Mr President, I want to start with a word of praise for the Commission. In the first reading on sulphur levels in marine fuel, the European Parliament asked for stricter levels for sulphur in marine fuel, and as a first step towards looking at this, I am very pleased that the Commission has requested a study which has now been produced - that looks into the particular issues involved, arising from a potential price premium for 0.5% sulphur in marine fuel. So I am very pleased to see the Commission taking the Parliament's initiative so seriously, and that is a very positive point to start with. However, it is balanced by a negative point: we are still waiting for a common position on that proposal. The European Parliament's first reading was back in June 2003, so one preliminary question I have is why has the Council not made more progress? Could the Commission enlighten us as to when we might expect that common position? I hope that we could have it by early 2004 at the latest . Regarding the Community strategy on air pollution from seagoing ships, as I have said before, I very much welcome the publication by the Commission of this communication on a European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions. As it states, the Commission has indeed set out a broad series of objectives, actions and recommendations for reducing the emissions of air pollutants from seagoing ships over the next ten years in order to reduce their impact on the environment and on human health problems in the EU. However, many of the proposals outlined do not go far enough and in my report I seek to encourage the Commission and the Member States to go a little bit further than outlined in that Commission communication. The Commission very usefully sets out the scale of the impact of ship emissions. It is very important that we recognise that those impacts are far from being insignificant. In my explanatory statement I underline the seriousness of these impacts that we face. For example, ship emissions contribute to critical loads of acidity being exceeded by more than 50% in most of the coastal areas along the English Channel and the North Sea, in the Baltic Sea along the coast of Germany and Poland, and also in large parts of southern Sweden and Finland. So, the kinds of impacts we are talking about here are indeed very serious. In terms of the main atmospheric emissions that should be addressed by the Commission communication, it already mentions sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulates, carbon dioxide and halon - all of these are quite rightly included. However, in my report, I seek to add two further categories of emissions that should be covered by the strategy: heavy metals and polycyclic aromatics, which are essentially hydrocarbons associated with cancer. I would very much like to see the proposal being extended to cover those. The Commission is right to state that EU regulations on emissions standards are the best way to reduce emissions from ships in EU ports, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. But, indeed, it is also right to note that economic instruments can also be one of the best means of promoting good environmental performance providing that what they are doing there is giving incentives to go further than the regulations and actually move towards coming up with the best available technology. Another point about the objective of the communication is that it needs to be more explicitly aimed at reducing ship emissions of greenhouse gases in particular, looking especially at the impact on global warming. In relation to that, my report also asks the Commission to study how emissions from international maritime traffic could be included in Directive 2001/81/EC on national emissions ceilings when that is reviewed. Furthermore, my report reminds the Commission of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, which requests that the Commission identify and undertake specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from marine shipping if no such action is agreed within the International Maritime Organisation by 2003. Since we can see that indeed no such action has been agreed within the IMO, I hope very much that the Commission will go ahead and initiate such actions without further delay. On sulphur emissions, it is appropriate to mention the Commission's proposal on the revision of Directive 99/32/EC relating to the sulphur content of marine fuels. The Commission proposed only to reduce sulphur emissions from seagoing ships in European sea areas by about 10% compared to the emission levels in 2000. But, in order to achieve the objectives of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, emissions need to be reduced by at least 80%. The Commission must therefore be much more ambitious as regards the limit values it has proposed and, indeed, the sea areas to be covered by such limit values. My report therefore calls on the Commission to amend its proposal on the revision of Directive 99/32/EC in accordance with the European Parliament's first reading back in June, the aim of which was to reduce sulphur emissions by 80%. The Commission should also publish, before the end of 2004, proposals for EU-wide economic instruments aimed at reducing atmospheric emissions from ships. Finally, I would like to see the Member States, the Commission and the accession countries really putting pressure on those countries that have not yet ratified the Marpol Annex VI Agreement. Only five Member States have so far ratified that, and it seems appropriate at this moment to call for wider ratification among accession countries and others as a matter of urgency.

Political group: Verts-ALE