WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Specific measures by the Commission to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters in the major sea corridor bordering the Galician coast.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, coastal pollution, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, maritime transport, oil pollution, polluter pays principle, pollution control measures, tanker, technical regulations

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/91

The inaugural meeting of the Administrative Board of the Agency took place on 4 December 2002. The
Board decided on the Agency’s action plan and agreed that the Executive Director would be appointed in
January 2003. On the occasion if its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Council noted these developments
with satisfaction and looked forward to the rapid adoption of a working programme which would enable
the Agency to be operational as soon as possible and establish the principles to serve as a basis for action
at Community level and in a wider international context. This should include the promotion of uniformity
and quality of port control inspection in all ports of the Member States and, for the Commission, the
establishment and the monitoring of the procedures for the authorisation and control of classification
societies.

The Council has noted the Parliament’s intention as regards the 2003 budget to put 50 % of the financial
resources for the European Maritime Safety Agency in reserve pending a final decision on its permanent
location. If the position of the European Parliament is maintained, it will make it more difficult for those
involved to make the agency fully operational as soon as possible.

The Council has noted the Commission’s decision to provisionally house the Agency on its own premises,
as mentioned in its communication to the Council and the European Parliament on improving safety at sea
in response to the Prestige accident (1). The Council also welcomes the information given by the
Commission in that communication that the Commission has done everything possible to make the
Agency operational six months ahead of schedule.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 222 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Specific measures by the Commission to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters

in the major sea corridor bordering the Galician coast

What specific measures have been taken by the Commission to prevent or tackle the consequences of
maritime disasters in the major sea corridor that borders the Galician coast, in the wake of the successive
tragic disasters which have affected Galicia over recent years?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

On 3 December 2002 (1), the Commission presented a communication on action to be taken to improve
maritime safety and protect the coasts of the European Union.

On 6 December 2002, the Transport Council adopted conclusions supporting the Commission’s initiatives
to avoid a repetition of this type of disaster and deal with its consequences.

The Commission’s action is already producing concrete results. For instance, a proposal for a regulation
prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil in single hull tankers bound for or leaving European Union
ports and speeding up the replacement of single hull tankers with double hull tankers was transmitted to
the Council and the European Parliament on 20 December 2002 (2). In addition, the Commission has
started preparing several new legislative measures designed to impose penal sanctions on any party (i.e. not
only the shipowner, but also the owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person
concerned) which causes pollution through serious negligence.

C 222 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

More generally, the Commission believes that the law of the sea is currently too much in favour of the
right to free navigation, at the expense of coastal States’ interests. These States must be able to defend
themselves against the threat of manifestly sub-standard ships.
In this context, and as stated in its
communication of 3 December 2002,
take steps to have the International
Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

the Commission will

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
(2) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 222 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The ‘ERIKA’ legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990

‘Aegean Sea’,

‘Urquiola’ and ‘Casón’ (cid:1) fail to include within the ‘ERIKA’

On what grounds did the Commission (cid:1) in the aftermath of the wreck of the ‘ERIKA’ tanker and even
prior to the successive disasters which have affected the Galician coast, in the shape of the wrecks of the
‘Polycommander’,
legislative
packages the type of strict financial guarantee and safety requirements which are placed on shipowners
and vessels by the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (passed following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ disaster), involving
unlimited financial liability, an obligation on vessel owners to tender a guarantee of USD 1 billion, and a
dual-hull requirement for tankers present in US waters? In view of the gaps affecting EU legislation and the
Union’s responsibility, is it possible that the Oil Pollution Act has had the counter-productive effect of
creating a situation of negative selection, in which the better-equipped vessels supply the US (where no
further tragic disasters have occurred since that time), while their worse-equipped counterparts supply the
EU’s Member States, which then have to face the disasters which we are all aware of, including those
which have affected Galicia?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns regarding the perverse effects the US Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 may be having. Due to this unilateral action by the United States there really is a
risk that ships that are less safe will be taking to European waters. The Commission responded to this risk
with the measures in the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages.

In the ERIKA II package in particular, the Commission had proposed to raise the maximum limit of
compensation to oil pollution victims substantially by creating a fund for the compensation of oil
pollution damage in European waters (the COPE Fund), which was intended to raise the maximum
compensation limit to EUR 1 billion from the current limit of EUR 185 million (1). This measure would
make it possible to compensate fully all the victims of oil pollution in European Union waters and to
speed up the compensation process.

However, after the opinion delivered by Parliament at the first reading, the Council did not follow up this
proposal, preferring to give its backing to the creation of a similar fund at international level. Unlike the
United States,
liability in an international
framework.

the EU would be taking action on polluters’

therefore,

In its communication of 3 December 2002 (2), the Commission, concerned at the lack of progress in this
area, called on the Member States to ratify without delay the protocol establishing a complementary fund
for compensation for oil pollution damage and to ensure that the fund covers damage up to EUR 1 billion
and is fully operational before the end of 2003. It also asked the Member States to impose adequate
penalties on operators who cause pollution by negligent behaviour.