Mr President, marine pollution, accidental and deliberate, is one of the major threats to the marine environment in western Europe. This region represents one of the most intensely 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 other forms of dangerous cargoes. The recent example of the Erika shows what can happen from an environmental, human and economic point of view. It is a catastrophe. More by good fortune than good planning there has not yet been a major accident with a ship carrying radioactive materials that has resulted in a major spillage. However, it must be said that there have been a number of incidents. In 1973 a cobalt 60 source was lost in the North Sea, never to be found again. In 1984, the Mont Louis sank in the English Channel with 375 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride. Also, in relation to releases into the sea, in 1983 Sellafield leaked high-level waste into the sea. In 1985, there was a leak into the sea at Hinkley Point. In 1986, 135 cubic metres of radioactive water was released into the sea at Wylfa. The Commission's refusal to take on board and include explicitly radioactive materials, is not acceptable and it will have to revise its position on that. 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 for the future is now widely regarded as unacceptable. However, the legacy of the years when materials were simply dumped remains and sometimes comes back to haunt us, with severe consequences. It is a lesson which shows that we cannot just throw things away: that is not possible, as they are still there in some shape or form. 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 both operational, historical, radioactive and other harmful substances. Although much attention is rightly paid to the impacts of marine accidents in terms of 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 irrelevant. Furthermore, although the direct dumping of industrial materials, including military dumping of redundant munitions, is largely a practice abandoned by Member States, the sites of such dumps continue to present a real threat to fisheries and, in some cases, to human safety. Often fishermen's lives are at risk, as is 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 industrial materials from the shores and rivers, these sources should 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, discharged into the sea or 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 impact of pollution incidents on the environment and human health. Effective mitigation requires a rapid response: the longer an accident is allowed to go unchecked, the wider the impact. Hence, it is too late to start trying to get information after a serious pollution problem has occurred. 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 justifiable public concern, with accurate assessment of the risks. The public's trust in the authorities is important to ensure adequate response. Furthermore, the public has a right to know what preparations are being made, what types of materials are threatening and what impacts can be expected. To this end, the publication of information is a vital component as it establishes a route through which the general public can obtain information, e.g. emergency phones and contact numbers. Such information can easily be made available and updated on the Internet as well as through established channels. Finally, once the marine environment has been contaminated or polluted, it is impossible to fully clean up and repair the damage. The Erika is a good example of that. 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 pollution incidents. This is a prerequisite in the necessary information sharing with all parties.

Political group: Verts-ALE