Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 (COM(2005) 210 final — 2005/0098 (COD))
Date: 2005-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, European Maritime Safety Agency, maritime safety, oil pollution, pollution control measures, pollution from ships

C 28/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on a multiannual funding for the action of the European
Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regu-
lation (EC) No 1406/2002’

(COM(2005) 210 final — 2005/0098 (COD))

(2006/C 28/03)

On 7 June 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 October 2005. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 421st plenary session, held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October 2005), the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 124 votes with 4 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.5
The Regulation amended in 2004 requires the EMSA to
provide the Commission and the Member States with technical
and scientific assistance in the field of pollution response,
which can be divided into three categories: information, coop-
eration and coordination, and operational assistance.

1.1 With the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 724/2004 of
31 March amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 estab-
lishing a European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
the
Agency was assigned new tasks in the field of oil pollution
response.

1.2
The present proposal establishes procedures for Com-
munity funding of the Agency's new tasks, on the basis of a
multiannual commitment to be spread over a period of seven
years, from 2007 to 2013. The Commission proposes a sum of
EUR 154 million to cover the necessary funding for the seven-
year period.

Following the assignment of the new tasks, in October
1.3
2004 the Agency's Administrative Board adopted an Action
Plan for oil pollution preparedness and response. This identifies
the activities that the Agency intends to embark on within the
context of the Regulation, both in terms of response to an oil
spill, using specialised anti-pollution vessels, and in terms of
preparedness for mounting effective response operations.

It

is operational assistance which will

1.6
require the
greatest financial investment, since the Action Plan provides for
the creation of a network of standby oil-recovery vessels and a
Satellite Imagery Service Centre. The contracts to be concluded
by EMSA to assure oil recovery assistance cover all actions and
their financial consequences until the initiation of intervention
following an oilspill. The costs of
intervention by an oil-
recovery vessel will be borne by the soliciting Member State.

As

these new responsibilities

1.7
the
Commission is proposing a multiannual budget which can
both provide the necessary long-term investments and ensure
adequate financial security, reducing expenditure in the nego-
tiation of long-term contracts.

long-term,

are

2. General comments

1.4
The EMSA identified four priority areas for action: the
Baltic Sea, the Western approaches to the English Channel, the
Atlantic coast and the Mediterranean (particularly the area
along the tanker trade route from the Black Sea), where the
Agency intends to station chartered pollution response vessels
ready to act when called upon by one or more Member States.
It should be pointed out that the EMSA's role in this field will
be to supplement (not to replace) national pollution response
includes additional
mechanisms. The Action Plan further
response capacity for
involving hazardous and
noxious substances (HNS).

incidents

2.1
In its opinion on the proposal assigning new tasks to
the EMSA in the field of pollution response (1),
the EESC
welcomed the Commission's proposal and stressed the EMSA's
key role in improving maritime safety in the Member States.
However, it regretted the fact that several Member States were
still not properly equipped to respond to major accidents like
those of the Erika and Prestige.

(1) OJ C 108, 30.4.2004, rapporteur Mr Chagas.

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/17

2.2
Despite the progress made, the current situation still
leaves something to be desired in some cases. Together with
the Action Plan, the Agency presented an overview of Member
States' oil pollution response capacities, which stated that
response capacity needed to be supplemented in certain regions
with additional recovery vessels and equipment.

prevention. It is essential that maritime pollution prevention
and response are accorded the necessary importance at Com-
munity level too, and that they are not viewed purely from an
economic perspective.

2.3
All coastal States cannot be expected to be permanently
equipped with all the resources needed to deal with major sea
accidents, particularly large-scale oil spills, on their own.
However, the current lack of resources has resulted in environ-
mental damage which will have long-term consequences.

2.4
The EESC therefore supports the proposal to give the
EMSA the necessary resources to supplement Member States'
pollution prevention and response mechanisms upon request.
However, the EESC stresses that these resources can only serve
as supplements. Under no circumstances should the above
financial means be taken to replace pollution prevention
measures which should be established by Member States.

In particular, the EESC stresses the need for a multi-
2.5
annual financing programme to fund these mechanisms. This is
the only way to ensure consistent programming of the EMSA's
activities in this area, and to optimise use of resources by
concluding contracts with a minimum term of three years for
the provision of rapid response (2) vessels.

2.6
The EESC reiterates the comment made in its Opinion
referred to in point 2.1, regarding the need to ensure that the
owner(s) of ships chartered to carry out these tasks respect(s)
the relevant Community and international legislation, in par-
ticular that governing safety conditions on ships and the living
and working conditions of crew members.

2.7
As the Action Plan adopted by the Agency identifies
priorities on the basis of the limited funds to be made available,
the EESC is concerned that, given the current difficulties in
reaching agreement on the Community budget, the funds ulti-
mately provided might be lower than those set out in the
proposed budget. This would mean selecting certain measures
over others or making progress in some areas at the expense of
others. The EESC cannot support this approach, since the deci-
sion by Member States to grant the Agency additional compe-
tences implies the need to ensure the necessary funding to
enable it to achieve its goals in the field of maritime pollution

The EESC is concerned about

the delays of some
2.8
Member States
in implementing certain measures already
adopted in the field of maritime pollution prevention and
response, particularly in designating places of
refuge and
protected areas, providing reception facilities or in strength-
ening their resources for effective port state control. These
delays cast doubt over these countries' genuine commitment to
preventing and responding to maritime pollution, despite the
good intentions regularly expressed, particularly after each new
major maritime accident.

Investment is also needed in aerial surveillance means
for detecting and combating pollution and

2.9
and equipment
preventing the violation of antipollution regulations.

Satellite imagery can also be used to complement
2.10
surveillance and monitoring activities. The EESC supports the
Commission's plan to set up a Satellite Imagery Service Centre,
to help Member States in detecting, monitoring and managing
illegal discharges and accidental oil spills.

Given the high costs (3) entailed in a satellite imagery
2.11
service, the EESC believes that use of resources needs to be
optimised and, in particular, that the use of images needs to be
coordinated between Member States; this could lead to consid-
erable cost-savings. At the same time, there are grounds for
investment to improve image-gathering in all European mari-
time areas, as current coverage is not genuinely comprehensive,
particularly in the Mediterranean area.

The EESC also considers the planned information,
2.12
cooperation and coordination measures to be very important.
These will ensure more rational use of existing resources and
the Agency has a fundamental role to play here.

3. Conclusions

The EESC supports the proposal to give the EMSA the
3.1
necessary resources to supplement Member States' pollution
prevention and response mechanisms upon request.

(2) ‘Rapid’ in this context means that the designated vessel can inter-
vene within 24 hours. Usually the transformation including the
installation of the necessary equipment on board takes 4-8 hours,
and an additional period of 4-8 hours is needed for the vessel to
arrive at the place of the accident.

(3) The cost per image covering a territory of 500 km2 is in the range
of EUR 800-1000 depending on several factors (e.g. the delay of the
transmission demanded, the advance with which the contract is
concluded). According to a modest estimation given by EMSA
1,000 images are needed on a yearly basis.

C 28/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2006

The Committee regrets however

3.2
that a number of
Member States have not yet allocated the appropriate resources
or established mechanisms of their own and asks the Commis-
sion to urge them to accelerate that process.

3.3
The EESC is concerned that, given the current difficulties
in reaching an agreement on the Community budget, the funds
ultimately provided might be lower than those set out in the
proposed budget. The decision by Member States to give the
Agency additional competences implies the need to ensure the

Brussels, 26 October 2005.

necessary funding to enable it to achieve its goals in the field of
maritime pollution prevention.
that maritime
pollution prevention and response are accorded the necessary
importance at Community level too, and that they are not
viewed purely from an economic perspective.

is essential

It

3.4
The Agency's role in promoting cooperation and coordi-
nation of Member States' resources and activities is funda-
mental for the establishment of a rational and cost effective
strategy.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council on risk and crisis management in agriculture’

(COM(2005) 74 final)

(2006/C 28/04)

On 20 April 2005 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Communication
from the Commission to the Council on risk and crisis management in agriculture.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Bros.

At its 421st plenary session, held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October 2005), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
This communication from the European Commission
follows on from the considerable amount of work already
conducted at European level, including: the Commission Report
on risk management in January 2001, the Council discussions
under the Swedish Presidency in Spring 2001, the Spanish
Memorandum and the International Conference on Agricultural
insurance and income guarantees in Madrid at the beginning of
2002, the Greek Memorandum and the Seminar on natural
disasters in Thessaloniki in 2003, and the Conference organised
by the Dutch Presidency in December 2004 on Material and
immaterial costs of eradication of animal diseases.

1.2 More specifically, the communication has been drawn
up to fulfil a commitment made by the Commission, in the
form of a declaration issued in Luxembourg, in the context of
the June 2003 CAP reform:

the financing of

analyse in particular
these measures
through the one percentage point of modulation directly
re-distributed to Member States as well as the inclusion, in
each common market organisation, of an article empow-
ering the Commission to act, in the case of a Community-
wide crisis, along the lines established for such cases in the
common market organisation for beef’.

1.3
The communication also responds to the Conclusions of
the December 2003 Council which called for the discussion to
be continued; for an updated inventory of the risk management
tools available to be provided; for the different risk manage-
ment options to be considered;
for possible new measures
(common market organisation, financial support, competition
rules) to be taken into account; and lastly for the guidelines on
state aid in the agriculture sector to be assessed and adaptations
suggested.

‘The Commission will examine specific measures to address
risks, crises and national disasters in Agriculture. A report
accompanied by appropriate proposals will be presented to
the Council before the end of 2004. The Commission will

1.4
In the past, the CAP offered protection by means of its
market and price support policies. Since the last reform,
however, farmers are exposed more directly to a whole series