WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation, cooperation agreement

C 161 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

As regards specific measures to finance at Community level operations to tackle the consequences of the
sinking of the ‘Prestige’, the Commission wishes to point out that a number of Community financial
instruments exist for costs not covered by insurance.

First, as regards measures to combat the effects of the oil spill on the territory of Member States’ regions,
the authorities concerned, within the limit of the funds allocated for the entire period 2000-2006 and with
due regard for economic development priorities, could have recourse to European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) part-financing.

the Operational Programme (OP)
Spain’s Objective 1 Community Support Framework includes
Galicia 2000-2006, the managing authority for which (the Spanish Finance Ministry in conjunction with
the Galician Government) can, with the Monitoring Committee’s approval, adjust
the programme
complement to devote more resources to measures to help combat the impact of the disaster (but cannot
change the amounts assigned to each priority in the OP). Such adjustment can involve changes in the part-
financing rates for measures.

Further, Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (1) permits modification of OPs in the event of significant changes in the
socio-economic situation and the labour market. Such a modification, which would require a Commission
decision, could change the amounts allocated to each priority.

So far the Spanish authorities have informed us only of
their wish to use measure 3.5 (Coastal
Environmental Measures) of the 2000-2006 Galicia OP (ERDF contribution EUR 64 516 472) for certain
clean-up work.

Second, use of the Cohesion Fund could be considered,
if the Spanish authorities so wished and in
accordance with the usual procedures of the Fund, for the work on the wreck, which is in Spain’s exclusive
economic zone.

Third, the Commission received a formal request from the Spanish authorities on 14 January 2003 for
mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to provide help with the clean-up costs for the
oil slick damage to the Galician coastline caused by the sinking of the Prestige.

The Commission is now examining the request on the basis of the information received in the application
and will respond as quickly as possible in accordance with the requirements of the EUSF Regulation (2).

The Commission however reminds the Honourable Member that the EUSF was set up to provide assistance
principally in the event of natural disasters and that it cannot be used to provide immediate financial
assistance if the fairly specific qualifying criteria outlined in the Regulation are not met. Assistance can
only be given to help make good public damage not covered by insurance. It cannot cover economic
losses (e.g. by fishermen or in the tourism sector).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund,

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/02

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

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA

On 28 May 1959 the 12th Assembly of the World Health Organisation adopted Resolution WHA 12-40
covering an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/127

stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would
be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct
of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).

The same article set out the explicit and partisan aims of the IAEA, stating that its main responsibility is to
encourage, assist and coordinate around the world research into, and the development and practical use of,
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In the WHO Constitution which was ratified in July 1946 and which
entered into force on 7 April 1947, in accordance with the United Nations Charter the contracting parties
adopted the following principle as basic to the security of all peoples:
‘Informed opinion and active
cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of
the people. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples’. In the report which it
submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic
energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for
a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.

Is the Commission not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with
WHO reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?

Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the
objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programmes and action in the field
of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR
or the effects of Chernobyl in Eastern Europe)?

Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that
it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish
the report of the proceedings, should the Commission not denounce the collusion brought about by some
provisions of the agreement?

Will the Commission undertake, within the framework of its bilateral dialogue with these two international
institutions, to demand the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 (Article 1(3), under which each party is
to provide the other with information), as provided for in Article 13 thereof?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health
Organisation (WHO) follows the model of agreements concluded between the WHO and the United
Nations or other international organisations. Such agreements establish a general framework to enable the
parties to shape and develop their cooperation according to their programmes and priorities, and do not
contain detailed obligations. It is customary, for example, for organisations to agree to consult on matters
of joint interest or on which either party may have a substantial interest. However, as Article 1 of the
Agreement makes clear, such commitment does not in any way imply a submission of one organisation to
the authority of the other so as to affect their independence and responsibilities under their respective
constitutional mandates.

According to Statement WHO/06 of 23 February 2001 on ‘Interpretation of
the World Health
Organisation’s Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency’, the 1959 Agreement between
the IAEA and the WHO does not affect the impartial and independent exercise by WHO of its statutory
responsibilities; nor does it place WHO in a situation of subordination to IAEA.

(2003/C 161 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3666/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Accident involving the tanker ‘Moskovskiy Festival’

(18 December 2002)

During the last weekend in November, the single-hulled tanker the Moskovskiy Festival, built in 1985 and
flying the Maltese flag, was intercepted by Spanish and Portuguese warships as it was passing Gibraltar and
escorted out of the 200 nautical mile exclusion zone.