WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/03 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Aid to those affected by the oil slick caused by the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, Galicia, indemnification, man-made disaster, oil pollution, prevention of pollution, support policy

C 161 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(2003/C 161 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Production levy in France

Further to my question No. P-2720/01 (1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on
this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The French authorities has sent the Commission elements of a reply on the levy on meat import into
France to be consumed there. It is still examining the measure and hopes to adopt a position very soon.
It will not fail to inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of it’s examination.

(2003/C 161 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Aid to those affected by the oil slick caused by the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige

The sinking of the oil tanker Prestige last November and the resulting oil slick undoubtedly constitute the
greatest environmental disaster in Spain’s recent history and have adversely affected thousands of people.
The European Council meeting in Copenhagen (cf. Conclusions 32, 33 and 34) expressed its regret and
grave concerns with regard to the serious accident involving the oil tanker Prestige off the north west coast
of Spain and considered that the ensuing damage to the marine and socio-economic environment and the
threat to the livelihood of thousands of people were intolerable.

tangible aid measures to assist the people and areas affected did the Commission adopt by

What
31 December 2002?

What are the dates of adoption and the sums involved? When were they requested by Spain?

Do any of the aid measures constitute an amount additional to the Community budget allocations which
Spain would in any event have received in accordance with Community legislation even if the disaster had
not happened?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission joins the Honourable Member in expressing its solidarity with the thousands of people
affected by the Prestige accident. The Union can offer support to the Spanish authorities in dealing with
the consequences of the accident in a number of ways.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/167

Firstly, under the rules in force, the Spanish government may use certain sums from the ERDF and the
Cohesion Fund already allocated to Spain for 2000-2006 to combat the consequences of the disaster. The
Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Spanish authorities have already notified their
wish to finance some cleaning up work from measure 3.5 (‘Coastal environmental measures’) of the
operational programme for Galicia 2000-2006, which has assistance from the ERDF of EUR 64 516 472.

Secondly, to help alleviate the consequences of the accident for the fisheries sector, the Commission
proposed to the Council certain modifications to the existing legal framework for structural interventions
in the fishing sector to support the fishing fleet and the aquaculture sector in that area in order to provide
financial aid.

As a result of this proposal, the Council adopted on 20 December 2002 Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002
instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture
affected by the oil spills from the Prestige (1).

A total Community allocation of EUR 30 million is foreseen for the following specific measures:

(a)

compensation to persons and owners of enterprises for the temporary cessation of their activities;

(b) measures to encourage the replacement of fishing gear, of other auxiliary equipments and the repair of

the affected boats and the replacement of damaged elements;

(c) measures to encourage the cleaning, the repairing and the reconstruction of shellfish and aquaculture

sites;

(d) measures to compensate for the replacement of shellfish stocks.

Thirdly, the Commission is also looking at other sources of finance, such as the Union Solidarity Fund,
which was, however, set up primarily to assist in the event of natural disasters, not only environmental
ones, and for which the legislator laid down restrictive eligibility criteria. The Commission is currently
considering the application made by the Spanish authorities on 14 January 2003 in terms of the criteria
laid down by Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund. Possible aid
from the Solidarity Fund could contribute mainly to the cleaning of beaches. These financial resources
would be over and above other assistance previously decided on.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0009/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2003)

Subject: Lack of objectivity in the Commission’s study on fish-farming

In Written Question E-2675/02 (1) I said ‘the industrial farming of carnivorous fish is today the principal
threat to the sustainable development of fisheries’, a view based on a number of studies published by
scientific journals such as ‘Nature’ and the opinions of many environmental organisations, which can easily
be found on the Internet and which, apparently, only the Commission does not know about.

To my amazement,
instead of receiving an answer to my questions, I was confronted with a crude
distortion of my statements, from which the specific reference to carnivorous fish (cid:1) which was the whole
point of the question (cid:1) was omitted.

Furthermore, the Commission has shown itself incapable of acting responsibly, arguing that there is no
detailed evidence of very high levels of PCBs in salmon in order to justify its inaction, despite the fact that
this information is available to everybody and I myself mentioned some of the best-known sources.