WRITTEN QUESTION P-0057/00 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission. Erika oil spillage disaster.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, France, coastal pollution, common transport policy, maritime safety

C 303 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

In Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours
and sweeteners (1) provisions are laid down for the use of nitrates and nitrites in certain meat, dairy and
fish products. For cheese and fish products and for cured bacon the permitted levels are expressed only as
a residual amount. For other meat products an indicative added amount is given in addition to the residual
amount. This is the approach that the Council and the Parliament approved when the Directive was
adopted in 1995. The limits were set in order to attain the necessary effect of preservation and to
correspond with the estimated safety of these food additives. However, these limits are presently the
subject of proceedings in the Court of justice brought by Denmark against the Commission in case C-3/00.
The Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions, therefore are related to the subject matter of those proceedings and
need to be dealt with in that forum.

Nevertheless, as mentioned in the white paper on food safety, the Commission has already indicated that it
proposes to undertake a general revision of the directive this year. As part of the review, the Commission
will take into account any new scientific findings that have become available.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995.

(2000/C 303 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0057/00

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)Erika(cid:146) oil spillage disaster

On 12 December 1999 the oil tanker (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) broke up 70 km south of FinistŁre off the French coast.

The resulting oil spillage has left France facing one of Europe(cid:146)s worst ever ecological disasters.

Following similar disasters (cid:129) the (cid:145)Amoco Cadiz(cid:146) in 1978, the (cid:145)Braer(cid:146) in 1993 and the (cid:145)Sea Empress(cid:146) in
1996 (cid:129) a raft of legislation has been put in place under the aegis of Marpol and the European Union.
None of these accidents need have happened or need have caused the damage they did once they had
happened. The evidence unfortunately suggests that controls on the passage of oil by sea are still too
weakly enforced to give real protection.

What action does the Commission intend to take in the light of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) disaster in terms of both safety
at sea and the immediate environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Regarding the action to take in the light of the Erika disaster in terms of safety at sea and environmental
impact, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its declaration during the January plenary
session of the Parliament.

tankers.

It should focus priorities for actions including the strengthening of

As regards the safety of oil tankers, the Commission decided to prepare a communication which aims to
provide a strong reply from the Community on the risk of major pollution of the European coastline by
the inspections of
oil
potentially substandard vessels in the ports of the Community. The Commission will propose measures
to reinforce the existing directives concerning the classification societies and port state control. It will
examine the accelerated phasing-out of single hull tankers and also providing for financial incentives to the
rapid introduction of double hull tankers. There should be an examination of possible measures increasing
the responsibility of the parties involved in oil transport. This action should focus in the first instance on

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/137

the development of voluntary agreements between cargo owners, as a measure towards improving the
current international regime of compensation for damage in case of major accidental pollution.

Among the actions taken by the Commission to limit the immediate environmental consequences of the
Erika disaster, it facilitated assistance and at an early stage appointed a high level liaison officer on site,
serving as a link between the French operational command and the foreign ships which were assisting.
Following French requests, immediately passed on by the Commission, 26 kilometers of oil booms from
11 European countries as well as birdwashing machines were immediately made available. Voluntary
organisations assisted in particular by taking care of polluted birds. Experts of the Community task force
on marine pollution were provided on request to assist the French authorities in the evaluation of the
offers of service from private companies within Europe. The task force also coordinated a number of
observers from the Member States who were given the opportunity to visit the polluted site and study the
response operations in order to learn from the French experience.

Finally, the Commission in contact with the French ministry of the Environment is considering the
possibilities to support an in-depth survey of the environmental consequences of the oil spill. This will
assess the impact of the pollution and of the cleaning techniques used. The results will be of paramount
importance for all those dealing with accidental marine pollution. The Commission envisages support to
this survey of about 300,000 €.

(2000/C 303 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Subsidies for feeding sugar

The organisation of the sugar market which came into force in 1975 abolished Community subsidies for
feeding sugar.

Although the Commission(cid:146)s 1997 proposals concerning Agenda 2000 envisaged a further round of
agricultural policy reforms in the European Union, they did not include any recommendations concerning
reform of the organisation of the sugar market, in general, and subsidies for feeding sugar, in particular.

Will the Commission therefore state:

(cid:129) why subsidies for feeding sugar were abolished, and

(cid:129) whether the possibility exists of reintroducing Community subsidies for feeding sugar.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Legal instruments allowing assistance to be granted for the use of sugar in animal feeding-stuffs have
always existed within the legislation applicable to the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
sector.

For these instruments to be implemented however a number of economic conditions would have to be
met and it is not considered that this is the case at the present time.

Furthermore the Commission is not aware of any requests for assistance within the two sectors directly
concerned.