WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Catalytic reduction units and low-sulphur fuels as a means of reducing the large contribution to overland air pollution from maritime shipping.
Date: 2002-09-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, air quality, fuel oil, greenhouse gas, international convention, maritime transport, pollution control measures, pollution from ships, sulphur, tax system

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/185

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2544/02 and E-2546/02

(19 December 2002)

The Council would point out that measures taken by or in Member States to maintain public order do not
come within its purview.

(2003/C 92 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Catalytic reduction units and low-sulphur fuels as a means of reducing the large contribution to

overland air pollution from maritime shipping

1. What measures (cid:1) with regard both to seagoing vessels registered in EU Member States and to the
admission of seriously polluting vessels from other States (cid:1) are being prepared in the European Union in
order, pending any effective measures which might be adopted by the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO), to cut to a minimum emissions of greenhouse gases from seagoing vessels and to encourage the
IMO to adopt effective regulations?

2. Will the requirement for ships in the North Sea and Baltic to use fuel whose sulphur content does
not exceed 1,5 % enter into force on 31 December 2002, as scheduled in 1997, or will there be a delay
because Annex VI to Marpol has not yet been ratified by 15 flag states representing a total of 50 % of the
world merchant shipping tonnage?

3.
Is the fuel referred to in question 2 now sufficiently available at all EU ports, or is the situation still
as it was found to be at the beginning of 2001 (written question E-0407/01 (1)), in that fuel with a sulphur
content of 1 % is only produced and available to a limited extent, while it also costs significantly more than
fuel with a sulphur content of 3 % and moreover higher transport charges are made for it?

Can the Commission indicate for each EU Member State and for the EU as a whole what percentage

4.
of the seagoing vessels registered there is equipped with a catalytic reduction unit?

5.
To what extent are other Member States following the example of Sweden and encouraging the use
of low-sulphur fuel by means of financial incentives? Is the Commission encouraging it? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 45.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The Commission is currently finalising a Community strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from
seagoing ships. This will include a proposal to amend Directive 1999/32/EC (1) to introduce sulphur limits
on marine fuels. A consultation exercise was held earlier this year to inform the strategy, and a number of
studies
see http://
the Commission have also been completed recently. For more details
www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transport.htm#3.

for

1. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the forthcoming Community strategy will reiterate the
commitment made in the 6th Environment Action Programme (2): that the Commission will identify and
undertake specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from marine shipping if no such action is
agreed within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) by 2003. The Commission is currently
working with Member States to develop a coordinated Community position on the issue for negotiation at
the IMO. It appears likely that the IMO will adopt a greenhouse gas strategy in 2003.

C 92 E/186

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

2. With respect to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by ships (Marpol) Annex
VI, the sulphur oxides (SOX) Emission Control Area in the North Sea and the Baltic will not enter into
force on 31 December 2002. Annex VI can only enter into force twelve months after it has been ratified
by fifteen flag states representing 50 % of world merchant shipping tonnage. To date, seven flag states have
ratified representing 26 % of world tonnage. However, the Commission’s proposal to amend Directive
1999/32/EC will include, inter alia, provisions seeking effectively to implement the SOX Emission Control
Area.

3. With respect to the availability of marine fuel with a sulphur content below 1,5 %, a recent study by
Beicip Franlab for the Commission indicates that the average sulphur content of marine heavy fuel oil sold
in the Community is 2,5 %. In three Member States the average sulphur content of heavy fuel oil is below
2 %; in two Member States it is above 3,0 %. The same study finds that around 5 million tonnes of 1,5 %
sulphur heavy fuel oil could be made available in the Community at relatively low cost.

4. With respect to catalytic reduction units, the Commission does not currently have data on the
number of Community-flagged vessels equipped with such technology.

to financial

Finally, with respect

including Hamburg and
5.
Rotterdam, offer a reduction in port dues to ships that use low-sulphur fuel. The Swedish system of
differentiated fairway dues has not been adopted in other Member States, probably because most have no
existing system of national fairway dues, which they could adapt in this way. As part of the forthcoming
Community strategy, the Commission is investigating the feasibility of a range of market-based instruments
to complement regulatory measures in order to deliver emissions reductions.

incentives, some Community ports,

(1) Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels

and amending Directive 93/12/EEC, OJ L 121, 11.5.1999.
(2) Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the Parliament and of

the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth

Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.

(2003/C 92 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/02

by Margie Sudre (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Future of tourism ecolabels in Europe

The Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE) was set up twenty years ago on the
initiative of experts from the Council of Europe. It instigated and now manages the Blue Flag campaign,
which today covers 24 countries.

Over the past four years the FEEE has been building on its expertise with the ‘Green Keys’ programme,
under which labels are awarded to open-air tourist accommodation centres.

In connection with this campaign, the FEEE was asked to participate in the Life programme VISIT
(Voluntary Initiative for Sustainability in Tourism), which aims to promote existing European ecolabels for
tourism. This programme currently receives
from the Commission
(EUR 882 858).

substantial

financial

support

At the same time, the FEEE learned to its surprise and interest of Commission plans under which tourist
accommodation establishments would not be allowed to use the European ecolabel.

It would seem contradictory for both these initiatives to have originated from the same institution, with
one aiming to promote existing initiatives and the other to eliminate and replace them.

Could the Commission clearly indicate what its intentions are with regard to the future of European
ecolabels for tourism?