COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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 

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 Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a 
European Maritime Safety Agency 

COM(2010) 611 
 SEC(2010) 1263 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
Table of content 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 4 

Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.................................... 5 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

Organisation and timing .............................................................................................. 5 

External expertise......................................................................................................... 5 

Consultation of stakeholders........................................................................................ 6 

Main results from the stakeholder consultations ......................................................... 6 

Opinion from the Impact Assessment Board................................................................ 7 

Section 2: Problem definition .................................................................................................. 9 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Background on EMSA .................................................................................................. 9 

EMSA's current situation ............................................................................................. 9 

Need for action........................................................................................................... 11 

2.3.1.  Avoid inconsistency ................................................................................................... 11 

2.3.2.  Governance issues...................................................................................................... 15 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

Affected stakeholders ................................................................................................. 16 

Consequences of inaction........................................................................................... 16 

Legal basis for action by the EU................................................................................ 16 

Section 3: Objectives .............................................................................................................. 17 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

General policy objectives........................................................................................... 17 

Specific policy objectives ........................................................................................... 17 

Operational objective................................................................................................. 17 

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 the governance of the Agency ........................................... 22 

Section 5: Analysis of impacts ............................................................................................... 24 

5.1. 

Preliminary considerations........................................................................................ 24 

EN 

2 

   EN 

5.1.1.  Analysis of the policy options regarding the governance of the Agency .................. 24 

5.1.2.  Analysis of the policy options regarding 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. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

The social impact ....................................................................................................... 26 

The environmental impact.......................................................................................... 27 

Impact of maritime accidents ..................................................................................... 27 

Section 6: Comparing the options......................................................................................... 29 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

Effectiveness............................................................................................................... 29 

Added value for the EU .............................................................................................. 29 

Budgetary situation and evolution of the Agency's resources ................................... 30 

The preferred option .................................................................................................. 30 

Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................. 33 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Indicators of progress ................................................................................................ 33 

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 

3 

   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 performance 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 new 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 governance arrangements.  

Regarding EMSA's tasks the following four options were considered:  

- 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-legislation maritime safety package; 

-  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; 

-  Option  4:  "large"  revision  encompassing  option  3  plus  new  tasks  in  the  areas  of  security, 

research and general maritime policy.  

Regarding the Agency's governance aspects, the following three options were established: 

- 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. 

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  consists  of  modifying  only  governance  arrangements 

EN 

4 

   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  option  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 those (a) where the outcome of the third Maritime 
Safety Package changed the initial Commission proposals; (b) which appear of not producing 
significant  enough  benefits  for  being  transferred  from  the  Secretariat  of  the  Paris  MoU  to 
EMSA  and  (c)  those  that  concern  the  extension  of  EMSA's  assistance  to  the  Commission 
regarding maritime security beyond the scope of Regulation 725/2004. 

The  financial  consequences  of  this  preferred  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  itself  through  internal  redeployment.  The  overall 
budgetary costs for the period 2012-2017 are estimated 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 consultation 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  started  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.  After  agreement  on  the  terms  of  reference  by 
correspondence,  the  kick-off  meeting  of  the  inter-service  steering  group  took  place  on 
16 October 2007 and the final meeting on 1st 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  Board  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 Safety 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 Maritime 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 shall receive the evaluation and 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 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
the Board's selection and steering group. The study 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  Board  adopted  recommendations  at  its  subsequent 
meeting  of  12  June  20082.  As  foreseen  by  the  Regulation,  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 under its framework contract 
study  was  undertaken  by 
for 
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Advisory (PwC). 

assessment.  This 

assistance 

regarding 

impact 

1.3. 

Consultation of stakeholders 

Stakeholders have been consulted in the preparation 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 organised 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 Board had set up a steering 
committee  to  accompany  the  activities  of  the  consultant,  to  which  the  Commission 
participated. The consultant presented its intermediate and final 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  Paris  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  on  Port  State  Control.  The  participation  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  Transport  Administrations  of  the  27  EU  Member 
States  as  well  as  Norway  and  Iceland.  The  topic  was  also  raised  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 consultation, the external evaluation of the Agency 
attributes excellent marks to the Agency summarised in the following quote: 

"It is the overall conclusion from the evaluation that the establishment of EMSA has filled a 
gap  in  the  maritime  safety  area  in  the  European  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  general,  and,  in  particular,  to  its  two  main 
stakeholders, the Member States and the Commission."4 

2 
3 

4 

See Annex I. 
See EMSA's website at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end179d003d002.html. Additionally, the executive 
summary of the external evaluation can be found in Annex II. 
See the external evaluation study, p. 6. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Furthermore,  the  stakeholders  consider  the  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 proposals 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 particular the management 
of projects with a high IT component5. Furthermore,  the study  notes 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  recommendation  requires  definitely  a  change  to  the 
Regulation  while  other  recommendations  would  benefit  from  an  appropriate  legal  basis  in 
EMSA's founding Regulation.  

The  stakeholder  consultation  during  the  second  study  confirmed  the  excellent  standing  of 
EMSA.  The  replies  showed  that  EMSA  should  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 taken 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  order  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 activities like the assistance to third countries, the 
Commission  services  conclude  that  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  any  new  tasks  require  appropriate  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 major changes to the report are the following: 

•  The description of the baseline scenario has been extended; 

•  Considerations on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality have been introduced; 

5 

6 
7 

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. 
See the external evaluation study, p. 35. 
To be published on EMSA's website.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
•  The presentation of policy options has been restructured; 

•  The assessment of the economic impact has been improved. 

EN 

8 

   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 accidents, 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 support 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 considerably 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  Regulation  was  of  a  horizontal  nature 
and  concerned  financial  and  budgetary  procedures  as  well  as  transparency,  the  second 
modification  which  entered  into  force  in  May  2004  brought  considerable  new  tasks  to  the 
Agency in the areas of maritime security and pollution preparedness and response. Under the 
terms  of  that  Regulation,  the  Agency  is  required  to  provide  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  with  technical  and  scientific  assistance  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 prevention and response to oil pollution, the Agency 
adopted  an  Action  Plan  in  October  2004  for  oil  pollution  preparedness  and  response.  The 
third modification introduced by Regulation 2038/2006 provided the funding of 154 M EUR 
in  a  multi-annual  financial  framework  for  these  activities  for  the  period  2007-201310. 
However, these previous modifications have not been sufficient to address the new challenges 
ahead for EMSA, most of the challenges being external 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 website 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 
9 

COM(2000)802 of 6.12.2000, p. 5. 
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. 
For more information see EMSA's first financial report published in early 2008. The report is available 
at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end645.html under the heading "Pollution preparedness & response".  

10 

EN 

9 

   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 

2.650  13.304  35.360 44.738 48.249 50.203

48.335  53.791 

56.598 

2.650  13.340  35.360 44.738 48.249 50.228

53.300  50.014 

57.644 

Authorised 
CA 

Authorised 
PA 

Committed 

1.043  7.503  29.714 34.287 43.280 46.466 45.42713 

n. a. 

Paid 

0.507  4.666  15.175 23.969 32.982 37.213 43.04013 

n. a. 

CA = Commitment appropriations / PA = Payment appropriations 

EMSA's human resources 

2003  2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 

2010 

n. a. 

n. a. 

2011 
planned 

Authorised  posts  under 
the establishment plan 

Posts  occupied  at  year's 
end 

40 

55 

95 

132 

153 

181 

192 

200 

208 

8 

34 

80 

111 

135 

149 

179 

n. a. 

n. a 

14 

50 

100 

131 

161 

179 

212 

n. a. 

n. a. 

staff 

including 
Total 
seconded 
national 
experts,  auxiliaries  and 
contractual 
at 
year's end 

agents 

As  from  1st  June  2008,  EMSA  has  been  organised  in  the  following  three  departments,  each 
one composed of three units: 

−  Corporate  Services  (Finance,  Human  Resources,  Legal,  IT,  External  Communication  and 

Facilities Management); 

− Implementation (maritime safety and protection of marine environment acquis); 

− Operations (Pollution response, CleanSeaNet, SafeSeaNet, LRIT). 

11 
12 
13 

See http://www.emsa.europa.eu/ 
Figures from the Draft Budget 2011 as adopted by EMSA's Administrative Board on 9-10 March 2010. 
The budget execution figures for 2009 are provisional. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Some key figures from 2009 illustrate EMSA's different activities: 

114  inspections  in  the  areas  of  maritime  safety,  maritime  security  and  prevention  of 
pollution by ships 
88 events organised with over 2.250 participants. This includes 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 slicks 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 safety 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 different sets of problems arise:  

1)  to  which  extent  does  the  EMSA  Regulation  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 issues which have been experienced 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  procedure  requires  les 
assistance than the initial Commission proposals would have required in particular regarding 

14 

15 

Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), Community of European Shipyards’ Association 
(CESA),  European  Commission  (DG  TREN),  International  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). 
The report is available at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end185d007d002d003d002.html  

EN 

11 

   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 submit 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 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 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  mandate  and  the  functioning  of  the  European 
Maritime Safety Agency, in order to further enhance the technical and scientific assistance it 
can give to the Member States and the Commission" (p. 8), the Commission announced also 
its plans in the area of human resources, seamanship 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  the  work  of  the  European 
Maritime  Safety  Agency  for  providing  technical  and  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  maritime  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 Agencies 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  study  regarding  a  European  Coastguard  service.  The  Commission  services  are 
currently  considering  that  synergies  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 
17 

18 

19 

20 

See COM(2005)585, 23.11.2005, p. 5. 
See  COM(2009)  8  from  21.1.2009:  "Strategic  goals  and  recommendations  for  the  EU’s  maritime 
transport policy until 2018". 
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. 
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. 
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 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
particular  regarding  the  surveillance  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 enhanced role for EMSA could help to close this 
gap.  In  analysing  research  projects,  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  preparing  appropriate  action.  The  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 International Maritime Organization (IMO), makes 
it also necessary to review EMSA tasks and resources in order to ensure that the Commission 
and the Member States receive the best possible technical advice. It should also be noted that 
the  International  Labour  Office  (ILO)  adopted  in  2006  a  comprehensive  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  conditions  for  seafarers  will  require  adaptations 
from  Flag  States,  Port  States  and  Labour  Supplying  States,  where  EMSA's  assistance  is 
required.  Furthermore,  IMO  is  working  on  the  revision  of  the  International  Convention  on 
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (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  substantial  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 seafarers, once the text of the new Convention 
has been adopted. 

To a certain extent, EMSA is a victim of its own success as its contribution to maritime safety 
has created expectations for and interest in cooperation with EMSA amongst a large group of 
stakeholders. In particular 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 cooperation with the Agency. The EMSA Regulation 
makes such technical cooperation difficult (for details see below under option 4). 

