Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - Strasbourg OJ edition

5. Maritime traffic
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- (A5-0208/2001) by Mr Sterckx, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic [COM(2000) 802 – C5-0700/2000 – 2000/0325(COD)];

- (A5-0205/2001) by Mr Mastorakis, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency [COM(2000) 802 – C5-0702/2000 – 2000/0327(COD)];

- (A5-0201/2001) by Mr Esclopé, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the establishment of a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage in European waters and related measures [COM(2000) 802 – C5-0701/2000 – 2000/0326(COD)].

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sterckx (ELDR), rapporteur.(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, this problem is double-edged. We should certainly not discourage maritime transport: it is en environmentally-friendly form of transport and economically vital. But we should, at the same time, control the risks involved. We should regulate traffic better, if I can put it that way, for each accident at sea not only affects those directly involved, namely the people on board the ship, but also anyone living by the sea and making a living from it. After the accident involving the Erika, we took rapid action. However, new accidents have kept the pressure on, and we therefore have no choice but to take measures. I should like to thank the Commission for the excellent cooperation, as well as the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as a result of which the latter is able to submit to you a unanimous proposal.

First of all, shipping must be monitored more closely. In this connection, we need to extend the powers of the coastal state and the port state, and restrict the right to clear transit – albeit to a minor degree. We must not forget that the Erika foundered 70 km off the Breton coast, in other words, a long way from the territorial waters.

Secondly, we must introduce automatic report duty via transponders. On that score, I have developed the Commission proposal in a little more detail. I believe it is also necessary for the information which then comes in automatically, also to be exchanged between the different Member States automatically. That happens far too little at the moment. We must legislate for that. We should extend the scope of the transponder, which is 30 nautical miles at the moment, as soon as possible, and switch to what is referred to as long-range.

Thirdly, the black box. That is a difficult point which has been mentioned in the report by Mr Watts, and which has indeed remained more or less unresolved. In my opinion, we as a Parliament must continue to exercise pressure on the IMO, and we should therefore adhere to our time schedule.

Fourthly, the ban on departure in adverse weather conditions proposed by the Commission. Admittedly, bad weather was a major factor in past accidents, but we in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism do not support the general measure proposed by the Commission. Sometimes, in bad weather it is safer for ships to be outside, rather than inside, the port. Each port or each ship is different. Neither should we forget that the captain is in charge of his own ship, and we should respect that. That is why we have made that recommendation for a ban on departure more detailed, or at least slightly changed it into a recommendation which must receive a reasoned reply from the captain. We request that, in bad weather, station tugs be on stand-by which, in an emergency, could be deployed immediately, so that no time would be lost when something happened. There are examples of this in France and in the Netherlands. Environmental risk should not be the only reason for action. As other MEPs have already pointed out, risks involving people, crew and passengers, inter alia, merit action. I have added a provision concerning fuelling at sea, which is also a difficult operation. It is dangerous. In April of this year, for example, there was a collision off the Belgian coast between a bunker ship which was refuelling and another ship that was being refuelled. A relatively small quantity of oil, namely 10 000 litres, ended up in the sea, as a result of which the coastal area near Middelkerke, Nieuwpoort, etc was polluted, with all the disastrous implications that this entails. Statistics have shown that the number of accidents involving bunkering operations is rising enormously and rapidly. We must therefore do something about this. One of the options is to restrict bunkering, and even ban it in bad weather. We have added a provision to that effect.

Fifthly, ports of refuge. That was a problem with regard to the accident involving the Erika. The Erika searched for a port of refuge and could not find one. Earlier this year, the damaged fuel tanker, Castor, sailed around the Mediterranean Sea for six weeks because it could not find a port where it could berth. That is, of course, understandable, for a port could, in a case like that, run the risk of being polluted, and it is not certain that compensation would be provided for that damage. We must therefore set up a true system of ports of refuge and safe ports of anchorage where damage can be limited. We welcome this proposal, although we have tightened it up slightly. We must be certain that the ships which call in at our ports and sail along our coasts are insured, and therefore solvent. In other words, they must be able to pay compensation for the damage they cause. We must also ensure that there are installations there to receive, repair, etc. ships.

All in all, Commissioner, I believe that this is a promising draft for a sound directive, and we must adopt it at the earliest opportunity. Since there are a number of aspects which can develop very quickly, we have added an evaluation clause. The proposal will now be presented to the Council. I hope that the Swedish Presidency will be able to deal with the matter later on this month. However, I fear that the proposal will end up with the Belgian Presidency. That being the case, the latter will need to prioritise this issue and ensure that it is completed at least by the end of the year.

Despite this, there are a few matters left to deal with, even though we have approved all the Erika Directives. For example, we should take additional measures to extend the routing system, in the Baltic Sea in particular. It is necessary to develop that system and especially to invest in people, people on board ships, people on shore, people who implement the checks and people who make up the ships’ crews. To underline this aspect, we have included it in the Directive, for a piece of legislation in itself is not sufficient. The real safety work is done at sea.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Μastorakis (PSE) , rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be reporting on the proposal for the Erika II package, the purpose of which is to create a European Maritime Safety Agency to provide the Commission with support in applying and monitoring compliance with measures and in assessing their effectiveness. As the Commission maintains, and we fully support its opinion, it is not possible, at least at this stage, to set up a single operational structure, a type of coastguard or European port authority, to take over the role of the national maritime administrations. On the contrary, the agency will have to support the actions of the Commission, or rather of both the Commission and the Member States, without the Commission's mediating, and this is the purpose of some of our amendments.

Of course, the Commission's proposal initially provoked several questions. Is it really necessary, in order to "supervise the supervisors", to create a new Community bureaucracy, or would it be possible to achieve the desired objective by stepping up cooperation between the national competent authorities and between these authorities and the Commission, or by reinforcing the Commission departments responsible? The new agency's dependence on the Commission also caused a problem initially because, despite its being described as independent in the explanatory statement of the report, a look at the proposed articles on the powers of the Administrative Board and the Executive Director and on the proposed composition of the board confirms that this independence is relatively limited. It is typical that, under the terms of the proposal, the Executive Director is to submit the work programme to the Board after having received the approval of the Commission and the Administrative Board then adopts the programme. Another typical element of dependence is that the Executive Director is appointed and dismissed by the Board, but only on a proposal from the Commission.

In other words, the European Commission seems to be distrustful of the agency in advance, even though the Commission itself proposes setting it up. This manifests itself in a tendency to act as a guardian and to restrict the guarantees of its independence, which is not seen in relation to corresponding Community bodies. A comparison with the status of similar bodies, such as the European Environment Agency or the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products leads us to the conclusion that these agencies have wider areas of competence and more scope for initiative. For example, there is no provision for the Commission to approve the work programme of the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, although similar arrangements apply to the Environment Agency. Nor is there any provision for the Commission to have the right to dismiss the executive directors of these agencies.

The question which emerges from all the above is: does the European Commission really want an independent agency or not? It is true that, in our committee, in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the representative of the European Commission demonstrated a great deal of understanding for these views, which were supported by my colleagues across the board so that the ground has been laid for a compromise and the regulation under discussion can quickly be finalised.

I would also like to express the view that the representatives of related professional sectors who will sit on the Administrative Board of the agency should be elected by their colleagues, not the Commission, that it would he helpful if Parliament were represented on the Administrative Board, but not by MEPs of course, and that the agency's headquarters should be in a country and town with a shipping tradition and nautical infrastructure, so that it is close to as many maritime-related activities as possible, assuming of course that the town in question is able to provide all the other services needed in order for the agency to function and is well connected to the European centres. And if my fellow members interpret this as being Piraeus, then I am not to blame; forgive me, but Piraeus is to blame, with its impressive qualifications for the job.

I should like to close by thanking the Commission for acting so quickly, and to thank all my fellow members whose comments and ideas helped considerably in improving the report and, by extension, the regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Esclopé (EDD), rapporteur.(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Erika I, which is aimed at preventing environmental disasters from oil spills before the event, is now supplemented by Erika II, which is also designed as an instrument for accurately assessing the consequences of such disasters and for improving the system of compensation of the victims, the aspect on which my report concentrates.

We naturally support that objective and believe it crucial to give it priority in the light of the situation we have today as a result, in particular, of the Erika disaster.

At present, an international liability and compensation regime exists covering damage caused by oil pollution from ships, as established by the 1969 CCL Convention and the 1971 IOPC Convention, both of which were amended by the 1992 protocols. These two conventions have established a two-tier liability system, based on strict though unfortunately very limited liability for ship owners and on a compensation fund to which oil receivers contribute.

Among many other countries in the world, all EU Member States with a coastline are now parties to both protocols, except for Portugal, which has not yet completed the ratification procedures. The USA, which has its own compensation system, with the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, does not participate in this regime.

The main problem with these two funds is still their ceiling of EUR 200 million. But apart from the inadequacy of this amount – in fact the Erika spill is going to cost far more, an estimated amount of more than EUR 300 million – the procedure for releasing the money is not speedy enough. The IOPC Fund can only distribute what money it has and therefore has to await the full list of claims presented before it can determine the maximum rate at which it can compensate the victims. As an example, the estimates for the Erika suggest that only two thirds of the amounts claimed by the victims can be reimbursed and that this process will take far too long, even if provisional amounts payments are made in the interim.

The first step to remedy this situation is, therefore, to consult the IMO, which is what the Council did, with a view to revising the Civil Liability Convention and the IOPC Convention and tackling a number of structural dysfunctions. First, the ceiling needs to be raised: a first rise would be scheduled for 2003, to the level of EUR 300 million. Next, the scope of liability should be widened to include all those involved in the transport chain. Lastly, the conventions should be extended to include dangerous substances other than oil.

Of course we endorse that approach, but in the absence of reforms, which would be difficult to carry through, Europe had to take action by putting forward an appropriate proposal of its own.

The Commission therefore proposed the creation of a Community fund, called the COPE Fund, which would supplement the IOPC Fund and be modelled on it, but would have a ceiling of EUR 1 billion. This fund would intervene only in the event of maritime accidents and would be funded by contributions from oil companies established in the Member States and receiving more than 150 000 tonnes of oil a year. It would be managed by the Commission, assisted by a committee of Member State representatives.

At this point, let me explain the implications of tomorrow’s vote. Since the vote we conducted in the Committee on Transport, we in fact believe that extending the scope to all dangerous substances, a proposal supported by the parliamentary right and left, however laudable, would be bound to cause a serious logjam in the system.

Indeed, the conventions on which this extension depends have yet to be ratified. So, does the European Parliament really want this fund? Allow me to point out that we want the victims of these major disasters, hitherto caused solely by oil spills, to be compensated as fully and speedily as possible.

That being so, how can we introduce a third tier of compensation, the COPE Fund, whose operation and procedures are modelled on the existing international IOPC system, by referring to conventions that the IOPC Convention has not yet recognised?

If the Committee on Transport's amendments are adopted, I believe there is a great risk, too great a risk, of putting off indefinitely all hope of rapidly creating the COPE Fund.

Aside from our amendments on the representative nature of the chosen local representatives in the decision-making on compensation, our requests for a separate vote are aimed at restoring to some extent the purpose of the initial proposal and thus opening the way to the creation of a supplementary compensation fund at Community level. This really is urgently necessary. How could we not be in favour of establishing liability for all forms of pollution…

(The President asked the speaker to finish)

...as also of holding all the players involved financially liable? We must assume our responsibilities. Should we engage in drawing-room discussions of environmental theory, or should we establish, without delay...

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. – (EL) Mr President, I have stood in at the last moment for my colleague Mrs Vachetta, whose take on this is the same as that which I am about to present to you.

The subject of our debate is maritime passenger and freight transport, which are obviously tremendously important, as our rapporteurs have stressed. However, merely operating the transport sector is fraught with danger. Danger to the economy and, of course, to human life, dangerous working conditions and, of course, huge environmental dangers. The carte blanche which prevails in this sector and massive competition naturally make this industry exceptionally dynamic but also mean that it seeks the lowest possible price "at any price", when it comes to the cost of engines, materials etc. and human resources. Because this sector is globalised, and has been for a very long time – it always was the most highly globalised sector – shipowners have the right to duck and dive and create conditions of immunity, frequently resulting in the terrible results which we have seen, not just with the tragic incident involving the Erika but on numerous other occasions in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, in both passenger and freight transport.

The second package which is the subject of today's debate, Mr President, Commissioner, does not answer all the questions or all the problems which, I think, are being exacerbated as globalisation progresses. Let me give you an example which requires no further comment: the ridiculous example of shipping registers and the way in which they operate and grant or withhold recognition. We recently experienced tragic complications in Italy, for example, which prohibited private Greek ships which were not flying the Greek flag from entering Italy, while others were allowed to do so. Absurd incidents based, I believe, on the fact that we do not have clear, proper, efficient, Community legislation on shipping registers. However, I shall confine myself to the three reports which are the subject of today's debate.

First, I should like to thank our rapporteurs, who have done an excellent job. Secondly, we have to admit that the directive and the regulations being examined have a great many positive points, as well as numerous shortcomings. That is why we shall pass a general vote in favour of them, while supporting certain amendments – important amendments in our opinion – which supplement or improve the texts. The monitoring system, for example, confirmation and notification of consignments of dangerous substances, black boxes at long last, monitoring of ships, the facility for Member States to intervene and prevent ships from departing when the conditions are too dangerous – these are all are important matters and we support them. However, we also have some absurd opposition, Commissioner; we accept that we have to supervise and monitor engines, materials and equipment, but we do not agree to supervise the working of the most important factor in shipping, i.e. the people who work in the industry. Not just their health, but their rest times and suitable working conditions. Most accidents that have occurred so far are caused by tired and disheartened people, who were basically not to blame. So we have tabled the relevant proposed amendments.

Secondly, as regards the maritime safety agency, everyone involved in shipping is calling for such an agency and we agree. I personally wish we had a European ports authority with more than a merely coordinating function and I think we can help this agency to progress along these lines. However, we disagree with the composition of its Administrative Board. We want people at national and local level to sit on the board. Why not non-governmental organisations with some form of proof of the usefulness and efficiency of their work? And we also want this agency to be accountable and to publish regular information on what it does. We consider this to be absolutely self-evident.

Finally, a word on the compensation fund for oil pollution. It is a good idea. As I think our rapporteur quite rightly illustrated, the IOPC Fund has shown its limitations. But why should this agency only be funded by persons who buy a certain quantity, 150,000 tonnes of oil or more? Why should it not be funded by everyone involved in the fuel transport sector? We think this is the right way forward. We also think that the one billion limit is too low and bears no relation to the actual size of the sector or its turnover. That is why we propose that it be raised to two billion. And, of course, we think that its activities are restricted – very restricted even – and that it should be set on a broader base.

We shall vote on this basis and we hope that we shall soon have a third package, an Erika III, which incorporates these factors and this criticism and which will be most useful in completing the policy set before us which, we must admit, is generally a good guideline.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vlasto (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports will indeed reinforce the measures our Parliament adopted with the Erika I package last May.

Turning to the first report, by Mr Sterckx, there are two dimensions to the proposal from the European Commission. First of all, we are taking steps to improve the safety of ships, which is the foundation of maritime safety. I am glad that the responsible committee endorsed my proposal for a tighter timetable for installing black boxes and transponders on board the ships. Thanks to that provision, all European ships will have to be equipped with these devices no later than 2006.

Secondly, we are proposing to Member States a Community monitoring, control and information system for maritime traffic, about which I in fact have some reservations, for there is nothing very Community-based about these measures. Although Parliament has endeavoured to consolidate its proposals, they remain dependent mainly on Member State action.

Regarding ports of refuge, for example, the Member States must draw up plans for accommodating ships in distress. Parliament, in its wisdom, has called for the measures taken to be evaluated after a period of one year to ensure that the proposal really is implemented rapidly.

We must indeed ensure that ships in distress can be accommodated urgently in these ports, which will have to be suitably equipped to carry out the necessary repairs. That is also why I am against the idea of zones of refuge, which do not offer the same guarantees as ports in terms of naval equipment.

Another positive and important point is the improvement of communication between ports on the movement of ships carrying dangerous goods. With this report, the European Union has given itself the necessary instruments to ensure close cooperation between the Member States and offers them more means of controlling maritime traffic and making it safer. This helps protect Europe's marine and coastal environment, while also giving more rights to the captains and crews of the ships, including the primordial right to avoid accidents at sea and thus protect themselves.

Moving on to Mr Esclopé’s report, it will enable us to add a new dimension to the proposed COPE Fund. I believe it is essential to extend this fund's scope for intervention to pollution caused by noxious and hazardous substances. We must ensure that this does not delay the first process. We must not confine ourselves to a compensation fund for damage caused by oil pollution, as we were tragically reminded by the shipwreck of the Ievoli Sun off the coasts of Brittany.

The proposal to make ship owners who are responsible for maritime pollution contribute to the compensation of victims seems a good idea, since it is a step in the direction of establishing the liability of all the players involved in sea transport. This concept of liability was not defined clearly enough in our legislation. What is being applied here, and applied fairly, is the polluter-pays principle. That is a major and positive change, which may make it possible to put an end to practices that are dangerous and harmful to our environment.

Thirdly, we will be voting on the report by Mr Mastorakis, on the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency. The Commission seems suspicious of its own proposal. So it has introduced several paragraphs intended to ensure it has a right of veto over the operation and activities of the future agency. Clearly, that would deprive the agency of the independence it would need in order to be effective and credible. I do not understand for what reasons the Commission wanted to place the future agency under its tutelage. Parliament has therefore endeavoured to reduce the agency's dependence on the Commission and give it enough power to justify its existence.

Indeed, this agency must be created only if it is independent and entrusted with genuine tasks. I believe that the work we have done will allow the agency to be given greater responsibilities and to assume them with more independence.

There remain, however, two points in this proposal with which I am not satisfied. Firstly, we cannot in a same report call for unannounced checks in the Member States, while also stipulating that these visits take place after reaching an understanding with the Member State concerned. To us this looks like two different types of visits, but that is not clear from the text and it would be advisable to clarify the matter.

Next, I do not understand why our Parliament is not to have any representatives on the agency's administrative board when the Commission is to nominate four representatives from its ranks and four representatives of the professional sectors most concerned and the Council is to appoint four others. If we want to deprive Parliament of representatives on this management board in the name of the separation of powers, then we must also exclude the representatives of the Council from it. The Council is the Community co-legislator and the other arm of the budgetary authority alongside Parliament. If the Council is represented on the administrative board, there is no real separation of powers, so the absence of representatives of Parliament makes no sense under these circumstances.

These reservations aside, I am satisfied with the basic proposal to establish this agency, as amended, I hope, by our Parliament. We have worked hard to give the European Union a single air space. Today, we have taken a significant step towards creating a single maritime space in Europe and I can only hope that we will take further steps in that direction, especially at international level, and that we will soon be able to learn the first lessons from the measures we have adopted.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kuckelkorn (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, may I say, as permanent rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets for the agencies, that the Committee on Budgets is satisfied with the document presented. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has accepted the amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets on the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency.

I should like to start by outlining the context within which the following proposed amendments are set. The structure of the agencies is such that finding a uniform line is no easy task when it comes to funding. Nonetheless, the principles of the European Parliament require us to ensure that the authorities are efficient and transparent and control their costs. With new agencies, we must ensure that their budget is managed along clear lines from the outset.

Now to the proposed amendments. The first proposed amendment introduces a new recital on the subject of transparency and control. Fundamental budgetary principles should apply to agencies because they implement EU policies, employ staff and are fully or partially dependent on Community subsidies. Amendment No 2 clarifies that we expect the Member State to contribute towards the premises of local offices.

The third proposed amendment contains provisions governing the adoption of the agency's budget. Control is exercised on the part of the European Parliament through the Committee on Budgets and how funding is provided. We must ensure that the Agency is not given too much independence. As permanent rapporteur for the agencies, I know that, if agencies are too independent, they take too much on themselves and overshoot their objective and their actual remit.

(Applause)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENI
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Atkins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, first of all I must apologise for my absence from the committee when my amendments to the Esclopé report were discussed. I was involved in the British general election and also in the mayor-making of my wife, which is why I was unable to be here.

I will confine my remarks to the Esclopé report. This is an issue of great concern, provoked by the Erika and aggravated by the Ivoli Sun disaster off the Channel Islands. As one personally associated in 1969 with the effects of the Torrey Canyon disaster on the beaches and livelihoods of south-west England, I have understood and shared that concern for many years.

The proposals from the Commission were all right as far as they went, but there are a number of deficiencies. The first is the potentially detrimental effects on existing international funds, the CLC, i.e. the Convention on Civil Liability, and the IOPC, the International Oil-Pollution Compensation Fund. Secondly, no attention was given to the bunker-fuel oil spills or the pollution caused by hazardous and noxious substances.

There are two conventions on these subjects: the Bunker Oil Convention 2001, and the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention of 1996. Both of these are unlikely to be ratified in the foreseeable future. That is why they need to be addressed in this report.

Thirdly, there is in equity in terms of the responsibility for meeting the costs. I have some reservations about Amendment No 22 and the implications for oil companies of pollution caused by chemicals or noxious substances. That is something that we can address at second reading. But in essence what we have tried to do is to rectify that inequity.

Mr Esclopé sought to amend the report to take account of local public concerns and also to limit what is, I believe, the Commission's unnecessary involvement in the day-to-day running of the COPE Fund. His suggestion of a tri-partite committee is well-meaning, but inadequate. We need to address the too heavy and bureaucratic involvement of the Commission and we should accept the tried and trusted international arrangements used by the CLC and IOPC funds.

Finally, there is local consultation, which is needed, but should not be mandatory and it should not be a vehicle for delay. This has the potential to be a far-reaching and radical piece of European legislation and in consultation with other non-EU states it can go a long way towards resolving the problems of maritime pollution caused by oil and hazardous or noxious substances. We should be proud of this achievement and support it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Piecyk (PSE) . – (DE) Mr President, as I said last time: before the courts and on the high seas, we are in God's hands, but at least the Erika I and Erika II packages will help to make the high seas a little safer. I should like to offer the rapporteurs my warmest thanks. I think it makes sense and that, with a monitoring and control system, with an independent agency and with a compensation fund in the event of accidents, we have taken a step in the right direction. As part of this – and this also applies to the Esclopé report – the Commission has proposed setting up a fund for oil pollution, or rather for oil pollution from tankers. But it has been our experience over recent years that it is not just tanker accidents which cause pollution; other ships also pollute the environment with dangerous substances, often harmful substances such as so-called bunker oil. That is why it makes sense to opt for a more comprehensive approach here. For once, I would gladly have heard the Commission comment along the lines of a huge car advertising campaign running in Germany: ‘Can't be done, doesn't exist’.

So, Commissioner, when you take a stand here, please do not start by saying it ‘can't be done’. Start by saying, ‘how can I accommodate Parliament?’ and then make it legally and technically possible.

I think the committee is right to spread the risk by making shipowners and charterers, as well as oil companies, bear their share of the risk, by apportioning responsibility on an equitable basis and by including local representatives of the regions affected in a fund committee, so that their interests can be represented. And representing interests does not mean taking their own decisions; it means being included and being heard on a case by case basis.

That is why, as I said last time, we should up the ante now because people, because the Erika – damn it all, this accident occurred over two years ago and we have still not passed any legislation and everything still hangs in the balance. That is why I call on my fellow Members and the Commission to up the ante now.

I think it makes sense to make a start on maritime safety by setting up an agency. I understand why Emmanouil Mastorakis thinks that Piraeus would be a good place for the agency but may I say that I think that Lübeck, where I come from, would also make an excellent base for such an agency.

(heckling: or Greifswald, Rostock)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pohjamo (ELDR).(FI) Mr President, I too would first like to thank the rapporteurs for producing successful reports. These reports focus on essential factors to improve maritime safety and there is still much to do in this sector. To minimise accidents the identification of vessels must be improved, the obligation to notify must be extended and procedures for transferring and using information must be simplified and attention must also be paid to differing circumstances.

The grounds for compensation for damage must observe the principles of the international system on which the Commission’s proposal is also based. The circle of people entitled to compensation and the accidents for which compensation is payable must not be extended. However, those suffering from oil damage must receive full compensation for the loss caused by the damage. The European oil pollution compensation fund is not the only way of solving problems. Solutions should initially be sought at international level and the oil industry must also take part in financing the fund.

The maritime safety agency to be set up must support Member States and the Commission in applying Community legislation. The field of operations drawn up for the agency is quite broad so good cooperation with Member States is important. The representation of various bodies on the board is not, however, essential as their points of view will be taken into account by other means. Besides tightening up the regulations, care must be taken that the decisions made are realistic and capable of being carried out. My group sees it as important that the proposals are approved quickly and we make progress on safety issues.

I would finally like to draw attention to the fact that solutions to improve maritime safety carried out only within the Union are insufficient. For example, issues of responsibility must be addressed at global level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bouwman (Verts/ALE).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteurs, a moment ago, we listened to our eccentric visionary, Mr Fatuzzo, who talked about the loss of the Andrea Doria and who referred in that connection to the captain’s fatigue. We are now turning our attention to the Erika and to what preceded and followed that disaster. I think it is wise once again to add a number of important elements to the Erika II package. As Mr Piecyk has already indicated, we will need to make more headway, for things are developing far too slowly at the moment. That does not mean that we are not actually sometimes the cause of those delays ourselves. I am therefore rather critical of the proposal, for example, to extend the compensation fund for oil pollution to include other substances. We would like to see this happen, and with that in mind, I think that Mr Atkins’ contribution might also lead to delay. I would, in fact, like to take the opportunity of congratulating Mr Atkins on his wife’s appointment and of offering my sympathy for the defeat of the Conservatives. I think I share rapporteur Esclopé’s view that we should not decide on any separation of either activity until this appears to be appropriate and until we are in follow-up negotiations. However, in this case, as in other cases, we very much welcome an extension of the funds as soon as possible.

