budget in 2008. 
A pilot project is ongoing together  with the EU Naval forces and in cooperation with Member 
States in the Gulf of Aden based on LRIT as  a tool to fight agai nst piracy, showing the 
potential of using information available from maritime applications for different user communities. 
It should be noted that EU Member States de cided in late 2009 to submit a bid to IMO for 
EMSA to host the International Data Exchange  (IDE) of the global LR IT system from 2011 
onwards. The IDE is currently provided on a temporary basis by the USA. A decision is 
expected to be taken at IMO's Maritime Sa fety Committee in May 2010; no other bid has 
been received. 
For these reasons, the Commission has to make sure that EMSA remains able to meet the 
legitimate requirements of its stakeholders also in  the future in line with the developments in 
the area of maritime safety. 
                                                
 
24 See the text of the declaratio n, in particular p. 19, at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/external_r elations/euromed/index_en.htm . 
25 See article 2 (b) (ii) of the EMSA Regulation. 
26 See point 1 in the Council Resolution of 2 October 2007, Council document 13736/07. 
27 See Council Resolution of 9 Decem ber 2008, Council document 17043/08. 
EN 15   EN 2.3.2. Governance issues 
The second set of problems to be addressed in this revision concerns governance issues. 
Experience over the past years has shown th at some governance provisions need to be 
clarified further in order to better define the roles and res ponsibilities of the Agency, the 
Administrative Board, the Member States and the Commission. The exte rnal evaluation study 
has confirmed the need to clarify certain issues28. The Commission has identified the 
following two main problems: 
• EMSA's double role between on the one hand monitoring Member States through 
inspections and visits, which may eventually le ad to infringements procedures and cases at 
the European Court of Justice, and on th e other hand providing technical assistance, 
training and maritime support servic es to the Member States.  
• The potential conflict of interest for Board members representing Member States: On the 
one hand they decide as Board members on EMSA 's activities and resources, in particular 
on the visits policy29, on the other hand they represent national administrations, which are 
themselves subject to visits and inspections by EMSA to check the conformity of national regulations and practice with th e applicable EU law. This potential conflict has led to 
discussions at Board meetings in particular at the time of agreeing EMSA's visits policy
30. 
While for the time being, such problems have been fortunately avoided and while most 
stakeholders acknowledge that EMSA handles both roles well so far31, the problematic 
character of the underlying provisions32 has become clear and requires corrective action. 
Other governance issues concern the manage ment of the Agency. As recommended by 
EMSA's Administrative Board (see Annex I), the external evalua tion of the Agency should be 
repeated at regular inte rvals thus requiring modi fications to Article 22.  
A second recommendation concerns the develo pment of a multi-annua l strategy for EMSA, 
which should allow a better strategic planning as  the current planning is mainly conditioned 
by the annual budgetary cycle. In March 2010 , EMSA's Administrative Board approved a 
multi-annual strategy for the period 2010-2014, in which 14 new themes for EMSA are outlined
33. The Commission supports the strategy subj ect to the availabili ty of the required 
budgetary resources. While it considers that many  of the 14 themes do not require changes to 
the EMSA-Regulation, it has taken into account a number of themes in the proposal (see explanatory memorandum).  
                                                
 
28 See the external evaluation study, p. 7: "Comprehen sive alterations to the current tasks allocated to 
EMSA are not recommended. There is  a need for clarification in some areas and this should be mainly 
addressed by the development of a strategy plan for the Agency". 
29 See Article 3 (1) of the EMSA Regulation: " In order to perform the tasks entrusted to it, the Agency 
may carry out visits to the Member States in accordance with the policy defined by the Administrative 
Board ." 
30 The document is available at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end179d003d001.html  under the decisions of 
the meeting of 25 June 2004. 
31 See the external eval uation study, p. 35. 
32 See in particular Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation. 
33 To be published on EMSA's website. 
EN 16   EN Furthermore, due to EMSA's increased size, an intermediate management layer (Heads of 
Department) has been created. However, unlike in other regulatory agencies of a similar size, 
no role has been foreseen for the Administrative Board in the appointment of these managers.  
Finally, the initial balance of  the voting rights between Comm ission and Member States has 
been altered considerably by the latest enlargem ents. While in late 2002 at the first meetings 
of EMSA's Administrative Bo ard, the Commission represented around 21 % of the votes (4 
Commission representatives out of a total of 19 re presentatives with voti ng rights); this share 
has now been reduced to around 13 % due to the enlargement to 27 Member States (4 Commission representatives out of a total of 31 representatives with voting rights). The 
Administrative Board takes decisions in general by a two-thirds majority of all members with the right to vote (see Article 14). Special procedures are foreseen regarding the agency's work 
programmes (see Article 10(2)(d)) while the appointment of the Executive Directors requires a four-fifths majority (see Article 16). 
2.4. Affected stakeholders 
The most affected stakeholders of the envisaged modifications are the Agency itself as well as 
the Commission and the national maritime administrations, which form EMSA's main "users". 
Secondly, as all actors in the maritime sector  (seafarers, passengers, staff employed in the 
maritime sector and citizens living close to the s hore) are directly affected by maritime safety 
measures, the revision of the EMSA Regul ation, impacting on EMSA's contribution to 
maritime safety would affect them indirectly.  
2.5. Consequences of inaction 
The question of how the problem would evolve, all things being equal, is addressed as policy 
option 1 "Do nothing" below under sections 4 to 6. This would mean leaving Regulation 
1406/2002 unchanged despite changes in EU maritim e transport law, new developments at 
international and EU level and growing expect ations from stakeholders towards assistance 
from EMSA. 
2.6. Legal basis for action by the EU 
The proposal seeks to modify existing EU legislation, more specifically Regulation 
1406/2002. 
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, such action has to be taken at EU level and 
cannot be taken at national, regional or local level.  
The envisaged EU action also respects the pr inciple of proportionality, as the Agency has 
been conceived to provide the appropriate technical assistance to the Commission and to the Member States in its field of competence.  All options under cons ideration have been 
considered in this spirit. 
The proposal does not affect the fundamental righ ts of citizens, as the Agency does not take 
any actions affecting individual citizens.  
EN 17   EN Section 3: Objectives 
3.1. General policy objectives The general policy objective
 is to improve maritime safety, maritime security and prevention 
from and response to pollution caused by vessels in order to improve the safety of European 
citizens, waters and coastlines and to allow the free and safe flow of goods and passengers by sea. 
It has to be pointed out that the public opinion in Europe ha s developed very high 
expectations to maritime safety, which could be labelled as a "zero tolerance" limit for 
maritime accidents. This expectation by the European citizens has been echoed at various occasions by the European Parliament, requesting the Commission and the other Institutions to take robust action
34. 
3.2. Specific policy objectives 
The first specific policy objective  is to ensure a better ma tch between EMSA's tasks as 
enshrined in its founding Regulation and the di fferent elements of EU maritime safety 
legislation. This may encompass the extension of EMSA's tasks to new fields in the areas of 
maritime safety, maritime security, prevention of and response to pollution. 
The second specific policy objective  is to clarify the governan ce issues, which have come up 
in the first years of EMSA's exis tence, with a view to better identify the responsibilities of the 
different actors (Agency, Administrative Board, Commission, and Member States).  
Finally, the third sp ecific policy objective  is to help improving the visibility of the EU at the 
international scene by providing st ate-of-the-art technical assist ance to Member States and the 
Commission in all areas of the Agency's expertise.  
3.3. Operational objective 
The operational objective  of this impact assessment is to consider the need to modify the 
existing Regulation 1406/2002 in such a way as to realise the above-s tated policy objectives 
in the most efficient and effective way. 
3.4. Consistency with other EU policies 
The objectives and the resulting proposal are fully in line with other EU policies, in particular 
the integrated EU maritime policy and environm ental protection as well with the Lisbon and 
Sustainable Development strategies. A safe and sustainable maritime transport sector is an 
essential contribution to trade and to economic  growth of the EU. Furthermore, the EU 
maritime transport policy including EMSA's activiti es creates a level playing-field within the 
EU and contributes to improving the competitiveness of the EU's shipping sector at global level. 
                                                
