WRITTEN QUESTION P-2971/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Toxic ships.
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, developing countries, export (EU), export restriction, hazardous waste, toxic substance, vessel, waste disposal

C 78 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The sum of EUR 150 000 relates to two mobility projects submitted in 2000 (i.e. before Mrs Puwak was
appointed Minister for European Integration) and another two in 2001.

The audit carried out by four Commission officials (two days in Bucharest then analysis of the documents
submitted in Brussels) concluded that the Romanian National Agency had called in independent experts for
the evaluation of project proposals in 2000 and 2001.

The Commission did not find evidence of any external attempt to influence this process, notably on the
part of the Romanian Government of the time.

For the record, the companies Imes and Haka, which were present at the proposal submission stage, were
replaced by the companies Millenium Consulting and DE*BE*ROM respectively as partners for hosting
trainees.

Management of the mobility support measure is decentralised and is the responsibility of the national
authorities, in this case the Romanian Ministry of Education. It has set up a special committee to carry out
another complete analysis of the reports from the four projects in question, looking in particular at the
supporting documentation for expenditure. The results of this inquiry should be released in the first week
of November 2003. The Ministry of Education has agreed to take any action deemed necessary in the light
of these results.

The Commission is following the Romanian committee of inquiry’s work closely.

Following the above mission, some irregularities were uncovered by the Directorate-General for Education
and Culture during a detailed examination of the files on the management of the Community funds
granted to the four projects. The Commission has made its position known to the Romanian authorities.
The European Antifraud Office has been called in to assess the allegations and is available to assist the
authorities concerned.

In any event, the Romanian National Agency was asked, back in late 2001, to draw up a plan for
improving mobility procedures.

On a broader scale, in January 2002 the Commission began setting up a quality assurance system for the
different stages of the mobility support measure for all participant countries.

The next stage will involve:

(cid:1) developing the quality assurance approach for the partnerships: creating a ‘Leonardo da Vinci charter’

setting out the promoter’s and its partners’ obligations;

(cid:1) improving the beneficiary reporting system in order to gain a better insight into their traineeships;

(cid:1) defining what is required from the National Agencies in terms of monitoring projects, based on

previously developed best practices.

(2004/C 78 E/0206)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2971/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Toxic ships

In 2003 (as of 1 September) 124 ships were dumped by European shipowners on breaking beaches in
Asia. This means that for all these 124 ships, toxic chemicals like asbestos, PCB, oil, sludge and paints have
found their way into the environment, polluting an ecosystem that is already being pushed to its limits. In
addition, workers on these breaking beaches have been exposed to dangerous and potentially lethal
substances.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/201

The current waste regulation ((EEC) 259/93 (1)) in the European Union prohibits the export of hazardous
wastes. The European Parliament attaches great importance to upholding these regulations to prevent
environmental pollution from wastes. The export of old ships in effect is the same as the export of
hazardous waste and there is concern that if nothing changes the European Union will continue to allow
the illegal export of hazardous waste despite existing regulations.

We draw the attention of the Commission to the following ship that is part of the batch of 124 sent to
Asia in 2003.

Skopelos, a crude oil tanker (274 949 dwt) from 1974 under Greek flag. The main heading for the vessel
was Aeolos Management S.A. The registered owner was E.N.E. Skopelos Ltd (a small Greek company with
apparently no other ships).

The final voyage of this vessel in 2003 started directly out of European waters straight to Bangladeshi
breaking yards by the following schedule:

(cid:1) Piraeus, GRC: after 12.4.2003 (cid:1) before 25.4.2003;

(cid:1) Suez, EGY: 25.4.2003 (cid:1) 25.4.2003;

(cid:1) Fujairah Anch., ARE: 10.5.2003 (cid:1) 16.5.2003;

(cid:1) Chittagong Roads, BGD: 27.5.2003 (cid:1) before 04.6.2003;

(cid:1) Chittagong, BGD: 04.6.2003;

Does Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 apply in the case of exporting ships like Skopelos from the
European Union to shipbreaking yards in developing countries, and are ships like Skopelos that are
destined for dismantling considered as hazardous waste?

What will the European Commission do to ensure that the competent authorities (in the case of Skopelos,
Greece) will act according to the rules and procedures laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 to
ensure that there will be no illegal export of ships to Asian breaking yards?

What will the European Commission do to ensure that shipowners (in the case of Skopelos, Aeolus
Management SA from Piraeus, Greece) will act according to rules and procedures laid down in Council
Regulation (EEC) 259/93?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 applies to shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community.

The definition of waste is laid down in Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended and the definition of ‘hazardous
waste’ is defined in Directive 91/689/EEC, as amended

The European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of occasions concerning the concept of waste and it
is clear from the jurisprudence that the term ‘waste’ is not to be construed restrictively. Instead, all the
relevant circumstances must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the holder
‘discards’, ‘intends’ or ‘is required to discard’ as prescribed in the definition. If an end of life ships is sent to
the mentioned destination for the purpose of breaking up, it is to be considered as waste given that the
holder intends to discard it.

C 78 E/202

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

As regards the objective element of the waste definition (cid:1) the duty to discard (cid:1) the question is when this
duty is established. Certain legislation, like for example Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in
respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member
States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working
conditions (port State control) can contribute to answering this question (see in particular Article 9).

The ‘discarding’ or the ‘intention to discard’ element depends very much on concrete circumstances in each
individual case and on the visibility of this intention to the outside world. A number of qualifying
circumstances may point to evidence of intention from an objective perspective (e.g. a contract regarding
the dismantling of the ship, state of repair, deletion from the ship registry, age of the ship, etc.) The
difficulties in establishing this subjective ‘intention to discard’ are obvious.

However,
it is clear that first of all a ship can be considered a waste and generally speaking, a ship
constitutes a waste when it is discarded or is intended or required to be discarded (cid:1) meaning from the
moment that it is the intention of the owner not to use it as a ship anymore. A ship destined for
dismantling is thus to be considered a waste.

The Regulation does not exclude neither end of life ships or carriage by sea from its scope.

However the Regulation does contain an exception with regard to waste listed in Annex II (non-hazardous)
that is destined for recovery only. The question therefore is if end of life ships as those in question are
listed in Annex II. Entry GC 030 of Annex III lists ‘vessels and other floating structures for breaking up,
properly emptied of any cargo and other materials arising from the operation of the vessel which may
have been classified as a dangerous substance or waste’. However, ships destined for dismantling are
usually not ‘properly emptied’ to an extend that will justify listing in Annex II. Also they might not be
destined for recovery but rather disposal. In such cases the exception is therefore not applicable.

Most ships contain different kinds of inorganic materials e.g. asbestos which is used as fire protection and
insulation material for pipes and cabin walls. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) are used to insulate cables
and lead and tributyltin are used for painting.

These hazardous materials are listed as hazardous entries in the EU waste list. More importantly, such
waste is also listed in Annex V of the Regulation. Annex V lists waste subject to the ban on export of
hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries as implemented in the Regulation (EEC) No 259/93.
The export-ban originates from the Basel Convention.

Inter alia the following hazardous entries relevant for ships destined for dismantling can be found in
Annex V, Part 1, list A:

(cid:1) A2050 Waste asbestos (dusts and fibres);

(cid:1) A3020 Waste mineral oils unfit for their originally intended use;

(cid:1) A4060 Waste oils/water, hydrocarbons/water mixtures, emulsions;

(cid:1) A4070 Wastes from the production, formulation and use of inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers,

varnish excluding any such waste specified on list B (note the related entry on list B, B4010).

If a ship destined for dismantling is not emptied of all cargo and other hazardous materials arising from its
operation, it is to be considered a hazardous waste. In practice it is impossible for a ship still sailing on its
own power to be emptied as described and in order to sail it will always carry some hazardous materials,
e.g. asbestos. Consequently it is to be considered a hazardous waste.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/203

Enforcement of and inspection of compliance with Community legislation, including waste legislation is
the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission encourages co-operation between Member States,
inter alia through the IMPEL network, to ensure proper implementation of the Regulation and the ban on
export of hazardous waste on non-OECD countries.

(2004/C 78 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2973/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Marais Breton site (cid:1) September 2003

In his letter of 25 August 2003, addressed to Mr Jean-Louis Bernié, Senator Oudin (Vendée/France) stated:

The step taken by France (la démarche de la France) being contractual, there is no obligation on local
authorities to apply the recommended management measures.

In the light of the entire European legal arsenal, can the Commission confirm to me that a Member State
may decide, that in the absence of financial compensation (e.g. for owners, farmers, fishermen, hunters or
other ‘users’ of nature) there is no obligation incumbent on local authorities in Natura 2000 sites?

Does the Commission believe that a contractual policy can, by itself, guarantee the conservation of the
Natura 2000 sites?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

To answer the Honourable Member’s first question, Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) applies. This
requires Member States to establish the necessary conservation measures for special conservation areas.
They must also take appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of
species in these areas. This may involve requiring local authorities to apply the recommended management
measures, whether or not there is financial compensation.

In reply to the Honourable Member’s second question on the contractual policy applicable to the
management of Natura 2000 sites, the Commission does not believe that such a policy can, by itself,
guarantee the protection and conservation of the sites.

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC provides for positive measures for all special conservation areas, in
order to achieve the Directive’s general objective, which is to maintain or restore at a favourable
conservation status natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. These
conservation measures must meet the ecological requirements of the Annex I natural habitats and Annex II
species present on the sites. They can take two forms: appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual
measures, or if need be, appropriate management plans.

The choice between statutory, administrative or contractual measures and even the choice of management
plans is the responsibility of the Member States. These arrangements comply with the principle of
subsidiarity. The Member States must however choose at least one of the three categories: statutory,
administrative or contractual measures. The Member States are free to use, on a Natura 2000 site, a single
category of measures (e.g. contractual measures), or combined measures (e.g. a combination of statutory
and contractual measures, depending on the conservation problems affecting the Annex I natural habitats
and the Annex II species present on the sites). In addition to the compulsory measures chosen, the
Member States may also define and implement management plans.