We would wish to see a number of amendments re-tabled because some issues got lost at sea in our committee, either because we lacked one vote or there was a tie. That is partly caused by the fact that so many parties are involved in setting up the funds. In our opinion, if the ‘polluter pays’ principle applies, all relevant shipowners, shippers, etc. should be involved in the setting up of those funds. Regarding the fund management, we do feel that the Commission, backed by all environmental organisations and local authorities, has a considerable role to play.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Markov (GUE/NGL) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as Mr Sterckx stresses in his excellent report, the maritime accidents involving the Erika, the Ievoli Sun and the Baltic Carrier highlight the shortcomings of and the omissions in current Community legislation. It is high time we had strict controls and supervised ships entering EU ports or using the busy shipping lanes off Community coasts.

I need only point out, in order to illustrate just how serious maritime safety is, that 90% of trade between the EU and third countries uses maritime transport. Contrary to the honourable rapporteur and his Amendment No 11 to Article 8, I take the view that the EU has sufficient weight and international clout to adopt its own regulations and standards where the IMO is unable to do so in the short term.

I therefore subscribe to the Commission's proposal to install black boxes on older ships and not to allow any technical derogations for older ships. Surely it is older ships which represent a danger to maritime transport and the maritime and coastal environment?

A second point I should like to raise concerns how compliance with the measures adopted can be guaranteed at national and European level. The Commission proposes setting up a new European Maritime Safety Agency, on which Mr Mastorakis has reported. Despite the general consensus on the remit and responsibilities of this new European agency, I wonder if it will resolve the fundamental problems involved in improving maritime safety in the Member States. Would it not be better to start by stipulating what the Member States themselves should do in order to anchor a uniform European approach in their national legislation and put it into practice?

By that I mean, for example, specific proposals for new national databases, powers for the national authorities to conduct stricter inspections of ships which represent a risk, specific powers for coastal authorities over ships using ports of refuge or criteria for specifying the number of ports of refuge to be notified and the special safety precautions required in ports.

But, first and foremost, we need to train and deploy the human resources needed. So far there has been no mention of this or uniform European approach here. This, too, is something the Commission should take into account and include in subsequent action.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gallagher (UEN). – Mr President, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important topic, which is most pertinent to my constituency of Connaught Ulster, covering virtually the entire northern and western coasts of Ireland. The livelihoods of many of my constituents are dependent on the marine sector and a coherent safety policy for all facets of maritime transport is an urgent necessity. I commend all three rapporteurs for their work on this important subject.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the work carried out by the Commission in responding so rapidly to Parliament's resolution, which called for a general tightening up of maritime safety. It has brought forward two comprehensive packages of measures in a relatively short period of time and has clearly demonstrated a proper appreciation of the urgency of the matter. The measures we are dealing with today aim at the effective protection of European waters against the risk of accidents at sea and marine pollution.

I would like to address myself in particular to the setting up of a European maritime safety agency. This agency would play an important role in providing the Commission and Member States with support in applying, and monitoring compliance with, maritime safety measures, and in assessing their effectiveness. It is not enough to agree on a set of rules. We must also ensure that there is full and proper application of all aspects of maritime safety regulations in order to afford maximum protection for all those working in the sector, as well as to protect properly inhabitants of coastal areas and the coastal environment.

I welcome the proposal for four representatives on the board to be appointed by Parliament. With regard to a proposal for four industry representatives on the board, it would be helpful for the Commission to clarify that the various sectors of the maritime industry would be represented. It is absolutely essential that there be representatives from the fishing industry on this board.

In conclusion, it is essential that whatever regulation we adopt aims at an exemplary level of safety in sea transport and the prevention of pollution in our seas. Coming from a maritime region of the Union, I am acutely aware of the preciousness of our marine resources and the need for sustainable activities, which assure these resources for future generations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Van Dam (EDD).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, while we are discussing the second package of proposals following the disaster involving the Maltese tanker, the Erika, the Council and the European Parliament have still not reached agreement on the first package. Surely it is a disgrace that, eighteen months after the event, we still cannot manage to resolve our differences. I would call on the Council once again to study Parliament’s constructive contribution.

Back to today. The proposals which the Commission has prepared in this second package are also valuable. They help establish an adequate framework for safety at sea and environmental protection. I can therefore support most elements in this package.

The navigation system is an important element. In particular, the dynamic between the powers of the captain and the port authorities and between the exchange and processing of the collected information is a key point in this proposal. The rapporteur has found a prudent solution for the first point. The provisions concerning the exchange of information will need to prove their worth in practice which might be more difficult to achieve than expected. The third major component of this proposal concerns the point where things went wrong with the Erika: the opportunity to find a safe haven in the event of potential damage to the ship and the environment. In my opinion, the provisions included – provided they are fully implemented by the Member States – appear to guarantee responsible reception of ships in difficulty.

If, despite the precautions taken, an accident should nevertheless occur, it is important to provide swift and adequate compensation for the damage. The existing international compensation system leaves a lot to be desired in terms of speed of action. The introduction of a European layer on top of the existing Fund is only to be welcomed if the desired provisions cannot be introduced in the international system. It is as yet unclear whether that will happen, but a complete adaptation to the proposed EU standards seems unlikely. In order to prevent European shippers and receivers from being placed in too unfavourable a position, the extra layer will need to be as limited as possible. An extension to include substances other than oil seems an unnecessarily complicating factor on which to reach international agreement. Therefore, this extension does not receive my backing.

Finally, Mr President, an Agency, yet to be set up, that supports the Commission forms a constructive contribution towards the EU’s tasks of ensuring safety at sea. Both international and European legislation on shipping traffic are starting to take on such dimensions that high-quality, specialist expertise to support the Commission is vital. It is therefore important for the Agency to be staffed with highly qualified personnel from the Member States. And as long as that requirement is met, I am not concerned where the offices of this Agency are based.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gollnisch (TDI).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year and a half ago, the oil tanker Erika broke up off the coast of Brittany, causing one of the largest oil slicks ever. Sadly, that was not the first, and will probably not be the last time we see this kind of pollution of the coast of one of our Member States.

The French Minister for the Environment, for his part, saw no need to curtail his holiday in La Réunion. Did he underestimate the scale of the disaster? Or did he think it would be pointless to return? It is true that Mrs Voynet and her Green comrades are concerned with issues other than the environment. The number of seats the Socialists will hand to them at the next legislative elections, the legalisation of drugs, homosexual marriages, abortion, regularising the status of immigrants who have illegally entered France, protecting the life of murderers in the United States: with all these concerns, there is not much room left for the environment.

By contrast, our other leaders were very active. Mr Jospin went so far as to visit one of the beaches, carried by one of his friends so as not to dirty his shoes. They all vowed, rather belatedly, that this would never happen again. All the necessary measures would be taken, double hulls, breaking up pieces of floating wreckage, etc. Some even suggested launching a campaign to boycott Total, the only remaining French oil company. Naturally, the large American oil groups welcomed this happy initiative.

A year and a half later, all this activity has brought no real improvement. Compensation of victims is almost non-existent. Only 6% of the available money has been paid out. The main purpose of the IOPC Fund, the compensation fund set up by the oil companies, seems to be to pay the victims as little money as possible. These procedures, these counter-inquiries, these experts’ reports seem to be designed to discourage the most persevering of claimants, who retreat before the avalanche of procedures they are required to follow.

As for our coasts, they continue to be polluted by thousands of ships carrying dangerous waste. The 1996 conventions on compensation of damage caused by the transport by sea of noxious and hazardous substances and the 2001 convention, known as the Bunker Convention, on civil liability for pollution damage caused by bunker oil, have not been implemented, or indeed ratified.

What solution do the three reports before us today propose? Compensating the victims? Mr Esclopé, in his report, rightly notes that the IOPC Fund is not very effective. But it is questionable whether the solution lies in the creation of a new compensation body. The maritime safety of our countries? The proposals in Mr Sterckx’s report on the identification of ships, on their cargo and their access to ports, are entirely justified, but they only cover one aspect of the problem. As for the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency, called for in the third report, Mr Mastorakis is right to question the usefulness of creating, and I quote from the report, ‘a new Community bureaucracy’.

Once again, the Europe of Brussels appears to be restricting the freedoms of the Member States by setting up another administration. But freedom is not licence, and we should be quite clear about that. It is the natural prerogative of a state to fly its flag on a ship, as recognised by the international court at The Hague since the famous cases known as the Muscat Dhows Case and the Lotus Case. So we cannot protest if Liberia or Panama, for instance, make use of this attribute of their sovereignty. But the end result cannot be that our states are obliged to allow ramshackle ships operated by incompetent crews and posing serious risks to the environment to approach their coasts. They must have the right to visit and, if need be, to refuse access to or turn away any ship that penetrates the zone defined by the Montego Bay convention as an exclusive economic zone, i.e. the 200 sea-mile zone.

All these measures, however wise, are not sufficient to tackle the threats – meaning, of course, environmental threats – facing the coastlines of our countries. If we are to tackle them, perhaps we first need to ask a few embarrassing questions. Why, for example, is a French company forced to go to a foreign ship owner, flying a dubious flag, with a crew that can only be described as a floating ‘Babel’? The Communist trade union, the CGT, which has ruined the French shipyards, the governments that have increased the rate of compulsory levies by 15 points in 25 years, probably have the answer. Why is the oil we import not carried mostly via the oil pipelines, which would be much safer than any tanker?