21 
22 

23 

See article 2 (a) of the EMSA Regulation. 
See  box  3.1  on  page  28  of  the  external  evaluation  ,  where  "complex  technical  assistance  to  the 
Commission in cooperation with research and development programmes" and "scientific research and 
climate  change  (in  particular  mitigating  the  effects  of  climate  change  on  coastal  regions)"  are 
mentioned. 
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 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
The  Joint  Declaration  of  the  Paris  Summit  for  the  Mediterranean  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 stressed. EMSA makes an important 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  expertise  and  its  resources. 
While  the  current  Regulation  foresees  this  in  the  case  of  the  Paris  Memorandum  of 
Understanding on Port State Control25, EMSA's assistance is relevant also for other regional 
organisations in which the Commission is active, in particular regarding the prevention of and 
response  to  pollution  by  ships  (Helsinki  Commission  for  the  Baltic  Sea,  Barcelona 
Convention  for  the  Mediterranean,  etc.).  For  example,  EMSA  is  active  in  the  regional 
maritime traffic data exchange (AIS data = Automatic 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).  This  project  will  be  discussed  in  more  detail 
below  under  option  2,  but  it  has  to  be  mentioned  here  that  the  initiative  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 additional 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  against  piracy,  showing  the 
potential  of  using  information  available  from  maritime  applications  for  different  user 
communities. 

It should be noted that  EU  Member  States decided in late 2009 to submit a bid to IMO for 
EMSA to host the International Data Exchange (IDE) of the global LRIT 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  Safety  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 

25 
26 
27 

See the text of the declaration, in particular p. 19, at:   
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed/index_en.htm. 
See article 2 (b) (ii) of the EMSA Regulation. 
See point 1 in the Council Resolution of 2 October 2007, Council document 13736/07. 
See Council Resolution of 9 December 2008, Council document 17043/08. 

EN 

14 

   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  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. The external 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 lead to infringements procedures and cases at 
the  European  Court  of  Justice,  and  on  the  other  hand  providing  technical  assistance, 
training and maritime support services 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  the  applicable  EU  law.  This  potential  conflict  has  led  to 
discussions at Board meetings in particular at the time of agreeing EMSA's visits policy30. 

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  management  of  the  Agency.  As  recommended  by 
EMSA's Administrative Board (see Annex I), the external evaluation of the Agency should be 
repeated at regular intervals thus requiring modifications to Article 22.  

A  second  recommendation  concerns  the  development  of  a  multi-annual  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 
outlined33.  The  Commission  supports  the  strategy  subject  to  the  availability  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 

29 

30 

31 
32 
33 

See  the  external  evaluation  study,  p.  7:  "Comprehensive  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". 
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." 
The document is available at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/end179d003d001.html under the decisions of 
the meeting of 25 June 2004. 
See the external evaluation study, p. 35. 
See in particular Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation. 
To be published on EMSA's website. 

EN 

15 

   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 Commission and Member States has 
been altered considerably by the latest enlargements. While in late 2002 at the first meetings 
of EMSA's Administrative Board, the Commission represented around 21 % of the votes (4 
Commission representatives out of a total of 19 representatives with voting 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 shore) are directly affected by maritime safety 
measures,  the  revision  of  the  EMSA  Regulation,  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  maritime  transport  law,  new  developments  at 
international  and  EU  level  and  growing  expectations  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  principle  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  consideration  have  been 
considered in this spirit. 

The proposal does not affect the fundamental rights of citizens, as the Agency does not take 
any actions affecting individual citizens.  

EN 

16 

   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  has  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 action34. 

3.2. 

Specific policy objectives 

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  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.  

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-stated 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 environmental 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 activities 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 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
Section 4: Policy options 

As  the  proposal  addresses  both  EMSA's  tasks  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. leave 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  option  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  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  certain 
options, in particular the preferred option. 

4.1.1.  Option 1 "do nothing" 

Under the assumption that Regulation 1406/2002 remains in its current version, EMSA would 
continue its current activities and provide its contribution to maritime safety. Having said this, 
the  Agency  would  suffer  from  growing  inconsistency  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  the  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 inefficient 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 effectiveness and pragmatism shown by EMSA.  

Under  option  1,  if  EMSA  had  to  continue  to  operate  as  presently,  its  activities  could  be 
summarised in 37 specific tasks. These tasks have been identified for the sake of this impact 
assessment without prejudice to the legal text in Article 2 of the Regulation. The tasks have 
been organised in the following five groups: 

•  Group 1 horizontal tasks: six different horizontal tasks were defined through which EMSA 
provides  technical  assistance  to  the  Commission,  the  Member  States  and  candidate 
countries. These tasks concern the preparation of legislation, the implementation as well as 
the monitoring and evaluation of the implemented measures. The general provision of data 
and training are also covered in this group. 

•  Group 2 maritime safety: this is the biggest group with 18 tasks organised by the different 
legal  instruments  (like  classification  societies,  port  state  control,  training  of  seafarers). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

Activities  comprise  inspections  in  Member  States  and  third  countries,  provision  of 
technical  assistance,  development  and  management  of  databases  and 
specialised 
operational  services  regarding  vessel  traffic  monitoring  and  the  tracking  of  illegal 
discharges at sea by vessels. 

•  Group  3  maritime  security:  This  is  a  very  small  group  with  the  single  task  of  providing 

technical assistance to the Commission inspections under Regulation 725/2004/EC. 

•  Group  4  prevention  of  pollution:  In  this  second  biggest  group  of  7  tasks,  activities 
comprise  again  inspections  in  Member  States,  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 the EU's maritime safety legal framework. 

