WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Reduction of the transitional period for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers in response to the devastating disaster off the coast of Galicia

1. Does the Commission have any estimate of the costs which will be incurred between now and 2015, i.e. during the period before the total ban on single-hull tankers entering EU waters and ports comes into force, as a result of the predictable probability that single-hull tankers will run aground on the coasts of the EU Member States or will be involved in collisions, break up or sink in the surrounding seas?

2. What is the Commission's estimate of the cost to the authorities concerned of cleaning up the resultant spills during the period 2005-2015, for example the cost of cleaning coastlines, surviving birds and seawater?

3. What is the Commission's estimate of the cost which will be borne by industry during the period 2005-2015 due to the inability of such sectors as coastal fisheries and tourism to operate on account of pollution?

4. What is its estimate of the costs which would be incurred by the shipping companies concerned, during the period 2005-2015, if the single-hull oil tankers currently still registered in EU Member States were to be banned from 2005, so that the companies had to write them off?

5. What is its estimate of the costs which would be incurred by the shipping companies concerned, during the period 2005-2015, if single-hull tankers which are registered outside the EU but belong to companies within the EU or visit EU ports frequently were to be banned from 2005?

6. Can the Commission confirm that, when it previously decided that the number of single-hull tankers should gradually fall to zero over a long period, its concern was not so much with the expectation of major disasters in Europe as to ensure that rustbucket tankers which were being banned from American waters could not continue to be used in Europe for a long time to come?

7. Does the Commission consider that, because of the devastating impact of the sinking of the tanker Prestige off the coast of Galicia, the spread of oil along the coasts of Spain, Portugal and possibly France and the associated costs, a new situation has arisen in the light of which it is desirable to take the initiative and adopt a more stringent policy than hitherto on single-hull tankers, so as to substantially reduce the period during which single-hull tankers are still permitted to enter EU waters and ports?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

1. to 5. The Commission is not able at this stage to provide the Honourable Member with figures comparing the costs for Member States of accidents which might be caused by single-hull tankers between now and their total ban, or the costs for shipping companies of the early withdrawal of such tankers. The Commission is of course not in a position to know the number of accidents which might take place in the future.

6. The Commission can however confirm that its action is motivated by the fear of Europe being affected by further oil spills.

Contrary to the assertions of the Honourable Member, however, the Commission did not opt for a longer period for the progressive banning of single-hull tankers. The timetable in its initial proposal was in fact more stringent than the Regulation that was finally adopted by the Parliament and the Council.

Accordingly, the timetable proposed by the Commission indicated that Category 1 single-hull tankers such as the Erika or Prestige should be withdrawn at 23 years of age. If this proposal had been maintained, the Prestige would have been decommissioned on 1 September 2002 instead of 15 March 2005.

It must nevertheless be stressed that the Community Regulation only prohibits vessels of this kind from having access to the ports of Member States, and does not prevent them from transiting along European coastlines, given the obligations imposed by international law.

In a letter dated 17 January addressed to the President of the Council, Mr Simitis, moreover, the President of the Commission gave notice of the Commission's intention to ask for a negotiating mandate to propose an amendment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to allow coastal States to protect themselves better, including in the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, against the dangers of vessels at risk in transit.

7. Finally, the Commission fully agrees that the devastating impact of the sinking of the Prestige tanker and the associated costs do give rise to a new situation. The Commission has moreover seized the opportunity afforded by increased public awareness of the risks of transporting heavy fuel oil by sea to ask the Member States to bring forward the application of the Erika I and Erika II statutory provisions and to propose new measures.

This approach has been supported unanimously. For instance, following speeches by the Commission in the plenary sessions of November and December 2002, the European Parliament adopted resolutions on 21 November and 19 December 2002 calling for the Union to take immediate measures to combat pollution and to improve maritime safety. Similarly, at its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Transport Council supported the proposals made by the Commission in its Communication of 3 December 2002. Finally, the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December 2002 acknowledged the Commission's diligence and congratulated the institution on the action taken by it to cope with the consequences of the sinking of the Prestige.

In this context, on 20 December 2002 the Commission forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a regulation2 aimed at prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel products in single-hull tankers bound for or leaving the ports of the Union, to shorten the period adopted as part of the Erika I package within which single-hull tankers must be withdrawn and to impose reinforced structural inspections of single-hull tankers from fifteen years of age (the Condition Assessment Scheme or special inspection regime).