Yet, the threats are not only environmental. The arrival on the French Côte d'Azur last February of a Turkish vessel filled with a thousand or so Kurds from Syria, misrepresented as Iraqi refugees, showed the French that in the Europe of Schengen and of Amsterdam there is hardly any more control of their maritime borders than of their terrestrial borders, even near a large military port. Any ship can, therefore, enter our territorial waters.

Today, some of these ships are carrying oil, others hazardous substances, others illegal immigrants. Tomorrow they could just as easily be carrying weapons or terrorist groups. These dangers are the result of abolishing the borders and of the decline of our national navies, which, today, no longer have the resources to accomplish their tasks, one of the most important of which is protection of the coasts. If we are to restore maritime safety to our countries, then as in many other areas it is not so much new European regulations that we need as governments that pursue a policy founded on simple principles: independence in relation to energy, maintenance of a genuine national navy, lower levies and protection of borders, including maritime borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Musotto (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all recognise the importance of the Erika II package, which seeks to improve safety and avoid the repetition of environmental disasters at sea and along the coasts of the European Community. It took the disaster of the Erika in December 1999 for us to launch a series of measures on the safety of sea traffic. However, it gives me great pleasure to be able to say that the debate on the measures making up the package is progressing fast in a coordinated manner, demonstrating a clear convergence of objectives within the European institutions. I congratulate the European Parliament on its work, for it conducted the analysis of the proposals rapidly and resolutely.

With regard to the safety of the transportation of hazardous, pollutant goods by sea, it is now clear that the current legislation is totally inadequate. In fact, Directive 93/75/EEC lays down a notification system for the goods but does not establish rules for collecting information.

In this regard, Mr Sterckx's report draws our attention to the need to increase the safety of maritime transport by using new technologies and the instruments made available to us by international provisions establishing a Community monitoring, control and information system.

We must guarantee more stringent monitoring of ships which represent particularly high risks to safety at sea or the environment. I agree with the rapporteur when he calls for an increase in the powers of Member States to act in their capacity as coastal States when faced with accident hazards or the threat of pollution.

In addition, we are all convinced of the utility of installing a black box on board vessels, and we hope that it will be possible to bring older ships into line with the new standards within the transition period, even if this means installing a simplified version of the black box or VDR.

I would like to end by drawing your attention to the fact that VDRs and transponders are not in themselves sufficient to avoid accidents. Other factors such as the level of training and the competence of the crew are equally as important.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, as a British MEP I would like to say that on this occasion it is unfair to blame the French for the delay in implementing the Erika I package. The Council as a whole must share responsibility for the lack of progress.

Sadly it is not just the Erika, but the 1 000 ships that have sunk over the past ten years that really highlight the desperate need to make progress in the areas we are discussing this afternoon. Many lives have been lost, thousands of kilometres of our coastline have been damaged, perhaps for ever. That is why I, as PSE spokesperson this afternoon, speak in support of the Commission's proposal and the Sterckx report on the need to establish a monitoring system for maritime traffic.

I thank the rapporteur for all the work he has done, but I should like to focus on one item on which I cannot fully share his views, namely Amendment No 11 to Article 8. Maybe the rapporteur could explain the amendment later on, but I fear that it seeks to water down the commitment contained in the Commission's proposal to ensure that high-quality voyage data recorders – black boxes – are fitted in all ships, old and new, by 2007.

In my view, and in that of many in the maritime sector, the reluctance to accept the value of voyage data recorders and take positive measures to fit them in merchant vessels is a factor which makes safety in the maritime sector less satisfactory. According to marine accident investigators, a voyage data recorder not only records what happens, but also removes arguments and ensures that appropriate corrective measures can be taken. It is, in their view, one of the most valuable tools available today in preventing accidents from happening, not just in learning from mistakes.

Electronic systems have highlighted the limitations of human ability to recall events accurately. They have on occasion shown eye-witness accounts to be totally unreliable. We desperately need these particular black boxes to be fitted sooner rather than later. To put it simply, a ship fitted with a black box is a safer ship.

First, lessons can be learnt and they can be learnt accurately. But secondly, there will be a significant change in the safety culture of a ship as a whole. Therefore the VDR is, if anything, a preventive tool. We would therefore support the Commission's proposal. The IMO route is perhaps a better one, but we are not prepared for a study that may be published in 2004 – who knows? We want action and we want it now.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you may rest assured that, unlike Mr Gollnisch, I will not call for every last detail of maritime safety to be resolved.

Although we welcome the speedy attempts to ensure the safety of transport by sea, we also remember that the ‘Erika I’ package has still not been adopted in full. Once the initial excitement is over, the institutions, including Parliament, relapse into their slow procedures, which is a pity. We must keep up the pace for the ‘Erika II’ package, and I hope it will not be plagued by subtle attempts to slip in amendments that may be relevant but have no chance at all of being adopted by the Council, with a view to slowing down the procedures. For the object of this package is to establish an effective arsenal of legal provisions to ensure maritime safety, after all the disasters that have occurred, and to prevent pollution.

On the report on the monitoring system, we totally support the rapporteur’s proposals, especially those seeking to make it compulsory as from 2007 to install a black box in all ships entering EU ports and on a system of automatic identification of ships, so that they can be monitored by the coastal authorities.

The directive will also require Member States to determine ports of refuge for ships in distress. This provision will, no doubt, pose some problems and we will have to be very careful how we implement it.

Turning to the European Maritime Safety Agency, we welcome its establishment but we would have preferred it to serve as the point of departure for a future European coastal agency. That is not the case, but with time and experience, that is what it could turn into. We would like it to be independent, whereas the Commission proposals in fact leave it little margin for manoeuvre. We are sorry that our proposal to include representatives of the NGOs and trade unions on the administrative board were rejected. These voluntary players often make pertinent proposals and could be objective and constructive allies for the agency.

With regard to where the agency will be based, before the final choice is made, we would like to see a number of criteria introduced, such as the frequency of accidents at sea, the intensity of maritime traffic and the maritime infrastructure of the candidate countries concerned.

Finally, the third report concerns the European Fund, modelled more or less on the IOPC Fund, which was unable, a year and a half after the Erika disaster, to compensate the victims, although the appropriate authorities had made the necessary financial promises and set early deadlines. We fully endorse the main objectives, such as the aim of raising the compensation ceiling, given that damages for the Erika disaster came to EUR 300 million, whereas the IOPC Fund has a ceiling of no more than EUR 200 million. We think it is crucial to extend the compensation to include environmental damage. In fact, this would be the first time that the financial evaluation of environmental costs was given in figures and that compensation was paid for repairing damage to the environment. The Committee on Transport's attitude in this regard is difficult to understand and tends in the opposite direction. We regret that.

Lastly, on contributions to the fund, we believe that those who own and charter the ships should also have to contribute to this fund.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ainardi (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although a number of questions remain open, let me say from the outset that I endorse the three reports before us on the ‘Erika II’ package, while at the same time emphasising that we urgently need to adopt them and, even more, to implement them.

Improvements are still needed and, I hope, are still possible; that is the purpose of the amendments my group has tabled. I will confine my comments to two points I regard as crucial.

The first is the need for greater democracy, to enable the various players involved in this sector to have a say in the decision-making process. Secondly, we must go further on the question of compensation.

Coming back to the first point, priority must be attached to giving the men and women involved a say. That is a democratic requirement to which the European Union constantly refers as one of its values; but it is also a question of effectiveness. If we want to improve safety at sea we must also mobilise all the citizens concerned, in particular nature conservation associations, trade union organisations and, more generally, the personnel involved in maritime traffic.

With regard to compensation, we very much need this initiative. We have to listen to the victims, the elected representatives, the local associations involved. We must give them a say in the actual evaluation of the consequences of the damage as also in the decisions on compensation. They have a role to play in the management of the COPE Fund. The same requirement should apply to the Safety Agency, which should be open to representatives of the employees of this industry, to representatives of the associations, who have the kind of know-how that is crucial to any proper evaluation. In even broader terms, I believe that the agency should ensure that they are involved in its initiatives on a regular basis.

On the second point, it is unacceptable that in the final analysis much of the damage caused by maritime disasters is borne by the people who are the victims. That is the reason for establishing the COPE Fund and that is why we are supporting this initiative. Let me say once again that I think it would be very judicious to hold the ship owners and charterers liable both financially and under criminal law. We must also establish the link between the nationality of the ship owner and the flag flown by the ship.

Lastly, according to some estimates, the COPE compensation ceiling of EUR 1 billion will suffice for the Erika disaster. I believe that to accept that ceiling would mean accepting that we do not pay full compensation for other disasters, which, alas, we cannot exclude at this point, and therefore that the countries concerned have to bear much of the costs.

