Mr President, I believe that we are all aware that this directive on environmental liability is potentially a key piece in the legislative arsenal aimed at making economic activities compatible with protecting the environment. Its declared objective is indeed to implement the polluter pays principle by making the polluter bear the cost of repairing the damage caused to the environment, but also to act pre-emptively thanks to a financial liability mechanism, designed to encourage economic actors to minimise the risks. The Commission proposal and, it must be said, the Council common position, leave us completely unsatisfied because they give us a text that, I am sorry to say, does not live up to the stated ambitions. Indeed, we note that it offers economic actors several ways out, in particular through legal derogations from liability, by having an appropriate permit or by having state of the art technology. Even these derogations are still considered inadequate by our fellow Members in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which adopted an amendment proposing a supplementary derogation for the agriculture and forestry sector: the respect of good professional practice in agriculture and forestry. I know that we are now at second reading and I have learnt to be realistic after several years as a Member of this Parliament. We have little room to manoeuvre. We must achieve a qualified majority, and this is why I added my name, on behalf of my group – and I will support further amendments – those which can be described as moderate in so far as they stipulate a very gradual entry into force of the restricting legislative measures without, for all that, invalidating the essential basic proposals I will mention them in no particular order. The first proposal is to remove the planned derogations but turn them into factors that limit liability. This is wholly acceptable and I understand that the Commissioner is open to this suggestion. We are, therefore, concerned here with mitigating factors, which are very different from derogations. Secondly, in order that the directive is actually a preventive tool, it is a matter of setting up a mandatory system for financial liability, which will be phased in, that is to say, will be implemented gradually. Thirdly, it is absolutely necessary that, for a certain amount of time, after an introductory phase, the scope of this directive is enlarged. Fourthly, we are calling, and there are several of us doing so in this Parliament, for additional legislation concerning the liability of producers and users of genetically modified organisms in the event of contamination. I recall that the Commission promised this when Directive No 2001/18 was adopted. Fifthly and finally, the situation must be visibly improved as regards the risks from nuclear energy and of marine pollution by hydrocarbons. Mrs Gebhardt, on behalf the Group of the , mentioned the Erika and Prestige tragedies. I will not remind you of this problem but we know that it led to considerable environmental damage. I would, however, like to say a word about nuclear energy. As regards nuclear energy, in particular, operators’ liability remains limited. The fact that there are international conventions does not mean that the situation is satisfactory. Is it necessary to remind you that, according to a study by a group of researchers at the University of London, a major accident in a nuclear power station would cost USD 10 billion, and an accident similar to Chernobyl with extremely widespread contamination of the territory, USD 40 billion? These are factors that I ask my fellow Members to take into consideration when talking about nuclear power. We cannot accept that such a dangerous activity is exempt from such important legislation on the liability of economic actors.

Political group: Verts-ALE