Mr President, I am rather disappointed that the Commissioner responsible, Commissioner Bjerregaard, is not here. It is rather disappointing that the Member of the Commission responsible for this issue is not here and that someone else is here who is not responsible for this portfolio. It makes a laughing-stock of the debates in this Parliament. Marine pollution, accidental and deliberate, is one of the major threats to the marine environment of Western Europe. This region represents one of the most intensively industrialised areas of the world where chemical, radioactive and hydrocarbon materials are routinely discharged into the marine environment and carried by cargo ships. The region also contains one of the highest concentrations of shipping and includes several of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. There are several tragic examples of accidental pollution from tankers and from other ships carrying various forms of dangerous cargoes. More by good fortune than by good planning there has not yet been a major accident resulting in radioactive spillage with a ship carrying radioactive materials although there was an incident some years back where a ship carrying uranium hydrofluoride from France to Riga sank but it is recorded that the containers apparently were recovered without any spillage. Historically the marine environment has been used as the ultimate dumping ground for much of our industrial waste. Although industrial and radioactive discharges continue from a range of sources, the practice of direct dumping with little thought to the future is now widely regarded as unacceptable. However, the legacy of the years where materials were simply dumped remains and has sometimes returned to haunt us, often with severe consequences. It is a lesson which tells us that when we attempt to throw things away there really is no such thing as “away”. This report acknowledges the need for establishing cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution. Furthermore there is a need to broaden the definition of accidental marine pollution to include operational historical and radioactive and other harmful substances, accidental and operational marine pollution. Although much attention is rightly paid to the impact of marine accidents, in terms of the chronic pollution it is the operational spills and discharges of hydrocarbons, radioactive materials and other harmful substances which, because they go largely unnoticed, are a cause of major concern. In terms of the environment whether a substance is accidentally or deliberately discharged is of no real consequence, the environmental impact remains. Furthermore, although the direct dumping of industrial materials, including military dumps of redundant munitions, is largely a practice which has been abandoned by Member States, the sites of such dumps continue to present a real threat to fisheries and in some cases, for example not far from my own coast, the Beaufort Dyke, a threat to human safety. Often fishermen’s lives are at risk, as are the health and welfare of the public who either visit the coast or live by the sea. Furthermore, as the sea is the ultimate sink for much industrial material from the shores and rivers these sources must be included within the definition. The transboundary nature of the marine environment, which means that pollution in one area can impact on a wider region, leads to the need for a Community-wide framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution. Sharing information regarding hydrocarbons, radioactive substances and other harmful substances carried at sea and discharges into the sea which have been dumped as part of historical dumping regimes is a vital prerequisite in facilitating the preparation and coordination of any response necessary to mitigate the environmental and human health impacts of pollution incidents. Effective mitigation requires a rapid response. The longer an incident is allowed to go unchecked the wider the impact, as we have seen. Hence it is too late to begin trying to get the required information after a serious pollution problem has occurred. We need to take action before. Knowledge about the type and extent of potential pollution problems is also a prerequisite for correct preparation in terms of techniques, personnel and equipment at appropriate locations. It is also necessary to be clear about the risks to the public and the environment and to alleviate justified public concern with accurate assessments of the risk. The public’s trust in the authorities is important to ensuring adequate responses. Furthermore, the public have a right to know what preparations are being made, what types of materials are threatening and what impacts may be expected. To this end, publication of information is a vital component as it establishes a route through which the general public can obtain information, for example emergency phone contact numbers. Such information can be easily made available and updated on the Internet as well as through established channels. To conclude, it is a truism that once the marine environment has been contaminated or polluted it is impossible to fully clean up and repair the damage. However a rapid, efficient, adequate and effective response coordinated across national boundaries is needed to mitigate the impacts on the environment and public health in the case of a pollution incident. A prerequisite is the necessary information sharing with all parties. The database and information technology exists to establish the necessary communications between national and regional authorities, emergency response experts and the public. The dissemination of information about the range of marine pollution threats – hydrocarbons, radioactive substances and other harmful substances – will serve to ensure that the best possible mitigation measures are in place and have the full public trust and confidence of the public. On the issue of radioactive substances, during the debate in the committee the Commission representative said that it was “implicit” but we want it to be explicit. It is quite clear that it should be explicit and if it is already implied then I do not see what the problem is about ensuring that it is explicit because as time goes by radioactive substances are going to pose an even greater danger and – as I have already said – we are very lucky that there has not already been a serious accident. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE