WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/03 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission. Combating marine pollution caused by the sinking of the Prestige.
Date: 2003-05-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Eurocorps, civil defence, coastal protection, environmental cooperation, marine pollution, pollution control, pollution control measures

C 58 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The planned reform will allow the Member States to subdivide their base area using objective criteria. In
that case, it will be up to them to decide whether to subdivide their base area so that the impact of any
reductions can differentiated by region of production.

In any case, agri-environmental aid may be granted over and above specific aid for rural development in
accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain
Regulations (1).

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 58 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Commemoration of Saint Mark of Aviano, symbol of European identity

Pope John Paul II has canonised the Capuchin priest Mark of Aviano, emphasising his prophetic mission as
a man of peace, and holding him up as a symbol of a common European cultural identity.

Can the Commission state what initiatives the EU intends to undertake, at a time when a Constitution
affirming Europe’s Christian cultural and spiritual roots is being prepared, to celebrate (together with Saint
Benedict, Patron Saint of Europe) Mark of Aviano, a great European, defender of Vienna and an
extraordinary man of peace?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The notable merits of Marco d’Aviano unfortunately do not alter the fact that the Commission must
confine its work to its areas of competence, so no specific action to commemorate the life and testimony
of this Saint will be launched on the Commission’s own initiative. As a matter of record, Honourable
Members have drawn the attention of the Commission to the merits of individual Saints before, and the
Commission’s response has been the same. The Commission could draw the Honourable Member’s
attention for example to the reply given to question E-0559/93 by Mr Fernandez-Albor (1).

(1) OJ C 320, 26.11.1993.

(2004/C 58 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/03

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Combating marine pollution caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’

Southern Brittany is now having to deal with the problem of pellets of fuel oil from the ‘Prestige’, which
sank off the Galician coast over six months ago, being washed up along its shores. The hulk is still leaking
oil, and we now have proof that the decision to tow the ‘Prestige’ away from the Spanish coast helped
ensure more extensive and widespread pollution of the European coastline.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/83

The risk of pollution will remain unless and until the oil lying at the bottom of the sea in the vessel is
removed. The techniques used to pump up oil from the Erika cannot be used on this occasion, as the
‘Prestige’ is lying at too great a depth. The attempts made by Ifremer to seal up the wreck by robot have
not proved sufficiently effective and at present about a tonne of oil is leaking per day. At that rate, it could
take months or even years for the risk to disappear.

Along the European coastline, two activities have been particularly badly affected by this disaster: fishing
and aquaculture, which are directly affected by the pollution, and the tourist industry, for which clean
beaches are a priority. Everyone is asking the same question: When will this pollution stop?

Does the Commission at last have any plans to issue a call for an international project to neutralise the oil
pollution caused by the ‘Prestige’? If so, when will it do so? Does the Commission have any plans to set up
a ‘Eurocorps’ for civil emergencies to allow the rapid deployment of qualified human resources and
appropriate technical means to clean up affected areas? Does the Commission have any plans to consider
the construction of anti-pollution vessels designed to track down pollution at sea, rather than waiting for it
to wash up on our shores?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Commission fully shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about the problem caused
by the oil in the wreck of the ‘Prestige’, which represents a threat for the marine and coastal environment
of Spain and France.

Concerning the neutralisation of the pollution of the ‘Prestige’, the Honourable Member of Parliament is
invited to refer to the previous oral question H-069/03 by Mr Nogueira Roman during question time at
Parliament’s March 2003 session (1) and Written Questions E-3595/02 (2) and E-1259/03 (3) both by
Mr Nogueira Roman.

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that a report on actions dealing with the effects of the
‘Prestige’ disaster was adopted on 5 March 2003. This report, submitted to the European Council of
21 March 2003, examines past, present and future actions undertaken at Community level to remedy the
consequences of the ‘Prestige’ disaster and to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future.

Concerning the setting-up of a Civil Protection Eurocorps or an Euro Coast Guard, the Honourable
Member is invited to refer to previous oral question H-197/03 by Mr Dhaene during question time at
Parliament’s April 2003 session (4). Civil Protection measures fall under the competence of the Member
States and are governed by the principle of subsidiarity.

Moreover, it should be stressed that the Commission is already active in this field. At the Commission’s
initiative, a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in the field of civil protection (5)
has been set-up. This framework can provide a way for a better Civil Protection co-ordination within as
well as outside the Union. One of the key elements in this context has been the setting-up, within the
Commission, of the Civil Protection Response Centre. This Centre is in place since 1 January 2002 and
available on a permanent basis, 24-hours a day. Once activated by a request from one of the participating
countries, the Centre can immediately call upon Member State Civil Protection resources, as already pre-
identified, for all types of major emergencies. The Commission considers that the Civil Protection Response
Centre, which builds on all available national capacities, represents an effective tool that addresses the
concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the idea of creating a Civil Protection Eurocorps is certainly interesting and the Commission
will carefully follow the discussions on this issue, also in the context of the Convention.

The Commission has already broached the issue of specialised vessels to combat pollution at sea, by
financing a specific pilot project under the Community framework for cooperation in the field of response
to marine pollution (6). The results have been sent to competent national authorities and a summary report
is available on the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/marin/mp09_en_rol-
lingplan.htm).

C 58 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Moreover, the Commission has already announced its intention to amend the Regulation creating the
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in order to enable EMSA to purchase or lease anti-pollution
ships in cases of maritime pollution in the Union.

(1) Written reply, 11.3.2003.
(2) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 63.
(3) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 121.
(4) Oral reply, 8.4.2003.
(5) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate

reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions, OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(6) Council Decision 2850/2000 of 20 December 2000 setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the

field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2004/C 58 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Cancellation of the colloquy on multilingualism

(19 May 2003)

If my information is correct, the Commission agreed to finance a colloquy on multilingualism in the
European institutions and in Europe, to be held on 5/6 May 2003. Apparently, the Commission suggested
holding a preparatory meeting to draw up the list of topics to be discussed. The meeting was held on
27/28 January 2003 and was attended by experts from the Member States and eminent people in the
cultural sphere. Despite the apparent success of the preparatory meeting, the Commission decided to
cancel the scheduled colloquy.

1.

Can the Commission state the reasons for the cancellation?

Does it not consider that by taking this decision it

2.
its institutional
prerogatives, that of identifying the general interest and making proposals for safeguarding it, and also
failed to meet the commitment it made to experts and representatives of civil society with whom the idea
of holding the colloquy originated?

failed to exploit one of

3.
Does it not consider, in the interests of respecting the cultural diversity of the EU countries, that a
harmonious balance should be reached between languages and populations, in order to avoid patronising
and silencing these different cultures by not promoting multilingualism?

Does it not consider that there is a close link between a people’s language and identity and that

4.
exclusion of the former may be an attempt to abolish and proscribe the latter?

Does it not consider that it would be appropriate to consider once again the idea of holding the

5.
colloquy on the value of multilingualism in the near future?

Answer by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

Following an initiative from various bodies interested in language policies, a Symposium on Multi-
lingualism in the Enlarged Union and its Institutions was scheduled for 5/6 May 2003, in the European
Parliament.

In preparation, the Commission organised and financed a meeting with language experts from the Member
States on 27/28 January 2003.

Difficulties relating to the logistics of organising such an important event within the given timeframe
meant, however, that the symposium had to be postponed to a later date (cid:1) not cancelled as the
Honourable Member asserts in her Question.