WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/02 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Rehabilitation of the SCI areas damaged by the sinking of the Prestige.
Date: 2002-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, Galicia, coastal region, environmental impact, environmental protection, marine pollution, oil pollution, protected area

C 161 E/114

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Varig’s right to fly on the intra-Community route concerned stems from the bilateral agreements concluded
between Brazil on the one part, and France and the Netherlands on the other. These agreements concluded
by individual Member States might contain provisions which are incompatible with Community law. The
Commission has no direct powers concerning the fares charged by non-Community companies on the
basis of bilateral agreements. The Commission is working towards bringing these agreements into line with
Community law. Its work has been strengthened since the Court of Justice, in its so-called ‘Open Sky’ (1)
judgments of 5 November 2002, included intra-Community fares and rates among the specific areas where
the Community has exclusive competence (2). The Commission will make all the necessary proposals to
ensure that a new generation of agreements are signed at Community level which ensure full compatibility
with the Community framework, in particular by asking the Council to adopt a negotiating mandate.

Given the limited scope of this type of intra-Community operation, the communication entitled ‘Transport
and the environment’ (3) does not explicitly cover the environmental impact of non-Community airlines
exercising intra-Union traffic rights. However, the ‘acquis communautaire’ on environmental requirements
in the field of air transport, and proposed measures regarding the promotion of intermodal operations,
also cover companies from third countries.

The Commission will continue to work for progress on harmonising charging and taxation principles
across transport modes as outlined in the recent White Paper entitled ‘European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide’ (4). In this regard, it recalls its 1997 proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the
Community framework for the taxation of energy products (5) which is pending before the Council of
Ministers.

Economic regulations in the air transport market, as explained by the Commission in its answer to Written
Question E-3387/00 (6), are accompanied by a series of other obligations on operators aimed at increasing
security, safety and air traffic control and improving the environmental
impact. The Commission will
ensure that the ‘acquis communautaire’ in this matter is further developed based on the general approach
to transport policy as presented recently in the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide’ (7).

(1) Cases C-466/98, C-467/98, C-468/98, C-469/98, C-471/98, C-472/98, C-475/98 and C-476/98, Commission v. the

United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany.

(2) Commission communication on the consequences of the Court judgements of 5 November 2002 for European air

transport policy, COM(2002) 649.

(3) COM(1999) 640 final.
(4) COM(2001) 370 final.
(5) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.
(6) OJ C 174, 19.6.2001.
(7) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 161 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Rehabilitation of the SCI areas damaged by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’

On 13 November 2002 the oil tanker Prestige suffered an accident which has had a devastating effect on
the Galician coast and, in particular, on areas designated as SCIs in connection with the Natura 2000
Network.

I have noted what the Commission has published in its ‘memo’ on the Internet page of the DG for Energy
and Transport with regard to the Erika I and II packages of measures and the new, specific proposals for
the Prestige case. Would the Commission, however, provide more information about the measures it has
devised in order to ensure that the protected areas damaged by the oil spillage from the Prestige (namely
the Natura 2000 Network-designated SCIs) recover from an ecological point of view?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/115

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Prestige accident caused serious environmental damage to the
Galician coast, an area with a high concentration of Natura 2000 sites.

Regarding the measures the Commission can propose to assist the recovery of the Galician coast, the
following possibilities have been presented at different levels to the Spanish authorities:

1. Community framework for cooperation in the field of response to marine pollution

In the very short term, there is the possibility of supporting an environmental impact assessment
survey (in the form of 50 % co-financing up to a level of EUR 300 000) of the polluted coast. Such
action involves analysing the environmental effects after an accident, evaluating the preventive and
remedial measures put in place, and disseminating the results and the experience acquired to the other
Member States. A survey of this sort was carried out following the Baltic Carrier accident.

2.

European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF)

The main purpose of the EUSF is to provide assistance principally in the event of natural disasters, and
the eligibility criteria governing it are rather specific. The Commission will be examining the Spanish
authorities’ application very soon. It should, however, be borne in mind that any payment from the
EUSF for damage that will later be covered by other sources, e.g. by insurance or by the International
Oil pollution Compensation Funds Convention (FIPOL), or for which there is a clear liability, would
need to be recovered by the Commission.

3.

Structural Funds

Under the operational programme (OP) for Galicia (2000-2006), which is part of the Objective 1
Community Support Framework (CSF) for Spain, the OP management authority (in this case, the
Spanish Ministry of Finance, jointly responsible with the government of Galicia) is able, subject to the
approval of the monitoring committee for this initiative, to alter the programme complement to direct
more resources towards measures which can help tackle the consequences of the disaster, though
without altering the amounts allocated to each priority in the OP. Such alterations could also relate to
the level of co-financing of measures.

In addition, Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 (1) allows operating programmes to be
revised in the event of significant changes in the socio-economic situation and the labour market.
Such revision, which would require a decision by the Commission, would enable the amounts
allocated to each priority to be altered.

4.

Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)

The Union has approved a Commission proposal for the FIFG Regulation to be amended so that,
derogating from certain general rules, fuller aid can be provided to the fishing and fish farming
industries, particularly by granting allowances to compensate for the temporary stoppage of activity
and aid for the cleaning, recovery and rehabilitation of sites or of damaged equipment. This measure
provides for the reprogramming of EUR 80 million in FIFG appropriations and of EUR 30 million
initially earmarked for converting the fleet which fished in Moroccan waters.

5. Cohesion Fund

It is open to the Spanish authorities to put forward projects or groups of projects of an environmental
nature for co-financing through the Cohesion Fund, within the overall amount already allocated to
Spain for the period 2000-2006.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.