COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC-Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental marine pollution

1998/0350 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC-Treaty concerning the

common position of the Council on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental marine pollution

1. The Background

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and Council (COM (1998) 769 -1998/0350/SYN): 16 December 1998

Date of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee: 29 April 1999

The Committee of the Regions has decided not to deliver an opinion

Date of European Parliament opinion, first reading: 16 September 1999

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: 30 November 1999

Date of adoption of the common position of the Council: 16 December 1999

2. Subject of the Commission proposal:

A number of activities have been developed since 1978 in the field of accidental marine pollution, based on a Council resolution (adopted on 26 June 1978) establishing a Community Action Programme.

These activities consist mainly of common training, exchange of experts, exercises, pilot projects, a task force with designated experts from the Member States and the setting-up of the Community Information System.

The objectives of Community co-operation in this field is to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels in order to make them more effective and to create the best conditions for an efficient co-operation.

The Commission proposal has the objective of bringing together and consolidating the different actions carried out in this field during the last 20 years under a single solid legal basis, and to extend it to operational spills. It includes a continued Community action programme starting from 1 January 2000.

3. Comments on the common position

3.1. General remarks

In its amended proposal, the Commission had accepted and/or reformulated 20 of the 29 amendments that the European Parliament had proposed. In particular, the Commission had agreed that it would be useful to introduce or reinforce provisions dealing with dumped munitions (Art. 1 and Annex I of the amended proposal), operational spills (under the Annexes of the amended proposal) and a stronger implication of the public or other relevant bodies (Art. 3 and Annexes of the amended proposal).

The common position is very much in line with the Commission's proposal, as far as both structure and content are concerned. With regard to Parliament's amendments, the vast majority of those accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal have been taken on board by the Council: they relate mainly to the scope of the proposal, to the Community information system and to improved public information. Significantly, the Council has included "deliberate marine pollution" also in the title of the proposed Decision. Another new element introduced in the common position is the extension of the duration of the framework for co-operation from 5 to 7 years.

On the issue of the committee procedure (Article 4), the Council departed from the Commission position and replaced the advisory committee with a management committee.

3.2. The fate of the Parliament's amendments

3.2.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission and included in the common position

In Recital 2, the Council retained the Parliament's desire to refer to existing regional agreements on accidental marine pollution.

In Recital 13, the Council retained the Parliament's desire to refer to the polluter-pays principle.

The Parliament's definition of 'accidental marine pollution' was largely accepted (Art. 1 (2)). In particular, the question of dumped munitions was included under Article 1 (2) b). On the other hand, the Council considered that the scope of the proposed framework should not include continuous streams of pollution originating from land-based sources. The Commission adhered to this since in its original proposal [1], it had never intended to cover such a type of pollution under the scope of this Decision.

[1] Document COM (1998) 769 final of 16.12.1998

In Article 3 (2), the Council retained the Parliament's desire to include three additional selection criteria aiming at a better public information and at a stronger implication of port authorities and other relevant local bodies.

The Council accepted most of the Parliament's amendments relating to additional elements of information to be provided by Member States in the context of the Community Information System (Annex I).

The Council also accepted all Parliament's amendments aiming at clarifying the types of actions to be developed under the proposed framework (Annex II).

Thus, amendments nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 were accepted fully or in principle or partly.

3.2.2. Amendments accepted by the Commission but not included in the common position

3.2.2.1. Scope of the proposed framework

As noted above, most of the concerns raised by the Parliament and supported by the Commission have been included in the common position.

However, the Commission regrets that the Parliament's proposal (amendment n° 5) to include a recital defining harmful substances with a reference to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code was not retained and hopes that there will be an occasion to reconsider it.

3.2.2.2. Recital referring to the proposal for a directive on port reception facilities (amendment n° 3)

Since the European Parliament and the Council have not yet adopted this proposal, such a recital could not be included.

3.2.2.3. Polluter-pays principle

Although the Council failed to follow the Parliament regarding the inclusion of such a provision in the text of the Decision, it agreed on a recital that usefully refers to this principle (cf. 3.2.1.).

3.2.2.4. Dumped munitions

The Commission considers that the text of the common position (Art. 1 (2) b) offers a quite reasonable solution to this important problem.

3.3. New provisions introduced by the Council

The title of the decision has been modified in order to cover explicitly deliberate pollution. This constitutes an interesting addition from the Council and is in line with the spirit and content of several of Parliament's amendments relating to this issue.

Art. 1 (1) extends the duration of the framework for co-operation from 5 to 7 years. In the Commission's opinion, this constitutes a useful extension to its proposal as it offers a longer-term perspective.

Under Art. 2 c) a reference has been introduced to the financial framework and to the annual appropriations. The Commission accepted this since it was in line with the Interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline.

A number of minor changes, essentially editorial, that do not affect the content of the proposal, have been introduced.

3.4. Problems relating to the committee procedure

In Article 4, the Council reached unanimous agreement on a management committee instead of the advisory committee as proposed by the Commission.

The Commission considers that the matters to be submitted to the committee are implementation measures, which should not be subject to the management procedure. A simple consultation of the relevant committee should suffice to ensure that its opinion is taken into account.

The Commission therefore disagrees with the position taken by the Council and reserves the right to return to this issue in second reading.

Accordingly, the Commission has entered the following statement in the minutes of the Council:

"The Commission disagrees with the position taken by the Environment Council on the management procedure to be followed by the Committee established in article 4 of the proposed decision setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental marine pollution.

The Commission considers the matters to be dealt with under this decision are implementation measures, which should not be subject to the management procedure set out in article 4 of the proposed decision. A simple consultation of the relevant Committee should suffice to ensure that the opinion of the Committee is taken into account.

The Commission therefore reserves the right to return to this issue in second reading."

4. Conclusions

The Commission is of the opinion that the common position improves and strengthens the Commission proposal. The only remaining difficulty relates to the committee procedure. Apart from that, the Commission is in a position to accept the text of the common position, which includes most of the Parliament's amendments supported by the Commission.

5. Commission Statements

5.1. Austria and Luxembourg

In order to answer to the quite legitimate preoccupations expressed by Austria and Luxembourg in view of the fact that they have no coastal line, the following Commission's statement has been entered in the Council minutes:

"The Commission understands that the provisions of Article 2(a), first subparagraph, and of Annex I, concerning the Community Information System, only apply to maritime Member States".

5.2. Comitology

Cf. 3.4. above