 
34 See for example the EP resolution of 20 May 2008 on an integrated maritime policy for the European 
Union, in particular paragraph 20; the EP resolution of 12 July 2007 on a future maritime policy for the 
European Union, in particular paragraphs 26-29; as well as the EP resolution on improving safety at sea 
of 21.04.2004. 
EN 18   EN Section 4: Policy options 
As the proposal addresses both EMSA's ta sks and governance issues, the two parts are 
handled separately. 
4.1. Policy options regarding the tasks of the Agency 
The following options were examined regarding EMSA's tasks: 
- Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. l eave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged) 
- Option 2: "minimal" revision limited to tasks arising from the implementation of the third 
EU maritime safety package; 
- Option 3: "medium" revision encompassing op tion 2 plus taking over a large part of the 
activities of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding in the area of Port State Control; 
- Option 4: "large" revision encompassing option 3 plus new tasks in th e areas of security, 
research and general maritime policy.  
From the outset, it was considered that op tions 2 to 4 were not conflicting options but 
cumulative and that within each of these opt ions a number of spec ific tasks should be 
developed and assessed individual ly, which could lead to the pa rtial redefinition of certain 
options, in particular the preferred option. 
4.1.1. Option 1 "do nothing" Under the assumption that Regul ation 1406/2002 remains in its current version, EMSA would 
continue its current activities and provide its co ntribution to maritime safety. Having said this, 
the Agency would suffer from growing inconsis tency between its tasks as laid down in the 
founding Regulation on the one hand  and the legitimate needs and expectations from Member 
States and the Commission regarding technical assistance in the implementation of the ever 
evolving EU maritime safety legislation on th e other hand, in particular regarding the 
forthcoming implementation of the first elements of the third maritime safety package. Such a 
situation would be unclear and in efficient from a legal point of  view, thus creating confusion 
and a waste of budgetary resources. Eventually, such a scenario could result in an increased 
maritime safety risk despite the effect iveness and pragmatism shown by EMSA.  
Under option 1, if EMSA had to continue to operate as pres ently, its activities could be 
summarised in 37 specific tasks. These tasks have been identified for the sake of this impact assessment without prejudice to th e legal text in Article 2 of the Regulation. The tasks have 
been organised in the following five groups: 
• Group 1 horizontal tasks: six di fferent horizontal tasks were  defined through which EMSA 
provides technical assistance to the Commission, the Memb er States and candidate 
countries. These tasks concern the preparation of  legislation, the impl ementation as well as 
the monitoring and evaluation of the implemente d measures. The genera l provision of data 
and training are also covered in this group. 
• Group 2 maritime safety: this is the biggest group with 18 tasks orga nised by the different 
legal instruments (like classification societies,  port state control, tr aining of seafarers). 
EN 19   EN Activities comprise inspections in Member States and third countries, provision of 
specialised technical assistance, devel opment and management of databases and 
operational services regarding vessel traffic monitoring and the tracking of illegal discharges at sea by vessels. 
• Group 3 maritime security: This is a very sm all group with the single task of providing 
technical assistance to th e Commission inspections under Regulation 725/2004/EC. 
• Group 4 prevention of pollution: In this s econd biggest group of 7 tasks, activities 
comprise again inspections in Member Stat es, the provision of specialised technical 
assistance in various areas of potential pollution (anti- fouling, air emissions, ship waste). 
• Group 5 preparedness and response to pollution : In this last group, 5 tasks are organised 
mainly around the operational support to Member  States with additional anti pollution 
means.  
Further details are given in Annex III. 4.1.2. Option 2 "minimal" revision Option 2 looks at EMSA's required assistance to  the implementation of the seven proposals of 
the third maritime safety package. It can be considered as a "minimal" revision as this 
package is the logical development of th e EU's maritime safety legal framework. 
The Commission submitted the package consisting of the following 7 legislative proposals in 
late 2005
35: 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parl iament and of the Council on compliance with 
flag State requirements; 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on common rules 
and standards for ship inspection and survey or ganizations and for the relevant activities of 
maritime administrations; 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State 
control; 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 
Directive 2002/59/EC establishi ng a EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system; 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Par liament and of the Council establishing the 
fundamental principles governing the investig ation of accidents in the maritime transport 
sector and amending Directiv es 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC; 
• Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parl iament and of the Counc il on the liability of 
carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents; 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parl iament and the Council on the civil liability 
and financial guarantees of shipowners. 
                                                 
35 See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/mari time/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm  for more information. 
EN 20   EN While the first four proposals improve and st rengthen existing EU legislation, the remaining 
three proposals are set to complete the mar itime safety measures through new legislative 
instruments. All proposals are in  line with and based on th e work of the International 
Maritime Organization and most of them have been developed with EMSA's assistance.  
The European Parliament and the Council reac hed agreement on all proposals in late 2008 
and the legal acts were finally  adopted on 11 March 2009 It should be noted that EMSA is 
already active with considerable resources in many areas of the package (Port State Control, 
classification societies, the EU vessel traffi c monitoring and inform ation system, accident 
investigation), which should allow the Agency to take over smoothly and at reduced 
additional costs any new tasks in these areas. 
Under option 2, 15 potential new tasks were iden tified corresponding to th e 7 proposals of the 
third maritime safety package. Details are given in Annex IV. 
4.1.3. Option 3 "medium" revision  Option 3 includes option 2 and looks further at the relationship between EMSA and the Paris 
Memorandum of Understanding on Po rt State Control (Paris MoU). It can be considered as 
"medium"-sized revision, as it tackles institut ional and organisational aspects in the area of 
Port State Control beyond the mere implem entation of EU-legisla tion under option 2. 
The Paris MoU is a regional intergovernmental arrangement to harmonise Port State Control 
procedures. It was set up in 1982. The current 27 members comprise the 22 EU coastal States, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Norway and the Ru ssian Federation. EMSA has already been 
assisting the Commission in the activities of  the Paris MoU on the basis of the existing 
Regulation
36 and plays a major role in the organisati on of Port State Control within the Paris 
MoU. The development and operation of the info rmation system Thetis (The hybrid European 
targeting and information syst em) under the New Inspection Re gime which serves both the 
EU-legislation and the Paris MoU regulations is the most prominent example for this tendency.  
The current "hybrid" situation between the Pari s MoU and the EU legislation on Port State 
Control will continue to evolve during the implementation of the third maritime safety 
package as highlighted inter a lia by the EMSA multi-annual strategy (see above under point 
1.4). 
Under option 3, 6 potential new tasks were identif ied in addition to those in option 2. Details 
are given in Annex IV. 
4.1.4. Option 4 "large" revision While including options 2 and 3, option 4 furthe r considers different po ssible extensions of 
EMSA's tasks within the areas falling under its ge neral objectives as listed in Article 1. It is 
therefore a large revision of the EMSA Regul ation encompassing different aspects regarding 
maritime security, research, the integrated EU  maritime policy, cooperation regarding marine 
pollution, the relations with third countries and social aspects. 
                                                
 
36 See Article 2(b) (ii) of Regulation 1406/2002. 
EN 21   EN As far as maritime security  is concerned, it has to be recalled that Regulation 1406/2002 in 
its current version limits EMSA's assistance to the Commission inspections to "to ship and 
relevant companies and Recognised Security Organisations authorised to undertake certain 
security-related activities in this context"37. It should be noted that EMSA has currently only 
ship-side expertise in house but not port-side. 
While EMSA's current mandate includes the " analysis of research  projects "38, it was felt that 
EMSA could play a bigger role regarding on the one hand the regulatory and non-regulatory 
follow-up to research projects and on the other hand the identification of research needs from 
a maritime safety perspective.  
Within the integrated EU maritime policy  a special role was foreseen for EMSA regarding 
the " integrated approach to maritime surveillance at EU level "39.  
As far as cooperation regarding marine pollution  is concerned, the Commission stated in late 
2006 in the light of the expiring EU framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or 
deliberate marine pollution40 that EMSA will play an increased role, including the 
organisation of workshops and studies, technical a ssistance in the event of disasters including 
pollution response vessels and satellite images. It is thus worthwhile to  examine whether this 
increased role needs to be bett er reflected in the Regulation.  
Finally, the undeniable success of EMSA has raised huge interest by third countries  in 
EMSA's activities. In particular the maritim e neighbouring countries of the EU sharing a 
regional sea with the EU Member States like the Baltic Sea, th e Black Sea or the 
Mediterranean have been voicing  their interest in technical cooperation with the Agency, in 
particular regarding operationa l services like the pollution response vessels, the satellite 
images to detect illegal discharges at sea (Cl eanSeaNet) or data exchange with the EU vessel 
traffic monitoring and information system SafeSeaNet which is under construction. The 
current EMSA Regulation makes such technical cooperation difficult. It only foresees the full 
participation of third countries after thos e having adopted and applied the EU law41. This is 
currently the case of Norway and Iceland through the European Economic Area Agreement. 
Furthermore, EMSA may provide technical assistance to accession countries in the course of 
negotiations42, which is currently the case of Croatia  and Turkey. Furthermore and fully in 
line with the EU policy, EMSA assists also other potential candidate countries through an 
administrative agreement with DG Enlargement, wh ich is not explicitly covered by its current 
Regulation. However, not all EU neighbouring States will qua lify for one of these two 
scenarios (full participation or  candidate countries negotiating their accession), while the EU 
has a vital interest in the maritime safety of the regional seas as any maritime accident or pollution caused by ships in these regional seas may affect the EU. In line with the European 
Neighbourhood Policy of opening EU programmes and Agenci es to partner countries
43, it 
should be examined to which extent EMSA coul d establish relations at technical level with 
these countries. The European Neighbourhood Policy would indeed cover most of the third 
                                                 
