11. Shipwreck of the Erika
B5-0181, 0182, 0183, 0184, 0185 and 0186/2000
European Parliament resolution on the economic and environmental consequences of the wreck of
the Erika
The European Parliament,
Fdash having regard to its resolution of 20 January 2000 on the oil slick disaster caused by the wreck of
the Erika(1),
Fdash having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular those of 21 January 1993on the Braer tanker
disaster(2), 27 October 1994 on the oil slick in northern Portugal following the accident which
occurred to the tanker Cercal(3), 27 October 1994 on safety at sea(4) and 27 March 1996 on the
Sea Empress tanker disaster(5),
Fdash having regard to the international Convention of 18 December 1971 on the establishment of an
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) and the additional Protocol thereto of27 November 1992, and to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships(Marpol) of 20 November 1973,
Fdash having regard to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision setting up a Commun-
ity framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution (COM(1998) 769), and toParliament’s position of 16 September 1999 on that proposal(
6),
Fdash having regard to European Parliament and Council Decision No 2179/98/EC of 24 September 1998
on the review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the envir-onment and sustainable development ’Towards sustainability’, and in particular Article 2(4)(d) thereofconcerning the White Paper on environmental liability to be submitted by the Commission,
A. whereas the Maltese-registered Erika sank off the Breton coast on 12 December 1999, causing an oil
slick of 15 000 tonnes, polluting 450 kilometres of the coast and causing considerable damage to
wildlife and to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors; whereas the wreck, containing 16 000 tonnes
of oil lying at a depth of 120 metres, presents a serious risk of further pollution,
B. whereas vessels have taken advantage of the disastrous pollution in the wake of the accident involving
the Erika to empty massive quantities of material from their tanks in the area, even though such
operations are prohibited under Directive 76/464/EEC,
C. whereas this is only the latest in a multitude of serious maritime pollution incidents which have taken
place over the last 25 years in various parts of the European Union; whereas these environmentaldisasters cause serious damage to the marine ecosystem, biodiversity, birds and fishery resources inareas of major environmental importance,
D. whereas the oil spill has proved much more serious than initial estimates predicted and the damage to
the environment in the regions affected is extremely serious, even though it is not yet possible toassess its full scale,
E. whereas, in the absence of results of risk analyses which should have been supplied by the relevant
national and Community authorities, controversy is raging about the nature of the hydrocarbonswashed up on beaches,
F. whereas the activities of the fisheries, marine aquaculture and tourist sectors are a key part of the
economic and social development of the affected areas, and whereas the cost of the oil spill for peopleworking in maritime industries, who are faced with the need to rebuild or replace installations andequipment which have been destroyed or damaged, will be very high,
(1) Texts adopted at that sitting, Item 2.
(2) OJ C 42, 15.2.1993, p. 155.
(3) OJ C 323, 21.11.1994, p. 170.
(4) OJ C 323, 21.11.1994, p. 176.
(5) OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 18.
(6) OJ C 54, 25.2.2000, p. 82.4.12.2000 EN C 346/95 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 2 March 2000
G. whereas inshore fishing, already feeling the adverse effects of the difficulties in this sector, faces a
bleak future because of this accident, and whereas other small-scale businesses that depend on thesea could lose several years’ worth of harvests, in addition to the harm done by the loss of consumerconfidence,
H. whereas the exposure of shellfish and certain fish to hydrocarbons poses food safety risks and the
French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) has issued an opinion recommending that fishing from the
shore be banned along sections of the coastline affected by the spill from the Erika,
I. whereas the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) is designed to provide funds for
rapid mitigation measures to minimise the coastal damage and to provide compensation for thoseaffected by the pollution; whereas, however, the IOPCF is underfunded, which hinders damage limita-tion and means that the fund is unable to provide adequate compensation,
J. whereas the European Union must reinforce its policy seeking to prevent this kind of disaster,
1. Again expresses its solidarity with and support for all the victims of this oil slick disaster and
applauds the work of the volunteers and professionals still cleaning up the beaches; points out the scaleof the economic and environmental consequences, which have had a particularly severe impact on theactivities of fishermen, shellfish farmers, oyster-growers and people working in the maritime and touristsectors;
2. Considers that according to the Polluter Pays Principle the operators of the Erika must accept liability
by compensating the victims (by means of their insurance policies and direct payments), financing theclean-up of the areas affected by the disaster, and paying for the ecological damage; considers that liabilitymust cover the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and the enterprises directly linked to these sectors;
3. Maintains that every effort must be made to pump the oil out of the ship’s tanks as quickly as
possible;
4. Calls on the Commission to take steps to help repair the damage caused in the fishing industry in the
wake of the oil tanker disaster;
5. Calls for the abovementioned proposal for a decision setting up a Community framework for coop-
eration in the field of accidental marine pollution to be adopted as quickly as possible;
6. Calls for European funds to be mobilised as a matter of urgency, not least by Member States pursuing
exchanges or working in partnership, with a view to supporting damaged regional businesses, and inparticular people working in the maritime industries;
7. Deplores the fact that, unlike in the United States, the experience of previous disasters such as the
Amoco Cadiz and Tanio has not been drawn on in order to improve appropriate standards and checks,and calls for all the necessary lessons to be drawn from the Erika disaster in the field of maritime safety;
8. Denounces the effects of the lax attitude in the maritime transport sector, which has failed adequately
to tighten standards and checks applying to merchant ships and to the ‘flag of convenience’ system, includ-ing fishing vessels;
9. Calls on the Commission to present, as a matter of urgency, specific initiatives designed to improve
the safety of maritime transport by stepping up inspections on the basis of existing rules and by proposingnew measures aimed at removing the serious loopholes in the current rules;
10. Welcomes the initiative taken by the local authorities, which had an expert report drawn up on the
state of their coasts before the oil slick arrived so as to make it easier to compensate those affected,whether individuals, local authorities or professionals, thus showing it had learnt the lessons from thelegal obstacles encountered by victims of previous disasters;
11. Calls for a significant increase in the IOPCF ceiling;
12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments
of the Member States and the accession candidate countries.C 346/96 EN 4.12.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 2 March 2000