The Commission submitted the package consisting of the following 7 legislative proposals in 
late 200535: 

•  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with 

flag State requirements; 

•  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules 
and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations 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 establishing a EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system; 

•  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the 
fundamental principles governing the investigation  of  accidents  in  the  maritime  transport 
sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC; 

•  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of 

carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents; 

•  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the civil liability 

and financial guarantees of shipowners. 

35 

See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/2005_package_3_en.htm for more information. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
While the first four proposals improve and strengthen existing EU legislation, the remaining 
three  proposals  are  set  to  complete  the  maritime  safety  measures  through  new  legislative 
instruments.  All  proposals  are  in  line  with  and  based  on  the  work  of  the  International 
Maritime Organization and most of them have been developed with EMSA's assistance.  

The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  reached  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  traffic  monitoring  and  information  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 identified corresponding to the 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 Port State Control (Paris MoU). It can be considered as 
"medium"-sized  revision,  as  it  tackles  institutional  and  organisational  aspects  in  the  area  of 
Port State Control beyond the mere implementation of EU-legislation 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  Russian  Federation.  EMSA  has  already  been 
assisting  the  Commission  in  the  activities  of  the  Paris  MoU  on  the  basis  of  the  existing 
Regulation36 and plays a major role in the organisation of Port State Control within the Paris 
MoU. The development and operation of the information system Thetis (The hybrid European 
targeting  and  information  system)  under  the  New  Inspection  Regime  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  Paris  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 alia by the EMSA multi-annual strategy (see above under point 
1.4). 

Under option 3, 6 potential new tasks were identified 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  further  considers  different  possible  extensions  of 
EMSA's tasks within the areas falling under its general objectives as listed in Article 1. It is 
therefore a large revision of the EMSA Regulation 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 

20 

   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 assistance 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 better reflected in the Regulation.  

Finally,  the  undeniable  success  of  EMSA  has  raised  huge  interest  by  third  countries  in 
EMSA's  activities.  In  particular  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 cooperation with the Agency, in 
particular  regarding  operational  services  like  the  pollution  response  vessels,  the  satellite 
images to detect illegal discharges at sea (CleanSeaNet) 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 those 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, which is not explicitly covered by its current 
Regulation.  However,  not  all  EU  neighbouring  States  will  qualify  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  Agencies  to  partner  countries43,  it 
should  be  examined  to  which  extent  EMSA  could  establish  relations  at  technical  level  with 
these  countries.  The  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  would  indeed  cover  most  of  the  third 

37 
38 
39 
40 

41 
42 
43 

See Article 2(b)(iv) of Regulation 1406/2002. 
See Article 2(a) of Regulation 1406/2002. 
See footnote 15 above 
Decision 2850/2000/EC expired on 31/12/2006. See the Commission Communication COM(2006)863 
of 22.12.2006. 
See article 17 of the EMSA Regulation. 
See article 2 (g) of the EMSA Regulation. 
See Commission Communication COM (2006) 724 of 04.12.2006. 

EN 

21 

   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  attention.  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  inspections  of  EU  Member  States  and  third 
countries,  more  assistance  might  be  required  in  the  future  regarding  various  social  aspects 
related  to  training,  qualification,  certification,  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  countries  and  1  task  for  the  social  aspects  of  shipping)  in 
addition to the tasks of the two previous options. Details are given in Annex IV. 

4.2. 

Policy options regarding the 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  evaluation,  the  recommendations  by  EMSA's 
Administrative  Board  and  its  own  experience  over  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. 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. 

Option  2  would  consist  of  modifying  certain  articles  within  Regulation  1406/2002  without 
altering  the  institutional  set  up  of  a  regulatory  agency  and  its  governance  structure.  This 
would  mainly  concern  article  3  on  visits,  articles  10  and  14  concerning  the  Administrative 
Board  and  articles  15  and  16  regarding  the  Executive  Director.  In  particular,  the  potential 
conflict of interest for Member States' representatives in the Administrative 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  structure  and  the  voting  rights  of  the  Administrative  Board)  and  to 

44 

See  the  latest  Commission  Communication  on  this  subject:  "European  agencies  –  The  way  forward", 
COM (2008)135 of 11.03.2008. 

EN 

22 

   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  inspections  or  the  Food  and  Veterinary  Office  –  while  the 
remainder  of  EMSA's  activities  would  become  an  Executive  Agency  managing  an  EU 
maritime  safety  programme.  This  option  would  require  major  changes  not  only  to  the 
founding Regulation, but also to the Commission's administrative structure. 

Although such a radical solution would easily overcome the potential 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 external evaluation. Furthermore, a splitting of the Agency into two 
distinct sub-entities would create unwanted and counterproductive inefficiencies. 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  considered,  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 

23 

   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 the governance-related aspects of the revision would not produce 
a negative impact in economic, social or environmental terms, it has been decided to pursue 
with  option  2  as  explained  below  under  point  4.2.  Indeed,  it  would  not  make  sense  not  to 
address governance issues in the course of revising EMSA's tasks like option 1 ("do nothing") 
would  have  required.  The  proposal  contains  thus  a  limited  number  of  improvements  and 
clarifications regarding the governance of the Agency (mainly related to Article 3 and 16). 

