|
|
Doc. 8839
26 septembre 2000
Accidents causing damage to the environment
Opinion
Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food
Rapporteur: Mr Daniel Goulet, France, European Democratic Group
Explanatory memorandum
1. The Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food deals primarily with fishing and food issues and consequently, like the Committee on the Environment, has a fundamental interest in the subject matter of this report. This is why it was asked to give an opinion on this question of accidents with consequences for the environment and, in turn, for farm production, fish products and, at the end of the chain, the food we eat.
2. The Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food, conscious of the role of this often unfairly criticised branch of the economy, wishes to point out that agriculture is far from being the most polluting sector of activity. While it is true that the industrialisation of farming and the constant search for greater productivity may have led to excessive use of products which are harmful for the environment, such practices are gradually changing and the majority of our countries are advocating and implementing a much more environmentally-friendly approach to farming, which ultimately will be more beneficial for the well-being and health of consumers. In many member states, the farming sector has made significant efforts to adopt practices which show greater respect for nature.
3. By way of illustration, the French Permanent Assembly of Chambers of Agriculture recently stated that France’s chambers of agriculture were devoting 20% of their staffing resources to the environment, developing programmes to curb pollution, especially nitrate pollution, and working towards a sensible, sustainable approach to agriculture.
4. The Erika shipwreck and the ensuing debate have given the committee a chance to express its views and put forward constructive proposals. The aim is not to propose further regulations since those that exist are not always applied.
The title of the report could have covered other aspects, such as accidents resulting from the use of nuclear energy (waste, treatment, reprocessing, power stations, etc.). Since the reporting committee did not address this aspect, the committee to which the matter has been referred for an opinion is bound by this restriction (which the rapporteur regrets).
5. With regard to the Erika shipwreck, the rapporteur, who is also a member of the French Senate’s inquiry commission, visited the pumping operations site on 17 August 2000. As a result of his visits, he has been able to draw a number of lessons which he would like to transmit to the Assembly.
6. Following discussions held in the Sub-Committee on Food, on 14 January 2000 the Sub-Committee Chair and rapporteur for opinion tabled two motions for resolutions on this matter: Doc. 8609 (Introducing measures to combat marine pollution by hydrocarbons) and Doc. 8610 (Setting up an ad hoc committee to combat marine pollution by hydrocarbons).
7. It is brought to the Assembly’s attention that in the course of its activities, the Sub-Committee on Fisheries, realising the importance of safety issues for marine transport, visited the CEDRE (Centre de documentation, de recherche et d’expérimentation sur les pollutions accidentelles des eaux) and IFREMER (Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer) offices in Brest in December 1999 – just nine days before the Erika shipwreck.
8. This is not, therefore, a one-off intervention on the part of our committee, nor are we merely reacting to a specific event. This is all the more true as recent discussions on food safety have highlighted the extent of public interest in, and concern about, these issues and the difficulty of addressing them through adequate legislation.
9. To give an example, the French Food Safety Agency has recently announced that fish (freshwater or saltwater), shellfish and crustaceans have the second highest levels of dioxin pollution among all foodstuffs. The French Directorate General for Food produced a report in July 1999 on this subject.
It should also be borne in mind that fish (fishmeal) is used in preparing animal feed. There are countless examples and no-one would deny that the environment and food safety are inextricably linked.
10. For example, farmers’ financial and labour investments can be reduced to nought in the event of water pollution. The same applies to oyster farmers, market gardeners and other small-scale seafood producers in the event of hydrocarbon pollution, and indeed it is impossible to gauge the medium- or long-term effects of hydrocarbons, which are often dangerous for plankton and marine wildlife. In short, we must make sure that oil slicks do not find their way onto our dinner plates, now or in future, either directly or through a derivative product.
11. As experts told the French National Assembly’s inquiry commission, we must also address the long-term consequences of these accidents. These experts included the head of the French Food Safety Agency and the head of the Rennes Anti-Poison Centre. While the experts were generally reassuring, they nevertheless pointed out that a polluted oyster, if placed in pure water, takes six months to discharge the hydrocarbon compounds ingested. Accordingly, it is essential to monitor the long-term consequences of accidents such as the Erika shipwreck.
In addition, the President of IFREMER (Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer) said (cf report of the National Assembly’s inquiry commission, no. 2535, volume 2, page 303) that there was oil in fish and seafood breeding grounds. He added that currently fishing activities revealed no significant effect on fish. In previous accidents, the effects on fish had often been visible more than eight months after the incident. It was therefore essential to continue to monitor developments over a long period of time.
12. Since this is an extremely important issue, the Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food would like an approach for further activities and investigations to be devised. It is scarcely conceivable that the Assembly, diligent though it may be, could expect to tackle all the questions raised by this subject in a single debate.
Nevertheless, the reporter for opinion would like certain practical measures to be decided upon.
Proposals
1. One priority is to compile a chart of existing legislation in member states. The following information should also be gathered:
1.1. signatures/ratifications of international treaties on marine and coastal protection.
1.2. collection of useful information on marine transport legislation, specifying the member states or observers which would like Council of Europe assistance in passing or supplementing legislation in this field.
1.3. collection of administrative, financial and legal data on existing or planned prevention policies in member states. To this end, the EQUASIS (European Quality Shipping Information System) programme, a computerised shipping safety data management system, set up on the initiative of France and the European Commission, awarded an international seal of approval by the IMO, could prove of significant value.
1.4. drawing up a list of pollution-related incidents or accidents, specifying:
- the nature and scale of the accident;
- those responsible, if they have been identified;
- the cost of the consequences of the accident, especially for the fishing and shellfish farming sectors;
- the cost of restoration, if this is possible;
- arrangements for repair and the role of the public authorities in supporting the sectors affected.
2. Measures to prevent and deal with accidents
Certain provisions may be established on the basis of experience acquired. This is why the Committee proposes a number of amendments to the draft resolution presented by the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, to supplement the urgent measures whose validity has been unanimously acknowledged.
Proposed amendments to the draft resolution
Amendment no.1:
In paragraph 2, replace “report of the inquiry commission of the French National Assembly” by:
“reports of the inquiry commissions of the French National Assembly and Senate”.
Reason: Both reports are of considerable importance and can be consulted on the websites of the National Assembly and the Senate.
- National Assembly: Document no. 2535 (www.assemblee-nationale.fr)
- Senate: Document no. 441 (www.senat.fr)
Amendment no. 2
After paragraph 7.i, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“calls on the governments of Council of Europe member states to urge the IMO to modify the international regulations in force, drawing on the criteria applied in the United States (Oil Pollution Act), which take account of damage caused to the environment, by raising compensation limits”
Reason: US legislation takes into consideration damage caused to the environment by setting compensation limits six times higher than those of the IOPC Fund.
Amendment no. 3
After paragraph 7.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“calls on the governments of Council of Europe member states to review the operation of the IOPC Fund, in particular with regard to its concept of “reparable damage”.”
Reason: First, the IOPC Fund refuses to provide reparation for environmental damage insofar as the damage is not quantifiable. Second, it is the IOPC Fund which assesses the nature of reparable damage, ie it is both judge and party.
The IOPC Fund pays only for environmental restoration measures which are deemed to be reasonable. For example, the reintroduction of birds in Brittany was not considered reasonable despite the 64,000 oiled birds. Furthermore, the concept of what is reasonable also applies to the geographical context of claims. For example, following the shipwreck of the Sea Empress (which ran aground off Milford Haven in 1996), the IOPC Fund rejected compensation claims from fish processing plants located several kilometres from the polluted area.
Amendment no. 4
After paragraph 7.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“calls on the governments of Council of Europe member states to support the development of the EQUASIS (European Quality Information System) programme, relating to a harmonised shipping monitoring and information system.”
Reason: In order to obtain real-time information, the motion for a resolution contained in Doc. 8610 referred to the setting up of a dedicated website for collecting information. The EQUASIS programme has such a site (www.equasis.org). The Parliamentary Assembly should also give its support to this initiative.
Amendment no. 5
After paragraph 7.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“Calls on the governments of Council of Europe member states to provide training in maritime safety in maritime training establishments and to set up a European training centre in this field, with responsibility for training inspectors and staff who may be called upon in the event of an accident in any member state.”
Reason: In many countries there is no training in maritime safety and often no competent national centre (such as the CEDRE in France), and, in any event, little or no co-ordination and harmonisation of procedures and techniques at European level. It would therefore be extremely helpful for there to be European training and a European centre in this field.
Amendment no. 6
After paragraph 7.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“calls on the governments of Council of Europe member states to require ship-owners and charterers to declare the exact nature of hydrocarbons or chemical or toxic substances transported and to submit a sample, together, where possible, with its chemical formula, to the competent authorities.”
Reason: This simple provision would make for faster and more effective intervention in the event of an accident.
*
* *
Committee for report: Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities (Doc. 8760 revised).
Committee for opinion: Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food.
Reference to committee: Doc. 8609 and Reference No. 2475 of 28 January 2000
Opinion approved by the committee on 25 September 2000
Secretary of the committee: Mr Sixto.
Appendix 1
Doc. 8609
14 January 2000
Introducing measures to combat marine pollution by hydrocarbons
Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mr Goulet and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it |
1. The tragic events of recent weeks and the oil slick caused by the ERIKA shipwreck require that those responsible go beyond commissions of enquiry and talismanic speech-making.
2. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to act without delay in an effort to ward off risks which, as all are aware, cannot be brought entirely under control.
3. The wreck of the AMOCO CADIZ is still a vivid memory, and its impact on the ecosystem remains. Today, another slick is polluting the French coastline and yet another is threatening the Sea of Marmara.
4. The introduction of machinery for international compensation by the petroleum industry (the IOPC Fund), which may result in payments of up to 1.2 billion FF towards anti-pollution measures and financial compensation, has distracted lawmakers from their real mission of prevention. The focus on cleaning up after disasters means that the need to strike at their cause and take preventive measures is being neglected. However, not only is prevention crucial in connection with pollution due to hydrocarbons, it is also feasible.
