WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Stemnitsa.
Date: 2003-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU relations, Finland, Russia, bilateral relations, common transport policy, environmental risk prevention, international transport, maritime safety, oil pollution, tanker

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/193

(cid:1) the volume of oil which Russia transports through the Baltic is growing rapidly;

(cid:1) Russia (including Kaliningrad) appears to be utterly unequipped to deal properly with an oil spill of a

magnitude consistent with the volumes being transported.

What will the Commission do to reduce the risks arising from Russia’s transportation of oil in the Baltic? Is
the Commission aware of all the problems, including the above? Apart from the most senior political level,
at what other levels will the Commission make representations on the matter?

(2003/C 222 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: The Stemnitsa

The EU’s future director of maritime safety, Willem de Ruiter, has informed the Finnish media that the
hazard posed by the oil tanker Stemnitsa operating in the Baltic is a matter to be resolved bilaterally by
Finland and Russia, and that the EU cannot do anything about it.

Why can the EU supposedly not take any action in this respect? The Stemnitsa is sailing under the Greek
flag, so that the matter can hardly be regarded as purely one for Finland and Russia. Moreover, the Baltic is
virtually an internal sea of the EU: protecting the Baltic is even a major aspect of the Northern Dimension
programme.

According to Mr de Ruiter, no Community standards exist for the protection of oil tankers against ice
pressure. Yet ice is a natural annual phenomenon in the Northern parts of the EU. It is difficult to see,
therefore, how it would be possible to maintain that the matter does not concern the EU.

What will the Commission do to prevent oil tankers like the Stemnitsa, which are inadequately protected
against ice pressure, from operating in conditions for which they are not designed and in which they
present a serious safety hazard?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0384/03, P-0408/03, E-0410/03 and E-0420/03
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problem of navigation in the Gulf of Finland and shares the concern of
the Finnish authorities about the risks connected with the transport of hydrocarbons by sea under winter
conditions.

The Commission has closely monitored the situation brought about by the voyage of the oil tanker
Stemnitsa to the Primorski terminal. It has informed the Russian authorities of its concern about the
exceptionally difficult ice conditions in the Gulf of Finland.

Following the ERIKA and Prestige disasters, the Commission has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for
harmonised measures to prevent new disasters in the Union’s external waters, including the Baltic. Under
the agreement between the Union and Russia, contacts have been established with the Russian authorities
to ensure compliance with the measures which the EU intends to take to secure the transport of
hydrocarbons by sea, and in particular to ban the transport of heavy fuel by single-hull tankers.

However, it should be noted that the Union does not have any legal authority to regulate the passage
through international waters of vessels carrying potentially dangerous cargo, even near the coast of the
Member States and even if such cargo is carried under the icy conditions prevailing in the Baltic in winter.

C 222 E/194

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Accordingly, the Commission deems it necessary to amend the international law of the sea so as to ensure
a better balance between freedom of movement and the interests of coastal States who should be able to
protect their coast against ecological disasters.

The Commission has asked all of the Union’s neighbouring countries as well as its main partners to take
firmer action to improve the international legal rules governing pollution caused by ships. It has asked all
Member States for their support to actively promote within the United Nations, the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) and other competent bodies the adaptation of the provisions of the law of the sea to
the new maritime safety requirements in the 21st century.

Finally, the Commission should like to point out that newspaper reports do not necessarily represent the
Commission’s position nor, as in the present case, that of the Executive Director of the Maritime Safety
Agency.

As for the specific question of navigation under icy conditions, it should be noted that there are currently
no Community rules dealing with this and that such rules could not cover vessels on transit journeys not
calling at the Union’s ports. However, in the framework of measures already taken by the Union to prevent
oil tanker accidents, the Directive on monitoring and controlling maritime traffic enables the competent
authorities to prevent ships from leaving port in very poor weather conditions. The Directive also gives
wider powers to the Member States to intervene when there is a risk of accident or pollution.

In any case, the Commission is ready to fully support the efforts of the Finnish authorities to work towards
an agreement with the countries around the Gulf of Finland on safety rules for the maritime transport of
hydrocarbons under icy conditions.

(2003/C 222 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0386/03

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Progress of 3rd CSF projects in the Epirus region

(7 February 2003)

Under the 3rd CSF, Epirus benefits from a regional operational programme with an overall budget of
EUR 581 313 237 and from the construction of part of the Ionian Way, which is the third priority project
in the sectoral operational programme ‘Roads, Ports and Urban Development’.

According to a statement made by the Greek Ministry for the Economy and Finance in December 2002,
the take-up rate of funds for the Epirus regional programme is 10 %. As regards the Ionian Way, the
annual report of the programme’s management for 2001 states that progress in financial terms is nil as no
decision was taken to incorporate the project in the programme during 2001, while details of the progress
of the works will be given in the annual report for 2002.

Is the abovementioned take-up rate of funds for the regional operational programme correct and does it
relate to contractual commitments or actual expenditure?

Does the Commission know why the above programme has such a low take-up rate when Epirus was and
remains the poorest region in the Union?

What are the prospects for the future funding of the programme from 2004 and beyond?

What is the likelihood of the programme being financed from the reserve, given that at the current rate
only 30 % of the budget will have been used by 2006?

As regards the Ionian Way project, can the Commission say what amount has been spent and what
contracts have been signed to date?