5.1.2.  Analysis of the policy options regarding the tasks of the Agency 

In general, the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the options are extremely 
limited  due  to  the  limited  scope  of  the  modifications  under  consideration.  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, accidents and even catastrophes. 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 
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 administrative 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  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. For example a better targeting of risk ships in 
Port  State  Control  thanks  to  the  information  system  build  up  by  EMSA  will  reward  quality 
ships  being  inspected  less  often  than  at  present.  It  should  be  repeated  that  the  regulatory 
requirements  for  this  policy  follow  from  the  Port  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  impossible  to  define  with  the  necessary  precision  the 
economic  benefit  that  might  arise  for  quality  shipping  from  EMSA's  technical  assistance  to 
the  Commission  and  to  the  Member  States.  Likewise,  the  potential  costs  for  operators  of 
substandard ships are not possible to establish. 

EN 

24 

   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 assistance should create neither administrative burden 
nor costs for the Member States. To the contrary, 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 concentrate on their responsibilities as flag State, 
port State or coastal State (see also below under option 2).  

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.  This  has  also  been 
confirmed for EMSA's current tasks in the external evaluation45. 

Option  1:  Under  this  option  EMSA  would  continue  to  work  within  its  current  mandate  and 
thus  provide  its  assistance  to  the  Commission  and  Member  States  within  the  current 
limitations.  Any  additional  assistance,  necessary  or  desirable,  for  the  Commission  and 
Member  States  would  be  impossible  from  a  legal  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  and  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 data centre already introduced above in section 
2.3.1.  The  current  budgetary  estimations  for  the  EU  LRIT  data  centre  foresee  a  total  of  28 
additional  staff  and  a  budget  of  approximatively  38  M  EUR  for  the  period  2008  to  2013 
instead of 29 national data centres (Norway and Iceland participate in EMSA). For the sake of 
comparison,  it  is  interesting  to  establish  the  average  costs  per  country  by  dividing  the 
expected  costs  of  the  EU  centre  by  the  number  of  participating  countries.  The  result  shows 
that  it  does  not  seem  realistic  to  run  national  data  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 efficiency 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 States 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 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
As  EMSA's  activities  do  not  touch  directly  private  companies  or  citizens,  all  options  under 
consideration do not entail administrative burden for private agents. 

5.2.4.  Consequences for the EU budget 

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. As stated 
before, it is assumed that the envisaged modifications as to the governance of the Agency will 
not create any additional costs.  

The  estimated  costs  for  the  options  under  consideration  are  shown  in  the  following  table 
(option 3 includes costs of option 2 and option 4 includes the costs of option 3): 

Costs 
budget  

for  EU 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

nothing" 

"do 
2007 baseline 

"minimal" 
revision 

"medium" 
revision 

"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 the 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 leads to an annual cost per 1 FTE of 98.050 EUR. 

The calculations operated in this impact assessment 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  EMSA46.  Some  indirect  positive  effects  can  be 
construed for the safety and the working and living conditions of seafarers and passengers on 
board of vessels, in particular with regard to the specific task under option 4.  

Furthermore,  the  EU  as  the  world's  biggest  trading  block  has  an  interest  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 have 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 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.4. 

The environmental impact 

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,  be  it  through  improved  control  of  foreign  vessels  in  EU  ports,  the  better 
monitoring of all vessels in the vicinity 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  assistance  to  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  regarding  the  environmental  impacts  of  shipping.  As  stated  below,  the  EU  maritime 
safety measures on port state control and other areas are defined by other legislative acts than 
the EMSA founding Regulation. The latter Regulation 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,  which  focuses  more  on  organisational  changes 
affecting  the  Secretariat  of  the  Paris  MoU  and  EMSA,  does  not  seem  to  produce  any 
environmental impact. 

5.5. 

Impact of maritime accidents 

The  impact  under  consideration  should  be  compared  with  the  consequences  of  maritime 
accidents. 

Without going into details, it should be recalled that recent catastrophes involving passenger 
ships  in  the  EU  have  caused  the  loss  of  more  than  thousand  human  lives  (Herald  of  Free 
Enterprise in 1987, Scandinavian Star in 1990, Estonia 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  Euros.  According  to  the  International  Oil 
Pollution Compensation Fund, claims for compensation regarding the sinking 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 covered by different instruments like the EU Solidarity Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund or the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. 
The  EU  financial  assistance  provided  to  address  the  consequence  of  the  Prestige  accident 
amount to 436 M EUR48. The recent accident involving the container ship "MSC Napoli" in 
January 2007 causing the loss of 103 containers and the contained spillage of up to 200 tonnes 
of oil, is reported to cost more to the insurer than the huge oil 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 costs for the EU budget. In parallel, a number of 

47 
48 

The report is available at http://www.iopcfund-docs.org/prestige.htm  
Calculation by PwC in their study, see p. 123. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
measures  under  consideration  do  not  present  any  measurable  impact  in  economic,  social  or 
environmental terms.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

Section 6: Comparing the options 

In order to be able to weigh the options and their underlying tasks, first the effectiveness of 
EMSA taking over the different tasks under consideration was assessed. Secondly, the added 
value  for  the  EU  for  each  task  was  evaluated.  In  the  final  step  taking  into  account  the 
budgetary constraints, the Commission 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 consideration 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 effectiveness in performing its current activities; 

- The consultation of EMSA's stakeholders other than the Commission. 

The  effectiveness  of  EMSA  has  been  assessed  according  to  the  following  qualitative  rating 
scale: fairly effective; effective; highly effective. 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  third  countries  were  rated  "fairly  effective"  as  both  would 
constitute rather new areas of activities for the agency.  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  majority  of  respondents  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  might  be  detracted  thus  presenting  a  possible 
inconvenient to Member States, which the Commission definitely intends to avoid.  

The  large  majority  of  responding  stakeholders  are  in  favour  or  neutral  about  extending 
EMSA’s competences to assistance to the Commission in identifying research subjects. The 
Commission is looking forward to  receiving EMSA's enhanced  assistance 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 stakeholder consultation, the analysis 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  option  2  present  a  high  added  value  with  the  exception  of  the 
management of financial security certificates rated medium added value. A majority of new 
tasks  under  option  3  present  likewise  a  high  added  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  information;  (3)  Elaboration  and 
publication  of  statistics  developed  by  the  Paris  MoU.  Under  the  fourth  option,  all  tasks 

EN 

29 

   EN 

present  a  high  added  value.  Regarding  the  research  activities  and  the  cooperation  with 
neighbouring third countries it should be noted that this would be rather new types of activity 
for EMSA.  

The four tasks rated with less than high added value have not been included in the proposal. 

6.3. 

Budgetary situation and evolution of the Agency's resources 

When assessing the  feasibility  of  the  different 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  resources  to  EMSA  in  order  to  carry  out  all 
possible  and  desirable  new  tasks.  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 relevance and their added value for the EU. 

In parallel to the development of the proposal and the impact 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  posts50  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  additional  resources  received  between  2008  and  2010  or 
planned  for  2011,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  Port  State  Control52.  Consequently,  less 
additional resources are required 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 assessment. Indeed, in the light of the final outcome of 
the  negotiations  on  the  third  maritime  safety  package,  no  specific  technical  assistance  by 
EMSA is necessary. The initially identified tasks B1 – B4 have therefore been disregarded. 

6.4. 

The preferred option 

•  The  Commission  has  come  to  the  conclusion  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 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  options  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  investments  already  undertaken  between  2008,  and 
2011, the costs of EMSA's further extension are limited to 18 additional posts to be phased 

49 
50 

51 
52 
53 

Including the contribution from Norway and Iceland through the EFTA EEA mechanism. 
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. 
See task B12 in Annex IV. 
See tasks B7, C2 and C3 in Annex IV. 
Limited reductions according to the same principle were operated for tasks B5, B6, B9, B13, B14, and 
D6, see Annex IV. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
in  from  2012  to  2014.  In  line  with  the  current  budgetary  situation,  the  Agency  should 
provide  a  significant  part  (6  posts)  through  redeployment.  The  additional  annual  costs 
would therefore amount to approximatively 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 requirements: The underlying ideas in the Commission 

proposal have been disregarded during 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 later stage of the legislative procedure. 

•  Task C1 "Establishment of a black-grey-white list for flag States" / 

Task C4 "Assistance to the Commission and the Paris MoU in their cooperation with other 
MoUs" / 
Task C5 "Taking care of publications, website and providing general information" / 
Task C6 "Elaborating and publishing statistics 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 decided 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 constraints and having in mind 
the  organisation  of  the  maritime  security  inspections  by  the  Commission,  it  was  decided 
that EMSA's tasks should not be extended beyond Regulation 725/2004 and therefore not 
include activities under Directive 2005/65. However, in order to improve the efficiency of 
EMSA's  assistance  to  the  Commission  during  the  inspections  within  the  framework  of 
Regulation  725/2004,  the  current  limitation  in  Article  2  (b)(iv)  of  the  EMSA  Regulation 
should be removed. As explained 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  security-related  activities  in  this  context". 
This limitation within the scope of Regulation 725/2004 can be removed for the sake of the 
efficiency  of 
the 
aforementioned Regulation and without increasing EMSA's resources. 

inspections  without 

the  scope  beyond 

the  security 

increasing 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
•  The following table presents a summary of the 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 

Option 2 

"do nothing" 

"minimal" revision 

Option 3 

"medium" 
revision 

Option 4 

"large" revision 

Yes 

Not  more 
under option 2 

than 

Not  more 
under option 2 

than 

Possible  savings  for 
Member States 

the 
to 
None 
contrary,  Member 
States  getting  less 
appropriate 
technical 
assistance  would 
need 
invest 
to 
more themselves 

Costs for EU budget 
(additional staff) 

No 
costs 

additional 

limited 
costs 

additional 

Not  more 
under option 2 

than 

modest  additional 
costs 

Social impact 

Risk 
not 
of 
providing required 
level  of  maritime 
safety 

Higher 
level 
maritime safety 

of 

change 

No 
comparison 
option 2 

in 
to 

Higher 
maritime 
than in option 2 

level  of 
safety 

Higher  visibility 
for the EU 

Higher  visibility 
for the EU 

Environmental 
impact 

EMSA 
continue 
current activities. 

will 
its 

Higher  level  of  the 
protection 
the 
marine environment 

of 

change 

No 
comparison 
option 2 

in 
to 

Effectiveness 

EMSA 
effectively. 

works 

EMSA  could 
take 
over  all  new  tasks 
effectively. 

EMSA could take 
over all new tasks 
effectively. 

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. 

End result 

Option 
disregarded 

Part  of  the  preferred 
option 

10 out of the 15 tasks 
under 
2 
qualify. 

option 

of 

Part 
preferred option 

the 

2  out  of  the  4 
additional 
tasks 
under  option  3 
qualify. 

Higher level of the 
protection  of  the 
marine 
environment  than 
in option 2 

EMSA  could  take 
over  all  new  tasks 
effectively.  The 
areas  of  research 
and  relations  with 
countries 
third 
constitute 
rather 
new  activities  for 
EMSA. 

