WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR)and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Compensation for the costs of cleaning up oil on the Zeeland and South Holland coast.
Date: 2003-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Holland, Zeeland, civil liability, coastal pollution, decontamination, environmental liability, indemnification, oil pollution, polluter pays principle, prevention of pollution

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/99

The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), through its second pillar (Rural Development Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations) (3),
can already finance measures which have a particular relevance for flood prevention if Member States
choose to include such measures into their Rural Development programmes. Currently, some of these
programmes foresee direct or indirect measures for the prevention or reduction of environmental risks.
Measures that will help to increase the water retention capacity of the soil (e.g. afforestation, maintenance
of grassland, organic matter incorporation) will have a direct reduction effect on floods. Likewise, any
measure aimed at climate change mitigation (e.g. promotion of renewable energies such as bio-gas,
reduction of animal stocking) is likely to have a positive (indirect) effect, since it is suspected that global
warming contributes to increasing the frequency of extreme weather events.

For the future, the Commission proposals for a CAP reform, as set out in a Communication (4) recently
published would, if adopted, result in an increased budget being available through pillar II, which Member
States could use to increase their support for risk prevention activities. This would be brought about by
using modulation to shift money from pillar I to pillar II. The introduction of mandatory cross-compliance
for farmers receiving direct payments will reinforce the respect of statutory management requirements and
the maintenance of good agricultural conditions, which comprise e.g. anti-erosion measures. It is proposed
to exclude changes in the land use of permanent pastures, in particular no conversion to arable land. The
single payment scheme will contribute to extensification, which would have positive consequences e.g. on
water retention capacity of soils.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy.

(2) Rhine: action plan flood protection adopted, implementation ongoing. Elbe: flood protection strategy adopted, draft
action programme currently validated following the 2002 flood disaster, adoption foreseen end-2003. Danube river:
minimisation of impacts of floods as part of the adopted action programme, follow-up evaluation ongoing. Maas
and Schelde: flood prevention and protection is key part of the recently signed new Conventions.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(4) COM(2003) 23 final.

(2004/C 11 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR)
and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation for the costs of cleaning up oil on the Zeeland and South Holland coast

The direct and indirect damage to the Zeeland and South Holland coast resulting from the disaster
involving the Tricolor which occurred in December in the Dover Straits is considerable. The costs of
cleaning up the oil (cost of hiring equipment and cleaning personnel, cost of removal of the oil) are
estimated at EUR 1 million.

Does the Commission consider that the European directives in the area of environmental liability

1.
must also cover the maritime sector and shipping?

Does the Commission consider that the polluter can also be made liable for indirect damage resulting

2.
from the Tricolor disaster?

3.
Is the Commission prepared to bear part of the costs incurred by the Netherlands coastal provinces
as a result of the damage, where the costs cannot be recovered from the polluter, in this instance the
owner of the Tricolor?

Does the Commission take the view that

4.
sufficiently with a view to preventing this environmental disaster?

the Netherlands and Belgian authorities cooperated

C 11 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2003)

The Commission firmly believes that

1.
appropriate liability regimes, be it at international level or at Community level.

the maritime sector and shipping should be subject

to

The proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental liability with
regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1) provides that when certain
international conventions are applicable it is they which must apply and not the future Directive. The
international conventions listed in the proposal for a Directive concern, inter alia, bunker oil pollution
damage, as in this case.

When it adopted the abovementioned proposal, the Commission took into account not only the existing
international legal framework but also the opinions it expressed when adopting the ‘ERIKA II’ package (see
the Communication on a second set of Community measures on maritime safety following the sinking of
the oil
the
international agreements in force). At the same time, it was of the opinion that an attempt should first be
made at the international level, since it would benefit the environment on a greater scale if an improved
international (worldwide) legal framework were in place.

in which the Commission undertook to seek to obtain a review of

tanker ERIKA (2),

More recently, in its Communication on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident (3), the
Commission reiterated its concerns regarding oil pollution damage and expressed similar concerns in
respect of other international conventions, including the Convention regulating civil liability for bunker oil
pollution damage.

