WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Communism, EBRD, Eastern Bloc countries, accession criteria, aid system, economic transition, enlargement of the Union, environmental policy, fund (EU), natural disaster

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/83

Quality Service in Sea Ports: A Key for European Transport’ (1) of 13 February 2001. Following requests by
Parliament and Council, a more detailed document has been made available to Council and Parliament to
facilitate the current debate on the Directive on Port Services.

The Commission is aware of the fact that, in particular since the completion of the internal
2. to 4.
market, there is intense competition between ports. This is particularly the case, as for example in North
West (NW) Europe, where ports serve essentially the main hinterland, although competition between ports
is by no means limited to such figuration.

The Commission is aware of the fact that public and private bodies in NW European ports have made
significant port investments over recent years and continue to do so. There is no indication that these
investments have led to serious overcapacity. Indeed, indications are that generally a balance was found
between capacity demand and supply.

Public investments may be made provided the state aid rules of the EC Treaty are respected. The
Commission would follow up complaints, as it has done in the past, in order to assess whether the rules
have been respected. However,
the Commission does not believe that an Union-wide operational
management body should be set up to distribute cargoes and business between ports and the NW
European ports in particular, because such body would be unlikely to substitute adequately the commercial
activities of ports and their customers.

for

the period 2000-2006, under

The Community initiative Interreg III
the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), can contribute to promote the co-operation among ports in view of achieving
a more balanced and sustainable development of maritime transport in Europe. In the framework of
certain programmes, such as ‘North Sea area’,
‘Atlantic area’ or
‘Western Mediterranean’ national, regional or local authorities and other actors can deal with the questions
raised under point 4 and work together to address issues such as sea transport and co-operation among
ports. More information can be obtained on http:/europa.eu.int./comm/regional_policy/interreg3.

‘North West Europe’,

‘Baltic Sea area’,

(1) COM(2001) 35 final.

(2003/C 222 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/02

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

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation

For the decade following the collapse of the Communist bloc in Europe, the EU set as priorities the
implementation and follow-up of the process of economic and industrial transition in the countries of
in response to their prompt application to join the EU and in preparation for their
Eastern Europe,
accession. Under these circumstances and faced with the challenges presented by a changing Europe, the
EU established an ad hoc bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The transition process has benefited greatly in each of the accession countries from EBRD guarantees,
funding and strategies. That the EU has now set a firm date for accession is testament to the advanced
stage of the process, and, therefore, leaves room for new and equally pressing priorities.

The challenges presented by natural disasters are at least as great as the previous challenge of transforming
the Communist economies in the eastern half of Europe. The effects of disruptions to ecosystems or in
terms of climate, weather or marine life, which are currently being vigorously felt on our continent, take a
huge financial toll. The scale of the cost of the present environmental crises and, above all, of those to
come has recently been estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at some
USD 150 billion a year.

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).