37 See Article 2(b)(iv) of Regulation 1406/2002. 
38 See Article 2(a) of Regulation 1406/2002. 
39 See footnote 15 above 
40 Decision 2850/2000/EC expired on 31/12/2006. See the Commission Communication COM(2006)863 
of 22.12.2006. 
41 See article 17 of the EMSA Regulation. 
42 See article 2 (g) of the EMSA Regulation. 
43 See Commission Communication COM (2006) 724 of 04.12.2006. 
EN 22   EN countries interested in cooperation with the EU  regarding maritime safety with the exception 
of Russia, with whom the EU shares the Baltic  Sea and the Black Sea and Canada, which like 
Russia participates in the Paris MoU. It is thus envisaged to examine possible relations 
between EMSA and the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy plus Russia and 
Canada through the Paris MoU. 
In line with the Maritime Transport Strategy developed by the Commission in early 2009, the 
social aspects of shipping require further at tention. While the EU has already developed 
measures – either legislative, or non-binding - EMSA is already active in the field of training 
and certification of seafarers through the insp ections of EU Member States and third 
countries, more assistance might be required in the future rega rding various social aspects 
related to training, qualification, certificati on, career perspectives, working and living 
conditions onboard. 
Under option 4, 8 potential new tasks were identified (1 task for maritime security, 2 tasks for 
research, 1 task for the integrated EU maritime policy, 1 task for marine pollution, 2 tasks for cooperation with neighbouring coun tries and 1 task for the soci al aspects of shipping) in 
addition to the tasks of the two previous  options. Details are given in Annex IV. 
4.2. Policy options regarding th e governance of the Agency 
In addition to EMSA's tasks, the Commission services considered governance issues
 in the 
light of the findings by the external ev aluation, the recommen dations by EMSA's 
Administrative Board and its own experience ov er the last years drawing also on the more 
general discussion on the governance of the Agencies at EU level44.  
Three options were considered: - Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. l eave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged); 
- Option 2: revision of the governance issues within the institution al framework of a 
regulatory agency; 
- Option 3: radical revision by transforming th e institutional framework in which EMSA 
currently operates. 
Option 2 would consist of modifying certain  articles within Regulation 1406/2002 without 
altering the institutional set up of a regula tory agency and its gove rnance structure. This 
would mainly concern article 3 on visits, articles 10 and 14 concer ning the Administrative 
Board and articles 15 and 16 re garding the Executive Director. In particular, the potential 
conflict of interest for Member States' repres entatives in the Admini strative Board should be 
examined. Furthermore, the instrument of a multi-annual strategy should allow defining EMSA's role in a medium term perspective.  
In the light of the on-going inter-institutional deliberations  on the agency system, it was 
decided at an early stage of the preparation of the proposal to put aside any issue of horizontal 
nature (for example the structur e and the voting rights of the Administrative Board) and to 
                                                
 
44 See the latest Commission Communication on this su bject: "European agencies – The way forward", 
COM (2008)135 of 11.03.2008. 
EN 23   EN concentrate on the few governance issues which are specific to EMSA (for example the 
organisation of inspections of EU Member States). 
Option 3 would transform EMSA's  inspection activities into a regular Commission service – 
like the transport security in spections or the Food and Veterinary Office – while the 
remainder of EMSA's activities would beco me an Executive Agency managing an EU 
maritime safety programme. This option woul d require major changes not only to the 
founding Regulation, but also to the Co mmission's administrative structure. 
Although such a radical solution wo uld easily overcome the poten tial conflict of interest the 
Member States' representatives are faced with, the administrative and political costs of the 
transformation were considered disproportionate . Such option would also seem unjustified in 
view of the results of the exte rnal evaluation. Furthermore, a sp litting of the Agency into two 
distinct sub-entities would creat e unwanted and counter productive inefficien cies. It was thus 
decided at an early stage to maintain EMSA as a regulatory agency with a high degree of autonomy in a single organisation. 
A non-regulatory approach could not be cons idered, neither for the tasks nor for the 
governance aspects, as the problems identified  lie with EU legislation. Therefore, a non-
regulatory approach is per definition not  effective for solving the problem. 
EN 24   EN Section 5: Analysis of impacts 
5.1. Preliminary considerations 5.1.1. Analysis of the policy options regarding the governance of the Agency 
As it has been assumed that th e governance-related aspects of the revision would not produce 
a negative impact in economic, social or enviro nmental terms, it has been decided to pursue 
with option 2 as explained be low under point 4.2. Ind eed, it would not make sense not to 
address governance issues in the course of re vising EMSA's tasks like option 1 ("do nothing") 
would have required. The proposal contains thus a limited number of improvements and 
clarifications regarding the gove rnance of the Agency (mainly related to Article 3 and 16). 
5.1.2. Analysis of the policy options re garding the tasks of the Agency 
In general, the likely economic, social and envi ronmental impacts of the options are extremely 
limited due to the limited scope of the modifi cations under consider ation. It is widely 
recognised that it is impossible to benchmark maritime safety as such, while the absence of 
the required safety level leads to incidents, ac cidents and even catastroph es. Furthermore, it is 
not possible to quantify accurately the impacts of  the options under consid eration. Indeed, all 
EMSA's tasks are shaped as technical assistan ce to the Commission and to Member States. 
The contribution of technical a ssistance to the policy objectives  is not measurable with the 
instruments currently available.  
5.2. The economic impact 
5.2.1. Types of economic impact  
Three types of economic impact were checked: (1) the impact on the competitiveness of the 
shipping sector, (2) the administ rative burden or costs for Member  States and (3) the costs for 
the EU budget.  
5.2.2. Competitiveness of the shipping sector No measurable impact in terms of competitiveness of the shipping sector could be established 
for any of the options in terms of costs or  benefits. Regulatory impacts on shipowners, 
masters and other actors flow from the maritime safety legal acts like Port State Control and 
not from the EMSA Regulation itself or any of  the envisaged modifications. It is however 
assumed that EMSA's assistance to Member States and the Commi ssion would indirectly 
benefit the shipping sector as Member Stat es and the Commission should be in a better 
position to carry out their regulator y activities. For example a better targeting of risk ships in 
Port State Control thanks to the informati on system build up by EMSA will reward quality 
ships being inspected less often than at presen t. It should be repeated that the regulatory 
requirements for this policy follow from the Po rt State Control Directive and not from the 
EMSA Regulation. The latter will define EMSA's contribution and assistance to the maritime safety policy of the EU. It is thus impossibl e to define with the necessary precision the 
economic benefit that might arise for quality shipping from EMSA's t echnical assistance to 
the Commission and to the Member States. Like wise, the potential costs for operators of 
substandard ships are not  possible to establish. 
EN 25   EN 5.2.3. Administrative burden for Member States 
The second possible economic impact concerns administrative burden or costs for Member 
States. By definition, EMSA's technical assist ance should create neither  administrative burden 
nor costs for the Member States. To the contrar y, EMSA's assistance, in  particular regarding 
the different maritime data services, allows national maritime administrations making savings and a better use of their resources  in order to concentr ate on their responsibil ities as flag State, 
port State or coastal State (s ee also below under option 2).  
While the possible savings expected for Memb er States are difficult to quantify, during 
stakeholder consultations a high number of Member  States' representatives expected to realise 
savings at national level from EMSA's extended technical assi stance. This has also been 
confirmed for EMSA's current tasks in the external evaluation
45. 
Option 1 : Under this option EMSA would continue to work within its current mandate and 
thus provide its assistance to the Commissi on and Member States within the current 
limitations. Any additional assistance, necessary or desirable, for the Commission and Member States would be impossible from a lega l perspective. The lack of assistance could 
create additional costs for the Member States  just jeopardising the swift and efficient 
implementation of the third maritime safety package. Thus, EMSA's defined objective ensuring "a high, uniform and effective level of  maritime safety (…)" will become more and 
more difficult to meet. Indirectly, citizens a nd the marine environment would be negatively 
affected by this option. 
Option 2
: Possible cost-savings for Member States are expected in the areas of harmonised 
training for maritime experts like Port State Control officers, the hosting and operation of maritime data services at central EU-level instead of different national applications.  
A concrete example is the common EU LRIT da ta centre already introdu ced above in section 
2.3.1. The current budgetary estimations for the EU  LRIT data centre fo resee a total of 28 
additional staff and a budget of approxima tively 38 M EUR for the period 2008 to 2013 
instead of 29 national data centres (Norway and I celand participate in EMSA). For the sake of 
comparison, it is interesting to establish th e average costs per c ountry by dividing the 
expected costs of the EU centre by the number  of participating count ries. The result shows 
that it does not seem realistic to run national da ta centres with an average of less than one 
staff member and an annual budget of 220.000 EUR in particular under the assumption that 
such service should operate on a 24/7 basis.  
Other examples are SafeSeaNet and the information system Thetis for the New Inspection 
Regime in the area of Port State Control. 
Option 3
: It was established that synergy and efficien cy gains could lead to small cost savings 
for all Port States by shifting tasks from the Paris MoU Secretariat (approximatively 10 FTE), currently hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Transports, to EMSA. There are therefore small budgetary consequences for the Member St ates contributing To the Paris MoU. 
Option 4
: No further cost savings for Member States are expected under this option. 
                                                 
