WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Structural inspections of ships.
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, maritime safety, maritime transport, oil pollution, tanker, transport regulations

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/143

Originally the maximum allocation to each Member State for 2002, as laid down in Commission Decision
2001/854/EC (2), was based on the size of the bovine population in that Member State. The amounts were
increased by Commission Decision 2002/246/EC (3)
the
monitoring programme in small ruminants and changed monitoring programmes in Austria and Finland.

in March 2002 following an expansion of

From Member State reports, it soon became evident that some Member States were overspending and
other were not using the full amount allocated to them. According to reports from the Commission’s Food
and Veterinary Office, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring programme is generally
well implemented and cases where animals would have been slaughtered without testing have not been
reported. Failure to test all slaughtered animals is therefore not the reason why some Member States are
testing a lower percentage of their adult cattle population annually than others. The reason for the
variation is that in some Member States cows are kept to a higher age, and thereby a smaller percentage of
the total adult cattle population is slaughtered each year.

The allocations for 2002 were adjusted for the second time in November 2002 by Commission Decision
2002/945/EC (4) with a view to transfer money from Member States not using the full amount allocated to
them to those which were overspending. Details of the maximum amounts allocated to each Member State
for 2002 and 2003 can be found in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.
(2) 2001/854/EC: Commission Decision of 3 December 2001 approving the programmes for the monitoring for TSE
presented for 2002 by the Member States and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (notified
under document number C(2001) 3819) (cid:1) OJ L 318, 4.12.2001.

(3) 2002/246/EC: Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 amending Decisions 2001/730/EC and 2001/854/EC on
the Community’s financial contribution to the Member States’ TSE monitoring programmes for 2002 (notified
under document number C(2002) 1266) (cid:1) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002.

(4) 2002/945/EC: Commission Decision of 28 November 2002 amending Decisions 2001/730/EC and 2001/854/EC as
regards the allocation of the Community’s financial contribution to Member States’ TSE monitoring programmes for
2002 (notified under document number C(2002) 4594) (cid:1) OJ L 326, 3.12.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Structural inspections of ships

Does the Commission accept that European citizens are entitled to know whether the current inspection
regime for ships is likely to be effective in preventing tragedies like the sinking of the ERIKA and Prestige?

The Commission in its answer to Written Question P-3484/02 (1) has entirely failed to address the issue of
structural inspections referred to in the penultimate paragraph. Could the Commission now address those
issues?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 95.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission considers it unrealistic to expect current port-State control procedures to be sure to
detect structural damage to ships such as that which affected the ERIKA and the Prestige.

For this reason, International Maritime Organisation instruments and Community regulations on single-
hull tankers provide for the introduction of a system of structural inspections of ships, known as the
condition assessment system (CAS).

C 242 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The condition assessment system (CAS) introduced under 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 (1) is an additional reinforced inspection scheme, specifically developed to detect structural weaknesses
in single-hull oil tankers over 20 000 tonnes which have not yet attained their age limit. It is carried out
every two and a half years by the flag State and by classification societies acting on its behalf.

Following the wreck of the Prestige, the Commission drew up a proposal for an amendment to Regulation
(EC) No 417/2002 (see the Communication of 20 December 2002) (2) on the accelerated phasing-in of
double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, and reinforcing the inspection
procedures. Accordingly, from 2005, the Commission proposes the extension of that measure to single-
hull oil tankers of all categories still in use, including those below 20 000 tonnes, once they have attained
the age of 15 years. Political agreement was reached on the proposal at the Transport Council on
27 March 2003.

In order to apply these measures beyond the Member States, the Commission plans to coordinate action
against flags of convenience by improving the supervision of maritime administrations and recognised
bodies which check the structural integrity of ships. The first steps were taken to create an audit procedure
at the Tokyo ministerial conference in January 2002 and the idea was supported by the Commission in its
White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (3).

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.
(2) COM(2002) 780 final.
(3) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 242 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland

(26 February 2003)

Working on behalf of the Federal German Government, DEGES is planning to link the island of Rügen to
the mainland by means of a bridge incorporating pylons built to a height of 126 metres. The project will
damage the unspoilt landscape of the island and neighbouring mainland areas. Rügen’s uniqueness and its
rich plant and animal life have for generations offered a guarantee of high-quality tourism and income for
the island’s inhabitants. Half of the funding for the project is to be provided from the ERDF, even though
there is clearly no need for a new bridge. The number of people using the existing link fell substantially
between 1992 and 2000.

1.

(b)

2.

(b)

(a)
Is the Commission aware that there is no need for the project referred to above, since the
capacity of the existing bridge is generally sufficient, with the risk of traffic congestion confined to a
small number of days at the beginning and end of the holidays?

Is the Commission aware that the parallel rail link offers substantial unused capacity which has not
been properly taken into account thus far?

(a) How does the Commission assess the financing arrangements for the bridge, which provide for
the repayment of loans from toll proceeds?

Is the Commission aware that this toll can be avoided, since the existing link will remain toll-free in
the interests of the local population?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that the bridge will stand right in the middle of a
route linking two European protection areas (DE 1543-401, DE 1747-401) for migratory birds and
seabirds under the bird protection directive, 79/409/EEC?

4.

(a) Despite the facts outlined above, does the Commission take the view that the project should be
funded using ERDF resources?

(b)

If so, on what grounds?