COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Better situational awareness by enhanced cooperation across maritime surveillance authorities: next steps within the Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain
Date: 2014-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data transmission, exchange of information, impact study, maritime safety, maritime surveillance, public authorities, shipping policy













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0224 - EN











|



52014SC0224

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Better situational awareness by enhanced cooperation across maritime surveillance authorities: next steps within the Common Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain /* SWD/2014/0224 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Better situational awareness by enhanced cooperation
across maritime surveillance authorities: next steps within the Common
Information Sharing Environment for the EU maritime domain
Disclaimer: This
executive summary commits only the Commission's services involved in its
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by
the Commission.
1.                      
Problem Definition
The purpose of
this impact assessment is to examine to what extent further EU action is
necessary to further develop a common information sharing environment for the
EU maritime domain. The relevant sectorial functions for which this sharing
environment is relevant are (1) maritime safety (including search and rescue),
maritime security and prevention of pollution caused by ships, (2) fisheries
control, (3) marine pollution preparedness and response, marine environment
protection (4) customs, (5) border control, (6) general law enforcement and (7)
defence. 
The increasing
threats and risks that the EU maritime domain is exposed to is putting
additional burdens on the maritime surveillance authorities of the EU Member
States to ensure the safety and security of the EU and its population. The
additional workload that these authorities are confronted with is not matched
with additional resources, which in turn forces them to become more resource
and cost efficient. 
The current
information exchange between maritime surveillance authorities is suboptimal
and can lead to efficiency losses, duplication of data collection efforts and
unnecessary operational costs. In many cases, information exchange does not take
place because (1) maritime surveillance authorities do not know that the
information is available somewhere; (2) maritime surveillance authorities do
not know that they have information of interest for others and (3) it is
considered too complex to do. 
A link that
would require further development, building on existing solutions and
developments, relates to common standards which would allow for the
interoperability of sectorial systems and machine readable information
services. This would further enhance the possibilities for these authorities to
have access to all the information necessary for their operative work, with the
indirect effect that these authorities would be able to increase their
performance and efficiency in carrying out their operative tasks.  This goes
beyond simple exchange of raw data (e.g. ship positions) into the further
development of information services (e.g. situational maritime picture,
intelligence report, list of suspicious vessels, risk analysis, anomalies
detection, extended info on major accidents, response capacities, collaborative
tools) across sectors and borders easing the tasks of national surveillance
authorities in their daily duties.
Although
improvements towards better information sharing has occurred more and more
sectors are starting to share information with each other, not all sectors
involved in maritime surveillance activities have provided for the sharing of
such information services to the other sectors/functions. A particular area
where information exchange remains suboptimal is the exchange between civilian
and military authorities.
Three main causes
for this suboptimal situation have been identified:
Cause 1: Real or
perceived legal limitations and legal uncertainty to information exchange
between the relevant maritime surveillance sectors.
Cause 2: absence
of an appropriate IT environment which ensures the interconnectivity of
existing and future systems.
Cause 3:
Cultural and administrative barriers against proper information exchange are
persisting.
The stakeholders
affected are around 400 authorities dealing with maritime surveillance
information in any form. These are essentially EU and EEA Member State authorities, but include also a number of EU Agencies (such as EFCA, FRONTEX, EMSA and
EDA).
Public
intervention is necessary to ensure better interoperability between existing
systems with common standards for machine readable exchange of information
services, which will be capable to meet new challenges and address the problems
identified. The result of non-intervention would be that increased threats and
risks would not be dealt with in the most effective manner, that potential
conflicts between central EU policy objectives would persist and that
duplication of data collection efforts will continue to exist.
2.                      
Analysis of subsidiarity
The preferred
options in the impact assessment are non-binding options (Communication and
guidance document) which does not require the definition of the legal base. 
The added value
of EU action has been widely recognised already in stakeholder consultations in
other various events and consultations; there is a strong demand from national
authorities to carry this project forward. Moreover, rules and conditions for
transnational sharing of information mainly between authorities of a same
sector are already regulated at EU level. In addition, a number of EU Agencies
are involved in maritime surveillance activities.
The principle of
subsidiarity is at the same time very relevant in this case. Although targeted
EU action is necessary to ensure the interoperability of the current systems,
the operational aspects of any future common information sharing environment
needs to be decentralised. The role of the EU should therefore essentially be
to act as a facilitator and should focus on transnational aspects without
getting involved in national organisational matters.
3.                      
Objectives
The general
objective of this policy initiative is to ensure that maritime surveillance
information and services collected by one maritime sector and considered
necessary and useful for the activities of other maritime sectors can be
efficiently shared with those sectors. 
The point of
departure will be current achievements and already existing standards for
information exchange and work should focus on ensuring the interoperability of
information exchanges regulated at EU level, with a particular view to provide
Member States with interoperability solutions that they may apply at national
level. A particular objective would be to enhance information exchange between
civilian and military authorities. 
Enhanced
information exchange between sectors is expected to contribute to a better
overview of the maritime domain awareness for the maritime surveillance
authorities at national and EU level and enhanced consistency between sector
policies in line with the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU.
The foreseen
exchange of information between sectors will have to respect the same rules and
principles as for data exchanges within sectors, in particular the relevant provisions
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU legal framework on the
protection of personal data, and the national legislation implementing this EU
law, as well as the relevant provisions for the protection of commercially
sensitive data.
The first
specific objective is to identify and address real or perceived legal
limitations between sectors to justified exchange of maritime surveillance
information and services.
The second
specific objective is to ensure interoperability between relevant IT solutions
used by maritime surveillance actors through the use of common standards and
specifications.
The third
specific objective is to build confidence in order to bring maritime
surveillance authorities of different sectors together and seek for better co-operation
inter alia through joint missions, common operational procedures and training
and best practices sharing.
4.                      
Policy Options
The question to
be answered in this impact assessment is how an enhanced information exchange
between maritime surveillance authorities can be achieved. A whole spectrum of
possible options to ensure an optimum exchange of maritime surveillance
information within and between sectors was envisaged.
Retained
policy options were divided into three different categories
•        No
further EU action;
•        Voluntary
measures; and
•        Legally
binding measures.
Three
different sub-options for voluntary measures were assessed:
Establishment
of a Communication: 
The purpose of
this instrument would essentially be to provide a roadmap to further develop a
common information sharing environment. 
Establishment of
soft policy initiatives such as a guidance document and best practices
The purpose of
this document would be to provide recommendations, guidelines and best
practices on information sharing and encourage increased cooperation among EU
Member State authorities to address cultural barriers.
Establishment
of a joint undertaking pursuant to Article 187 of the TFEU
The purpose of
such undertaking would be to provide a framework for cooperation and research
of all various stakeholder’s to develop a new generation of maritime
surveillance information services as well as to foster civil-military
cooperation to increase the performance and cost efficiency of maritime
surveillance.
Three
different sub-options for binding measures were assessed:
Establishment
of a policy package within the existing legislative framework
The purpose of
such an initiative would be to envisage amendments, if necessary, of existing
sector EU rules regulating information exchange of maritime surveillance
related information. It does not envisage the adoption of a new instrument at
EU level, nor address legal limitations at national level.
Establishment of
a cross sector legislative framework for information sharing (Regulation)
The purpose of
this Regulation would be to put in place a legally binding legislative
framework which would not only seek to address the legal limitations and
introduce technical interoperability standards of the previous sub-option, but
also put in place other building blocks of the CISE in a binding fashion.
Establishment
of a cross sector legislative framework for the technical aspects
The purpose of
this technical Regulation would be to put in place the necessary
interoperability standards for EU wide exchange of information services.
5.                      
Assessment of Impacts
The
assessment of the different policy options has been made in the following four
steps:
•        A
qualitative assessment of each policy option.
•        A
quantitative assessment of the potential added value of each policy option and
of the implementation of the full potential of a Common Information Sharing
Environment as such.
•        An
assessment of the impacts of these options on fundamental rights.
•        An
assessment of costs.
The
qualitative assessment concluded that voluntary options of a Communication and
a guidance document with best practices constitutes the best options in to
ensure the effectiveness, coherence achieving the objective, in particular
ensuring enhanced co-operation between civilian and military authorities.
Among
binding options, amendment of sector legislation seems to be the efficient
option to address legal limitations at EU level. A fully fledged Regulation has
limited support among stakeholders and seems to be too complex for the intended
purpose and therefore disproportionate.
The
quantitative assessment first concludes that the overall full impact potential
of CISE is estimated in a range of between 1.6 billion € and 4.2 billion € over
ten years.
A
risk analysis conducted as regards challenges, risks, threats and
vulnerabilities on the world wide maritime areas of interest to Europe
(including the Baltic, the North Celtic Sea, Biscay/Iberia, Black Sea,
Mediterranean, Arctic ocean, Oversees and High Seas) concluded that enhancing
knowledge and improving maritime situational awareness could potentially lead
to the reduction of threats and risks by 30% on average, while this effect will
of course not be uniform over the type of risk and the different maritime areas
of European interest.
The
assessment on the fundamental rights concluded that none of the options have
any significant impacts on fundamental rights. Should however legislative
measures be taken at a later stage, the impact on fundamental rights will have
to be assessed further at that stage.
The
cost assessment concluded that the total cost over 10 years for the preferred
option is estimated at 133M€. EU central cost amounts to 26 M€ and Member
States level cost amounts to 107 M€ over 10 years.
 
The
cost to further develop CISE depends to a large extent on how each Member State
may want to organise itself internally to connect to the environment, on the
number of information services that will be provided in the environment and on
the large variety of existing and planned IT systems. 
6.                      
Comparison of Options
   ||   || Short Term Effectiveness in achieving the objectives || Short Term Economic, social and environmental benefits || Long Term Effectiveness in achieving the objectives || Long Term Economic, social and environmental benefits* || Cost 
 Option 1 || Baseline scenario || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Option 2 || Communication || +++ || +++ || +++ || +++ || € 
 Guidance document through a recommendation || +++ || +++ || +++ || +++ || €€ 
 Joint undertaking || ++ || + || +++ || +++ || €€€ 
 Option 3 || Amendments of sector legislation || ++ || + || ++ || ++ || €€ 
 Cross sector Regulation || + || + || +++ || +++ || €€ 
   || Technical Regulation || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || €€ 
0: no
change compared to baseline scenario; +: limited increase compared to baseline
scenario; ++: moderate increase compared to the baseline scenario; +++: high
increase compared to the baseline scenario
Conclusion
The
impact assessment concluded that it will not be possible to achieve the defined
objective though one policy option. Legally binding options can address legal
and technical limitations but not for all seven sectorial functions and can
further not capture cultural barriers. In particular, enhanced information
exchanges between civilian and military authorities cannot be addressed through
this option. Non-binding options are best suited to address cultural barriers
(which seem to be the biggest hurdle to information exchange at least in the
short terms) and can be considerably helpful in finding practical solutions
which could involve all seven functions and thus enhance information exchange
between civilian and military authorities. Those options do however fall short
in addressing any legal limitations and technical barriers.
The
best solution therefore seems to be to strive for a combination of several
options in the short, medium and long term.
 
It
seems that the best way to implement this work in the short term is to consider
publishing a Communication which provide an implementation roadmap and identify
in concrete terms the work needed related to a corresponding timeframe.
Such
action should be followed in the short-term with a guidance document to address
first and foremost the cultural barriers and to establish best practices for
information sharing. 
The
sub-option on addressing legal and technical limitation through amendments of
existing legislation over time seems to be the most proportionate and
acceptable to stakeholders in order to avoid excessive EU action. 
A
technical regulation may be a solution in the long term to deploy a standard in
a coherent manner.
The
preferred option would therefore be a mix of options, 2.1, 2.2, possibly
coupled with, 3.1, and 3.3 if such action is deemed necessary.
As a
consequence, it is estimated that, compared to the baseline, this policy mix
may realise 80 % of the full potential of the CISE project, while incurring 133
M€ TCO realising 151 M€ cost savings, 460 M€ beneficial impact and may thus
realise at least a progressive cumulated positive impact of 611 M€ over the
first ten years during which CISE is being progressively set up.
Overall
CISE is estimated to bring a beneficial impact within a range of 160 million €
per year and 420 million € per year over the following ten years.
7.                      
Monitoring and Evaluation
The initiative
would have to be monitored and evaluated at regular intervals, using indicators
to measure the relative increase of data flows and increased efficiency of
maritime surveillance operations.