WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/02 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Council. Maritime safety.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, access to EU information, drafting of EU law, maritime safety, oil pollution, parliamentary session, safety standard, tanker, transport policy, transport safety

C 222 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Do these facts and figures, illustrating the challenges and dangers and therefore the funding and efforts
required, convince the Council of
taking measures
commensurate with the problems that arise and dealing with these environmental situations?

the need for a Community policy aimed at

Should there not be one interlocutor and central actor to coordinate and manage rebuilding and the
limitation of these environmental disasters, such as the EBRD was in the case of industrial crises?

Would the Council not simply be carrying out its responsibilities by promoting a European Bank for
Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation, which would play a monitoring role and provide
information and education, with the task of aiding environmental transition today and in the future?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

No proposal to this effect has been submitted by the Commission to the Council. The Council has
therefore not examined the particular issue raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

However, the Council has by virtue of Regulation 2012/2002 of 11 November 200 (1) 1 set up the
European Union Solidarity Fund which mainly aims to cover a share of the public expenditure incurred by
a Member State or a country which will become a Member State in 2004, in case these countries are stuck
by a major natural disaster, in order to contribute to a rapid return to normal living conditions in the
disaster-stricken regions.

The Fund covers any disaster resulting in damage estimated at over EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices or
alternatively at over 0,6 % of the gross national income of the country concerned. However, exceptionally,
even if these quantitative criteria are not met, assistance from the Fund can also benefit a determined
region affected by an extraordinary disaster (mainly a natural one) affecting the major part of
its
population with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of this
region. Assistance under this heading is limited to 7,5 % of the annual budgetary amount of the Fund of
EUR 1 billion.

Assistance under the Fund, as an additional instrument, should remain complementary to the efforts of the
Member State affected by the disaster. The Fund does neither purport to replace the existing economic and
social cohesion instruments able to finance risk prevention measures and the repair of damaged
infrastructure, nor to relieve third parties from their responsibility or to finance repairs in case of
insurable risks.

Lastly, the Council is awaiting the Commission’s proposals, announced as part of its legislative and work
programme for 2003, designed to promote sustainable development and strengthen social and economic
cohesion balancing environmental, social and economic concerns through implementation of the EU’s
sustainable development strategy.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

(2003/C 222 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Maritime safety

Three years after the ERIKA accident, the pitiful end of the inappropriately named Prestige has reopened
the debate on the responsibility of oil transport companies with regard to the environment.

The precautionary principle dictates that vessels no longer complying with safety standards will be steered
towards demolition sites rather than the ocean. However, the owners’ decisions are essentially guided by
the principle of maximum profit. It is the case at the moment, unfortunately, that the most harmful oil
refinery waste is transported by the least reliable vessels (because they are the cheapest).

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/85

Following the sinking of the ERIKA and under French impetus, the European authorities took action and
Parliament adopted a package of measures aimed at tightening legislation on classification societies and
owners. This regulation lays down that all one-hulled oil tankers must be phased out by 2015.

But what is to be done in the meantime? About ten days after the Prestige sank, another tanker of the
same kind, the Byzantio (same age, structure, cargo, charterer (cid:1) the one that hired out the ERIKA to Total
Fina Elf three years ago) is en route to the French and Spanish coastline.

A few days away from the first meeting of the Administrative Board of the brand new European Maritime
Safety Agency and in the light of this especially worrying situation, does the Council intend to take new
emergency measures, which could be enacted on 5/6 December at the next meeting of the Council of
European Transport Ministers?

(2003/C 222 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The decisions apparently taken by the Spanish Prime Minister and the French President on

separating the sea corridors for ‘Prestige’-type vessels

What decisions has the Council taken, and what decisions does it intend to take, concerning The decisions
apparently taken by the Spanish Prime Minister and the French President on separating the sea corridors
allocated to ‘Prestige’-type vessels? What are the potential practical consequences of such decisions for the
impact of such disasters on the coasts?

(2003/C 222 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: State of implementation by the EU Member States of the ‘ERIKA’ legislative package

What is the state of play as regards implementation by the EU Member States of the ‘ERIKA’ legislative
package? Which were the Member States that blocked an agreement to bring implementation forward? On
what grounds did they justify such a position?

(2003/C 222 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3583/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Estimated cost of the ‘Exxon Valdez’ disaster to the economy of the Alaskan coastline and expected

costs of the ‘Prestige’ disaster for the Galician coastal areas

The cost of the ‘Exxon Valdez’ disaster to the economy of the Alaskan coastline, in accordance with the US
authorities’ determination of Exxon’s liability,
is estimated at USD 1 billion in damage to the natural
environment, plus a further USD 2 billion in depollution actions and other measures. Given that the
impact of the ‘Prestige’ disaster on Galicia’s coastal areas is greater than that caused by the ‘Exxon Valdez’,
what estimate has the Council put forward for Galicia?