WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/03 by Alain Esclopé (EDD) to the Commission. Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships.
Date: 2003-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, United Kingdom, United States, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, maritime safety, warships, waste management

C 78 E/774

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

If not, will it call on the Brandenburg Land Government to carry out a detailed FFH impact study and to
revise its plans on the basis of the findings of that study?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the Brandenburg Land Government is considering using resources
from the European Structural Funds for this road-building project? Does the Commission approve of this
plan and does it take the view that such a decision would be consistent with the regulation governing the
Structural Funds and the horizontal task ‘protecting and improving the natural environment’ laid down in
that regulation?

(1) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission has not received a complaint, or any other information, on the planned construction of
the by-pass ‘L 20’ in the corridor between the proposed sites of Community interest (‘pSCIs’) ‘Falkenseer
Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’ in Brandenburg. On the basis of the limited information provided in the
written question, the Commission cannot decide whether or not Articles 4(1) and 6(3) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats
Directive), or any other Community law, may have been violated.

The Commission will now start an own-initiative investigation on the case. The German Government will
be asked to provide additional information and to take a position on the case.

A decision to co-finance the project under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme
of Brandenburg has not been taken. To be eligible for ERDF funding, any project has to fully comply with
Community environmental legislation in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June
1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/03

by Alain Esclopé (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships

The United States has decided to have hundreds of decommissioned US Navy warships, which are riddled
with asbestos and contaminated with fuel oil, broken up in a port on the east coast of England. The
towing of the ships to that port is exposing neighbouring national and international waters to serious
environmental risks.

The logical course of action would have been for the ships to be broken up on US territory, rather than
thousands of kilometres from their home port.

Pressure from US ecologists, combined with the financial incentives on offer, prompted the Americans to
pass on the task of dealing with this ecological hazard to European countries which have already been
badly affected by similar problems in recent years.

Against a background of world, and, more particularly, European, efforts
development, is it not strange that such practices should go unremarked?

to foster

sustainable

It should be borne in mind that the Americans have adopted maritime legislation which authorises them
to use military force to exclude vessels which pose an environmental risk from their territorial waters.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/775

story has demonstrated once again how easily safety issues are outweighed by financial

This
considerations.

Does the Commission intend to take unilateral steps to remind the United States of its responsibilities,
rather than simply allowing the countries concerned to act on their own account?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

the Commission is currently investigating whether
Following a complaint received on this matter,
Community legislation has been complied with. The Commission has received information that suggests
that the ships may leak oil, PCB and asbestos and that there may be some uncertainty that the recycling
facility in the United Kingdom is ready to receive the ships and recycle them in an environmentally sound
manner.

Further, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the
experience learned from the ‘Erika’,
‘Prestige’ and ‘Tricolor’ disasters should lead us to a precautionary
approach.

The Commission has therefore expressed its concerns to the administrations of both the United Kingdom
and the United States.

On 20 October 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment made a declaration
in the Parliament on this issue.

(2004/C 78 E/0825)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Pechiney-Alcan merger

Recently, the Commission decided, without further investigation, to authorise the merger of Alcan and
Pechiney, which now form the world’s leading aluminium group, while concentrating their decision-
making structures in North America. Whatever the press may say, this is a hostile takeover.

Three years ago a similar merger between the two companies failed after Alcan refused to give up its plant
in Norf. However, the Commission is now authorising it to choose between Norf and three of Pechiney’s
French sites (Neuf-Brisach, Annecy and Rugles). It seems clear that the latter sites will be sold off.

Will the Commission provide the names of the potential buyers of the units to be sold off, specifying in
particular whether they are European or non-European?

Will the Commission explain what other fundamental changes have been made to the situation to allow it
to alter its opinion on an Alcan-Pechiney merger?

Will it also explain what the condition regarding ‘removal of duplication’ between the two companies’
activities means in terms of jobs?

Given that, if Pechiney had taken over Alcan rather than the reverse, it would have come up against the
Canadian legal principle of ‘benefit to the country’, does the Commission consider that this operation is of
economic benefit to the European Union and to the European aluminium sector?