WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/03 by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Mobilisation of civil defence forces in the wake of the Prestige disaster.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, France, Portugal, Spain, civil defence, coordination of aid, environmental protection, oil pollution, operation of the Institutions

C 268 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

(2003/C 268 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0274/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject: Daphne programme

The AMCV (Association of Women Against Violence) is one of Portugal’s best recognised and most active
NGOs in the field of violence against women and children, in particular domestic violence, rape and sexual
abuse. Over a ten-year period the AMCV has provided support for approximately 4 000 women with an
average of two or three children apiece.

Under the Daphne initiative the AMCV submitted a project in partnership with countries such as Spain,
Italy, Ireland and Denmark. The project was ultimately rejected.

For what reasons and on what grounds was the project rejected, despite the fact that Portugal has been a
Priority 1 country over the last few years and certainly has much work to do in the above areas? Given
this state of affairs it is all the more curious that, according to an analysis of the project-distribution
pattern for all 15 EU Member States, Portugal has had only one project approved in each of the last two
years.

Since the Commission has reportedly drawn attention to what it alleges are shortcomings on the part of
the organiser, would it provide an explanation regarding the basis for such a judgment?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Since 1997 the Daphne initiative and subsequently the Daphne programme have been victims of their
own success, with over 1 600 proposals being submitted, of which only 13 % could be selected for
financing, given the modest budget of EUR 5 million per year.

Fully aware of these limitations, and in view also of Parliament’s favourable resolution on the Daphne
programme (A5-0233/2002), the Commission has just approved a draft decision on a second programme
(Daphné II) for the period 2004-2008, with a higher budget, designed to continue the work in progress.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that eight projects with a Portuguese coordinator
have been financed since 1997, which gives Portuguese proposals a success rate of 22 % (by comparison
with the average of 13 %). Over the same period, more than 50 Portuguese associations and local
authorities have participated in some 25 Daphne projects.

On 18 October 2002 the Commission gave the Associaçao de Mulheres contra a violencia (AMCV)
detailed reasons for the rejection of the project to which the Honourable Member refers. These did not
allege that the AMCV was incompetent in any way. Quite the reverse, the skills of the AMCV have been
recognised as demonstrated by its participation in six other Daphne projects and in a large-scale, two-year
project selected in 2002.

(2003/C 268 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/03

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Mobilisation of civil defence forces in the wake of the ‘Prestige’ disaster

In connection with the efforts to deal with the oil pollution caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’ there
were severe delays in implementing the civil defence measures coordinated by the relevant authorities. This
is well illustrated by the fact that Belgian civil defence units were on the scene before the Spanish Army.
Volunteers from throughout Europe have demonstrated their solidarity by helping to clean the oil from
beaches.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/87

In the light of the above, can the European Commission state:

1. Whether it received from the Spanish, Portuguese or French authorities requests for logistical or
coordinating assistance or assistance in the form of know-how in the first three weeks following the
‘Prestige’ disaster?

2. Does it intend, in the future, to play in a role in developing a European civil defence force or in

coordinating the Member States’ civil defence forces?

3. Does it intend to introduce a voluntary civil defence force coordinated at European level?

4. Which Commissioner and which department in which DG is responsible for civil defence?

5.

Is the Commission offering know-how and practical support or coordination in connection with the
sustainable rehabilitation of affected areas covered by the Natura 2000 programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

1.
The Civil Protection and Monitoring Centre (MIC) received a request for assistance from Spain for oil
recovery vessels, sea booms and miscellaneous equipment, in the three weeks following the accident of the
‘Prestige’. A Community mission of observers was also dispatched to the affected area. France and Portugal
produced similar requests for assistance. France in particular asked the MIC for assistance in finding
additional surveillance planes within the Union.

2.
The Community Civil Protection Co-operation Mechanism established by a Council Decision adopted
on 23 October 2001 (1), has paved the way for better Civil Protection assistance co-ordination for the
Member States’ interventions inside or outside the Union. It is not compulsory for Member States to call
upon the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. The aim of the MIC, which is part of the Mechanism, is
to facilitate co-operation between the Member States. It also acts as a clearinghouse for offers of assistance
from Member States. The mechanism is not an Union commanding post; the final decision remains with
Member States.

3.
The Community Civil Protection Co-operation Mechanism provides for advance identification of
national intervention teams and experts that could be available for emergency interventions at short notice.
These resources have to be identified by the competent authorities of the Member States. Many Member
States have identified resources that include volunteers under a national co-ordination principle.

The Member of the Commission in charge of Environment is responsible for Civil Protection at

4.
Commission level. The Civil Protection unit is part of Directorate General Environment.

5.
In accordance with the Habitats Directive (article 6), Member States are responsible for establishing
the appropriate conservation measures and take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of habitats
and species.

After the ‘Prestige’ accident, Member States have to take the necessary restoration and recovering measures.
the legal basis for financing/co-financing the
Although the ‘Habitats Directive’ establishes (article 8)
essential measures to maintain and/or re-establish a favourable conservation status of the Natura 2000
areas, at this stage no specific Natura 2000 fund has been established yet.

Member States, in the framework of the Habitats Committee (article 20), could request technical support to
another Member State or to the Commission.

(1) Council Decision of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in

civil protection assistance interventions (2001/792/EC, Euratom).