WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/00 by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discharges of oil at sea.
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, oil pollution, pollution from ships

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/27

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission decided on the list of French areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for
the 2000-2006 programming period on 7 March 2000, on the basis of a proposal from the French
authorities.

Under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (1), that list can be amended on a proposal from a Member State only
in 2003, in the event of a serious crisis in a region and without increasing the eligible population of the
region in question.

It is worth pointing out that the areas eligible under Objective 2 for the period 2000-2006, in accordance
with the Commission decision of 7 March, contain 70 % of the population affected by the storms at the
end of 1999.

However, areas which suffered damage but which are not eligible under Objective 2 can still receive other
forms of Community assistance. An information note (2) lists the various Community instruments which
can be used for this purpose.

The Commission has no plans at this stage to restore the budget heading covering aid for the victims of
natural disasters. In view of the small amounts entered in the budget for this purpose up to 1997,
Community financial assistance was purely symbolic and too often took the form of scattered operations
on a fairly modest scale. The Commission now intends to concentrate on assisting the economic recovery
of the affected areas by means of the Community structural instruments.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) SEC(2000) 40.

(2001/C 89 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Discharges of oil at sea

Following the disastrous loss of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) oil tanker off the coast of Brittany, several oil tankers took
advantage of the polluted state of the sea to clean their tanks while at sea, in defiance of the law.

In view of the threat to the environment from illicit discharges of this kind, does the Commission have any
plans to draw up a directive requiring ships to clean their tanks before leaving port in order to obtain a
certificate without which the ship would not be allowed to put to sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is greatly concerned about operational pollution, including tank-cleaning operation in
Community waters, which represents a greater share of the total marine oil pollution than that caused by
accidents.

Various international measures regarding construction and operation of oil tankers (mainly through the
Marpol 73/78 Convention) have significantly reduced the need for and benefits of discharge of cargo
residues at sea during the last decades. The application of these international rules is controlled in
Community ports through port state control under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 29 June 1995
concerning the enforcement,
in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters
under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention

C 89 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (1).
In addition, separate European
construction requirement for oil tankers have recently been proposed by the Commission in its commu-
nication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (2).

the operational pollution from all

types of ships in Community waters results from the
Much of
impossibility in some ports to deliver cargo residues and ship generated wastes to shore facilities or from
reluctance of ships to use them. The proposed directive on port reception facilities (3) addresses this
particular problem and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that
adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that they are utilised by ships. By providing
rules on reception facilities, waste management planning, financial and other incentives to deliver waste
ashore, the need for discharges at sea will be greatly reduced. The proposal would also impose an
obligation for ships to notify the port of on-board quantities of wastes and residues. This, coupled with
port-based checks, will greatly improve the control of compliance with the international rules. Therefore,
the Commission is confident that the proposed directive, currently in conciliation in the Parliament and
Council, will have a considerable effect on reducing operational pollution, and in particular oil pollution of
all types of ships.

Finally, the Commission announced in its communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade that it
plans to examine other Community initiatives that could be taken to reduce the occurrence of operational
pollution by all types of ships.

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.
(2) COM(2000) 142 final.
(3) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998 as modified (OJ C 148, 18.5.1999).

(2001/C 89 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1340/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Habitat protection on Malta

Is the Commission aware that there are plans to convert a large area of agricultural land on Malta beneath
the Verdala Hotel into a golf course?

Is the Commission aware that three species of reptile (Chalcides ocellatus, Elaphe situla and Coluber
viridiflavus) and one species of amphibian (Discoglossus pictus), which are found on this agricultural land
should be protected according to the EU Habitat Directive?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Maltese authorities to give full information on the location and
frequency of the different species covered by of the EU Habitat Directive and found on Malta?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate whether specific Maltese species (such as Podarcis filfolensis
maltensis) should be added to the existing habitat list in order to secure their protection?

Is the Commission of the opinion that habitat areas should be designated by the Maltese authorities
as soon as possible so that all these species will enjoy full protection from day one of Malta(cid:146)s accession to
the EU?