Amending the Convention on civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage would require necessary steps
to be taken to that effect, by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Failing that, the Commission will consider whether it should not propose to take action at Community
level.

It is to be noted that the Convention on civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage has not yet entered
into force. Pending the entry into force of the Convention, the future Directive on environmental liability
would apply to instances of environmental damage caused by bunker oil pollution.

2.
The Commission is not in a position to answer this question in the abstract, particularly as the
Honourable Members do not specify which types of indirect damage they are referring to. In any case,
whether indirect damage is subject to compensation or not and, if it is, how it is determined by the
applicable sets of rules and what approach is followed may vary from one State to the next and from one
legal system to another. It should be noted, however, that as far as measures taken to prevent or minimise
pollution damage are concerned, the costs associated with taking such preventive measures would have
been eligible for compensation either under the international Convention on civil liability for bunker oil
pollution damage or the future Directive on environmental liability, had they been in force at the relevant
time.

3.
Some of the Zeeland and South Holland municipalities affected by oil from the Tricolor fall within
the area covered by the Single Programming Document for Community structural assistance under
Objective 2 in the South region in the Netherlands (CCI 2000.NL.16.2.DO.003). Of course, this is only a
relatively small part of the solution. Nonetheless, this programme includes measures which could enable
environmental projects to be co-financed, which is something the management authority could usefully
exploit if it considers it necessary.

As for the Solidarity Fund set up on 11 November 2002, the fact is that the disaster is of insufficient scale
to qualify for payments from the Fund under the principal criterion (that damage must exceed 3 billion
euros or 0,6 % of the gross national income (GNI) of the country concerned). The Netherlands could
always apply for an exceptional payment from the Solidarity Fund, such payments being made in the event
of disasters with a particularly serious impact on the economy of the region concerned. The Commission
would then examine the application, though the total sum available to the Fund for exceptional assistance
is unfortunately close to being fully spent.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/101

As the Honourable Members know, responding to pollution incidents is primarily the responsibility
4.
of the Member States. The Commission’s role is mainly to support cooperation among national competent
authorities.

The Commission’s European Response Centre was in contact with the Belgian, French and Dutch
authorities following the Tricolor accident.

In this context, the only request for assistance the Commission has received came from the Belgian
authorities concerning the cleaning of oiled birds.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002.
(2) COM(2000) 802 final.
(3) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2004/C 11 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Research spending and Basel II

The Lisbon process stresses that technology-based firms are expected to provide a positive impetus,
particularly as regards the creation of new jobs. However, in contrast to the International Accounting
Standard, development activity on the part of many technology-based SMEs cannot be capitalised, with the
result that these firms have a correspondingly high level of negative equity. Arrangements therefore need
to be made for technology-based SMEs through Basel II which take account of the fact that the level of
negative equity is not a product of poor management but of research-intensive activity.

How are research spending and operational
procedures conducted by banks or rating agencies?

investment treated in current internal or external rating

What consequences arise from the choice of rating procedure or from differences in the rating methods
used by large or regional banks?

How high is the proportion of firms whose credit-worthiness has been increased, reduced or kept at the
same level as a result of the application of Basel II?

What differences exist in this respect between various sectors and sizes of firm?

How does the Commission assess these factors? Will it draw on them in its preparatory work on the
implementation of Basel II in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member are important issues for the European economy. Credit
including of course technology-oriented
financing for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),
companies, should receive a proportionate treatment under the new capital adequacy regime. This is an
important issue for the Commission, which has underlined this fact already several
times. Actually
compared to the second consultative document, Basel has changed its proposal in relation to the treatment
of SMEs significantly. The Commission will in the ongoing negotiations in Basel seek to ensure that the
proportionate treatment of SMEs is maintained.