WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Portugal — nuclear waste.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, environmental liability, marine pollution, polluter pays principle, radioactive waste

C 84 E/802

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Implementation Report of

In the
(BEPGs),
the Commission stresses in the introductory paragraph of the Spanish note the fact that the ‘poor labour
productivity, also linked to the relatively low education levels of the population and the slow transition to
a knowledge-based economy, raises concerns about the long-term performance of the economy’.

the 2003-2005 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines

This assessment is based on the three following elements:

(cid:1) Labour productivity per hours worked in Spain is below the EU-15 average (83,8 % of the EU-15
level (1)). Moreover, the annual percentage growth of labour productivity per person employed still
remains below the EU-15 performance, as is the case since 1997. The very rapid employment growth
has certainly had a negative impact on labour productivity. However, the latter is also influenced by
the performances as regards the transition to the knowledge-based economy. In this respect, the link
between the low level of productivity and the need to strengthen the knowledge-based economy was
already identified as a key challenge for Spain in the 2003-2005 BEPGs.

(cid:1) Although the educational attainment of the Spanish population, as measured by the percentage of the
population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education, has progressed
quickly in the last decade, it is still below the EU average (63,4 % as against 74 % in the EU-15 in
2003) and public spending in education as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) remains
among the lowest in the EU (4,43 % in 2000 as compared to 4,93 % in the EU-15).

(cid:1) As compared to the EU average, Spain also performs badly in terms of business Research and
Development (R & D) (see graph below), patents (24 per million inhabitants in 2001 as compared to
161 in the EU-15) and ICT take-up (29,5 % of households had internet access at home in 2002 as
against 38,9 % in the EU-15).

Finally, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to section 4,5 of the same
report, which does acknowledge that several initiatives have been launched to strengthen the knowledge-
based economy.

Business R&D expenditure as % of GDP

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Spain

EU-15

(1)

Forecasted for 2003See structural
play.do?screen=welcome&open=/&product=STRIND_ECOBAC&language=en&depth=2

indicators website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/queen/dis-

(2004/C 84 E/0898)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Portugal (cid:1) nuclear waste

According to media reports a number of locations identified as nuclear-waste dumps were detected in
summer 2003 by the French science ship Iledesein in the area in which the undersea cable linking
mainland Portugal, the Azores and Madeira is being laid.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/803

The nuclear-waste dumping areas which were discovered in the course of the scientific expedition
(duly authorised by the Portuguese authorities) are 200 km away from Madeira (within the island’s
Exclusive Economic Zone) and to the east of the island of Santa Maria (outside the Azores EEZ), in the
area in which the mainland/Azores/Madeira underwater cable is being laid.

The waste, which could have been dumped by the United Kingdom between 1949 and 1961, is located at
a depth of 4 000 metres.

The French ship, which was surveying the area at the request of Alcatel Submarine Networks (the company
to which the project has been entrusted) notified the discovery to the Azores underwater-cable station at
the end of last year but the outcome of the operation was not notified to the Portuguese army.

An army source insists that it did not receive any information from the French ship but it confirms that
the scientific expedition took place and that there exist within Portugal’s EEZ a number of areas in which
nuclear waste has already been dumped.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) Is the Commission aware of the above facts? How serious are they? Could they have significant
environmental implications? What view does it take of the way in which the various parties involved
in the survey operation acted?

(cid:1) What action has it taken (or does it intend to take) with a view to reducing the risk posed by the
waste (which may have been dumped at the time when a national and international legal void existed
in the case of such practices) and to helping the countries affected by such deposits of radioactive
material? Can it confirm that such waste was dumped by the United Kingdom between 1949 and
1961?

(cid:1) Does it not consider that, despite the fact that effective legal protection probably did not exist at the
time when the waste was dumped, those responsible for the waste could in some way be made
responsible for having dumped it, or could be required to contribute in some way to disposing of the
waste?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Although the Commission has not been involved in the issue in question, dumping at sea of waste
including nuclear material had been carried out for several years by a number of countries. International
rules to prevent marine pollution from this practice entered into force in 1974 and 1975 by means of the
Oslo Convention for the North-East Atlantic and the London Convention for marine waters worldwide
other than the internal waters of States.

In particular, while the dumping of high-level radioactive wastes has never been allowed under the London
Convention, a moratorium on the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes has been in place since 1983
and Parties to the Convention agreed in 1993 to amend the relevant annexes in order to ban the dumping
of all radioactive wastes. This legally binding prohibition entered into force on 20 February 1994.

Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has compiled an inventory of all such
dumping reported and it contains events dating back to 1943 and includes locations in the Atlantic Ocean
used by the United Kingdom between 1955 and 1961.

The present case relates to events that took place during a period when neither the United Kingdom nor
Portugal were a member of the Community and that cannot be examined in the light of the relevant
Community legislation.

However, compliance with the Community Radiation Protection provisions (1), as they are applicable today
to the legacy from these events, falls, in the first instance, within the competence of that Member State
with jurisdiction over the location where they took place.

C 84 E/804

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The question of clearing responsibilities on the management of such dumped waste is not covered by the
Euratom legislation. However, in its role as a Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will follow-up this
issue, and if necessary, will request the necessary information from the Member States concerned in order
to decide whether further Community action is required.

(1) Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the
health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996,
Articles 35 and 36 Euratom.

(2004/C 84 E/0899)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Provision of aid to South Africa

South Africa has been going through a period marked by extremely serious problems to which the EU and
the international community cannot remain (and, indeed, have not remained) indifferent. Those problems
levels, economic stagnation and an
include a high rate of Aids infection, alarming unemployment
extremely worrying level of violent crime.

The alarming level of crime continues to have a tragic impact not only on the South African people
themselves but also on the communities of European immigrants who are settled in South Africa.

Under the EU cooperation umbrella, projects have been implemented for the specific purpose of
promoting and improving security levels in South Africa (project to organise and provide institutional
support for the South African police service: EUR 18,5 million; project to assist the overhaul of the legal
system: EUR 25 million; project to assist the policing of Eastern Cape Province: EUR 10,8 million).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What stage has been reached in the implementation (both practical and financial) of the projects
designed to promote and improve security levels in South Africa, and what effect have those projects
had so far on improving security in the country?

2.

Is the Commission planning to strengthen the above projects and extend them to other parts of South
Africa?

3. Are further projects relating to improved security in South Africa to be devised and launched in areas

such as policing, crime prevention and cooperation with the criminal-justice sector?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission recognises the threat that high levels of criminality, together with other socio-economic
challenges like unemployment, HIV/AIDS and poverty pose to the sustainability of democracy in South
Africa. Not only does it threaten the political advances already achieved during the past 10 years, but it
also directly impacts on the quality of the lives of ordinary South Africans and others resident there.

The Commission is of the opinion that the South African Government has a sound policy framework in
place to deal with crime. This is borne out not only by robust policy development in this field over the
past eight years, but also by increased spending for the Criminal Justice Departments during the same
period.

1.
Regarding the intended impact on the levels of safety and security by the development programmes
referred to, the main objective is the improvement of service delivery by the South African Police Service
(SAPS) and other relevant Criminal Justice Departments to the vulnerable communities in South Africa.