WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/03 by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (PSE),María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission. Sinking of the lighter Spabunker IV in Algeciras Bay.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Gibraltar, Mediterranean Sea, environmental liability, maritime safety, maritime shipping, pollution control measures, pollution from ships

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/117

The Country Strategy Paper for Tuvalu was signed on 14 August 2002, and it will cover the period
between 2002 and 2007. Development aid will consist of EUR 4 million over the identified period of time
mainly focused on social sector development. In the past, however, some projects related to energy
efficiency, coastal protection and the use of renewable energy sources were financed through Community
programmes under the Lomé Convention.

Furthermore, the Commission follows constantly the evolution of the environmental situation in Tuvalu
through regular contacts with the Government,
inter alia in occasion of Joint Annual Reviews, and
missions in the field carried out by the staff of the Commission’s Delegation in Fiji.

(2003/C 242 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/03

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (PSE),
María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Sinking of the lighter Spabunker IV in Algeciras Bay

(7 February 2003)

Although the surface area of the Mediterranean Sea amounts to just 1 % of the total surface area of the
world’s oceans, 20 % of the world’s petrol tankers and 28 % of its oil transit through its waters. The
situation calls for especially protective Community and international rules. Algeciras Bay, with the port of
Gibraltar, is a particularly vulnerable enclave owing both to its high density of oil traffic and its special
legal status. It is estimated that in recent years it has seen over forty major oil spillages. The last of these
followed the sinking of the lighter Spabunker IV, which was carrying over a thousand tonnes of fuel oil.

1.
Can the Commission indicate whether bunkering (the transfer of fuel from one vessel to another) and
the ‘floating refuelling stations’ habitually found in Algeciras Bay are permitted under international and
Community rules, and whether Gibraltar and the Member States are complying with these rules;

2.
Also whether it will gather information on the sinking of the Spabunker IV and establish whether the
accident involved any non-compliance with the rules? In any event, will the Commission tighten up the
legislation as it stands?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

The Commission has been informed about the sinking of Spabunker IV in Algeciras Bay on 21 January
2003 and regrets that it led to the death of the vessel’s master. According to the information the
Commission has, the vessel did spill some of its fuel when it sank. However, no leakage of heavy fuel oil
seems to have been detected.

The information available to the Commission indicates that the Spanish authorities have now finished
pumping the cargo out of the vessel. This does not seem to have been too difficult in view of the shallow
depth at which the wreck lies and its position on the seabed.

As regards the risks of bunkering in Algeciras Bay and Gibraltar, the Honourable Members are referred to
the Commission’s answer to oral question H-0800/02 from Mr García Margallo y Marfil during the
Parliament’s plenary session in December 2002 (1).

The Commission intends to be particularly vigilant as regards compliance with good practice and to make
sure that those who cause pollution are effectively held to account. It is with this in mind that, on 5 March
2003, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal (2) to apply criminal sanctions to any shipowner,
shipper, classification society or any other person responsible for pollution as a result of gross negligence.

Furthermore, the Commission does not intend to investigate this incident. This is a matter for the national
authorities, which will have to determine exactly what happened. For its part,
the Commission is
continuing with the action it started in the wake of the sinking of the Prestige.

C 242 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

In line with the Council’s conclusions, the Commission has therefore proposed banning the carriage of
heavy oil products by single hull oil tankers of more than 600 tonnes deadweight. The Commission’s
proposal (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (3)) is currently before the Council and Parliament.

(1) Oral answer of 17.12.2002.
(2) COM(2003) 92 final.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the
accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 (cid:1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

Is the Commission aware that, owing to foot-and-mouth disease, local markets for live animals have almost
collapsed over the last few years and that animal breeders therefore bringing the animals directly to their
customers and that, as a result, the derogation provided for in Article 13, paragraph 1 (e) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
relating to road transport, as interpreted literally, applies increasingly rarely in practice? Does it consider
that the article in question may also be applied to the transportation of live animals from farms directly to
customers instead of to local markets?

In the case in question a farm which has specialised in pig-breeding regularly transports live animals with
its own vehicle issued with an agricultural permit. The driver was recently told during traffic controls that
the vehicle had to be fitted with recording equipment (a tachograph) except in certain exceptional cases.
The above Regulation was cited as the justification for this. No other exceptions apart from that provided
for in Article 13, paragraph 1(e), of the Regulation applied to the present case. Article 13, paragraph 1(e)
provides that ‘vehicles used for carrying live animals from farms to the local markets’ may be exempted
from the requirement to fit recording equipment. Through the collapse of local markets, animals have to
be transported directly from breeding to fattening farms. This provision should therefore also apply to the
transportation of animals directly between farms and not only through the intermediary of local markets.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the current Article 13(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of
20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport cannot be
used to exempt the direct transport of live animals from farms to clients. Given the road safety purpose of
the Regulation, the exemptions should in any case be interpreted restrictively.

The proposal submitted to the Parliament and to the Council to amend the above mentioned Regulation (1)
indeed recognizes the fact that this exemption is an anomaly and has therefore proposed its deletion.
A more general derogation is foreseen for vehicles used amongst others by agricultural and farming
undertakings in the new Article 13(1)(b) as long as they carry their goods within a 50-kilometer radius
from their base. This would enable direct short distance deliveries. Longer distances would fall within the