Discussion
Kudo： I have a question for the British delegation. In the case of the BRAER incident, Lord Donaldson has made a report "Safer Seas and Cleaner Ships." I believe he made 103 recommendations in that report, of which 86 points have been completely accepted, I have heard. Of the remainder, 4 have been rejected, and 13 are on hold. I believe that was the situation as of March in the U.K. From my own experience of the NAKHODKA incident, I suppose there may be some points where Lord Donaldson's recommendations may be of use. So, if you could share with us how his recommendations are being actually implemented in the U.K.
Gainsford： The Lord Donaldson report, as I said in my presentation, has had a tremendous impact in the U.K., and I think actually worldwide, because it was a very considered and useful document. That is why, on behalf of the British government, we have taken seriously all those recommendations, and had already implemented over 80 of them. A Iot of them were implemented by the Marine Shipping and Maritime Security Bill of 1997, which has just gone through Parliament before the election process. And that was establishing a pollution zone out to 200 miles, increasing pollution fines fivefold. So, we're up to 250,000 pound fines for offenders of the MARPOL regulations, also increasing the intervention paths of the Secretary of State to intervene in incidents and to direct, and extending that direction to harbor authorities, pilots, harbor masters, etc. So all the main recommendations have been taken to heart. Also, we have incor-porated a power in that bill to ensure that, if necessary, Iater we can assign statutory duty to local authorities to carry out beach cleanup and to make contingency plans. As I emphasized in my presentation, it is now a voluntary act. But we have put a power in there, and we could, if necessary,through statutory instrument, make a regulation.
The outstanding recommendations need international agreement, and are being discussed at IMO. That is why they are taking longer to implement. The 4 refusals−I can't remember exactly, but I think they were mainly the financial provision for oil-pollution services, which we haven't been able to make progress with, I think because they would put British shipping and commerce on and adverse footing with the rest of the world. But, also, there are chances that Lord Donaldsonmay participate in the validation of the review of the national contingency plan subsequent to the SEA EMPRESS incident, especially to do with salvage. So I think you might hear more from him in due course.
Imaichi： Dr. Lunel, I have a question for you. The dispersant, I understand, is extremely effective, but does the dispersant itself and the toxicity of the dispersant ever come into question? You said the fish were tainted. Do oil droplets affect the gills or the digestive orgams of the fish? Do they cause any negative effect on the fish and plankton?
Lunel： About the toxicity of the dispersant, the modern dispersants are of very low toxicity. And it has been recognized by most of the countries that use dispersants that the toxic effect comes not from the dispersants itself, but from the fact that the oil is dispersed in the water column. Now, most of the countries that use dis-persants will test the toxicity of the dispersant, not by using dispersant on organisms, but by making sure that when dispersant is used on oil that it doesn't increase the toxicity of the oil itself. In the example for the U.K., Kuwaiti oil is used on the brown shrimp, Crongon Crongon, as a test organism, and the toxicity of the crude
