COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT   Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency
Date: 2010-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, accident prevention, budget, institutional structure, maritime safety, operation of the Institutions, pollution from ships

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1263 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European 
Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a 
European Maritime Safety Agency 

COM(2010) 611 
 SEC(2010) 1264 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Summary of the report on the impact assessment of the proposal for amending  
Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency 

Lead DG:  MOVE 

1. 

THE PROCEDURE 

This  proposal  was  part  of  the  Commission's  legislative  and  work  programme  for 
2008 (reference 2008/TREN/047 now 2008/MOVE/047). 

Preparations for the impact analysis started in 2007. An inter-service steering group 
was established. 

Two different independent sources of expertise have been used. Firstly, as foreseen 
by Article  22 of the Regulation establishing the European Maritime Safety Agency 
(EMSA),  EMSA's  Administrative  Board  commissioned  an  external  evaluation.  On 
the  basis  of  the  final  evaluation  report,  the  Administrative  Board  adopted 
recommendations in June 2008. Secondly, the Commission services commissioned a 
study  under  a  framework  contract  for  assistance  regarding  impact  assessments. 
Finally, the EMSA 5-year strategy approved by the EMSA Administrative Board in 
March 2010 was also taken into account. 

2. 

THE PROBLEM 

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 accidents, some of them leading to environmental catastrophes in Europe. 
The  Agency  started  activities  in  early  2003.  The  first  full  year  of  operations  was 
2004. 

The external evaluation confirms that EMSA has filled a gap in the maritime safety 
area  in  the  European  Union.  Furthermore,  stakeholders  consider  the  EMSA 
Regulation  and  EMSA  itself  as  highly  relevant.  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. Therefore, two different 
sets of problems need to be tackled: 

1) 

2) 

to  which  extent  the  EMSA  Regulation  provides  the  appropriate  basis  for 
EMSA carrying out its tasks as expected by its main stakeholders and 

how to deal with a number of governance issues which have been experienced 
in the first years of EMSA's existence. 

Without acting, the inconsistency between EMSA's founding Regulation and new EU 
legislation in the area of maritime safety will lead to uncertainties regarding EMSA's 
tasks and to a lack of visibility in the sense of "who is doing what?" It is therefore 
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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
(third maritime safety package, integrated EU maritime policy and here in particular 
maritime  surveillance,  discussions  on  a  European  Coastguard  service,  maritime 
research,  the  role  of  the  EU  in  international  organisations  relevant  for  maritime 
transport,  relations  with  neighbouring  countries).  It  has  to  be  ensured  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. 

The  second  set  of  problems  to  be  addressed  in  this  revision  concerns  governance 
issues.  Experience  over  the  past  years  has  shown  that  some  governance  provisions 
need to be clarified further in order to better define the roles and responsibilities of 
the  Agency,  the  Administrative  Board,  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission. 
EMSA  has  currently  a  double  role  between  on  the  one  hand,  monitoring  Member 
States  through  inspections  and  visits,  and  on  the  other  hand,  providing  technical 
assistance, 
the  Member  States. 
Furthermore,  the  Board  members  representing  Member  States  are  faced  with  a 
potential  conflict  of  interest.  On  the  one  hand,  they  decide  as  Board  members  on 
EMSA's  activities  and  resources,  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 the applicable EU law. 
The problematic character of the underlying provisions requires corrective action. 

training  and  maritime  support  services 

to 

3. 

THE 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.  

The first specific policy objective is to ensure a better match between EMSA's tasks 
as  enshrined  in  its  founding  Regulation  and  the  different  elements  of  the  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 
governance issues, which have come up in the first years of EMSA's existence, with 
a  view  to  better  identify  the  responsibilities  of  the  different  actors  (Agency, 
Administrative  Board, Commission, and Member States).  Finally,  the third specific 
policy  objective  is  to  help  improving  the  visibility  of  the  EU  at  the  international 
scene  by  providing  state-of-the-art  technical  assistance  to  Member  States  and  the 
Commission in all areas of the Agency's expertise. 

4. 

THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Two separate set of options were considered, the first set concerns EMSA's tasks and 
the second set concerns EMSA's governance. 

The following options were examined regarding EMSA's tasks: 

- Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. leave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged); 

-  Option  2:  "minimal"  revision  limited  to  tasks  arising  from  the  implementation  of 
the third EU maritime safety package; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
- Option 3: "medium" revision encompassing option 2 plus taking over a large part of 
the  activities  of  the  Paris  Memorandum  of  Understanding  in  the  area  of  Port  State 
Control (Paris MoU); 

-  Option  4:  "large"  revision  encompassing  option  3  plus  new  tasks  in  the  areas  of 
security, research and general maritime policy.  

From the outset, it was considered that options 2 to 4 were not conflicting options but 
cumulative and that within each of these options a number of specific tasks should be 
developed and assessed individually, which could lead to the partial redefinition of 
options. 

Regarding  the  tasks  of  the  Agency,  the  likely  economic,  social  and  environmental 
impacts  of  the  policy  options  are  limited  due  to  the  limited  scope  of  the 
modifications  under  consideration.  Furthermore,  it  is  not  possible  to  quantify 
accurately the impacts of the options under consideration. Indeed, all EMSA's tasks 
are  shaped  as  technical  assistance  to  the  Commission  and  to  Member  States.  The 
contribution  of  technical  assistance  to  the  policy  objectives  is  not  measurable  with 
the current instruments available. 

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. It is however assumed 
that  EMSA's  assistance  to  Member  States  and  the  Commission  would  indirectly 
benefit  the  shipping  sector  as  Member  States  and  the  Commission  should  be  in  a 
better  position  to  carry  out  their  regulatory  activities.  By  definition,  EMSA's 
technical  assistance  should  create  neither  administrative  burden  nor  costs  for  the 
Member States. While the possible savings expected for Member 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  assistance.  The  main  economic  impact  identified  concerns  the  increase  of 
the EMSA budget by the required administrative and operational credits in order to 
carry out additional tasks. 

The  social  impact  of  all  options  is  marginal.  Some  indirect  positive  effects  can  be 
construed  for  the  safety  and  the  working/living  conditions  of  seafarers  and 
passengers on board of vessels. 

Regarding  the  environmental  impact,  it  is  expected  that  options  2  to  4  provide 
positive environmental impact as the measures under consideration would contribute 
to safer ships and safer shipping. 

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  options  2  and  3  while  under 
option  4  the  2  tasks  related  to  research  and  the  2  tasks  related  to  cooperation  with 
neighbouring  third  countries  were  rated  "fairly  effective"  as  both  would  constitute 
rather  new  areas  of  activities  for  the  agency.  Almost  all  possible  new  tasks  under 
options 2 to 4 present a high added value for the EU. 

When  assessing  the  feasibility  of  the  different  options  under  consideration,  the 
Commission  services  had  also  to  take  into  account  the  availability  of  budgetary 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
means.  The  financial  perspectives  up  to  2013  do  not  allow  providing  the  required 
budgetary  resources  to  EMSA  in  order  to  carry  out  all  possible  and  desirable  new 
tasks. Therefore, the Commission services had to select amongst the tasks identified 
in the impact assessment according to their relevance and their added value for the 
EU. Meanwhile, EMSA has already been implementing some of the new tasks on the 
basis of its current Regulation and with its current budgetary means. 

The following options were examined regarding EMSA's governance: 

- Option 1: "do nothing" (i.e. leave Regulation 1406/2002 unchanged); 

- Option 2: revision of the governance issues within the institutional framework of a 
regulatory agency; 

-  Option  3:  radical  revision  by  transforming  the  institutional  framework  in  which 
EMSA currently operates. 

The  radical  solution  of  option  3  was  disregarded  at  an  early  stage  as  the 
administrative  costs  of  the  transformation  were  considered  disproportionate. 
Furthermore,  a  splitting  of  the  Agency  into  two  distinct  sub-entities  would  have 
created  unwanted  and  counterproductive  inefficiencies.  It  was  thus  decided  to  keep 
EMSA's character as a so-called "regulatory" agency with a high degree of autonomy 
in a single structure. As it has been assumed that the governance-related aspects of 
the  revision  would  not  produce  any  negative  impact  in  economic,  social  or 
environmental  terms, it has  been decided to pursue with option 2.  Indeed, it  would 
not  make  sense  not  to  address  governance  issues  in  the  course  of  revising  EMSA's 
tasks like option 1 would have required. 

In the light of the on-going inter-institutional deliberations on the EU 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  structure  and  the  voting  rights  of  the 
Administrative  Board)  and  to  concentrate  on  the  few  governance  issues  which  are 
specific  to  EMSA  (for  example  the  organisation  of  inspections  of  EU  Member 
States).  The  proposal  contains  thus  a  limited  number  of  improvements  and 
clarifications regarding the governance of the Agency. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  services  conclude  that  option  4  which  encompasses  as  explained 
above options 2 and 3 is the preferred 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 explained in the previous point, the Commission 
services have opted for a more limited approach to option 4. Taking into account the 
aforementioned  budgetary  situation  and  the  developments  and  investments  already 
undertaken  between  2008  and  2011,  the  costs  of  EMSA's  further  extension  are 
limited to 18 additional new posts to be phased in from 2012 to 2014, out of which 6 
posts  should  be  provided  by  EMSA  through  internal  redeployment.  The  budgetary 
impact is estimated at approximatively 3.9 M EUR for the period 2012-2015. 

EN 

5 

   EN