WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. Maritime safety.
Date: 2000-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, maritime safety, petroleum

C 151 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Referring to the intitiative of 126 Europeans to visit Iraq by a chartered airplane on 29 September 2000
and the cancellation of
the
Commission is aware of this incident from various reports. The reports are not clear on the reasons for
the cancellation of the flight. This is a matter between the airline company and the aviation authorities of
Belgium and France (the countries of departures of the flight).

from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport at

the last moment,

this flight

The sanction regime, which governs Iraq(cid:146)s relations with the rest of the world, has been subject to
intensive debate and different interpretation, especially the conditions for clearance of flights to Iraq. As far
as flights between the Community and Iraq are concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1)
provides that flights are only allowed if the Iraq Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council has
given an authorisation. Requests for such authorisations are usually routed to the Iraq Sanctions
Committee through the authorities of the Member States. Therefore, the Commission is normally not
involved in decisions on individual flights.

Since 1991, the Community has been the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq with a total of € 242
million. The Community has continued this assistance with an allocation of € 8,5 million in 2000. The
assistance is implemented by European non-governmental organisations and the United Nations (UN)
agencies in the framework of the sanction regime adopted by the UN. The Community supports any
humanitarian assistance initiatives benefiting the Iraq population within this framework, including allowing
humanitarian flights to Iraq.

(1) OJ L 337, 27.12.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Maritime safety

Parliament has previously expressed doubts not only about
the democratic legitimacy of voluntary
agreements but also concern about the ability of such agreements to deliver results, especially in respect
of implementation.

In the light of this, what reassurances can the Commission give that the proposed voluntary agreement on
maritime safety will genuinely add to legislative effort aiming for a safer marine environment, that parties
involved comprehensively cover the affected activities, that monitoring and compliance can be ensured,
and that provisions are compatible with as yet undecided EU legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

In its communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade of 21 March 2000 (1) the Commission
indicated its intention to facilitate a voluntary agreement between those involved in the transport of oil at
sea. In part 5.C of the communication the possible terms of such an agreement were outlined. The
communication was addressed to the Parliament and the Council.

Since the adoption of the communication, discussions have taken place with representatives of tanker
owners, classification societies, oil companies and oil trading firms in order to explore their willingness to
commit themselves to certain voluntary undertakings and thus encourage them to take immediate action
to improve maritime safety. There is no guarantee so far that such agreement will be adopted.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/95

The added value of such agreement would be that it can become applicable prior to the entry into force of
the proposed new legislation and that it would cover issues falling outside the scope of this legislation,
such as commercial practices.

The discussion partners cover a great share of the relevant industry sectors, including all major classifica-
tion societies belonging to the International Association of Classification Societies. Some 90 % of the
world(cid:146)s ocean going tonnage is classed by one of them, Intertanko represents a majority (some 70 %) of the
independent oil tanker owners. All major oil companies are represented by the Oil Companies Interna-
tional Maritime Forum, while the independent oil trading firms are represented by the Union PØtroliŁre
EuropØenne IndØpendante.

The question of monitoring compliance with the agreement would form part of the agreement itself, but
the detailed content on this point is still to be discussed. It may be noted, however, that the discussions
aim at a voluntary agreement between the industry representatives. Neither the Commission nor any other
Community institution would be a party to such an agreement.

This work does not undermine the legislative process underway nor does it affect the co-legislative powers
of the Parliament. As indicated above, the content of such a voluntary measure primarily relates to areas
which are outside the regulatory framework, such as chartering practices, effectiveness of private
inspection schemes, exchange of information and other co-operation between the parties. In addition, a
voluntary commitment of the character outlined above is by its nature a non-legal instrument. Conse-
quently, it will be superseded by any legal requirement, should there be an overlap between its provisions
and those of Community secondary legislation.

Finally, as has been stated before, it is the intention of the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of
any developments relating to this initiative.

(1) COM(2000) 142final.

(2001/C 151 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3205/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Regulation for statistical monitoring of tuna

The establishment of a regulation for the statistical monitoring of tuna is a fundamental requisite for
compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Programme Act (IDCPA).

The failure to comply with this fundamental criterion lies at the source of the new US embargo, imposed
on 3 August 2000, on imports of yellowfin tuna and derived products from Spain.

The fact that no regulation exists and no draft regulation has been communicated to the US authorities
could provide a legal justification for this embargo on EU tuna.

Has the Commission evaluated the potential consequences of the failure to adopt such a regulation? In the
specific case of yellowfin tuna and derived products originating in Spain, has it evaluated the damage
potentially caused by this failure to the enterprises concerned and considered possible means of
compensation for such damage?