WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The ERIKA legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990

On what grounds did the Commission in the aftermath of the wreck of the ERIKA tanker and even prior to the successive disasters which have affected the Galician coast, in the shape of the wrecks of the Polycommander, Aegean Sea, Urquiola and Casón fail to include within the ERIKA legislative packages the type of strict financial guarantee and safety requirements which are placed on shipowners and vessels by the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (passed following the Exxon Valdez disaster), involving unlimited financial liability, an obligation on vessel owners to tender a guarantee of USD 1 billion, and a dual-hull requirement for tankers present in US waters? In view of the gaps affecting EU legislation and the Union's responsibility, is it possible that the Oil Pollution Act has had the counter-productive effect of creating a situation of negative selection, in which the better-equipped vessels supply the US (where no further tragic disasters have occurred since that time), while their worse-equipped counterparts supply the EU's Member States, which then have to face the disasters which we are all aware of, including those which have affected Galicia?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the perverse effects the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 may be having. Due to this unilateral action by the United States there really is a risk that ships that are less safe will be taking to European waters. The Commission responded to this risk with the measures in the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages.

In the ERIKA II package in particular, the Commission had proposed to raise the maximum limit of compensation to oil pollution victims substantially by creating a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage in European waters (the COPE Fund), which was intended to raise the maximum compensation limit to EUR 1 billion from the current limit of EUR 185 million(1). This measure would make it possible to compensate fully all the victims of oil pollution in European Union waters and to speed up the compensation process.

However, after the opinion delivered by Parliament at the first reading, the Council did not follow up this proposal, preferring to give its backing to the creation of a similar fund at international level. Unlike the United States, therefore, the EU would be taking action on polluters' liability in an international framework.

In its communication of 3 December 2002(2), the Commission, concerned at the lack of progress in this area, called on the Member States to ratify without delay the protocol establishing a complementary fund for compensation for oil pollution damage and to ensure that the fund covers damage up to EUR 1 billion and is fully operational before the end of 2003. It also asked the Member States to impose adequate penalties on operators who cause pollution by negligent behaviour.

In addition, as the Commission has stressed on several occasions, the complementary international fund will be an acceptable alternative to the COPE Fund only if the maximum limit for compensation is at least EUR 1 billion and if all the coastal Member States participate in it from the outset. Failing this it would be essential to adopt the Commission's initial proposal to create a COPE Fund, as amended after Parliament's approval.

As regards concrete action, the Commission has already begun to prepare a new set of legislative measures to provide for financial penalties to be imposed on any person (i.e. not only the shipowner, but also the owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person concerned) liable for causing pollution through negligence. Steps will be proposed to counter deliberate discharges by ships, together with measures aimed at collecting evidence and prosecuting the perpetrators. The Commission intends to make it clear that such polluters cannot disclaim liability on the grounds that they are contributors to the IOPC Fund.

(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.