We would have preferred no ceiling to be set, so that the compensation corresponded as closely as possible to the real need; in the meantime, I believe we should consider raising that ceiling.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bernié (EDD).(FR) Mr President, let us make the most of a good thing. For once, the Commission is showing appreciation of the daily lives of European citizens. Even so, twenty-one years after the sinking of the Amoco Cadiz, the Commission is finally taking action and proposes to improve and speed up the payment of compensation to victims. This is the objective behind setting up the COPE Fund, an objective which has my unbridled approval, all the more so because I am an MEP for the Loire Atlantique region, the département in France which has been affected the most by the Erika disaster and where tourism plays an important part. This economic and ecological disaster has placed many businesses in difficulties, caused unemployment and has polluted our environment. The irony is that it is the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that is dragging its feet.

Committee members from both the right and the left voted in favour of amendments on increasing the COPE Fund for substances other than oil, and even though these amendments are praiseworthy, they will cause an unavoidable delay – I am sorry but this is what will happen – in setting up the Fund and therefore in compensating the victims properly. This strategy is more than debatable, since it is based on conventions that are not yet ratified and it might even scupper this eagerly awaited measure. These amendments therefore seem tainted and absurd. This is a choice that we will eventually have to explain to those affected by the disaster who are on the verge of bankruptcy and to the municipalities that have put an enormous effort into cleaning up the coastline and which are awaiting appropriate compensation. I believe it is irresponsible to give a demagogical speech, ruling out any extra compensation. I think it would be much more sensible to push this through quickly and to achieve practical results.

That is the reason why we will be voting against these amendments, so that the original proposal – the most suitable one for properly compensating those affected by this disaster – is restored.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the Erika disaster led to a wave of indignation amongst the European public at the deficient measures in force and our incapacity to prevent such a huge catastrophe. This accident demonstrated the limitations of a political approach which tried to deal with maritime safety exclusively within the framework of international organisations such as the IMO.

The very extensive international safety legislation which now regulates maritime transport has made it possible to drastically reduce accidents and pollution. The measures we are discussing today and those which we discussed just a month ago, Erika I, demonstrate the commitment of our institutions to strengthening the safety of ships and the protection of the marine environment.

However, as in all human activities, it is practically impossible to guarantee complete safety. It is therefore inevitable that there should be sporadic maritime accidents or pollution incidents and that, being spectacular, they should receive wide media coverage. This does not alter the fact that the immense majority of journeys take place safely, effectively and in a way which respects the environment.

I congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Sterckx, Mr Esclopé and Mr Mastorakis, on their excellent work on the safety of maritime traffic, the compensation of oil pollution and the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Commission and, in particular, the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, on her magnificent work, since in one year she has presented six proposals aimed at improving maritime safety.

As alternative rapporteur, I will focus on the third proposal, by the rapporteur Mr Mastorakis, on the creation of the European Maritime Safety Agency.

I personally believe that the creation of this Agency will demonstrate to the public our institutions’ great interest in preventing future accidents and pollution, as well the need to raise levels of safety on our seas. Both the rapporteur, Mr Mastorakis, and others of us have presented a series of amendments aimed at improving the organisation of the Agency.

I would like to mention one, which relates to the composition of the Agency’s board, in which we propose that Parliament be removed from that composition. The reason is clear: we believe that Parliament is an organ for controlling management, never for participating in management. For that we have the Commission, the Council and a whole range of organisations.

I therefore simply wish to thank the Commissioner for her work and ask her to present the Erika III package shortly, so that we can continue working on maritime safety.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pittella (PSE).(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by welcoming the launch of this second round of measures, diligently drawn up by the Commission and subjected to in-depth debate in the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. As has already been said, the basic aim is to avoid the far too many, genuine tragedies which have occurred when unforeseen natural causes are combined with human error.

I would like to focus on the measure analysed in Mr Mastorakis' report, a measure establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency. This is a structure which, to discharge its functions fully, must imperatively be autonomous, independent and highly focused. These are the requirements which the Group of the Party of European Socialists has repeatedly stressed and reiterated with the amendments tabled in plenary and unexpectedly rejected in committee: autonomy and independence, as I said; the membership of the Administrative Board, which would exclude without any reasonable grounds both direct and indirect representation of Parliament; the decision-making powers of the Agency; in short, its role and usefulness for achieving the goal which all undoubtedly endorse.

Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to stress these points and we hope that our recommendation, contained in another amendment which refers to the criteria to be fulfilled for eligibility for accommodating the Agency, will be endorsed. This is not so much a question of engaging in another tedious, nationalistic competition as of laying down and outlining the criteria and parameters which a town or State must fulfil in order to be eligible.

Indeed, there is no doubt that it is in the interests of all to establish not formal, needlessly ornamented structures which duplicate functions but suitable bodies, so that we do not end up lamenting over tragedies which could have been avoided by courageous, far-sighted decisions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE).(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today I defended my position and that of my group, as did my fellow Members in the debates in committee, expressing a completely favourable opinion of the establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency. We are all thinking of the Erika disaster and other serious accidents involving oil tankers and the ship that spilled chemical products off the coast of Galicia, which have caused huge and irreparable damage and also deaths. It is these tragedies that underlie this decision. Now, in the little time that I have, I wish to remind you that in the next six months, perhaps as early as in Gothenburg, the Council must decide on the location of the agency. I hope that it chooses a country with maritime traditions and history, and that amongst the countries that fulfil these conditions, the choice goes to the Galician coast, which sees the majority of the maritime traffic that unites Europe with the other continents and where the greatest number of accidents occurs, including the extremely serious ones that I have just mentioned. If my proposal were acted on, I can assure you that the decision would receive the support and the warmth of Galician society.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cauquil (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, with regard to Mr Esclopé’s report, we are not opposed to a European compensation fund, particularly, and I quote, in order ‘to ensure adequate compensation of pollution damage in EU waters resulting from the transport of oil […] by sea’. We are, however, opposed to the fact that this fund is, ultimately, paid for by taxpayers. It is up to polluters to pay for all the damages that they have caused, either directly or indirectly, not to mention the financial penalties that apply for having failed to avoid causing pollution. That was not the case in the sinking of the Erika, where, moreover, the charterer was Elf; in other words, one of the richest oil companies in the European Union.

Furthermore, even with the help of various compensation funds, the victims of the oil slick have still not received adequate compensation and some have not even received any. The individuals responsible for damages are themselves threatened with court action, or even prison in order to force them to face up to their responsibilities. In order to force the guilty oil companies to do this, we must confiscate all their assets within the European Union, to make them pay immediately.

Of course, nothing of the kind has been proposed. It is for this reason that, whilst we approve some of the amendments, we shall abstain from voting on this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, may I again thank the three rapporteurs on behalf of my group. Even if the debate has shown that one group is perhaps not completely satisfied on one or two points, we must admit that all three reports were adopted either unanimously or by a large majority in committee and we should maintain this majority in tomorrow's vote. I think Parliament has put a very good package together in its position on Erika II and we should stick to it.

I also think, to pick up on some of the comments made, starting with the comments made by the previous speaker and my colleague's comments on the compensation fund, that we are not prevaricating. All we are saying is that it is just not on for Member States to maintain to the outside world that they support compensation regulations and then only ratify quite basic compensation regulations. With the Esclopé report, we have included the fact that we want regulations for both oil pollution and for pollution from dangerous or harmful substances. The Council is perfectly at liberty to prove to us at second reading that it is prepared to push ahead with ratification or find an alternative. But it is just not on to say: you are blocking our compensation regulation, when they have no intention of doing anything about pollution from dangerous or harmful substances. In this respect, we must put on the pressure and say that we want a general regulation because there is a great deal of maritime pollution, not just from oil, but also from chemicals and other substances. If the Council knows of a better way, then we are quite prepared to take it. And you too, Madam Vice-President, if you know of a better way, then we are quite prepared to go to a second reading. We also have an open mind about international regulations. If the IMO wants to find a global solution to the problem within the next six months and actually does so, then we will gladly withdraw this Commission proposal. But all I can say is that, the same thing always happens; we always have to put on the pressure first and adopt our own legislation before any global regulations are passed, which is why we must push ahead here.

One last comment on the Mastorakis report. We cannot say on the one hand that the agency should be independent, and then say that Parliament should have a say on the Administrative Board. That is a contradiction in terms. We want an independent authority but, in a democracy, any executive, even a subordinate authority, must be answerable to parliament. This will only happen if the agency is not completely independent of the Commission. We here in Parliament shall come down on the Commissioner if the agency makes mistakes. And we shall not be satisfied with the agency director's head. If something goes wrong in the agency, it will be your charming head that we are after, Madam Vice-President. That is parliamentarianism, which is why the agency must be independent, but under the responsibility of the Commission, and why we and not some experts appointed to the Administrative Board must exercise the right of control. We are your partners, Commissioner, and we shall get along just fine.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Savary (PSE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make three comments on the occasion of this extremely important debate.

My first comment is to say that, first of all, we should see to it that the European legislator stops berating itself on this matter. It has been 18 months since the Erika sank, an event marked by commotion, emotion and by ensuing controversy. It is easier to hurl abuse and to argue than to legislate, and I believe that the length of time waited, at the end of which six texts have been proposed, and these are six extremely important contributions to implement a legal basis for maritime safety in Europe, which did not previously exist, is normal. I also believe that Parliament and the Commission must be congratulated for the work that they have done – the Commission for having proposed six texts and Parliament for having examined them, thanks to the rapporteurs, in record time. To do otherwise, in my view, would have been to deceive the public, in other words, to lead the public to believe that it was possible to work much more quickly.

My second comment relates to the content. I believe that, with both the Erika I and Erika II packages, today we have, or very nearly have, a fairly solid legal basis, and we have created a European maritime area, or the beginnings of a European maritime area from scratch and within, essentially, 18 months, with the constraints that are all too familiar to you, which are, in particular, the constraints of our agreements at the IMO. We have made much progress, particularly with regard to risk prevention, or safety, in other words, as regards the effectiveness of monitoring and as regards legal and financial liability. I, like many, believe that the European Union must legislate in order to be more powerful within the International Maritime Organisation.

As for the future, and I would like to mention two cases here, I believe that there are two important aspects of safety which have not been dealt with. The first aspect is the emptying of tanks. I think that it is absolutely essential that the EU legislate and pass tough legislation on the practice of emptying tanks, which is collectively more damaging as far as the environment is concerned, as you know, than the accidents that we have witnessed. In this respect, there is a gap in the legislation, which must be filled. The second aspect is that, like many, I am astonished that rivers are not covered by any safety regulations. A large proportion of today’s traffic, particularly in northern Europe, uses the rivers. This puts people living in the vicinity at risk, and we should not wait for a disaster to happen to take legislative measures on traffic using inland ports.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Αlavanos (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, we have heard some interesting speeches, especially from my fellow countrymen, Mr Mastorakis and Mr Papayannakis. The European Union has made a move, legislation is progressing, but there are still serious concerns and questions, such as, to be brief, first: the question of the first Erika package – not just the fact that it has taken so long but the question of how it has been hammered out, amidst fierce bargaining, with safety issues coming behind questions of competition and other interests, giving rise to a lot of speculation, especially as regards single-hull tankers.

The second cause for concern is that, despite the fact that the Commission supposedly wants uniform safety standards at sea throughout the European Union, this is not the case. Different conditions apply to a whole series of ships, such as ferries in northern seas or ships in the Mediterranean. What is going to be done about this?

The third point concerns controls. We have the agency, or rather the proposal to set up an agency, but at present there are no controls. A few months ago, the Samina sank in the Aegean. Neither the Greek government nor the Commission was able to say which legislation, which directives Greece is applying and if these directives are being applied for the sake of appearances – such as the directive on training – or if they are being applied in practice. No one could say! Both the Greek government and the Commission owe us an answer.

Finally, there are two points on which I have reservations. I have some doubts as to the amendments by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on the question of the weather, which I think detract from the Commission proposal. And secondly, the cost of the compensation fund should not be borne by the citizens, especially as oil is one of the factors which exacerbates inflation, the cost of living and so forth

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hatzidakis (PPE-DE).(EL) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I think that the three directives under discussion today are a step forward as far as maritime safety is concerned, although I think that things would be even better if the Council took less time and was more efficient in taking decisions and we did not end up debating the Erika II package before we have even completed the Erika I package.

In all events, I think that two points need to be highlighted in Mr Sterckx's report. The first is that his proposals give us a more substantial and more positive measure as regards ports of refuge, places where ships can shelter in the event of danger, and I think that, thanks to Mr Sterckx's proposals, we now have more specific and more substantial measures. The second point is that, when a ship departs under normal circumstances, we have stipulated that the principal responsibility lies with the master and that it only lies with the port authorities in exceptional circumstances, because the master in fact knows better than the port authorities in such cases.

As far as Mr Esclopé's report is concerned, I should like to say that he has done a good job in introducing international arrangements here, as it is an international problem which requires an international solution. Of course, the proposal before us can – and should – act as a catalyst and encourage the relevant international agencies to take swift action on the problem in question.

Now, as regards the report by my fellow countryman, Mr Mastorakis, whom I should like to congratulate on his report, obviously we need a flexible and efficient agency and I think that, as they stand, Parliament's proposals on this Maritime Safety Agency reinforce the efforts being made and I think – and Mr Mastorakis himself believes – that, if it were to be based in Piraeus, this would reinforce these efforts still further.

Now we obviously need to take further action, especially as regards the application of Community legislation, and we need to highlight the human factor, the number of inspectors and surveyors needed to apply the legislation, inspector training, staff and crew training etc. But I assume that the Commission will consider this at a later date and notify us accordingly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Damião (PSE).(PT) Mr President, I wish to congratulate the Commission on this second package of legislation, which is not starting from scratch, since the Member States already have technical skills, in their dockyards and shipowners, their scientific community, their operators. The package, therefore, today gives European citizens the beginnings of a legislative guarantee and the beginnings of the secure management of its exclusive economic zone. We think that it is worth pointing out the effort and the persistence that the Commissioner has demonstrated on this dossier. I would also emphasise the contributions of the three rapporteurs.

With regard to the COPE Fund, it is, as has already been said here, a supplement. It is intended to meet the needs and the cover the risks of the most serious situations, such as those that have been mentioned here at some length. Beyond this, many other risks remain. Of course, maritime transport, which is subject to the rules of competition, must also have its rules strengthened under the IMO in order to enable its economic activities to continue to be profitable without sacrificing safety, not only in Europe and the United States but in all seas and oceans. The timeliness and the objectives of the agency have also already been discussed here at some length. I think that the rapporteur reasonably points out some loopholes, but I also feel that it is not Parliament’s place to manage the agency, but instead to supervise the administrative rules and good practices, of this and other, similar agencies. What the agency must guarantee is absolute fairness and equal cooperation between the Member States and must also ensure the participation of the public, of those in the profession and of the other economic and social interests concerned. The agency’s independence must, therefore, be a paradigm, an essential factor for it to be respected, for it to allay the concerns of the public and to develop and encourage plans for action and cooperation at European level. This is certainly what is needed and, as many speakers have stated here, there are many potential locations for the agency, since there are several candidates which are all equally competent and well prepared. I think that Lisbon is probably the most appropriate.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMID
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rack (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, if Cyprus and Malta accede to the Union – or rather when, not if – the Union will have the largest merchant fleet in the world. Not so much because these two countries are huge maritime powers, but because many shipowners find them ‘convenient’, and I use the English term advisedly. A large fleet is an advantage, of that there can be no doubt. But it entails a great deal of responsibility. We must therefore ensure that our fleet is safe; safety on our own doorstep is paramount, but elsewhere too the European flag must stand for quality.

When I reported to Parliament on enlargement and transport, I held a great many talks with people in positions of responsibility in the candidate countries. They were all very quick to promise that they would transpose the relevant acquis into their national law. However, as I pointed out even then, things were still in the pipeline, especially the Erika II package under discussion today. That alone was cause for concern.

Talks on transposing European law or, to use the Community jargon, ‘implementing the acquis’, soon got bogged down. In one case, I was even told that the inspector responsible was on holiday. We shall need much more than one inspector if we want to use serious, prompt, all-encompassing controls in order to prevent further disasters on our or anyone else's doorstep.

We shall need sufficient numbers of trained inspectors and we shall need them quickly. The present Member States can do a great deal to help here. Twinning and the temporary secondment of well-trained specialists working in existing management and control structures recently proved to be a very effective instrument in reintegrating former East Germany. We could apply this model here too.

With measures to guarantee that foreseeable problems will be dealt with promptly by well-organised accession mechanisms, we could contribute to the success of the enlargement process and, more importantly, win our citizens over. There are already more than enough concerns and fears on the question of enlargement. We must address these concerns and fears, be they major concerns or concerns about individual specialist aspects such as those under discussion today. I almost said there are a lot of Irish among us.

Parliamentarians on the Administrative Board – not the best way of involving Parliament, I think. The Commission should monitor the agency and we should monitor the Commission.

As an Austrian, I unfortunately have no high-sea ports to offer. We lost our last sea battle a hundred years ago. But I should like to think that we too could offer a pleasing location, should one be wanted.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vatanen (PPE-DE).(FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is high time we woke up and noticed the kind of environmental and safety risks associated with maritime transport and particularly with tankers. Oil catastrophes have concretely shown that relying on good luck costs society dear. Unfortunately difficult decisions often make progress only when a catastrophe and the reactions of voters force politicians to act. The Erika II package under discussion therefore deserves all possible support.

I would like to congratulate all three rapporteurs for drawing up thorough reports. The Erika II package certains very many positive proposals among which I would particularly like to mention the setting up of emergency ports and the automatic monitoring of vessels. The setting up of a maritime safety agency will also improve coordination on safety issues.

Although we Europeans can affect the condition of our maritime environment very significantly, we must always remember that we are not alone in the world, even after enlargement. A large number of vessels originating from other than EU Member States travel near the shores of Europe. Therefore, we must take care that the well-intentioned measures of Europe do not impede the creation of international agreements. One example is the European oil pollution compensation fund (COPE). Setting up the fund must not mean reducing willingness to achieve a wider solution under the auspices of the IMO. Oil pollutes just as much and clean-up costs are identical whether the vessel is registered in the EU or, for example, under the Liberian flag.

Ladies and gentlemen, safeguarding the cleanliness of our seas and especially our coastline means we must not hesitate a minute longer. It is time to act decisively so that the worst problems can be removed once and for all. In this way, we will ensure that no Jessica, Angelica or even Marika Package is required in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would, first of all, like to thank and congratulate the three rapporteurs, Mr Sterckx, Mr Mastorakis and Mr Esclopé, on their magnificent reports on the safety of maritime traffic, the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for oil pollution. Furthermore, I would like to thank them for having presented and prepared these reports within such a short timescale and for the attention they have paid to the problem of maritime safety.

However, like many of today’s speakers, I regret the fact that we are discussing the Erika II package without having yet adopted Erika I, although I hope that within the conciliation procedure we will achieve a positive result as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, I would also like to say that the Erika I and Erika II packages are already having practical effects within the International Maritime Organisation, where we have managed to make progress on making double-hulled or similar ships compulsory for the transportation of oil, and also with regard to the current discussion on increasing the figures in order to cover liabilities, which will very possibly exceed USD 300 million – they are currently 180 million – and also in relation to countries such as Cyprus and Malta which – and I address this to Mr Rack – are making an enormous effort to improve the characteristics of their fleets within the framework of their incorporation into the European Union, accepting the requirements of the Erika I and Erika II packages before they enter into force.

Before the end of the year, I will present a proposal on safety on ferries, although we know what happened in the case of the Samina Express: they were watching football. Greek justice is taking action. I believe we must mark out territories. It is the Member States who have all the responsibilities in the criminal field.

I will refer to the proposed directive on maritime traffic, which is the most advanced one in terms of its preparation and I believe this is indicated by the consensus in relation to it. We broadly support all the amendments, with slight modifications of the wording of those which are aimed at improving or specifying the scope of the text. Also, in part, with some modifications, Amendments Nos 6 and 18, which are extremely important, on the refuge area. With some modifications, the amendments which are aimed at improving the assessment of the implementation of the Directive on the ground, specifically Amendments Nos 7, 20 and 21. We cannot accept the current wording of Amendment No 11 on black boxes – although I understand the rapporteur’s objectives, the formulation used makes this requirement dependent on a prior decision by the IMO. We are not prepared to accept this. If the IMO is able to make progress, we will have to move ahead; but we know that good work is being done within the International Maritime Organisation and what we want is to put more pressure on, as we have done in the case of double hulls.

With regard to the proposal for the European Maritime Safety Agency, I would thank you for Parliament’s positive approach to our proposal and the support it is giving us. This is not a purely administrative measure, but rather the Agency will increase the public visibility of the European Union’s commitment to increasing maritime safety to the highest possible level and preventing pollution from ships. I would like to say to those people who are concerned that the Agency may become another Community bureaucratic body, that the Agency will enable the Member States to be part of and participate in an area which, as we all know, involves national and Community responsibilities and competences and through which we have to seek integration in order to better coordinate these actions. The Agency will enable the Commission and the Member States to work together in an independent body and that is one of its advantages.

Parliament’s amendments do not alter the spirit of the Commission’s proposal and focus principally on the administrative structure. The Commission supports Amendments Nos 1, 2, 7, 15, 16, 21 and 22 and we can also accept Amendment No 4, which makes it possible for the Agency to offer technical assistance to the candidate countries without a specific request from the Commission. We can also accept Amendments Nos 14 and 10, which clarify the mandate of the principal directors of this body.

In relation to Amendments Nos 9, 20, 27 and 28, on the Administrative Board, I must say that we accept Amendments Nos 9 and 27, insofar as they eliminate the presence of Parliament and, if these amendments are incorporated, we will have to make the necessary adjustments.

In relation to the location of the Agency, Amendment No 19 seems more logical than No 29. Objective criteria are specified for the selection and I fully agree with this and believe that it can be incorporated.

We accept that the external evaluation of the Agency be subject to the conditions set by the Administrative Board, as Amendment No 17 requests in part, although we do not think it is necessary to repeat the evaluation every 5 years as it suggests.

With regard to the visits which the officials of the agencies must make to the Member States, the Commission wishes the national administrations to actively participate in them and to assist them. We cannot therefore accept either Amendment No 6 or No 5, which contravene this objective.

I understand the justification for Amendment No 18, but for reasons of legal certainty I cannot accept it, since the term ‘independent’ adds nothing to a body with its own legal personality.

Nor can I accept Amendments Nos 8 and 12, which imply that it is not necessary for the Commission to approve the Agency’s programme, nor Amendments Nos 13 and 25, according to which the decision to make visits to the Member States should depend on a Commission opinion, rather than on its agreement. Supervising the implementation of the Community acquis will remain the responsibility of the Commission and the Agency cannot replace us in this task. Lastly, the Commission cannot agree with Amendments Nos 11 and 24, which affect the impartiality of the executive director.

With regard to the third proposal on responsibility and compensation for the dumping of oil, I would like to congratulate Mr Esclopé and Parliament on your work on such a complex issue.

I would like to make it clear that the problems do not relate to the underlying objectives, but only to the means of achieving these objectives and we should try to solve all the problems by means of a proposal designed to deal with one specific issue: the lack of adequate compensation in the case of serious oil pollution. Furthermore, I agree with what Mr Esclopé has said. If we now add to this proposal the problems relating to other types of dumping, to pollution from chemical dumping or from the cleaning out of bilge, we will eventually paralyse the initiative.

These types of proposals are specifically related to Conventions which are awaiting ratification and which must be ratified over the next few years. I am also prepared for us to also make some regional proposals in the event that existing Conventions are not ratified by a sufficient number of States that are members of the IMO. But since there is already an international proposal, I believe that we should not be too hasty. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Let us concentrate on the dumping of oil, on which we have data and certain factors which will allow us to move forward quickly.

We can accept three groups of amendments which, altogether, make up more or less half of them.

The first, the nineteen amendments which seek to extend the scope of the Regulation to cover substances other than oil, such as chemical and combustible substances, are not acceptable, as I have pointed out. The second group of amendments, which refer to the role of shipowners in the COPE Fund, Amendments Nos 22 to 25 and 50, which seek to introduce compulsory contributions for shipowners, are not compatible with international law, since the international rules in force do not allow demands for additional compensation from shipowners, unless the accident has been caused by fraudulent behaviour.

This is one of the problems detected by the Commission in the international system in force, which must be rectified on an international level and we are committed to working on this. Nevertheless, given the current situation, requiring shipowners to participate in compensation for damages would contravene the current international rules and we are therefore unable to accept such a proposal.

But I must say that Amendments Nos 29, 31, 34 to 42, 52 and 57 also cause problems for the Commission because their aim is to strengthen the participation of the local representatives of the polluted region in the COPE Fund committee procedures. I would remind you that this committee is covered by the Decision on commitology and Community law does not allow its composition to be changed.

Nor can we accept Amendment No 19, which proposes removing the paragraph establishing the possibility of rejecting compensation to claimants involved in the accident, that is to say shipowners, charterers and company directors. It would not make sense to compensate those responsible for the pollution. I therefore prefer to keep this paragraph, which allows the rejection of payments to the parties most involved in the pollution.

We have problems with Amendment No 28, which proposes reducing the period for collecting contributions, and lastly, with Amendments Nos 51, 52, 54 and 55, which create difficulties in practice because they fall outside the scope of the proposal.

All the others, either in their entirety or in part, can be accepted. They are Nos 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 10, 11, 20, 30, 32, 33, and from 43 to 49.

I will end by once again thanking the rapporteurs for the speed and quality of their work, as well as the whole of the committee and Parliament as a whole for their support for the Erika I and Erika II packages in their entirety. I hope that all the remaining stages of negotiations in both forums will maintain the highest quality in terms of the texts and the proposals, and will be completed as quickly as possible. I would also like to say that before the end of the year we shall be submitting proposals on safety in the transportation of persons, of passengers.

We would have liked to achieve everything by now, but we must understand that sometimes we cannot achieve what everybody wants. We have, however, taken very significant steps forward which, I insist, have already had real consequences by improving safety on our seas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will be held tomorrow at 11 a.m.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy