WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Continued dumping at sea of ship-generated waste and cargo residues as a result of minimum surveillance and inadequate prosecution of offenders.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, exchange of information, harbour installation, marine pollution, pollution from ships, waste disposal, waste management

C 92 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament concern issues for which a Member State is
responsible. The Council has no competence in these matters.

(2003/C 92 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Continued dumping at sea of ship-generated waste and cargo residues as a result of minimum

surveillance and inadequate prosecution of offenders

Does the Commission recall that, in its answer to my Written Question E-2246/01 (1), it said that it
1.
was confident that, as from 2002, implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC (2) would lead to a sharp
increase in the quantities of ship-generated waste delivered to European port reception facilities and to a
sharp fall in the number of illegal discharges at sea?

2. What has been the impact on the implementation of this Directive of the fact that no more than a
small proportion of those responsible for illegal discharges are caught in the act, since most discharges are
carried out at night and, by the time an oil slick becomes visible, the ship involved is already over the
horizon, the result of this being that, as far the Dutch part of the continental shelf in the North Sea is
concerned, it was possible to establish who was responsible for such slicks only five times in four years?

Do most of the ships involved come from Russia and other third countries whose captains are
3.
reluctant to deliver waste because they continue to regard the dumping and discharge of waste at sea as a
natural, cheap and innocuous custom?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that, out of the 50 000 ships which berth in Dutch ports every year,
only 400 are checked by the Netherlands coastguard and that only 7 of that number are fined, although,
on the Dutch part of the continental shelf, some 400-500 ships discharge oil, ropes, timber, nets, plastic,
batteries and, sometimes, even equipment such as photocopiers, with the result that not only are the
seabed and the shore polluted but plastic and toxic substances also enter the food chain of birds and fish?

5.
Can the Commission also confirm that the Netherlands carries out fewer checks than other EU
Member States on the dumping of ship-generated waste and cargo residues at sea and also prosecutes
fewer offenders, both because current national law does not provide for the levying of fines on foreign
ship’s captains for failure to complete their oil record books accurately and because there is just one officer
of the law who is responsible for prosecution? What is the reason for this disparity compared with other
Member States, and how can it brought to an end?

6. What supplementary measures for surveillance, legalisation and case-law from the individual Member
States does the Commission feel is required in order to improve the collection of ship-generated waste so
that the objectives referred to previously may actually be attained?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 86.
(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2002)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about operational ship-source pollution
in Community waters. The Commission has considered that measures, in addition to the international
ones, are needed in order to stop the discharges of oil and other substances at sea. For this reason, it made

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/151

in 1998 a proposal for a Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues (1). The Directive, which was adopted by the Parliament and the Council in November 2000 (2),
shall be implemented by the Member States by 28 December 2002 at the latest.

As explained in its reply to the Honourable Members written question E-2246/01, this Directive ensures
the availability of adequate waste reception facilities in all Community ports and introduces an obligation
on ships to deliver their waste ashore. The Directive also introduces an obligation for ships to notify the
port of on-board quantities of wastes prior to arrival. This, coupled with port-based checks and
appropriate sanctions, will greatly improve the possibilities to control compliance with the international
rules. However, since the Directive has not yet been transposed into national law by the Member States the
Commission does not at this stage dispose of concrete figures relating to numbers of inspection carried out
by specific Member States for this purpose, or of the nationality of the ships involved in discharges.

Apart from Directive 2000/59/EC, a number of complementary measures have been taken to reduce illegal
discharges from ships:

(cid:1) The Directive establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (3), requires
Member States to exchange information on ships in respect of which there is proof or presumptive
evidence of deliberate discharges of oil and to carry out any appropriate inspection on board such
ships when they enter a Community port.

(cid:1) The Commission in the aforementioned Directive on traffic monitoring, has also included an
obligation for ships to provide information on spotted oil slicks and for authorities to take appropriate
action. The Commission is currently also exploring other ways to set up a system for monitoring oil
spills, including tracing oil based on surveillance and tracking.

(cid:1) The setting up of the European Maritime Safety Agency will play an important role in this respect, in
particular as regards ensuring a harmonised implementation of Community legislation and collecting
and managing data relating to ship-source pollution.

(cid:1) Finally, Decision 2850/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000, setting
up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine
pollution (4) will improve the exchange of information on the efficiency of the prosecution systems
applied in the different Member States. It will also allow the development of joint initiatives such as
workshops or training courses in order to improve the techniques for identifying contravening vessels.
This will create synergies at Community level and should ultimately permit the implementation of
dissuasive sanctions against the parties responsible for such criminal acts.

Furthermore, the Commission is finalising a Communication to Parliament and Council ‘Towards a strategy
to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (foreseen in the 6th Environmental Action Programme).
In this context, proposals will be made and action will be initiated aimed at phasing out of illegal
discharges by ships.

(1) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998.
(2) Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for

ship-generated waste and cargo residues.

(3) Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic

monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

(4) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2003/C 92 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Combating the presence of carcinogenic acrylamide in chips, crisps and other baked or roasted

foods

1.
Is the Commission aware that the findings of the Swedish research into the presence of acrylamide in
carbohydrate-rich foods, such as chips and crisps, which are cooked at very high temperatures, has now