Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - Strasbourg

8. Erika II

  President. – The next item is the Commission communication on the Erika II package on safety at sea.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, exactly a year ago today, the sinking of the oil tanker Erika took place. That disaster led to the pollution of 400 km of French coastline, with serious consequences for the environment, and for the citizens who lived and ran businesses in that area, whether they be oyster farmers, shellfish gatherers, fishermen or simply citizens involved in the tourist sector.

This accident, which followed many others, gave rise to anger and despondency amongst the communities that were affected and within public opinion in general because of the opacity of the maritime sector and the inability of the legislation in force to prevent problems such as this. This feeling unfortunately still persists to this day in the mood of European public opinion.

The sinking of the Erika had a completely new and surprising effect. Never before had there been so much talk about maritime safety in the European Union. For the first time there has been awareness of the need to find European solutions to this type of issue related to maritime pollution. It is obvious that one State of the Union on its own cannot have any real influence on maritime transport across the world and, on the other hand, the International Maritime Organisation is too slow and lacks effective means to adequately monitor the rules which it lays down.

The European public has insisted that the European institutions should adopt quick and drastic measures to put an end to the scandal of flags of convenience.

One year after the sinking of the Erika, we must all ask ourselves whether or not we have really been able to meet the expectations of Europe’s citizens. I sincerely believe that, given the progress that has been made quickly in the work of our respective bodies, it is undeniable that all the institutions have understood and fully accepted the importance of this issue. For its part, just three months after the accident, the Commission assumed its responsibilities and adopted a first package of measures, which the European Parliament approved fully on 30 November.

In addition to these first measures, the Commission has just adopted, on 6 December, a second package which I believe will respond even more directly to people’s expectations and will also profoundly change the rules of the game in the field of maritime transport, which will be of great benefit to maritime safety and to the protection of our coasts against the risks of pollution. In this respect, I would like today to very briefly present the content of this new package known as Erika II.

Firstly, we will be implementing a European system of maritime transport inspection. As such, the first measure is a proposal for a directive establishing a European system for monitoring, inspection and information with regard to maritime traffic. It is clear that inspection by the port State, regardless of the rigour with which it is carried out, only partially protects the States against the risks of accident and pollution, particularly from ships in transit.

The Commission’s proposal therefore has three fundamental objectives: firstly, to carry out better monitoring and inspection of the traffic of all the ships off our coasts. To this end, the ships must be equipped with devices that allow them to be automatically identified and monitored from land. Another device, whose importance in the eyes of MEPs is known to the Commission, is black boxes, which are also required by this directive, which must be fitted on board ships which dock in a European port, in order to aid the investigation of the facts in the case of an accident at sea or, possibly, to facilitate inspection by the port State. This will oblige the captain and crews to run the ship with more care.

The second objective is to simplify and speed up, in the case of accident, the communication of detailed information on dangerous and polluting cargoes, obliging ships and authorities to communicate the data electronically.

And the final objective of this directive is to strengthen the management of emergency situations at sea, through the obligation to designate ports of refuge, the prohibition on taking to sea during high storms and greater powers of intervention at sea on the part of the coastal State in the event of a serious risk of pollution.

Secondly, another aspect of this package consists of improving the rules in force in the field of responsibility and compensation for damages in the event of pollution by oil or its derivatives. We simply need to remember that the case of the Erika oil slick has shown us how slow and insufficient this compensation is, and it is still a long way from being paid to the victims and the people affected by this pollution a year after the accident happened. Furthermore, they are unlikely to be compensated for 100% of the damages they have suffered.

Thus the Commission’s priority is to try to resolve these two problems, and the solution we propose is to supplement the existing funds through the creation of a European fund financed by the oil companies, which would offer the victims quick compensation of up to EUR 1 000 million, instead of the EUR 200 million – USD 180 million – currently granted by the international authorities.

At the same time, we will be approaching the international bodies in order to try to review in detail the system established by the international agreements. In the event that the IMO does not adopt the necessary measures, the Commission would submit a proposal to Parliament and the Council on a Community system for responsibility and compensation in the event of pollution by hydrocarbons.

Furthermore, any person who has contributed through serious negligence to causing pollution will be subject to deterrent penalties, which will serve to promote responsible behaviour on the part of the maritime industry as a whole.

The third measure in the Erika II package is the proposed creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency, which will provide the Commission and the Member States of the Union with the technical support necessary to implement the applicable Community legislation. It will also serve as a platform between the Member States and the Commission for the development of harmonised practices and procedures, as well as facilitating the smooth flow of information between the various ports and between the various States and administrations.

In fact, with more than fifteen directives or regulations in force, it is crucial that we standardise practices and exercise greater control over the implementation of Community rules, in order to prevent significant and unacceptable differences in the field of maritime safety which could arise within the Union.

The European Maritime Safety Agency constitutes a first stage in the increasing integration of the administrative practices of the Member States, which may one day lead to the creation, as has been repeatedly requested by this House, of a genuine European coastguard organisation. However, ladies and gentlemen, we have not reached that stage yet.

Mr President, I hope that Parliament will take this opportunity, on this highly symbolic date – the first anniversary of the Erika disaster – to remember its determination and give the Commission the support that it will need throughout the legislative process. This issue is of crucial importance, since through it the European Union has asserted, in the eyes of the outside world and of its citizens, its ability to impose its own demands, in an international environment which is in principle largely unfavourable, in the field of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution.

I would like to remind you that the Heads of State and Government, meeting just three days ago at the European Council in Nice, have given decisive political impetus to this second package of measures, recognising that it is aimed at strengthening maritime safety, improving the European system of information on maritime traffic and creating an agency which will improve on the shortcomings of the current international system. So much so that they recommended to the States that they adopt the appropriate measures a priori and as soon as necessary, without waiting for the Parliamentary and Council procedure to allow us to definitively approve the directives I am referring to.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, may I congratulate you once again for having outlined the Erika II package in clear and comprehensible terms and especially the need for us to inspect vessels in transit – subject to the international law of the sea – rather than only checking vessels that dock in EU ports. These other ships which are only passing through EU waters can cause equally bad and even far worse pollution of our shorelines. So I believe this approach is absolutely correct.

As far as liability is concerned, we must take a very careful look at that. The oil companies tell us they have a voluntary fund. This raises the question of whether we need a public fund. If you tell us that experience has shown the voluntary fund to be inadequate, which would be unfortunate, we shall then try to sort out this issue.

Madam Vice-President, how do you rate the prospects of the Council taking a decision on the Erika I package in December? Parliament took its decision on 30 November; you presented a good document, and we decided quickly. How do you see the chances of the Council managing to adopt Erika I now, in December?

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her continuing commitment in the field of maritime safety.

I should like her to answer two points. Firstly, how will she persuade the Council to adopt her proposal on black-box voyage-data recorders? We are trying to do that now on the Erika I package. We obviously would welcome her support on that issue, but we want to know how she will persuade these Member States to do what up until now they appear to be unwilling to do.

Secondly, there is nothing in her package to tackle the problem of the blacklisted flag states, states sadly that include Cyprus and Malta, where 50, 60, 70, 80% of ships have defects. What measures does she propose to tackle these blacklisted rogue flag states that continue to flout international maritime law?

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, firstly, it is essential not only to inspect the ships which come to our ports, but also certain ships in transit with dangerous cargoes or in situations of risk. That seems to us to be essential.

Secondly, I hope that the ministers are capable, even at 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning, of approving the Erika I package. I hope that the decisiveness and such a clear statement at the European Council in Nice will serve to break down the remaining resistance on the part of certain countries which were fundamentally concerned because it was going to be more expensive to send more people to carry out inspections in ports, and that was the real problem within the Council. Unless this happens, the Council will bear a degree of responsibility, or rather a great deal of responsibility, for this delay and the ministers will have to explain themselves to the public.

Mr Watts, firstly, I would like to thank you for your vote of confidence and, secondly, I would like to point out to you that we have included the issue of the black box, thereby fulfilling the commitment we gave you.

With regard to the black box, it should be pointed out that the International Maritime Organisation has laid down an obligation of this type for ships using national routes as from July 2008 and we wish this date to be brought forward. I hope that after the impetus provided in Nice, the doubts and resistance of certain countries will have been reduced and that we achieve this.

In relation to the fund, I would like very briefly to mention two issues: blacklisted ships and flags of convenience. Even the countries which have a lesser degree of safety with regard to their ships have some ships which are safe; therefore, in accordance with international laws, we cannot exclude them a priori. What we can do is what we have indicated, that is to say, that if a ship belongs to one of those countries which has unsafe ships, not only countries with a flags of convenience, but also those which show little concern for safety in particular, it should be systematically inspected when it reaches a European port.

With regard to the issue of responsibility, I will only say that the current fund is not sufficient to provide compensation for all the damage caused by the Erika oil slick. It is therefore necessary to increase that fund and we are going to try to do that within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation, but if that does not raise the EUR 1 000 million, which is the quantity we believe would be reasonable and which is more or less the quantity currently being considered by the United States, we will have to adopt certain initiatives and create a special European fund.

I would like to remind Members that, in air safety, the amounts of compensation paid in Europe and North America are not equal to the amounts paid in other countries.

  Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, as you have pointed out, next week, a year will have passed since the Erika disaster and the European Parliament and the Council have still not been capable of agreeing on the approval of the initiative for the first maritime safety package.

In this first package there is a proposal relating to Directive 57/94, which deals with inspections of ships and the classification societies. The main difficulty stems from the amendment of Article 6 of that directive; the Commission and the European Parliament propose the introduction of financial compensation to cover the possible responsibilities of classification societies in cases of maritime accidents.

Since the essence of this issue centres on this compensation, I would ask you, Commissioner, to withdraw the amendment to Article 6 and I would like to ask all the other Members of the European Parliament to withdraw the amendments to Article 6 and let us leave it for the second package which you have just announced.

  Cauquil (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, a year ago, an oil slick polluted the Brittany region and what amounts to the work tool of thousands of people whose livelihood is linked to the sea, the livelihood of an entire region. In this case, the body responsible is not a company which is difficult to identify. It is Total, whose head office is in the territory of the European Union. Now, you say that the compensation fund is insufficient. Why do we not, in that case, confiscate Total’s profits until all those who have already suffered, and those who will in future suffer, the effects of the criminal pursuit of profit have been fully and promptly compensated?

  Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like in turn to thank Mrs de Palacio for her comments. We obviously have confidence in her ability to ensure maritime safety because she must know that not a week passes without our being asked what, as Members of the European Parliament, we are doing to ensure safety and to change the rules.

I have two questions. Regarding the Erika I package, have you received any replies from the Member States about how precisely they wish to invest and to increase the number of their inspectors, because there is no doubt that, if they do not increase their number, everything that has been decided here will serve little purpose.

Regarding the Erika II package, I shall confine myself to one question in the form of an observation, although there are so many to be made! I am very happy to hear you speak of a European coastguard service. Is this really an idea which has had its day, because there are an enormous number of people who support it? Might the setting up of the European Maritime Agency be regarded as the beginnings or basis of a European coastguard service?

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr Ortuondo, in relation to your intervention on Article 6, on responsibility in the case of less serious pollution, I can tell you that the first thing I am going to find out is what the Council thinks, but Parliament has already adopted a position on this issue. In other words, either the Council accepts the position adopted by Parliament or, if not, there will be a second reading. These may constitute the current negotiations, but I believe that this is not the only problem. I wish it were.

Secondly, I would say that it is French law which will have the power to confiscate or freeze the assets of a specific company in order to compensate for damages or anything else, and it could establish liabilities beyond those laid down according to the objective criteria provided for in current international legislation on hydrocarbon pollution. That does not consider who is liable or not, simply how much should be paid; but there is a maximum ceiling, as you well know, of USD 180 million, some EUR 200 million, which, as I have said, is inadequate. This would therefore fall to the French Government, should the need arise. This kind of consideration is not the responsibility of the Commission.

We have received no information so far about an increase in the number of inspectors, but I hope that this will happen. It has just been agreed that the directives must be implemented before they enter into force; then, they can take on more inspectors before the directives come into force. The Heads of State and Government have said this. Let them go ahead then. I hope that is the case and of course I will remind all the ministers of this at the next Council.

With regard to European coastguards, I believe that in order to facilitate the creation of an agency we can at least begin to better coordinate the action of the various bodies which act in the various European Union waters and which are different in each country.

  President. – That concludes this item.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President