Conference conclusions by Mr. F. Lamoureux, Director General for Energy and Transport: Safety is a complex concept in the context of transport and energy: - First there is the question of protection of the life and health of users. In the sense of security, it is a fundamental human right enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and, more recently, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The political challenge lies in the need to ally freedom with safety in the fields of transport and energy. How can we balance freedom – i.e. the right to mobility – against safety on the roads in the European Union, where we are used to 40 000 deaths every year? In the case of energy, safety implies protecting citizens against the risks of explosion or pollution. - Safety also raises the question of ethics. In practice, safety is not just a set rights but equally the responsibility of everyone - politicians, businesses, specialists but also users, who all too often are badly organised and poorly represented. - Beyond human rights and obligations, there is also a clear geopolitical dimension in the form of protection of the political and social system. As stated in the Green Paper on the security of energy supply, in an age of globalisation the European Union's system cannot be totally dependent on imported energy sources. In this case security implies political choices on the acceptable level of dependence - a choice which, moreover, will have to be made from the demand side rather than on the supply side. One welcome political development was that in Nice the European Council at last adopted conclusions on security of supply, for the first time, and asked for proposals on the subject to be submitted to it. The Commission will do so next year, probably in time for the Barcelona European Council, once the lessons have been learned from the Green Paper. - Safety also applies to infrastructure, as shown by the analysis in the Green Paper but also by the White Paper on transport policy. The events on 11 September brutally spotlighted this requirement. Safety in transport and energy is put into practice by establishing Community rules, which are often more stringent than the earlier national rules. For 15 years or so, as Europe's energy and transport policies have developed, liberalisation and competition have often been regarded as the opposite to safety. On the contrary, the opening-up of the energy and transport markets, which nobody calls into question any longer since it has proved so profitable for the industry and for consumers, has brought with it the development of rules on safety and the establishment of new regulatory authorities. Europe's sky is open to competition, but Europe is also the part of the world where air transport is safest today and where tomorrow, thanks to the perseverance of Mrs de Palacio, the package of measures proposed for creation of the single European sky will turn it into the best organised as well, including cooperation between civil and military users. Let no one say that the counter-example is maritime safety. The Member States did not wait for the European Community to cast off, in some cases two or three centuries ago, their sovereign powers to private undertakings (classification societies) or to intergovernmental bodies of dubious effectiveness. But since the Estonia disaster and the sinking of the Erika, it has indeed been Europe which has adopted more stringent rules to start to get a grip on globalisation. There is also a clear need for regular, systematic risk assessment and to define the level at which this should be done: national, European or worldwide. But there are some risks which have already been assessed and to which we must respond. For example, 90% of oil supplies are carried by tankers, many of which are known not to comply with the safety standards and many of which escape all control. To combat this, a system of standards is indispensable but will be to no avail without efficient enforcement and effective penalties in the event of non-compliance. Coordination of the responsibilities incumbent on the public authorities on the one hand and on operators and citizens on the other also raises new questions before effective regulation can be introduced: · How can we balance the establishment of European safety agencies against the need for political control of their activities or inactivity? · How can we conceive and enforce effective penalties on operators? 10 lines of action 1. Completion of the internal market must remain a priority for transport and energy alike. It creates pressure to develop safety regulations. Along these lines, the internal market proposed by the Commission is based on developing regulated competition. 2. This European regulation is being backed up by the establishment of national regulatory authorities which are autonomous or independent but still require a degree of coordination at European level. Consequently, conditions must be created for regulating the regulators. 3. To ensure safety, it is necessary to establish a body of independent experts. The establishment of agencies meets this objective, but care must be taken to avoid fragmentation. One thing which is clearly missing for safety in Europe is a single centre allowing better risk assessment and cross-fertilisation between innovations in each mode. Technological progress is over-fragmented, creating a risk of duplication of research effort. Establishment of a single European safety agency covering every aspect and all modes could therefore be considered in this context. An added advantage is that this single agency would be more in tune with the need for political control and would be able to assemble the critical mass needed to give it extra weight on the world scene, by bringing together all the specialist agencies set up today. 4. Common principles must be formulated in Europe for independent inquiries following accidents, going beyond the work of the regulators and agencies. 5. Passenger safety is catered for unevenly from one mode to another. While a genuine safety culture can be seen on the railways and in the air, this is not yet the case on the roads or seas. In this context, the idea of a European road safety charter, which has the support of the European institutions, the governments and all concerned, is an attractive idea, which would provide a means of adding cohesion and solidity to the political action. This would be a means of avoiding the doublespeak of the Member States and of waiving the right to invoke subsidiarity as soon as the time comes to move onto the decision-making stage. 6. Security of energy supplies has taken on a new dimension since the Green Paper and the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001: it is essential all along the chain, from well to wheel. Now that this chain as a whole has become more fragile, Europe must develop a more integrated approach to the problem from both the legal and economic points of view. 7. Nuclear energy is coming out of its bunker. Both for security of supply and to combat climate change, it is unavoidable in the short and medium term and must remain on the debating table. Its representatives are calling for "more Europe" in terms of harmonisation of standards, coordination of safety authorities, and financial support from the research and development framework programme. In return, however, one demand remains central: Europe wants a practical solution to the waste management problem, no longer just promises and studies of various kinds. 8. Finding an answer to the costs of security and safety is another central point, even though for the majority the amount is immaterial provided these costs are uniform and cause no distortion of competition. Who must pay: taxpayers, users or operators? How can we explore formulae allowing mutualisation of these costs? 9. Technology and research can really change the terms of the safety problem. However, we have seen that technological innovations are sometimes ill-prepared to enter an extremely competitive economy. Ways must be found to evaluate their commercial prospects more fully, to support greater economic penetration and to take them into account more systematically in the regulations and training. 10.Finally, a wide democratic debate on safety is needed throughout Europe. Safety must be a matter for citizens just as much as for technocrats in the national and European administrations or for researchers, since citizens are users and taxpayers but also share responsibility. The European Commission can contribute to this. (A)
Samenvatting