WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE),José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE)and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ecological disaster caused by the Prestige oil spill.
Date: 2002-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, environmental policy, man-made disaster, maritime safety, oil pollution, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, tanker

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/85

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

Following the written question (P-1666/02) asked by the Honourable Member on this topic,
Commission obtained the text of the Greek law in question.

the

The Commission is in the process of analysing this law.

If necessary, the Commission will contact Greece in order to obtain any information it requires to
complete its analysis.

(2003/C 161 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: The wreck of the oil tanker ‘Prestige’ on the Galician coast

(27 November 2002)

In the face of the ecological disaster caused by the wreck of the oil tanker Prestige 50 kilometres off the
Galician coast, what immediate and long-term measures does the Commission intend to take to resolve
this situation, given that Galicia has already suffered a number of extremely serious incidents of this kind
along its coastline?

(2003/C 161 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE),
José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE)
and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Ecological disaster caused by the ‘Prestige’ oil spill

On 13 November 2002 the Prestige oil tanker had an extremely serious accident off the coast of Galicia.

As a result of the oil spill which followed, and which may still continue, Spain and Europe are now facing
a major ecological, social and economic disaster.

In the wake of a series of similar disasters (the accidents involving the Urquiola in 1976, the Amoco Cadiz
in 1978, the Cason in 1987, the Aegean Sea in 1992, the Braer in 1993, the Sea Empress in 1996 and the
Erika in 1999) the European Union has adopted a large number of texts in this field. Nevertheless, all the
signs are that the checks imposed on the transport of oil by sea do not guarantee adequate protection.

What measures will the Commission adopt in response to the Prestige disaster with regard to maritime
safety and the immediate consequences of the oil spill for the environment, economy and communities
affected?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3362/02 and E-3404/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

As the Honourable Members point out, the wreck of the Bahamas-flagged ‘Prestige’ tanker off the coast of
Galicia has caused a major ecological disaster, the full extent of which cannot yet be gauged.

C 161 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

As at the time of the Erika disaster, the Commission offered its assistance to the national authorities but
also took the opportunity created by the increased public awareness of the risks of transporting heavy fuel
oil by sea to react with forceful measures to help protect the coasts of the European Union.

The assistance system set up between the Commission and the appropriate disaster response organisations
level enabled immediate access to the pollution-control resources available
which exist at national
Community-wide. The French, Portuguese and Spanish authorities were able to benefit very quickly from
the available assistance, particularly ships and other special equipment to control the pollution. In addition,
the Commission said it would be ready to co-finance an assessment of the impact of the pollution on the
coast affected.

Moreover, in the fastest possible time, the Commission drew up and, on 3 December 2002, adopted a
communication on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident (1). The conclusions adopted
by the Transport Council on 6 December 2002 supported Commission initiatives aimed at preventing a
recurrence of this type of disaster and dealing with the aftermath.

The Commission therefore adopted, on 20 December 2002, a proposal for a Regulation banning the
carriage of heavy fuel oil by single-hull vessels to or from European Union ports and on the accelerated
phasing-in of double-hull to replace single-hull oil tankers (2). The proposed Regulation is now before the
co-legislators.

The Commission also plans to grant special aid to repair the disaster damage. While stressing that the
damage should be covered primarily by international mechanisms, particularly the International Oil
Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF), the Commission has already initiated action to help Spanish
fishermen deal with the situation. Thus, on 20 December 2002, the Council adopted a Regulation
instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture
affected by the oil spills from the Prestige (3).

Assistance may be available from the European Union Solidarity Fund if the Commission considers that
the conditions of the Regulation for mobilising the Fund (particularly the ‘regional’ criterion) are met (4).
Aid from the Cohesion Fund may also be forthcoming. As part of the overall amount allocated to Spain
for the period 2000-2006, environmental projects may be submitted to the Commission to help combat
the effects of the disaster.

In this connection, the Copenhagen European Council of 12 and 13 December 2002 acknowledged the
Commission’s prompt response and welcomed the action it had undertaken to deal with the effects of the
disaster within the current financial perspectives as well as its intention of examining the need for new
initiatives.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
(2) COM(2002) 780 final.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 of 20 December 2002, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund,

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Sapard programme

The most recent annual report of the European Court of Auditors shows, inter alia, that only 9,2 % of
the total Sapard appropriations available to the applicant countries were paid out, of which only
EUR 1 million, or 0,1 %, was transferred to the final beneficiaries.

1. Why were only 9,2 % of the appropriations paid out? Does the reason for the low payment rate rest
with the Commission, or are the beneficiary countries responsible?

2.

Has the Sapard programme started up in all the applicant countries?