WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. EU control and oversight of nuclear loads travelling over Community territory.
Date: 2002-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, competence of the Member States, public safety, radioactive waste, terrorism, transport accident, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety, uranium

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/105

(2003/C 155 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3166/02

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(6 November 2002)

Subject: The Joola disaster

On Thursday, 26 September 2002 the Joola ferry, which provided a service between Ziguinchor and
Dakar, calling at the island of Karabane, sank off the coast of Gambia. Of the 1 034 people on the ferry,
only 64 have so far been rescued, making this one of the worst disasters in civil navigation, with about
1 000 people lost.

The government of Senegal made great efforts to save the shipwrecked passengers, repatriate those who
survived and assist the families of the victims and those still unaccounted for, but the extent of the disaster
has of course had a devastating effect on the whole country.

What measures has the Commission taken to come to the aid of the victims’ families and the Government
thus demonstrating the European Union’s practical solidarity with one of the countries
of Senegal,
associated with the Union under the Cotonou Convention?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

The Commission does not have the necessary instruments to provide aid to the families of disaster victims.

With regard to emergency humanitarian aid, the Commission is not in a position to respond to such a
situation within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996, concerning
humanitarian aid (1). The Regulation is primarily aimed at saving and preserving lives during emergencies
and in the immediate aftermath of disasters. The sort of assistance which the families of the victims of the
Joola ferry incident require in this instance is not covered by the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

(2003/C 155 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2002)

Subject: EU control and oversight of nuclear loads travelling over Community territory

Since various EU Member States still engage in nuclear production at a number of centres and reprocessing
plants, transportation of uranium and radioactive waste still goes on on EU territory, in a number of
Member States. Industrial contracts concluded with third countries such as Japan and Russia have the same
effect.

The extremely hazardous nature of these products has always posed a permanent and terrifying threat of
traffic accidents or incidents arising from defective equipment, affecting areas within a very wide
circumference of the routes taken by the loads. Law-abiding demonstrations by citizens living near some of
these routes, or by anti-nuclear activists, are met with police repression and expulsion, the only response
known to the authorities in some Member States to this vigilance on the part of their citizens.

The threat of a new dimension of ‘hyperterrorism’ that was born on 11 September in the United States
now presents a new danger, according to security and nuclear experts, that regular transportation of
nuclear materials outside the well guarded production, processing and storage areas could become a target
for attacks or hijackings by extremist organisations.

C 155 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Does the Commission have detailed, immediately accessible information as to the timetables and routes of
these highly sensitive and hazardous loads?

Is the relevant information sent to the Commission in an absolutely transparent and reliable way by the
Member States where the convoys originate or through which they pass?

What is the Commission’s margin of assessment and intervention as regards nuclear transport vehicles’
timetables and routes, which are generated by an industry the management of which is a national
prerogative, but whose potential for danger covers the whole area of the Community and beyond?

Can the Commission guarantee the safety of these loads against all forms of attack or accident, as well as
providing all the necessary forms of medical and financial arrangements, mechanisms and interventions in
the event of a possible disaster within the area of the enlarged Community?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Commission is not responsible for operations relating to the transportation of radioactive materials.
This responsibility rests with the Member States, which must ensure that national and international
legislation on the transportation of radioactive materials is respected. The Member States, through their
competent authorities, are required to take appropriate measures to ensure the safe, secure transport of
radioactive materials.

However, neither the Member States nor the companies which transport radioactive materials are obliged
under Community legislation to provide the Commission with the timetables and routes for convoys of
nuclear fuel cycle or any other radioactive materials.

The Member States must ensure maximum safety/security for convoys of radioactive materials and any
other forms of nuclear or non-nuclear activities against attacks which are designed to disrupt them. By
cooperating with the Member States in the Standing Working Group on the safe transport of radioactive
material (1), the Commission is contributing to developing and improving legislation and the measures
needed to reduce the potential
impact of the effects of any accidents which might occur during the
transportation of radioactive materials.

(1) COM(98) 155 final.

(2003/C 155 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/02

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

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Heavily fisheries-dependent regions, relative stability and access to fishery resources

In its answers to questions E-0650/02 (1), E-2096/02, E-2097/02 and E-2098/02 (2), all by the author of
the present question, the Commission did not provide concrete responses on the points actually raised, and
it is therefore now necessary to raise these subjects again. The intention of those questions was: to obtain
information from the Commission on the criteria required for an EU region to be classified as heavily
fisheries-dependent for purposes of the allocation of catch possibilities; and to ask the Commission
whether it considers, in the light of the Community legal principle of progressive adaptation, that the list
of heavily fisheries-dependent regions, which has remained unchanged for 20 years, should be updated,
with the addition of new regions in this category in the wake of the successive accessions of new Member
States (notably Spain and Portugal).