5. Legislative measures must be introduced as a matter of urgency with a view to prohibiting and regulating certain practices.
6. The chain of responsibility must be clearly defined so as to permit identical traceability to that required in matters of food safety.
7. It is essential that the Council of Europe show unwavering determination in its defence of the seas and coasts, which, as the common heritage of humanity, are merely held in trust for future generations.
8. The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. urge member States to ratify international conventions on protection of the sea and oil pollution;
ii. initiate talks without delay between all those involved in the transport of potential pollutants (hydrocarbons, gas and derivatives, chemical products, etc.), their carriers, environmental protection organisations and port authorities with a view to pooling views and proposals;
iii. advise member States to pass legislation as soon as possible to prohibit certain practices, in particular the use by petroleum companies of charterers, sub-charterers and shipowners whose vessels fly flags of convenience;
iv. call on member States to pass legislation on the conditions for validity of certificates issued;
v. call on member States to set up national commissions charged with monitoring the application of international recommendations and conventions and introducing anti-pollution policies backed by appropriate financial resources.
Signed :
Goulet, France, EDG
Belohorska, Slovakia, EDG
Ivanov, Bulgaria, SOC
Jakic, Slovenia, LDR
Keltošová, Slovakia, EDG
Popescu I., Ukraine, SOC
Pulgar, Spain, EPP/CD
Radic, Croatia, EPP/CD
Soendergaard, Denmark, UEL
Speroni, Italy, LDR
Toshev, Bulgaria, EPP/CD
Vermot-Mangold, Switzerland, SOC
Appendix 2
Doc. 8610
14 January 2000
Setting up an ad hoc committee to combat marine pollution by hydrocarbons
Motion for a resolution
presented by Mr Goulet and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it |
1. The tragic events of recent weeks and the oil slick caused by the ERIKA shipwreck require that those responsible take coherent measures as a matter of urgency.
2. The wreck of the AMOCO CADIZ is still a vivid memory, and its impact on the ecosystem remains. Today, another slick is polluting the French coastline and yet another is threatening the Sea of Marmara.
3. The introduction of a machinery for international compensation by the petroleum industry (the IOPC Fund), which may result in payments of up to 1.2 billion FF towards anti-pollution measures and financial compensation, has distracted lawmakers from their real mission of prevention. The focus on cleaning up after disasters means that the need to strike at their cause and take preventive measures is being neglected. However, not only is prevention vital in connection with pollution due to hydrocarbons, it is also feasible.
4. Legislative measures must be introduced as a matter of urgency with a view to prohibiting and regulating certain practices.
5. The chain of responsibility must be clearly defined so as to permit identical traceability to that required in matters of food safety.
6. It is essential that the Council of Europe show unwavering determination in its defence of the seas and coasts, which, as the common heritage of humanity, are merely held in trust for future generations.
7. In view of the Council of Europe’s activities to promote inter-regional co-operation policies, it must take part in combating marine pollution by hydrocarbons, which is an evil that shows no respect for borders.
8. The Assembly therefore resolves as a matter of urgency to set up an ad hoc committee charged with:
i. gathering from member States all necessary information for the introduction of effective and coherent legislation, especially, in respect of each country:
- a progress report on the ratification of international conventions on maritime and coastal protection;
- relevant information, where available, on shipping legislation, with a view to reporting to the Assembly which member and observer States would welcome Council of Europe help in developing appropriate legislation;
- administrative, financial and legal data, where available, on existing and planned prevention policies;
- the state of shipping;
- information on any reported pollution incidents or accidents.
ii. creating a dedicated website for the collection of all data relating to matters under its jurisdiction. The site, which is if possible to appear in several languages in addition to those in official use at the Council of Europe, shall record technical and non-technical information and information supplied by persons from all over the world on pollution-related incidents and the identity of those responsible;
iii. giving a hearing to IOPC Fund and petroleum industry officials, officers from environmental protection organisations and representatives of local authorities in the member States which have had to deal with pollution by hydrocarbons;
iv. drawing up guidelines for member States to co-ordinate their approach to this issue, which is of concern not only to countries with a seaboard but also to the entire international community;
v. reporting to the Assembly on the information gathered and problems encountered while carrying out its mandate;
vi. proposing to the Assembly, after adoption of the report, that account be taken of these issues in the work of the Monitoring Committee on member States’ commitments.
Signed:
Goulet, France, EDG
Belohorska, Slovakia, EDG
Ivanov, Bulgaria, SOC
Jakic, Slovenia, LDR
Keltošová, Slovakia, EDG
Popescu I., Ukraine, SOC
Pulgar, Spain, EPP/CD
Radic, Croatia, EPP/CD
Soendergaard, Denmark, UEL
Speroni, Italy, LDR
Toshev, Bulgaria, EPP/CD
Vermot-Mangold, Switzerland, SOC