Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime Safety Agency and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002
(COM(2023)0269 – C90190/2023 – 2023/0163(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0269),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C90190/2023),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 20 September 2023,
– after consulting the Committee of the Regions,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and of the Committee on Fisheries,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0423/2023),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Justification
The importance of having a legislative financial statement whenever new tasks are assigned.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Justification
The importance of mentioning the entire maritime ecosystem.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Justification
There should be a European framework on accidents investigations to reduce current disparities across Member States.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Justification
International role of EMSA due to its expertise.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Justification
EMSA provides assistance to the implementation of sanctions against Russia and to the United Nations bodies on the “grain corridors”.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Justification
It is important to strengthen the relations between the European Parliament and the Agency.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Justification
The fees imposed to the maritime stakeholders should be proportional.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34 a (new)
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e c (new)
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point u
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point v
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point x
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – point a (new)
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – point b (new)
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – point a
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 8
Amendment 85
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 86
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 5
Justification
It is important to strengthen the relations between the European Parliament and the Agency.
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – title
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 91
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 a (new)
Amendment 92
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 93
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 94
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Historical background
With growing shipping activities in Europe and in the waters surrounding Europe the risks of accidents have constantly increased leading to the first building blocks of the European maritime safety policy at the beginning of the 1990s.
In particular the Erika oil tanker accident (1999) led to the maritime safety package proposals comprising Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council which established the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), amended five times since then.
The amendment in 2013 making a distinction between core and ancillary tasks has now become obsolete. This combined with the need to incorporate and reflect EMSA’s growing new tasks, not reflected in the current mandate, called for a completely new EMSA Regulation to replace the current one.
Objectives of the proposal
This proposal therefore aims to better anchor and reflect the current tasks and objectives of EMSA in its founding Regulation so that it is legally mandated to fulfil those aims, being as of today in the fields of maritime safety, sustainability, decarbonisation, security and cybersecurity, surveillance and assistance in crises management, as well as the digitalisation of the maritime sector. This proposal maintains the tasks that are already reflected in the current mandate of the Agency while reflecting the new tasks and updating the administrative and financial provisions, aligning them with the new framework.
The proposed revision also aims to render the EMSA’s founding Regulation future proof by allowing enough flexibility to incorporate new tasks in addressing the evolving needs of the maritime sector and ensuring that EMSA will have adequate human and financial resources to fulfil its role.
Interaction with other proposals of the Maritime Safety package
This initiative is part of the package to modernise EU rules on maritime safety and prevent water pollution from ships. The outcome of the negotiations on the other proposals will strongly affect the final content of the EMSA new founding regulation. This means that many of the new tasks foreseen are deriving from the new provisions contained in the other proposals (port state control, flag state requirements, accident investigation and ship source pollution).
Budgetary implications
In the estimated financial impact of the proposal, attached by the Commission, but not included in the articles proposed, it is written that an additional budget of EUR 50.997 million and 33 additional posts would be needed for the remainder of the period of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027.
The Rapporteur would like to highlight that the Commission mentioned “the tasks allocated to EMSA will require reprogramming of the budget line for the annual contribution to the Agency (02 10 02) under the current multiannual financial framework. The increase in appropriations for EMSA will be offset by a compensatory reduction of programmed spending under CEF Transport”.
The Rapporteur would therefore very much appreciate that the growing new tasks undertaken by EMSA thanks to this new financials resources do not jeopardize the projects currently financed through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument.
Rapporteur’s position
General Considerations
The Rapporteur acknowledges the pressing need to revisit and update the existing founding Regulation, particularly its competences and organizational rules. It is noted that many tasks mentioned in the proposal, are already being implemented without a clear legal foundation.
Thus, the Rapporteur commends this Proposal for addressing notable maritime developments within the Union. It broadens EMSA's competence in areas such as maritime safety, sustainability, decarbonisation, security, cybersecurity, surveillance, crisis management assistance, and the digital transformation of the maritime ecosystem. These enhancements further solidify a secure and sustainable maritime realm.
Presentation of rapporteur’s amendments
The Rapporteur emphasizes the paramount importance of augmenting flexibility for EMSA. Consequently, the proposition focus on four pivotal elements, designed to fortify EMSA's stature both within the Union and externally. The objective is picturing EMSA as a hub of knowledge and data sharing in line with the Commission priorities.
The suggested changes are categorised into four distinct sections: delineated tasks, EMSA's role at the international stage, governance structure, and financial allocations paired with capabilities.
The first section of amendments concern tasks assigned to the Agency. The Rapporteur believes that a more pro-active role is needed regarding the modernization of maritime ports, as part of the maritime ecosystem. EMSA's increased involvement in maritime ports management has ushered in a new era of efficiency and safety. Through enhanced cooperation with port authorities, EMSA helps establish and maintaining high safety standards, support decarbonisation and sustainability and facilitate smoother vessels operations. This proactive approach strengthens Europe's position as a global trade hub. This includes, among others, monitoring and reporting on the impacts of EU ETS and FuelEU, supporting ports knowledge on safety-related risks on bunkering and storage on uptaking sustainable alternative fuels and on the use of new technologies
On maritime accident investigation, EMSA should lead a common framework to reduce the burden for Member States and eliminate current disparities on accident reporting and monitoring. This proactive stance helps protect both lives and the environment.
EMSA embraces cutting-edge technologies to enhance maritime safety. This includes the use of advanced monitoring systems, satellite technology, and data analytics to track vessel movements and identify potential risks and potential emergencies. These tools should be in use for Member States in any case and without the request of the latter. These innovations enable quicker responses to emergencies and more efficient resource allocation.
The second point is related with EMSA role at international level. This role strengthens European influence and cooperation in the global maritime arena. The agency already collaborates with international organizations and partners, fostering a safer and more harmonized maritime environment worldwide. Therefore, it should have a permanent voice in IMO.
The current geopolitical context demonstrates that the Agency has also a strategic role in providing maritime situational awareness on several occasions. As a result, EMSA is providing assistance to the implementation of sanctions against Russia and to the United Nations bodies on the “grain corridors“. This is an example that EMSA can also have a more pro-active role whenever needed on maritime awareness.
The third point concerns Agency governance. The rapporteur considers crucial strengthening relations between the Agency and the European Parliament, as mentioned on the joint statement on decentralised agencies. Therefore, rapporteur proposes to involve the European Parliament in the appointment of the Executive director, appointing a European Parliament representative for the management board and be consulted on the multi-annual programme. The rapporteur considers these proposals a positive step toward enhancing transparency, accountability and alignment with interest of the Union´s citizens.
Ensuring that fees charged by EMSA are proportional is crucial to maintain fairness and affordability for all stakeholders. Proportional fees mean that the cost of EMSA's services should correspond to the size, type, or impact of the maritime activities involved. This approach promotes equity and encourages responsible maritime practices. EMSA can better align its activities with the broader European Union objectives and ensure that its services are both effective and accessible to all maritime stakeholders.
The last point the rapporteur would like to mention is the agency financial resources and capabilities. The new competences assigned should always be accompanied with adequate resources. Further, commitment is needed from the European Commission and Member States to guarantee proper financial and human resources.
To conclude, EMSA's proposal should represent a comprehensive effort to elevate maritime safety, security, and sustainability in Europe and beyond. These developments reflect EMSA's dedication to safeguarding our seas and ensuring the continued growth of the maritime industry in an environmentally responsible manner.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
8.11.2023
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Maritime Safety Agency and repealing regulation (EC) No 1406/2002
(COM(2023)0269 – C90190/2023 – 2023/0163(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Niclas Herbst
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The Rapporteur instead estimates that some proposed changes are not in line with the Common Approach. He therefore proposes re-establish a better balance of power between the Commission and the agency and most importantly removes the Commission’s veto right over administrative and budgetary decisions taken by the Management Board where it in any case has a voting right in accordance with standard practice in agency governance.
Autonomy in budgetary and administrative decision-making is important for the Authority’sAgencies effectiveness. Other amendments seek to enhance parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
Fees
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 11 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Amendment 10
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Justification
In line with the Common approach and similar wording than in the Drug agency.
Amendment 811
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 13
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach which does not foresee such role for the Commission.
Amendment 1015
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point g
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach which does not foresee or contemplate such a special and quasi veto right for the Commission.
Amendment 1116
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point j
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point u
Or. en
Amendment 19
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point v
Or. en
Justification
No such special and quasi veto right is foreseen or contemplated in the Common approach. The Commission is fully involved in designing any delegated act.
Amendment 1320
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point x
Or. en
Justification
A bit more of autonomy for the Agency seems not only more efficient but also more in line with the Common approach where no such special and quasi veto right is foreseen or contemplated for the Commission.
Amendment 1421
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Or. en
Justification
This provision is included, for example, in the Frontex Regulation and strengthens accountability.
Amendment 1522
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Article 16 details already the voting mechanism of the single programming document. a 2/3 majority of the management board seems a sufficient and adequate safeguard and is in line with the Common approach.
Amendment 1623
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
Similar to Europol.
Amendment 1724
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 25
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Granting the Commission a veto right in such cases is not in line with standard agency governance or the Common Approach which foresee no special role for the Commission and speaks only about absolute majority voting for current business matters and a 2/3 majority for the appointment and dismissal of the director, the designation of the chairperson of the board, adoption of the annual budget and of the work programme.The Commission approach foresees only exceptions to this approach if justified in specific cases. The Commission has not given any reasoning in this sense.
Amendment 1926
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 27
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 28
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Amendment 29
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 30
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 31
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Similar to FRA agency
Amendment 2532
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 33
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
Similar to FRA agency
Amendment 2734
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 35
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 7
Or. en
Justification
Shifted to the beginning of this Article.
Amendment 2938
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 40
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3 – point c
Or. en
Justification
As a starting point, the view is that the Commission wording provides a too large and undefined scope for any possible fee and no clear distinction is made where EU budget and where fees should be used to finance the agencies activities. Delegating this to implementing acts seems not appropriate. More analysis needed.
Amendment 3141
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 42
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 8
Or. en
Amendment 43
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – title
Or. en
Amendment 45
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 46
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 47
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 48
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34
Or. en
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2 a (new)
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The following list is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, until the adoption thereof in committee:
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
29.11.2023
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
for the Committee on Transport and Tourism
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime Safety Agency and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002
(COM(2023)0269 – C90190/2023 – 2023/0163(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Clara Aguilera
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
In 2002, the Regulation (EC) Nº1406/2002 established the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in order to reinforce the EU legal framework regarding two main objectives: to establish a high level of maritime safety throughout the Union and to prevent and respond to pollution. Since its adoption, this Regulation has been subsequently modified, but after the external evaluation carried out on EMSA in 2017, it was concluded that a new Regulation needed to be adopted.
Consequently, the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2023) 269final) aims at adapting the EMSA´s mandate to the new developments of the EU legislation, the scientific community, the maritime sector and the social and environmental priorities. In particular, the Agency has been performing tasks that were not in the previous Regulation, therefore it is important to update them as well as provide certain flexibility in order to be able to address the future needs of the maritime sector.
For this reason, the rapporteur supports the regulation and wishes to draw attention to the following issues:
The rapporteur considers that the Regulation proposal should refer to `maritime activities´ when addressing the tasks relating to maritime safety and not to `maritime transport´. The fisheries sector has an important economic and social impact in the EU, not only creates wealth and jobs but it plays a key role in the food supply. Therefore, it cannot be disregarded, especially when fishing is considered a highly dangerous maritime activity and many of the accidents recorded by EMSA involve fishing vessels.
In addition, the rapporteur considers that EMSA should intervene, report and record data in relation with marine casualties and incidents involving any type and any size of vessel. Until now, it only does so when the vessel involved is more than 15 meters long or if a smaller vessel is involved in an accident with a vessel of 15 metres or more. The 85% of fishing vessels in the EU are less than 12 metres long and they are the ones that face more safety risks since they lack protective spaces and are highly vulnerable to severe weather conditions and heavy fishing equipment.
The rapporteur considers that to achieve a high, uniform and effective level of maritime safety, it is essential to ensure better safety and labour conditions for workers. Fishers specifically face serious health and safety risks usually due to the lack of safety awareness and of training among the personnel. Therefore, EMSA should work on harmonising adequate working and living conditions for fishers, as well as safety measures on board in any type of vessel. It should also provide effective training in safety, digitalization and nautical and fisheries activities. In addition, it is essential to ensure the mutual recognition of certificates and to increase the cooperation between Member States‘ education systems.
The rapporteur considers that the Management Board of the Agency should include one representative of the European Parliament who shall not have voting rights. In the Control Fisheries Regulation (COM(2018)0368 – C8-0238/2018 – 2018/0193(COD)) this possibility has already been included, therefore, in order to maintain coherence within the European Agencies, the same approach should be taken here.
The rapporteur considers that the proposal should establish the Agency´s need of reinforcing the social dimension of the fisheries sector and have social indicators to assess whether social aspects are being taken into account when assisting the European Commission in the implementation of its legislation.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to take the following into account:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 b (new)
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36 a (new)
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 6
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e b (new)
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e c (new)
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e d (new)
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, until the adoption thereof in committee:
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE