WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The EU in the forefront of maritime safety

In its communication COM(2002) 539 (Annex 2, 1.6), the Commission refers to the existence of a contingency (response) plan with a 24-hour alert system, defined in 2000 in the context of a Community framework () set up to support Member States' efforts in responding to accidental and also deliberate marine pollution.

Can the Commission explain how it was possible for it, despite the existence of this system, to issue, on the day after the disaster, a press release significantly entitled The European Union is at the forefront of maritime safety, in which, rather than referring to the Prestige, it continued to speak of the sinking of the Erika, which happened three years ago?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3602/02, E-3603/02 and E-3604/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

As its title indicates, the Commission's press release of 14 November 2002 After the Erika disaster, the European Union is at the forefront of maritime safety was intended as a stock-taking of Commission action three years on from the loss of the Erika.

The text does not, therefore, concern the Prestige or its consequences. On that date the ship was only damaged; it did not sink until 19 November 2002.

These dates notwithstanding, the Commission would point out that the pollution-response alert system referred to in its communication Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment(1) functioned satisfactorily.

The pollution-response assistance arrangements agreed between the Commission and the national structures responsible for handling this type of disaster ensured immediate access to the resources available around the Community. Accordingly, the French, Spanish and Portuguese authorities were able to make rapid use of the available assistance, including vessels and other special pollution-response equipment.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that following the loss of the Erika it produced, and enabled the co-legislators to adopt, an unprecedented series of maritime safety measures. In so doing, it demonstrated its determination to act.

As part of the Erika II package, the Commission did indeed propose the creation of a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage (the COPE fund), with a global ceiling of EUR 1 billion, to supplement the compensation of victims by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) where the current ceilings of 200 million euros are exceeded.

This Commission proposal was not adopted, as the Member States thought it preferable to act at international rather than Community level. A draft protocol to the IOPCF Convention, modelled on the COPE proposal, has therefore been drawn up and is due to be examined shortly by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In its communication of 3 December 2002(2), the Commission reiterated its support for this draft provided it results in the same level of compensation for victims as the draft COPE fund.

Like all the measures presented by the Commission, this initiative has received general backing. Thus on 21 November and 19 December 2002, Parliament, following the Commission's move, adopted resolutions calling on the Union to take immediate steps to tackle pollution and improve maritime safety. Similarly, at its meeting on 6 December 2002 the Transport Council supported the proposals the Commission put forward in its communication of 3 December 2002.

Lastly, the Copenhagen European Council of 12/13 December 2002 recognised the Commission's diligence and welcomed the action it had taken to deal with the consequences of the accident.

Regarding the inspections carried out on the Prestige in the framework of port State control, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Prestige had sailed not from a port in northern Spain but from Russia and Latvia, and was heading for Singapore.

The ship's last port State inspection was in September 1999 in Rotterdam. After this it entered several ports belonging to EU Member States or Paris Memorandum countries, including Gibraltar.

In this respect, the Commission, acting within its jurisdiction, has written to the authorities of various States for information on why inspections were not carried out during the ship's recent calls into ports under their jurisdiction.

(1) COM(2002) 539 final.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.