All 
tasks 
new 
have  high  added 
value for the EU. 

Preferred option 

7  out  of  the  8 
tasks 
additional 
under  option  4 
qualify. 

EN 

32 

   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 the third maritime safety package by Member 

States; 

•  Efficient contribution by EMSA to the maritime surveillance activities under the integrated 

EU maritime policy. 

7.2. 

Monitoring and evaluation  

According to the provisions of its founding Regulation and the principles of EU governance, 
EMSA will continue to be subject to the strict and comprehensive monitoring arrangements of 
an EU regulatory agency under the budgetary procedure (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 determination 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 

33 

   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. 

CHANGES 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, and should be performed on a regular basis. The 
next  and  subsequent  formal  evaluations  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 seen as additional or complementary. 

Consequently,  it  is  recommended  to  carry  out  such  evaluations  once  every  5  years  and  to 
amend the aforementioned Article 22 accordingly at the next revision of the EMSA founding 
Regulation. 

II. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 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  administrations.  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 specific 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  response  capability  in  several  regions  and  the 
development of the European LRIT system. Seafarer 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  administrations.).  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 neutrality to report on trends observed in the 
course  of  its  activities  so  as  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  functioning  and  evolution  of  the 
maritime world to its stakeholders. 

Develop a strategic plan covering a 5 year perspective 

A Strategic Plan should be developed to provide an overview of the situation for EMSA over 
the next 5 years. This rolling plan should outline where the Agency wants to be in a 5 year 

EN 

34 

   EN 

time  span  and  indicate  priorities  and  the  high-level  objectives  of  the  Agency,  taking  into 
account  its  mission,  the  multi  annual  staff  policy  plan,  the  Action  Plan  for  Oil  Pollution 
Preparedness  and  Response  (Oil  Action  Plan)  and  key  documents  and  influences  that  will 
affect  it’s  work  in  the  coming  years.  Concerning  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 implications of this strategy in terms of the 
roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  involved  stakeholders  and  to  clarify  and  make  explicit  the 
longer term priorities guiding EMSA's work. 

Continue in the efforts towards activity based costing and budgeting 

EMSA  needs  to  implement  an  activity  based  budgeting  and  accounting  system  as  far  as 
practicable, taking into consideration the existing constraints (budget structure, functionalities 
of ABAC system, etc). Such a system should allow EMSA to assign budget 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  priority  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 planned and budgeted for, activities undertaken, 
outputs produced and actual expenditure 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  detailed  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 function 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 step in this direction. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

The  annual  work  programme  should  function  as  operational  action  plan  for  the  given  year, 
focusing  on  the  planned  activities  and  the  associated  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 benchmark against which the activities and budgets 
can  be  implemented  and  progress  can  be  monitored.  The  description  of  targets,  milestones, 
expected  outputs  and  expected  outcomes  should  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,  target  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  latter  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-disciplinary 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 managing projects following such guidelines. 

III.  OTHER/GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

Ensure formal, periodic reviews of EMSA’s effectiveness. 

In  relation  to  regular  evaluations  as  referred  to  under  point  I,  EMSA’s  key  stakeholders 
should have the opportunity to take 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 Member States and other EU institutions, with the benefit of 
advice and information provided by EMSA. There is a need to collect 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 

36 

   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 for all of EMSA’s activities. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

Annex II: 

Executive Summary from the external evaluation  

This report presents the results of the evaluation 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 evaluation was undertaken by COWI A/S.  

The  overall  objective  of  the  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  relevance  of  the  Regulation  and  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  EMSA  in  fulfilling  its  objectives  and  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  technical  proposal  constitute  the  basis  for  the 
evaluation. The Administrative Board of the Agency 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 Administrative Board:  

•  (i)  an  Inception  report  specifying  the  evaluation  methodology  (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 version, the present Final Report 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  the  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  interviews  with  representatives  from  the  maritime 
administrations of 18 Member States (incl. Iceland and Norway) (all Member States invited - 
all  Member  States  who  indicated  their  interest  were  interviewed  at  MSC  Conference  in 
Copenhagen);  12  representatives  of  the  Commission  (DG  TREN  and  DG  ENV  based  on 
selection by the Steering Group and the Consultant); 4 Members of the European Parliament 
(based  on  relevance  in  relation  to  the  transport/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 

38 

   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  European  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  general,  and,  in  particular,  to  its  two  main 
stakeholders, the Member States and the Commission. 

Established, from scratch, in 2002, the Agency has been quick - not only in building its own 
organisation  -  but  also  in  delivering  useful  outputs  to  its  stakeholders.  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 fulfilled 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 effectiveness of Community-level maritime safety 
activities in general. The tasks performed by the Agency are thus carried 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 all – prior to its establishment. 

Naturally,  effectiveness  varies  among  the  different  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 identified a number of areas where effectiveness 
can be enhanced. 

EMSA’s  efficiency  performance  is  above  average.  This  conclusion  takes  into  consideration 
the fact that the Agency was established from scratch, 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 where efficiency can be improved. This notably 
concerns the question of activity based costing (ABC) – establishing a transparent relationship 
between  budgets,  activities  and  accounts.  When  implemented,  ABC  will  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  satisfactory  utility  and  sustainability  of  the 
activities54. Other indications of satisfactory 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 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
that relate to CleanSeaNet and inspections in connection with the STCW Convention in third 
countries.  Member  States  also  indicate  that  EMSA  has  contributed  to  making  legislative 
proposals technically feasible and acceptable. 

