WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Rejection by the Council of the European Parliament and Commission proposal concerning the establishment of a COPE fund from which to pay compensation for pollution caused by oil spills.
Date: 2003-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Galicia, International Maritime Organisation, environmental liability, fund (EU), image, indemnification, maritime safety, oil pollution, the EU's international role

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/35

The situation of freedom of expression of opinion in Vietnam has not improved during 2002. On several
occasions, most recently in the joint Union declaration for the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in
December 2002, the Commission and the Member States have encouraged the government of Vietnam to
create a legal framework for a supportive environment to allow the development of a strengthened civil
society, from which Vietnam would greatly benefit.

The Commission’s policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human
rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or where a deterioration in the
situation becomes evident. This happens through monthly meetings of the Union’s ‘Politics and Human
Rights Group’, monthly Troika meetings with the Vietnamese government as well as ad-hoc missions (i.e.
to the Central Highlands) and through joint Union statements at, for example, the Consultative Group
meeting.

(2003/C 280 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Rejection by the Council of the European Parliament and Commission proposal concerning the
establishment of a COPE fund from which to pay compensation for pollution caused by oil spills

The disaster caused by the sinking of the Prestige off the coast of Galicia further emphasises the political
seriousness of the Council’s rejection of the European Parliament and Commission proposal concerning the
establishment of a COPE fund to pay compensation for pollution caused by oil spills. The Copenhagen
European Council (cid:1) which was attended by the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Aznar (cid:1) took the same view
of the matter even as seamen and volunteers were trying to clear the crude oil with their bare hands and it
opted once again (contrary to the interests of European society as a whole and, in particular, to Galicia’s
specific interests) to pass the decision on to the International Maritime Organisation. What reasons lie
behind this decision, which is incomprehensible to the general public?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

It is not true to say that the Council has rejected the Commission proposal concerning the establishment
of a COPE fund.

In the aftermath of the ERIKA incident, there was general agreement, as brought to expression in the
December 2000 Council conclusions, for considering that the level of compensation for oil pollution
damage offered by the existing liability and compensation regime was not sufficient. The Commission
consequently issued, in the framework of the ‘ERIKA II’ package, a proposal aiming at creating an EU
complementary compensation fund.

The April 2001 Council (Transport/Telecom) considered a common approach in the IMO framework
preferable as the best way to achieve the goal set up in the earlier mentioned December 2000 Council
conclusions, i.e. ‘ensure a proper and, as far as possible, global regime for liability and compensation in
cases of pollution damage resulting from contamination by petroleum products and other noxious and
hazardous substances transported by ships’. The common approach underlined that ‘an agreement within
the IMO should be reached as soon as possible, preferably by 2003’.

Good progress has been done on the subject in the IMO framework and a Diplomatic Conference is
scheduled on the matter for May 2003.

C 280 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

On 6 December 2002, the Council (Transport/Telecommunications/Energy) adopted conclusions on ships’
safety and pollution prevention. Among other measures, the Council committed itself to immediately
examining the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the establishment of a Community fund for the
compensation of oil pollution damage in European waters (COPE fund), with the aim of establishing it
before the end of 2003, in the case that a supplementary compensation fund for oil pollution is not
created by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Furthermore, responding more particularly to the recent sinking of the Prestige off the coast of Galicia, and
with regard to compensation for the ecological and economic damage, particularly in Northern Spain, the
Council (Agriculture and Fisheries) adopted on 20 December 2002 exceptional supporting measures to
supplement the actions taken in the context of the interventions of the Structural Funds in Spain for
compensating the sector affected by the oil spills from the Prestige accident.

(2003/C 280 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(28 January 2003)

Subject: North Korean refugees

The European Union is the UNHCR’s second largest donor after the United States. The recently published
UNHCR Annual Statistical Yearbook makes no mention of the estimated 200 000 North Korean refugees
in China. According to the UNHCR, China is denying the UNHCR access to the region where many North
Koreans are hiding, thereby violating international
law on refugees. Under a seven-year-old agreement
between China and the UNHCR, the latter is supposed to have free access to refugees. So far the UNHCR
has refused to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement.

When making budgets available to UNHCR, donor countries can earmark their contributions. Will the
European Union make use of this option in order to make funds available to provide for North Korean
refugees in China? If not, why not?

Will the European Union urge the UNHCR to make use of the option of submitting disputes between the
UNHCR and China to binding arbitration? If not, why not?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that both the EU Member States and the Community
make substantial financial contributions to the UNHCR, despite the fact that the Community as such as not
a member of the UNHCR.

As far as the use of national contributions is concerned, it is not for the Council to set the conditions for
such use, nor is it for the Council to interfere with the UNHCR’s evaluation of its bilateral relations with
China. With regard to the use of Community contributions, the Council invites the Honourable Member to
put his question to the Commission directly.

The EU has on numerous occasions raised the question of China’s treatment of North Korean asylum-
seekers in the context of its biannual political dialogue on human rights with China. At the most recent
round of the dialogue, on 5 and 6 March 2003, the EU also urged China to cooperate with the UNHCR.