45 See p. 56-57. 
EN 26   EN As EMSA's activities do not touch directly pr ivate companies or citizens, all options under 
consideration do not entail administ rative burden for private agents. 
5.2.4. Consequences for the EU budget The main economic impact identified concer ns the increase of the EMSA budget by the 
required administrative and operation al credits in order to carry out  additional tasks. As stated 
before, it is assumed that the envisaged modifi cations as to the governance of the Agency will 
not create any additional costs.  
The estimated costs for the options under cons ideration are shown in the following table 
(option 3 includes costs of option 2 and option 4 includes the costs of option 3): 
Costs for EU 
budget  Option 1 
"do nothing" 
2007 baseline Option 2 
"minimal" 
revision Option 3 
"medium" 
revision Option 4 
"large" revision
Staff in FTE 153 + 48  + 55 + 66 
Annual 
budgetary costs in M EUR 48.249 + 4.164 
 + 4.771 
 + 5.726 
 
The additional annual costs are calculated in th e following way: EMSA calculates annual cost 
per staff member at 91.550 EUR for 2011 to which 5 % were added for overheads, infrastructure and travel costs. This lead s to an annual cost per 1 FTE of 98.050 EUR. 
The calculations operated in this impact assess ment constitute an ex-ante evaluation foreseen 
by the Financial Regulation, independently from the question whether the amounts under 
discussion would require or  not such an evaluation. 
5.3. The social impact 
The social impact of all options is marginal. In  terms of employment, EMSA's needs in terms 
of additional staff are estimated at a maximum of 66 new posts, if all the possible new tasks 
under examination would be given to EMSA
46. Some indirect positive effects can be 
construed for the safety and th e working and living conditions of  seafarers and passengers on 
board of vessels, in particular with re gard to the specific task under option 4.  
Furthermore, the EU as the world's biggest tr ading block has an inte rest in the safe and 
reliable transport of goods over the seas. This is a concern shared by companies and consumers. Environmental impacts of shipping like air emissions bear also a public health 
component, thus having a social impact. 
It was not established that the measures under consideration improving maritime safety, 
maritime security, the prevention of pollution as well as the preparedness and the response to pollution caused by ships could ha ve a negative social impact. 
                                                
 
46 Details per option can be found in the table under point 5.2.4. See also below under section 6.3. 
EN 27   EN 5.4. The environmental impact 
Regarding the environmental impact, it is ex pected that options 2 to 4 provide positive 
environmental impact as the measures under cons ideration would contribu te to safer ships and 
safer shipping, be it through impr oved control of foreign vessels  in EU ports, the better 
monitoring of all vessels in the vi cinity of EU coasts, the increased role of EMSA in research, 
the enhanced investigation of  accidents with a view to avoid future problems. This 
assumption is supported by EMSA's current as sistance to the Comm ission and the Member 
States regarding the environmental impacts of  shipping. As stated below, the EU maritime 
safety measures on port state control and other ar eas are defined by other legislative acts than 
the EMSA founding Regulation. The latter Regula tion deals with EMSA's contribution to the 
objectives of the EU maritime safety policy. 
Under option 4, if EMSA's role within the field of maritime pollution would be enhanced to 
become a reference point for the exchange of  experience between national administrations 
and a platform for international cooperation, an even more positive environmental impact is 
expected than under option 2. Option 3, wh ich focuses more on organisational changes 
affecting the Secretariat of the Paris Mo U and EMSA, does not seem to produce any 
environmental impact. 
5.5. Impact of maritime accidents 
The impact under consideration should be comp ared with the consequences of maritime 
accidents. 
Without going into details, it should be reca lled that recent catast rophes involving passenger 
ships in the EU have caused the loss of mo re than thousand human lives (Herald of Free 
Enterprise in 1987, Scandinavian Star in 1990, Es tonia in 1994 and Express Samina in 2000).  
It is difficult to establish correctly the total costs of maritime accidents and this is not the 
purpose of this impact assessment. However, it is  worthwhile noting that the costs of a tanker 
accident amount to hundreds of millions of Eu ros. According to the International Oil 
Pollution Compensation Fund, claims for compensa tion regarding the sink ing of the oil tanker 
Erika amount to 206 million EUR while the claims for the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige 
amount to more than 1.000 million EUR47. Accidents along the European coastline generate 
also costs for the EU budget cove red by different instruments li ke the EU Solidarity Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund or the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. The EU financial assistance provided to addr ess the consequence of the Prestige accident 
amount to 436 M EUR
48. The recent accident involving th e container ship "MSC Napoli" in 
January 2007 causing the loss of 103 containers a nd the contained spillage of up to 200 tonnes 
of oil, is reported to cost mo re to the insurer than the huge oi l spill from the Amoco Cadiz in 
1978 which was about 120 M USD. 
5.6. Conclusion 
In summary, the assessment has not shown any negative impact for options 2 to 4. However, 
the totality of new tasks implies additional cost s for the EU budget. In parallel, a number of 
                                                 
47 The report is available at http://www.iopcfund-docs.org/prestige.htm   
48 Calculation by PwC in their study, see p. 123. 
EN 28   EN measures under consideration do not present any measurable impact in economic, social or 
environmental terms.  
EN 29   EN Section 6: Comparing the options 
In order to be able to weigh the options and their underlying ta sks, first the effectiveness of 
EMSA taking over the different tasks under co nsideration was assess ed. Secondly, the added 
value for the EU for each task was evaluated. In the final step taking into account the 
budgetary constraints, the Commi ssion services identified the preferred option by looking at 
the individual tasks under each option. 
6.1. Effectiveness 
For each of the 29 potential new tasks under consid eration in options 2 to 4, EMSA's expected 
effectiveness has been assessed on the basis of: 
- EMSA’s current experience in performing similar activities; 
- EMSA’s expertise in the fields  covered by the proposed tasks; 
- The external evaluation of EMSA's effec tiveness in performing its current activities; 
- The consultation of EMSA's stak eholders other than the Commission. 
The effectiveness of EMSA has been assesse d according to the following qualitative rating 
scale: fairly effective; effective; highly effec tive. Due to EMSA's current experience in similar 
activities, it was concluded that EMSA should be either effective or even highly effective in 
carrying out the great majority of the potential tasks. These concerns all tasks under option 2 
and 3 while under option 4 the 2 tasks related to research and the 2 tasks related to 
cooperation with neighbouring thir d countries were rated "fairl y effective" as both would 
constitute rather new areas of activities for the agency.  
It should be noted that the majority of re spondents spoke against EMSA cooperating with 
third countries. This might be explained by the fear that EMSA's current focus on assistance 
to the Commission and the Member States mi ght be detracted thus presenting a possible 
inconvenient to Member States, which the Commission definitely intends to avoid.  
The large majority of responding stakeholde rs are in favour or neutral about extending 
EMSA’s competences to assistance to the Comm ission in identifying research subjects. The 
Commission is looking forward to receiving EMSA's enhanced assi stance in the analysis of 
research projects and is confident that EMSA can successfully handle this task. 
6.2. Added value for the EU 
On the basis of the stakeholde r consultation, the anal ysis of EMSA’s expected effectiveness 
and the analysed impacts, the assessment of the value added for the EU was established for 
each possible new task to EMSA. The value added has been assessed according to the following qualitative rating scale: low; medium; high. 
All possible new tasks under optio n 2 present a high added valu e with the exception of the 
management of financial security certificates rated medium added valu e. A majority of new 
tasks under option 3 present likewise a high a dded value. The three exceptions are: (1) 
Assistance to the EC and the Paris MoU in their cooperation with other MoUs; (2) Taking 
care of publications, website and providing general inform ation; (3) Elaboration and 
publication of statistics devel oped by the Paris MoU. Under the fourth option, all tasks 
EN 30   EN present a high added value. Re garding the research activiti es and the cooperation with 
neighbouring third countries it shoul d be noted that this would be  rather new types of activity 
for EMSA.  
The four tasks rated with less than high added va lue have not been included in the proposal. 
6.3. Budgetary situation and evoluti on of the Agency's resources 
When assessing the feasibility of the differe nt options under consideration, the Commission 
services had also to take into account the availability of budgetary means within the EU 
budget. The EU contribution to the EMSA budget amounts to almost 100 %49 and stems from 
the heading 1A "Competitiveness for growth and employment". The financial perspectives up 
to 2013 do not allow providing the budgetary resour ces to EMSA in order to carry out all 
possible and desirable new task s. The Commission services are projecting to start the 
implementation of the revised EMSA Regulation in 2012 after the completion of the legislative procedure. Therefore, the Commission  had to select amongst the tasks identified in 
the impact assessment according to their re levance and their added value for the EU. 
In parallel to the developmen t of the proposal and the impa ct assessment since 2007, EMSA 
has already been implementing many new tasks on the basis of the current Regulation. EMSA 
received between 2008 and 2011 a total of 55 additional posts
50 and its operational credits 
were also increased. For example, EMSA  received 28 posts for the new LRIT task51. EMSA 
has also started other tasks with additiona l resources received between 2008 and 2010 or 
planned for 2011, in particular in the area of Port State Control52. Consequently, less 
additional resources are requi red as from 2012 against the base line scenario of 200753. 
The Directive for flag states requirements provides a second example for substantial changes 
intervening in the course of the impact assessmen t. Indeed, in the light of the final outcome of 
the negotiations on the third maritime safety p ackage, no specific technical assistance by 
EMSA is necessary. The initially identified task s B1 – B4 have therefore been disregarded. 
6.4. The preferred option 
• The Commission has come to the conclusi on that option 4, which encompasses as 
explained above options 2 and 3, is the preferre d option for the revision of EMSA's tasks, 
thus ensuring that the Agency will continue to  provide valuable technical assistance to the 
Commission and the Member States in all relevant fields of its remit. However, in the light 
of the budgetary situation explai ned in the previous point and the final outcome of the third 
maritime safety package, the Commission has opted for a more limited approach to option 4, downsizing the scope from 29 to 19 new tasks for EMSA. Details are shown in Annex IV. Most of these 19 tasks come from the op tions 2 and 4, while the majority of tasks 
under option 3 have been disregarded. Taking into account the aforementioned budgetary 
situation and the developments and invest ments already undertaken between 2008, and 
2011, the costs of EMSA's further extension are limited to 18 additional posts to be phased 
                                                
 
49 Including the contribution from Norway a nd Iceland through the EFTA EEA mechanism. 
50 28 additional posts in 2008, 11 additional posts in 2009, 8 additional posts in 2010, and 8 additional 
posts envisaged for 2011 subject to the decision of the Budgetary Authority. 
51 See task B12 in Annex IV. 
52 See tasks B7, C2 and C3 in Annex IV. 
53 Limited reductions according to the same principle were operated for tasks B5, B6, B9, B13, B14, and 
D6, see Annex IV. 
EN 31   EN in from 2012 to 2014. In line with the curr ent budgetary situation, the Agency should 
provide a significant part (6 posts) through redeployment. The additional annual costs 
would therefore amount to approximativ ely 3.9 M EUR for the period 2012 to 2015. 
The elimination of 10 potential tasks is justified by the following considerations: 
• Tasks B1 to B4 related to Flag state require ments: The underlying ideas in the Commission 
proposal have been disregarded du ring the legislative procedure. 
• Task B15 "Management of financial security  certificates at EU level" was a new idea 
which emerged at the stage of the first reading of the civil liability proposal in early 2007. 
The idea has been disregarded at a late r stage of the legislative procedure. 
• Task C1 "Establishment of a black-g rey-white list for flag States" /  
Task C4 "Assistance to the Commission and the Paris MoU in their c ooperation with other 
MoUs" /  Task C5 "Taking care of publications, webs ite and providing general information" /  
Task C6 "Elaborating and publishing stat istics developed by the Paris MoU":  
In the light of comments made by stakeholders  asking to maintain the status of the Paris 
MoU and its Secretariat and in the absence of  any significant benefit other than some 
efficiency gains (see point 5.2.3 below), if the tasks were handed over to EMSA, the 
Commission services have deci ded to disregard for the time  being these four tasks under 
option 3.  The Commission however continues to monitor the viability of the "hybrid" situation between the Paris MoU and the EU legislation on Port State Control. In the light of the 
further development of the EU acquis on Port State Control as decided in the third maritime safety package and the consequences of EMSA's increasing involvement in this domain, it might become necessary to revert to  this question in the future. This view was 
confirmed in EMSA's multi-annual strategy (see above under point 1.4). 
• Task D1 "Maritime security": In the light of the budgetary c onstraints and having in mind 
the organisation of the maritime security inspections by the Commission, it was decided 
that EMSA's tasks should not be extende d beyond Regulation 725/2004 and therefore not 
include activities under Directive 2005/65. However, in orde r to improve the efficiency of 
EMSA's assistance to the Co mmission during the inspections within the framework of 
Regulation 725/2004, the current limitation in Ar ticle 2 (b)(iv) of the EMSA Regulation 
should be removed. As explaine d in section 4.1. above, EMSA's  assistance to Commission 
inspections is currently limited "to ship and relevant companies and Recognised Security 
Organisations authorised to undertake certain s ecurity-related activi ties in this context" . 
This limitation within the scope  of Regulation 725/2004 can be removed for the sake of the 
efficiency of the security inspections  without increasing the scope beyond the 
aforementioned Regulation and without  increasing EMSA's resources. 
EN 32   EN • The following table presents a summary of th e comparison of the policy options regarding 
the tasks of the Agency.  
(Note: It is recalled that option 3 includes option 2, while option 4 includes options 2 and 3) 
 Option 1 
"do nothing" Option 2 
"minimal" revision Option 3 
"medium" 
revision Option 4 
"large" revision 
Possible savings for 
Member States None to the 
contrary, Member States getting less 
appropriate 
technical assistance would 
need to invest 
more themselves Yes Not more than 
under option 2 Not more than 
under option 2 
Costs for EU budget 
(additional staff) No additional 
costs limited additional 
costs Not more than 
under option 2 modest additional 
costs 
Social impact Risk of not 
providing required level of maritime 
safety Higher level of 
maritime safety No change in 
comparison to option 2 
Higher visibility 
for the EU Higher level of 
maritime safety than in option 2 
Higher visibility 
for the EU 
Environmental impact EMSA will 
continue its 
current activities. Higher level of the 
protection of the 
marine environment No change in 
comparison to 
option 2 Higher level of the 
protection of the 
marine 
environment than in option 2 
Effectiveness EMSA works 
effectively. EMSA could take 
over all new tasks 
effectively. EMSA could take 
over all new tasks 
effectively. EMSA could take 
over all new tasks 
effectively. The areas of research 
and relations with 
third countries 
constitute rather 
new activities for EMSA. 
EU added value EMSA provides 
added value to the 
EU. All new tasks have 
high added value for 
the EU, with the exception of task B15 
(medium). 4 new tasks have 
high added value 
for the EU, 1 task represents 
medium added 
value and another task low added 
value. All new tasks 
have high added 
value for the EU. 
End result Option 
disregarded Part of the preferred 
option 
10 out of the 15 tasks 
under option 2 
qualify. Part of the 
preferred option 
2 out of the 4 
additional tasks 
under option 3 qualify. Preferred option 
7 out of the 8 
additional tasks 
under option 4 
qualify. 
EN 33   EN Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation 
7.1. Indicators of progress  The following three indicators have been established: 
• Satisfaction of EMSA's main stakeholders  (Commission and Member States) by the 
appropriate and targeted assistance received from the Agency; 
• Smooth and cost-efficient implementation of th e third maritime safety package by Member 
States; 
• Efficient contribution by EMSA to the maritim e surveillance activities under the integrated 
EU maritime policy. 
7.2. Monitoring and evaluation  
According to the provisions of its founding Regu lation and the principles of EU governance, 
EMSA will continue to be subjec t to the strict and comprehensive monitoring arrangements of 
an EU regulatory agency under the budgetary pro cedure (Administrative Board, internal audit, 
Court of Auditors, discharge procedure). 
It is suggested to repeat the evaluation exercise  foreseen by Article 22 at regular intervals, 
which corresponds to the political determinatio n shown by the EU Institutions regarding the 
governance of the EU agencies. It is foreseen to establish a maximum time span of 5 years 
with the possibility for EMSA's Administrative Board to launch an evaluation at any earlier 
moment if appropriate. 
EN 34   EN Annex I: Recommendations from  EMSA's Administrative Board 
RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED FOLLOWING THE EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN MARITIME 
SAFETY AGENCY APPROVED BY THE EMSA  ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD , 12 JUNE 2008  
I. C HANGES TO REGULATION 1406/2002 
Amend Article 22 of Regulation 1406/2002 to provide for regular evaluations of the 
implementation of the EMSA regulation (every 5 years) 
The evaluation exercise has shown its merits, an d should be performed on a regular basis. The 
next and subsequent formal ev aluations should examine also the extent to which Member 
State administrations have been able to make savings in activities formerly carried out at 
national level on account of EMSA’s activities, as well as seeking stakeholders’ views on the 
value of EMSA activities which are s een as additional or complementary. 
Consequently, it is recommended to carry out such evaluations  once every 5 years and to 
amend the aforementioned Article 22 accordingl y at the next revisi on of the EMSA founding 
Regulation. 
II. R ECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE AGENCY AND ITS WORKING PRACTISES  
Continue to focus on activities which add value for its stakeholders (the Commission, 
Member States and citizens of the EU) 
EMSA should continue to focus on activities which add value for the Commission, Member 
States and EU citizens, avoiding duplication or  undue overlap with activities carried out at 
other levels, for example by Member State ad ministrations. EMSA’s activities should be 
additional or complementary to those of other tiers of administration, or should progressively 
substitute, where it has been agreed that specif ic tasks can be carried out more appropriately, 
more effectively or more efficiently at EU level (examples of additional activities include 
EMSA’s supplementary oil pollution respons e capability in seve ral regions and the 
development of the European LRIT system. Seafar er training and certification audits in third 
countries are an example of an activity where EMSA’s role should progressively substitute for 
that of individual Member State administratio ns.). However, added value and a community 
approach should be demonstrated before a new task is assigned to EMSA. Corollary to this, 
the outcomes of the activities carried out by EMSA  should also be evaluated and their benefits 
should be extolled.  
Furthermore, EMSA should use its position and ne utrality to report on tr ends observed in the 
course of its activities so as to provide an overview of the functioni ng and evolution of the 
maritime world to its stakeholders. 
Develop a strategic plan cov ering a 5 year perspective 
A Strategic Plan should be deve loped to provide an overview of the situation for EMSA over 
the next 5 years. This rolling pl an should outline where the Agency wants to be in a 5 year 
EN 35   EN time span and indicate priorities and the hi gh-level objectives of the Agency, taking into 
account its mission, the multi annual staff polic y plan, the Action Plan for Oil Pollution 
Preparedness and Response (Oil Action Plan) a nd key documents and influences that will 
affect it’s work in the coming years. C oncerning the Action Plan for Oil Pollution 
Preparedness and Response, strategic elements should also be included in its presentation in 
order to develop a common understanding of the imp lications of this stra tegy in terms of the 
roles and responsibilities of th e involved stakeholders and to clarify and make explicit the 
longer term priorities guiding EMSA's work. 
Continue in the efforts towards ac tivity based costing and budgeting  
EMSA needs to implement an activity base d budgeting and accounting system as far as 
practicable, taking into consideration the existing constraint s (budget structure, functionalities 
of ABAC system, etc). Such a system should al low EMSA to assign bu dget to activities and 
relate this to actual expenditure thereby enabling monitoring of progress. The first steps to 
implement such a system have been already taken in the Agency, by implementing a pilot 
system with posting criteria in the accounting system. 
It is recommended that EMSA assigns high pr iority to developing activity based budgeting 
and accounting. This should be seen as a management tool  facilitating day-today, goal-
oriented management - and monitoring of achievements. 
Such a system will allow the Agency to improve effectiveness and efficiency by determining 
the costs of individual activities and projects . At the same time, the system will allow the 
Agency to report accurately on the activities pl anned and budgeted for, activities undertaken, 
outputs produced and actual expendit ure related to the given tasks. 
Improve the communication plan 
The current annual work plans and annual reports  serve two different audiences. On the one 
hand, the Administrative Board will require de tailed information to monitor progress using 
budget information, as set out in the third point  of these recommendations. On the other hand, 
this level of detail will not be relevant for the general public. It is  recommended that the 
Agency modifies its communication policy and practise to reflect this. 
In fact, the Agency has started to implement  this recommendation with the adoption of the 
2007 Annual report, where overall information for the general public is published in the main 
section and is complemented with detailed information for the Administrative Board on 
budgets, activities, achievements and accounts in its annexes. In following this issue, this 
approach will be further fine-tuned. 
Structure the annual work programmes to func tion as operational action plans for the 
given year 
The work programmes should be more operational to function as a tool for monitoring of the 
Agency's performance. The Work Programme 2008 already represents a st ep in this direction. 
EN 36   EN The annual work programme shoul d function as operati onal action plan for the given year, 
focusing on the planned activities and the asso ciated budget for the year (activity based 
budgeting/costing). The work programme should be a management tool for the Executive 
Director and the Heads of Units giving a benc hmark against which th e activities and budgets 
can be implemented and progress can be monito red. The description of targets, milestones, 
expected outputs and expected outcomes s hould also be included in the annual work 
programme. In this way, the work programmes will also be a tool for overall progress 
monitoring for the Administrative Board. 
Develop the annual report to reflect better actual achievements made against the targets 
Annual reports, as provided for in EMSA’s  Founding Regulation, ta rget two different 
audiences. On the one hand they serve to inform  the political level, maritime stakeholders and 
the public at large of the main developments in EMSA. On the other hand they serve as a 
management tool for the Administrative Board to monitor progress and performance of the 
Agency at different levels. 
In is recommended to strengthen this la tter function by including the required detailed 
information for the Board on actual activities, achievements and expenditure at project level 
in a separate section of the report. 
Develop the project management capacity 
This evaluation has pointed to new, complex tasks requiring multidisciplinary work as an area 
with a scope for improving EMSA's effectiveness. There is a need to increase the flexibility of 
the organisation and to further encourage cross- unit and cross-disciplina ry cooperation. It is 
recommended to focus on further development of  the project management  capacity as a tool 
in this regard. 
The adoption of project management guidelines  within EMSA is recommended and staff 
should be trained in planning and mana ging projects following such guidelines. 
III. O THER /GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS  
Ensure formal, periodic reviews of EMSA’s effectiveness. 
In relation to regular evaluations as referre d to under point I, EMSA’s key stakeholders 
should have the opportunity to ta ke stock of the Agency’s development and effectiveness. 
The final outcomes of EMSA activities in many cases depend  upon decisions and actions to 
be taken by the Commission, the Me mber States and other EU inst itutions, with the benefit of 
advice and information provided by  EMSA. There is a need to co llect and bring together, in a 
form suitable for dissemination and publication, information about  those decisions and actions 
and the outcomes which resulted. EMSA’s effectiveness is ultimately determined not by the 
number of reports which it produces , or the number of visits or  inspections which it carries 
out, but by the progress made, with its support, in improving maritime safety and 
EN 37   EN environmental protection. While it is important not to confuse the activities or actions of 
EMSA with those of the Commission, the Member States and other EU institutions, it should 
nevertheless be possible to obtain and publish periodic information about outcomes, with 
appropriate explanations fo r all of EMSA’s activities. 
EN 38   EN Annex II: Executive Summary from the external evaluation  
This report presents the results of the evaluatio n of the European Maritime Safety Agency - 
EMSA. The evaluation was commissioned by the Administrative Board as required by 
Regulation (EC) 1406/2002 as amended. The ev aluation was undertaken by COWI A/S.  
The overall objective of the eval uation is to assess the releva nce of the Regulation and the 
effectiveness and efficiency of EMSA in fu lfilling its objectives an d tasks. Impact and 
sustainability cannot yet be fully  assessed. Tentative conclusions  on utility and sustainability 
will be made to the extent that the data collected allows. 
The Terms of Reference and COWI's techni cal proposal constitute the basis for the 
evaluation. The Administrative Board of the Ag ency set up a Steering Group to monitor and 
supervise the work and the progress of the evaluation. 
As a result of the evaluation process, the evaluator has submitted the following documents to 
the Steering Group and the Ad ministrative Board:  
• (i) an Inception report sp ecifying the evaluation met hodology (approved by the Steering 
Group on 17 September 2007) 
• (ii) a Report on Preliminary Conclusions approved by the Steering Group on 28 November, 
2007 
• (iii) a draft Final Report submitted to the Steering Group on January 11, 2008 • (iv) on receiving comments to the draft vers ion, the present Final Re port was submitted on 6 
February, 2008. 
The basis for evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations are the following data: 
• Material from EMSA's web site and other documents provided by EMSA • Documents from DG TREN’s website • Qualitative data from interviews with th e Executive Director, Heads of Units and staff 
members during the first mission to EMSA in September and the second mission to EMSA in 
November 
• Quantitative data from a questionnaire sent to all 27 Member States. 24 Member States have 
responded (89%) (see Questionnaire in App. 2) 
• Qualitative data from person-to-person interv iews with representatives from the maritime 
administrations of 18 Member States (incl. I celand and Norway) (all Member States invited - 
all Member States who indicated their intere st were interviewed at MSC Conference in 
Copenhagen); 12 representatives of the Commission (DG TREN a nd DG ENV based on 
selection by the Steering Group and the Consulta nt); 4 Members of the European Parliament 
(based on relevance in relation to the trans port/maritime sector); Two members of EMSA's 
Administrative Board appointed by the Commission to represent the sector; representatives of 
BIMCO and IMO (see List of Interviewees in App. 3). 
EN 39   EN It is the overall conclusion from the evaluation that the establishment of EMSA has filled a 
gap in the maritime safety area in the Europe an Union. The Agency has quickly grown in 
terms of its tasks and importance to become a significant actor in the maritime safety area. 
The Agency has added value to the sector in ge neral, and, in particular, to its two main 
stakeholders, the Member States and the Commission. 
Established, from scratch, in 2002, the Agency ha s been quick - not only in building its own 
organisation - but also in deliver ing useful outputs to its stak eholders. In general, EMSA's 
stakeholders are therefore also satisfied with its performance. 
The EMSA Regulation, and hence EMSA itself,  is highly relevant. The data collected 
supports the conclusion that the Regulation fulf illed a need felt among Member States and the 
Commission at the time of its adoption in 2002. 
The maritime sector in general, as well as the Member States and the European Union, 
particularly with its enlargement, have changed since 2002. Today, in 2007, the Regulation 
and the Agency remain highly relevant - perhaps even more so than when it was initially perceived and initiated. 
EMSA's effectiveness is above average - and in many areas it is high. The Agency has 
contributed significantly to improving the effect iveness of Community-level maritime safety 
activities in general. The tasks performed by the Agency are thus carrie d out more effectively 
today than was the case when the same tasks were dealt with by individual Member States 
and/or the Commission - if at al l – prior to its establishment. 
Naturally, effectiveness varies among the differe nt areas that the Agency is involved with. 
Hence, in some areas effectiveness is very high , while in others it is average – and in some 
cases below average. The evaluation has thus id entified a number of ar eas where effectiveness 
can be enhanced. 
EMSA’s efficiency performance is above average. This conclu sion takes into consideration 
the fact that the Agency was established from sc ratch, that it was relocated from Brussels to 
Lisbon, and that it has had a very high and rapid growth rate from  1 staff member in 2003 to a 
staff of more than 150 in 2007. 
Not surprisingly, there are a number of areas wh ere efficiency can be improved. This notably 
concerns the question of activity  based costing (ABC) – establis hing a transparent relationship 
between budgets, activities and accounts. When  implemented, ABC w ill facilitate a more 
thorough analysis of efficiency and become a management instrument for the Agency to 
further improve its effectiveness and efficiency. 
It is found that EMSA's main activities provide added value to the Member States and to the 
work of the Commission, hence indicating a sa tisfactory utility and sustainability of the 
activities
54. Other indications of satisf actory performance measured on these criteria are: Most 
Member States have experienced administrative savings or expect, in the future, to be able to save administrative resources as a consequence of EMSA's work in certain areas, e.g. those 
                                                
 
54 Findings related to utility and sustainability is indicative. The assessment of utility and sustainability 
focuses on the longer term impacts (as presented in "Evaluating EU Activities - a practical guide for the 
Commission Service" (DG BUDG, 2004)). Since EMSA is a young organisation, it is not possible to 
fully assess these impacts as yet. Albeit these limitations some indications can be given. 
EN 40   EN that relate to CleanSeaNet a nd inspections in connection with the STCW Convention in third 
countries. Member States also indicate that EMSA has contributed to making legislative 
proposals technically feas ible and acceptable. 
It is recommended that EMSA: • Develop a strategy plan cove ring a 3-5 year perspective 
• Develop the annual work programmes to func tion as operational action plans for the given 
year 
• Develop the annual report to reflect actual achievements made against the targets - and 
prepare it in a way that it di stinguishes between ta rget groups (i.e. the general public and the 
Administrative Board) 
• Develop a direct link between proj ect work plans and unit work plans 
• Introduce activity base d costing and budgeting 
• Improve the action plan for oil pollution preparedness and re sponse with inclusion of 
strategic elements 
• Streamline inspections to Member States • Apply a strategic and needs-orient ed approach to training activities 
• Develop the project management  capacity through staff training 
• Improve the use of IT, specifically in  relation to payments and recruitment 
• Improve communication planning and activities The recommendations to the Member States and the Commission include: 
• Comprehensive alterations to the current tasks allocated to EM SA are not recommended. 
There is a need for clarification in some areas and this should mainly be addressed by the development of a strategy plan for the Agen cy. The Member States and the Commission 
should support the development of a strategy plan for the Agency and the inclusion of 
strategic elements in the action plan for oil pollution preparedness and response. They should 
engage in dialogue with EMSA on future n eeds and challenges and their expectations to 
EMSA. 
• It is suggested to consider some minor am endments in relation to the EMSA Regulation. 
Article 22 could be amended to provide for regu lar evaluations of the implementation of the 
EMSA Regulation (every 5 years). It could also be considered to include a formal requirement 
for the Agency (the Executive Director) to pr oduce a strategy plan for the Agency to be 
updated at least every 3 years. 
• The Member States and the Commission - as ke y end-users - should also support the process 
of introducing activity-based costing and budgeti ng in the Agency. Feed -back to EMSA from 
the Administrative Board will be  needed on the level of satisf action with the reporting and 
suggestions for further improvement. 
EN 41   EN • It is recommended that reports from STCW insp ections in third countries are made available 
to the Member States. During the evaluation exercise the first st eps have been taken to that 
effect. It is recommended to assign high prio rity to developing the secure web-site. 
• It is suggested that the Commission consid ers including wider im pact assessments in 
relation to future EU-wide stud ies on implementation of Commun ity legislation. The 'terms of 
reference' for cross-country st udies conducted by EMSA could t hus be complemented with a 
requirement to analyse the EU-wide impact on th e level of maritime safety. Such assessments 
could contribute to an improved understanding of the links between the implementation of 
Community law and the level of maritime safety in Europe. 
• When assigning comprehensive new tasks to th e Agency, the potential for achieving "value 
added" should be analysed. It should be transparent (i) in which areas EMSA is 
supplementing what Member States are alr eady doing - and hence increasing the overall 
quality for the entire EU, (ii) in which areas EMSA is taking over activities and 
implementation from Member States allowing th em to make savings on their national budgets 
- and where EMSA is hence adding synergy and economy of scale. Such studies would be in 
concurrence with recent Commission practice when establishing new agencies. 
• Considering that an impact assessment of th e EMSA Regulation is cu rrently on-going, it is 
suggested that the Administrative Board make s this evaluation report available to the 
responsible contractor.  
EN 42   EN Annex III: Current tasks of EMSA 
Disclaimer: The following 37 tasks were define d for the sake of this impact assessment. 
Regulation 1406/2002 contains the legal  definition of EMSA's tasks. 
1. Horizontal tasks 
Provision of assistance to the Commission in the pr eparatory work for developing new legislation as 
well as for updating and amending existing Community legislation. 
Provision of technical and scientific  assistance to Member States and to the Commission in order to 
help them to apply the Community legislation. 
Provision of technical and scientific assistance to the Commission in order to help them to monitor the 
implementation of the Community le gislation and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures in 
place. 
Provide the Commission and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information 
and data, including the collection, reco rding and evaluation of technical data. 
Organization of training activities for Member States in the areas of maritime safety, security and 
prevention of marine pollution. Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Commission, 
Member States, 
new Member 
States, acceding 
Member States 
Assistance to candidate countries in implementing EU legislation in the fields of maritime safety, 
security, prevention of marine pollution. 
2. Maritime safety 
 Legislation Task 
Classification Societies. 
(Regulation 391/2009/EC and Directive 
2009/15/EC). Inspections of the recognise d classification societies on 
behalf of the Commission.  
Inspections of classificati on societies for which EU 
recognition is being requeste d by one or more Member 
States. 
Inspections to asses the quality of the systems and 
procedures set up by Member States.  Training of Seafarers. 
(Directives 2008/106/EC and 
2005/45/EC). Inspections in third countries to asses the quality of 
training of foreign seafarers on board of EU vessels. 
Port State Control.  
(Directive 2009/16/EC). Undertaking visits to Member States to assess whether 
their port state control syst ems and procedures fully 
comply with EU legislation. Visits and inspections to 
monitor EU legislation 
implementation 
EU Vessels Traffic Monitoring.  
(Directive 2002/59/EC). Inspections to monitor the implementation of the 
Directive. 
Provision of technical assist ance related to Commission 
participation in the Paris MoU. 
Promotion of and contribution to co-operation between 
Member States in the development of technical practices 
aimed at improving the impl ementation of the EU port 
state control Directive. In particular implementation of 
integrated electronic tools for the training of PSC officers. Technical and scientific 
assistance to 
Member States 
and Commission, 
circulation of 
information and 
cooperation with 
Maritime 
Authorities Port State Control. 
(Directive 2009/16/EC). 
Publishing and updating the EU list of banned ships. 
EN 43   EN Directive 99/35/EC on a system of 
mandatory surveys for the safe 
operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high 
speed passenger craft services. Database of inspection reports management and 
monitoring of the regime application. 
SafeSeaNet management. 
Promotion of cooperation between coastal States in the 
shipping areas concerned in the fields covered by the 
Directive. 
EU Vessel Traffic Monitoring.  
(Directive 2002/59/EC). The EU Transport, Telecommunications and Energy 
Council adopted on 2 October 2007 a resolution 
concerning the establishment of a European Union Long 
Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) Data Centre. 
The Data Centre will be ma naged by the Commission, in 
co-operation with Member States, through EMSA. The 
Council stressed that its objectives should include 
maritime security, search and rescue, maritime safety and 
protection of the marine environment. Automatic 
Identification System (AIS) repor ts will be integrated into 
the data and the development process will make use of the 
existing SafeSeaNet system. It is planned that the new 
data centre will be operational by the end of 2008.  
Marine Equipment.  
(Directive 96/98/EC). Development and management of the database of EU 
approved marine equipment. 
Liability & Compensation. 
(Directive 2005/35/EC). Technical assistance to Commission in international 
negotiations at the IMO and at the International Oil 
Compensations Funds (IOPC Fund). 
Mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates.  
(Directive 2005/45/EC). Development of STCW related database. 
Ship source pollution and on the 
introduction of penalties for 
infringements. 
(Directive 2005/35/EC). CleanSeaNet: Assistance to Member States in tracking 
illegal discharges at sea by providing satellite images to 
Member States. 
Development and management  of a common database 
containing information at EU level. Accident investigation. 
(Regulation 2009/18/EC). Technical assistance to Member States and Commission 
in creating a common methodol ogy for investigations. 
3. Maritime security 
 Legislation Task 
Visits and 
inspections to 
monitor EU 
legislation 
Implementation Commission inspections in the field of 
Regulation 725/2004/EC enhancing ship 
and port facility security 
(Regulation 884/2005/EC). Technical assistance to the Commission: EMSA shall 
make technical experts available to participate in 
Commission inspections, including the related 
preparatory and reporting phases in respect of ships and 
relevant companies. 
EN 44   EN  
4. Prevention of pollution 
 Legislation Task 
Port Reception Facilities. 
(Directive 2000/59/EC). Visits and inspections aimed at evaluating, in close 
cooperation with the Commission, whether the goals of 
the port reception facilities’ Directive have been met, 
with regard to ships. 
Prohibition of organotin compounds 
(Regulation 782/2003/EC). Inspections monitoring the implementation of the 
Directive. Visits and 
inspections to 
monitor EU 
legislation 
Implementation  
Air Emissions (Directive 2005/33/EC).  Inspections monitoring the implementation of the 
Directive. 
Assistance to the Commission. Identification and 
dissemination of best practices throughout the 
Community. 
Assistance to the Commission. Evaluation of waste 
reception plans developed by ports. Port Reception Facilities. 
(Directive 2000/59/EC). 
Gathering of information on the fee systems applied in 
Member States. Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Member States 
and Commission, 
circulation of 
information and 
cooperation with 
Maritime 
Authorities Maritime Pollution Preparedness and 
response. The Consultative Technica l group (CTG) provides a 
platform between Member States at the Community 
level, contributing to the technical preparedness to 
accidental and deliberate marine pollution from ships. 
For issues within EMSA’s competence, this group is a follow-up to the Management Committee for Marine 
Pollution (MCMP) established for the assistance to the 
Community framework of cooperation in the field of 
accidental or deliberate marine pollution. 
5. Preparedness and response to pollution  
 Legislation Task 
Provision of information and best practices  
Technical and scientific assistance to Member States 
and to the Commission within the relevant regional 
agreements in the field of response to pollution. 
Operational assistance and support, on request, with 
additional means (stand-by anti-pollution ships and 
equipment), to Member States' pollution response 
actions in the event of accidental or deliberate pollution 
caused by ships. 
Drawing up, on a regular basis,  a list of private and state 
pollution response capabilities in the various regions of 
the EU. Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Member States 
and Commission, 
circulation of 
information and 
cooperation with 
Maritime 
Authorities Operational support to Member States 
with additional anti pollution means. 
(Regulation 1406/2002/EC and 
2038/2006/EC). 
 
Assistance in the field of response to ship-sourced 
pollution within EU waters. 
 
EN 45   EN Annex IV: Possible future tasks of EMSA 
1. List of the 19 tasks envi saged by the preferred option 
10 tasks in Policy Option 2 
Common rules and standards for ship inspection’s relevant activities of maritime administrations 
B5 Assisting the Commission in the development of implementation rules. 
B6 Assessing the new certification body. 
Port State Control 
B7 Operation and hosting of the new information system Thetis 
B8 Notification of arrival of ships: integrate notificati on requirements of ships into the reporting scheme of 
Directive 2002/59/EC and SafeSeaNet. 
B9 Professional profile of inspectors: develop and promote harmonised Community training schemes. 
Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system 
B10 Places of refuge: fac ilitate the harmonisation of national plans and setting of regional arrangements. 
B11 Enhancement of SafeSeaNet 
B12 Operation of the EU LRIT data centre 
Fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector 
B13 Organise and support a permanent cooperation framework of investigative bodies. 
B14 Organise early alert system. 
2 additional tasks in Policy Option 3  
C2 Training of Port State Control officers. 
C3 Development of instructions and guidance material for PSC officers. 
  
7 additional tasks in Policy Option 4  
D2 Analysis of research results, including identi fication of possible regulatory follow-up measures. 
D3 Identification of research subjects and areas to be possibly included in calls for proposals under the EU 
framework programme. 
D4 Contribution to the EU maritime surveillance policy 
D5 Preparedness to marine pollution at sea/by vessels 
D6 Cooperation with neighbouring third countries (EU regional seas and Paris MoU) in areas of exchange of 
information, training and technical assistance  
D7 Cooperation with neighbouring third countries (EU re gional seas and Paris MoU) in operational services 
EN 46   EN like SafeSeaNet, CleanSeaNet, anti-pollution vessels 
D8 Social aspects of shipping: training, qualification, working and living conditions of seafarers 
2. List of the 10 disregarded tasks 
5 tasks in Policy Option 2 
Flag State requirements  
B1 Technical assistance aimed at establishing mi nimum criteria on resources and processes for 
administering safety and pollution prevention. 
B2 Technical assistance aimed at establishing minimum qualification requirements for surveyors of flag 
State. 
B3 Establishing a common methodology for Flag State performance. 
B4 Assistance to Member States in Flag State auditing process. 
Civil liability and financial guarantees of ship owners 
B15 Management of financial security certificates at EU level. 
4 tasks in Policy Option 3  
C1 Establishment of a black-grey-white list for flag States.  
C4 Assistance to the Commission and the Paris MoU in their cooperation with other MoUs. 
C5 Taking care of publications, website and providing general information. 
C6 Elaborating and publishing statistics developed by the Paris MoU. 
1 task in Policy Option 4  
D1 Enhanced technical assistance to the Commission in preparing and carrying out maritime security 
inspections to verify correct implementation of the legislation.