It is recommended that EMSA: 

• Develop a strategy plan covering a 3-5 year perspective 

• Develop the annual work programmes to function 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 distinguishes between target groups (i.e. the general public and the 
Administrative Board) 

• Develop a direct link between project work plans and unit work plans 

• Introduce activity based costing and budgeting 

•  Improve  the  action  plan  for  oil  pollution  preparedness  and  response  with  inclusion  of 
strategic elements 

• Streamline inspections to Member States 

• Apply a strategic and needs-oriented 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  EMSA  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  Agency.  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  needs  and  challenges  and  their  expectations  to 
EMSA. 

•  It  is  suggested  to  consider  some  minor  amendments  in  relation  to  the  EMSA  Regulation. 
Article 22 could be amended to provide for regular 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  produce  a  strategy  plan  for  the  Agency  to  be 
updated at least every 3 years. 

• The Member States and the Commission - as key end-users - should also support the process 
of introducing activity-based costing and budgeting in the Agency. Feed-back to EMSA from 
the  Administrative  Board  will  be  needed  on  the  level  of  satisfaction  with  the  reporting  and 
suggestions for further improvement. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

• It is recommended that reports from STCW inspections in third countries are made available 
to the Member States. During the evaluation exercise  the  first  steps have been taken to that 
effect. It is recommended to assign high priority to developing the secure web-site. 

•  It  is  suggested  that  the  Commission  considers  including  wider  impact  assessments  in 
relation to future EU-wide studies on implementation of Community legislation. The 'terms of 
reference' for cross-country studies conducted by EMSA could thus be complemented with a 
requirement to analyse the EU-wide impact on the 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 the 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  already  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 them 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 the EMSA Regulation is currently on-going, it is 
suggested  that  the  Administrative  Board  makes  this  evaluation  report  available  to  the 
responsible contractor. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

Annex III: 

Current tasks of EMSA 

Disclaimer: The following 37 tasks were defined for the sake of this impact assessment. 
Regulation 1406/2002 contains the legal definition of EMSA's tasks. 

Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Commission, 
Member States, 
new Member 
States, acceding 
Member States 

1. Horizontal tasks 

Provision of assistance to the Commission in the preparatory 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 legislation 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, recording and evaluation of technical data. 

Organization of training activities for Member States in the areas of maritime safety, security and 
prevention of marine pollution. 

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. 

Inspections of the recognised classification societies on 
behalf of the Commission.  

(Regulation 391/2009/EC and Directive 
2009/15/EC). 

Inspections of classification societies for which EU 
recognition is being requested by one or more Member 
States. 

Visits and 
inspections to 
monitor EU 
legislation 
implementation 

Training of Seafarers. 

(Directives 2008/106/EC and 
2005/45/EC). 

Inspections to asses the quality of the systems and 
procedures set up by Member States.  

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 systems and procedures fully 
comply with EU legislation. 

EU Vessels Traffic Monitoring.  

(Directive 2002/59/EC). 

Inspections to monitor the implementation of the 
Directive. 

Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Member States 
and Commission, 
circulation of 
information and 
cooperation with 
Maritime 
Authorities 

Port State Control. 

(Directive 2009/16/EC). 

Provision of technical assistance 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 implementation of the EU port 
state control Directive. In particular implementation of 
integrated electronic tools for the training of PSC officers. 

Publishing and updating the EU list of banned ships. 

EN 

42 

   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. 

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 managed 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) reports 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.  

Development and management of the database of EU 
approved marine equipment. 

Technical assistance to Commission in international 
negotiations at the IMO and at the International Oil 
Compensations Funds (IOPC Fund). 

Development of STCW related database. 

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. 

Technical assistance to Member States and Commission 
in creating a common methodology for investigations. 

EU Vessel Traffic Monitoring.  

(Directive 2002/59/EC). 

Marine Equipment.  

(Directive 96/98/EC). 

Liability & Compensation. 

(Directive 2005/35/EC). 

Mutual recognition of seafarers’ 
certificates.  

(Directive 2005/45/EC). 

Ship source pollution and on the 
introduction of penalties for 
infringements. 

(Directive 2005/35/EC). 

Accident investigation. 

(Regulation 2009/18/EC). 

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 

43 

   EN 

 
4. Prevention of pollution 

Legislation 

Task 

Visits and 
inspections to 
monitor EU 
legislation 
Implementation 

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. 

Air Emissions (Directive 2005/33/EC).  

Inspections monitoring the implementation of the 
Directive. 

Technical and 
scientific 
assistance to 
Member States 
and Commission, 
circulation of 
information and 
cooperation with 
Maritime 
Authorities 

Port Reception Facilities. 

(Directive 2000/59/EC). 

Maritime  Pollution  Preparedness  and 
response. 

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. 

Gathering of information on the fee systems applied in 
Member States. 

The Consultative Technical 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 

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). 

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. 

Assistance in the field of response to ship-sourced 
pollution within EU waters. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV: 

Possible future tasks of EMSA 

1. List of the 19 tasks envisaged 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. 

B7  Operation and hosting of the new information system Thetis 

Port State Control 

B8 

Notification of arrival of ships: integrate notification 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: facilitate 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 identification 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 regional seas and Paris MoU) in operational services 

EN 

45 

   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 

B2 

Technical  assistance  aimed  at  establishing  minimum  criteria  on  resources  and  processes  for 
administering safety and pollution prevention. 

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. 

C1 

Establishment of a black-grey-white list for flag States.  

4 tasks in Policy Option 3 

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. 

EN 

46 

   EN