WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Pollution caused by the fuel oil transported by the Prestige — proposed action to fight the long-term effects of the pollution.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, environmental impact, environmental policy, environmental protection, oil pollution, petroleum product, pollution control measures, toxic substance

C 161 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(cid:1) aid for cleaning, repairing and reconstructing shellfish and aquaculture sites,

(cid:1) compensation for replacing shellfish stocks.

The Regulation also provides for a number of derogations from the criteria which expenditure must satisfy
in order to receive part-financing from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under
Regulation (EC) No 2792/199 (2), in order to facilitate and speed up the provision of aid to these suffering
as a result of the pollution.

Furthermore, the Regulation authorises the release of additional appropriations (EUR 30 million) under the
aid provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing
vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco (3).

The Commission would also ask the Honourable Member to refer to its answers to written questions
E-3362/02 (4) and 3593/02 (5), and to the answer given to Written Question E-3632/02 (6)
from
Mr Sánchez García, which will provide him with an overview of the initiatives it has taken and of various
measures which may be applicable in response to the shipwreck of the oil tanker Prestige.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 of 20 December 2002 instituting specific measures to compensate the
Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture, affected by the oil spills from the Prestige, OJ L 358,
31.12.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 of 17 December 2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels
and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(4) See page 85.
(5) See page 110.
(6) See page 120.

(2003/C 161 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Pollution caused by the fuel oil transported by the ‘Prestige’ (cid:1) proposed action to fight the long-

term effects of the pollution

A number of news reports state that the fuel oil transported by the Prestige is highly toxic. What is the
chemical nature of the fuel oil transported by the Prestige and spilled by it off the Galician coast? What are
the likely short- and long-term consequences for the ecosystem? What measures are proposed to clean up
the marine environment of Galicia, given the highly sensitive position of this region of Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The oil carried by the ‘Prestige’ is not only authorised but is also registered by the ISO (International
Organisation for Standardisation) as a heavy fuel oil.

This product is a residue of the refining process. It is a highly viscous pollutant which is very hard to clean
up once it spreads at sea and along the coast. It is the most polluting type of fuel oil, which is why tighter
safety measures are required.

At its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Transport Council agreed,
Commission, that single hull tankers carrying heavy oils should be banned from EU ports.

following a proposal from the

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/113

Accordingly, on 20 December 2002 the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a
regulation (1) to prohibit the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers bound for or leaving EU
ports and to bring forward the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the Erika I
package.

The Commission asked the Council and Parliament to examine the text as a matter of urgency with a view
to its being adopted.

In order that the impact of the pollution on the Spanish coast may be assessed, the Commission is
planning to co-finance a study of the environmental repercussions of the accident. Contacts are already
under way with the Spanish authorities.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 161 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Disruption of environmental policy by rock-bottom short-hop air fares within the EU by a non-

European airline

Is the Commission aware that VARIG Brazilian Airlines has been using travel agencies and the
1.
Internet to promote flights between Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle airports at a one-way fare of EUR 19
without restrictions and including an in-flight drink and snack?

Is VARIG entitled, on the strength of the fact that a 281-seater Boeing 777 is flown on a daily
2.
scheduled flight from Sao Paulo via Paris to Amsterdam, automatically to assume the right to promote
special offers within the EU at dumping-level fares 75 % lower than those charged by other airlines and
lower even than the frequently travelled high-speed rail link on the same route?

3. What impact are such dumping fares having on the viability of the efforts advocated in the
Commission’s communication on air transport and the environment (1), and also laid down in its White
Paper, to limit pressures on airports and air space by establishing and maintaining a European high-speed
train network on medium-distance routes?

4.
Does the Commission consider the state of affairs referred to in question 1 as exemplifying ‘the
normal functioning of the market mechanism’, ‘the principle of freedom to provide transport services’ and
‘complementary elements in the transport chain’, as understood in its answer to my Written Question
E-3387/00 (2), or does it take the view that the limits of the acceptable have now been exceeded?

5. What options are open to the Commission for calling a halt to such disruptive practices? Will it
make use of such options?

If no such options are as yet available, will the Commission introduce arrangements enabling

6.
corrective action to be taken?

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.
(2) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 45.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The Commission had not been aware of the commercial practices of the company in question on the
Paris-Amsterdam route until the Honourable Member raised the issue.