Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-16-Speech-4-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030116.5.4-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I wish to thank the Council of Presidents for having included this important issue in the debate, and I would also like to thank the Commissioner.
It remains totally unclear as to what effect the system would have in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas, where the radar range is from shore to shore and animals would not be able to escape the noise. The EU clearly has an obligation to act and ask for information on the system.
Economic interests are clearly linked to the issue. Fishermen active in the EU have been concerned over the last year of the effects of radar systems on fish stocks in their fishing grounds. Although fish might be less prone than marine mammals to the harmful effects of the system, obviously the noise of the radar could drive them away and thus harm people’s livelihoods.
Madam President, I want to thank the Commission for its statement. On the basis of all I have said we should try to obtain a ban on the use of this radar system until further notice and swiftly discover its effects on marine life. It would be best if the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy would debate the issue and draft a report on it, on the basis of the Commission’s statement we have heard here today and any other data obtained from elsewhere.
It has to be said right at the start that it is completely justified to try and develop a defence system to monitor submarines that use new technology, which are difficult to see using conventional passive radar. It is obvious that submarines that cannot be detected with radar are only used by those with hostile intentions. We therefore have to keep abreast of developments. This is a question, however, of what sort of technology we choose and what its price is in ecological terms.
The low frequency active radar system developed by NATO known as LFAS can cause whales to stray onto shores and can damage their internal organs, leading to death. High decibel and low frequency noise produced by radar can carry for thousands of kilometres in the sea.
There have been whale deaths in the areas where the United States of America has tested the system. In March 2000, 17 whales were beached on the shores of the Bahamas Islands and eight of them died whilst the navy’s radar system was being tested in the sea. Autopsies carried out on the dead whales revealed haematomas in the brain and inner ear cause by extremely loud noise. The US navy itself stated in its report on the whale deaths in the Bahamas that LFAS had been the most likely cause of death.
In September 2002 in the Canary Islands, and so within the EU area, whale deaths occurred on a scale hardly seen for 20 years, when 15 whales of different species died from haematomas. NATO was conducting military manoeuvres in the area involving 58 warships and six submarines from different member states of the alliance.
The LFAS equipment produces low frequency noise at 1 000 hertz and an average of 250 decibels to comb the seabed from hundreds of kilometres away.
The effects of loud but low frequency noise on the behaviour of whales and their internal organs are wide-ranging. The din can cause permanent damage to the ear bones, and brain and lung haemorrhage. The system can muddle the communication system of whales even a long way off from the sound source as it operates on the same low frequencies that the whales themselves use. The noise makes it difficult for the whales to orient themselves, form herds, mate and find food. The link between radar and whale deaths is actually hard to prove because it is very difficult to track whales and study changes in their behaviour over a long period of time.
The US navy has carried out an evaluation of the effects of the system on the environment, but reputable American environmental organisations regard it as flawed. A federal judge last November prohibited the navy from testing the system in US territorial waters until further notice with reference to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Nevertheless, the navy has a permit from a national authority to test the system for a total of 432 hours in other seawaters until August this year.
Until now the navy has agreed to test their equipment a long way off from the coast, and away too from known marine mammal breeding grounds and migratory routes. Researchers have said, however, that testing is not safe even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean because no one can be absolutely certain as to what the whales’ routes will be. The system can be used to cover up to 75% of the world’s seas."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples