Brussels, 31/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 31 March the majority of delegations at the Transport Council referred to existing budgetary constraints and rejected too significantly extending the remit of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) as advocated by the European Commission last November. The delegations also overwhelmingly opposed draft amendments on governance of the agency, as advocated by the Commission. They consider that it is necessary to safeguard the influence exerted by member states on the agency. Italy said that the agency should only act at the behest of member states. The United Kingdom opposed any increase in EMSA's budget beyond 2014 and Germany said that the additional €3.9 million proposed so that the agency could fulfil its tasks, was unacceptable.
As pointed out by the commissioner for transport, Siim Kallas, during the Council debate, EMSA was set up to respond to disasters, such as the disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last April. The acting president of the Council, Pal Volner, also considered that the thrust of the Commission's proposal was to “help use boats in the fight against pollution from offshore gas and oil installations, as well as other problems”. This is a principle that the delegations did not choose to question openly but they did express a preference for EMSA remaining “a maritime safety agency” that was exclusively involved in lending assistance to member states and the Commission in this area. A handful of delegations (Portugal, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Slovenia) partly supported the introduction of other responsibilities proposed by the Commission, such as the strengthening of the agency's role in research (it would be granted a remit in defining and analysing research projects) and implementing certain EU policies (such as the motorways of the sea, the border free maritime area and the Blue Belt project, as well as climate change and e-maritime questions). Slovenia supported the proposal for EMSA to provide technical assistance throughout EU neighbourhood policy countries and not just to EU candidate countries.
Only Bulgaria and Lithuania supported the Commission's proposal. Latvia and Portugal supported it on the condition that the extension of its remit was not done to the detriment of the agency's main tasks, namely maritime security. Sweden expressed a preference for a minimum extension of competences “within current financial and human resources”. The United Kingdom supported the Commission's proposals on condition that the increase in the EMSA budget did not have an impact on the Community budget. The Commission is proposing an increase of €3.9 million in the agency's budget between 2012 and 2015, in addition to the recruitment of 12 new members of staff between 2012 and 2014. The United Kingdom would be prepared to accept a budget increase through the reorientation of existing funds in 2012 and 2013. Nonetheless, the United Kingdom is opposed to an increase in 2014 because this could have an influence on discussions on future EU budgetary perspectives (2014-2020). France considers that the extension of competences should respond to strict conditions in terms of added value (Greece, Belgium and Germany share this idea) and should not duplicate the activities carried out by national or international bodies. The British, Finnish, Danish and Greek delegations share this opinion, whereas the Maltese delegation considered that the role of EMSA should not encroach on the sovereignty of member states. Spain considered that in principle, the extension of the agency's task could prove interesting but that at this stage it was too early to tell
In the context of governance, member states remained fairly entrenched with regard to the transfer of powers from the board of directors, which currently runs the agency. According to the Commission proposals, part of the board's competences should be transferred to an executive director, appointed on the basis of a Commission proposal (the Commission would also be the only competent body responsible for establishing the list of candidates for the post of director). He would notably have responsibility for inspection policy by the agency in member states on behalf of the European Commission. He would benefit from the right to make decisions on how these inspections are conducted, following consultation with the Commission but would not be obliged to consult the board of directors where member states are represented. He would also have the right of concluding administrative agreements with other organisations without the preliminary agreement of the board of directors. These proposals were not at all to the liking of the delegations (apart from Finland) that spoke during the Council. Germany and Denmark considered it essential that member states did not lose their influence on the agency. France has said that it considered that the board of directors should be at the heart of the agency's activity, whilst Belgium and Portugal said that it was not necessary to change the agency's current structure. Italy, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Romania opposed the list of candidates for the post of executive director being established by the Commission. Sweden said that the board of directors should have all the necessary resources at its disposal in order to help the agency operate on a daily basis, while Bulgaria opposed the right of inspection by the executive director. (A. By./transl.fl)