« ÎnapoiContinuă »
as the United States, wasted energy. He felt that Europe's two objectives should be:
(i) the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and
(ii) the independence of energy supplies.
Mr. Faure spoke of the problems involved in nuclear inspection, particularly where civil and military utilization might overlap.
Mr. Leonardi felt that there was a considerable degree of consensus and expressed the belief that industrially developed societies were at present emerging from one form of energy economy without having yet entered a new system. Technical solutions would have to be found during this period of transition.
Mr. Normanton congratulated President Carter on his energy proposals and pointed out that energy saved is the cheapest form of energy. Finally he asked that a reference to joint research be made in the third area of the common agreement as outlined below.
Mr. Glinne stated that the Belgium Government, influenced by French ecologists and President Carter's decision on fast breeder development, had decided to impose a moratorium on nuclear development until safeguards for workers in nuclear plants and persons living near such installations had been improved.
Mr. Glinne then asked for documentation on the subject of nuclear safety and, in particular, for a report which had been prepared for the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
Mr. Ellis said that he was worried by the differences between the Amercian and European points of view. He believed that demand for energy was following a superexponential path which must be stopped as energy reserves were finite.
Mr. Ellis expressed his disagreement with Mr. Ryan's opinions and believed that it would be vital to set up a working group to continue discussion on this theme.
Mr. Lange congratulated Mr. Fithian on his summary and asked about the costs of alternative sources of energy.
Mr. Fithian said that he accepted the changes that had been proposed, and suggested that the cost of waste storage be put on the agenda of a future meeting of the joint working group.
Mr. Nolan then suggested that the addendum to summary be revised, so that future discussions could take a broader view of the whole energy spectrum.
Mr. Gibbons pointed out that the summary below was neither a report nor an agreed document, and served only to remind delegates of what had been decided at the meeting.
Mr. Ryan regretted again that the working group had not dealt with conservation.
Mr. Fithian pointed out that the previous day's discussion had been restricted to the subject of nuclear nonproliferation and had not set out to be a general discussion on energy.
NUCLEAR GROUP'S CONCLUSIONS
During the 11th Meeting of delegations from the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress in London, July 11-13, 1977, a Joint Working Group on Nuclear Nonproliferation met and held a useful initial exchange of views concerning problems of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle.
A number of areas of common agreement emerged:
1. Both delegations agreed that demand for energy would continue to grow in both the EC and the United States in the near future and that nuclear and other new technologies would be an important source of energy in the future;
2. The delegations agreed that the supply situation in the United States in terms of both fossil fuels and uranium differed markedly from that in the EC;
3. The delegations emphasized the importance of putting more resources into research and development of energy from fusion and certain other energy resources;
4. The delegation underlined the continuing and vital need for energy conservation;
5. The delegations agreed that an examination should be made of a number of international initiatives for the regularization of supplies of nuclear fuels;
6. It was accepted that inspection procedures for the nuclear fuel cycle should be improved to an agreed standard, and that the present agencies should be strengthened;
7. It was felt that international control of the use of nuclear materials should be examined with the aim of improving the present agreements on nuclear nonproliferation and safeguards; and
8. The delegations felt that the risks of terrorist intervention within the nuclear fuel cycle should be broadly evaluated, and that the vulnerability of the fuels in the later stages of the nuclear cycle should be investigated.
Areas of disagreement remained: sharp and differing views were expressed concerning the export of reprocessing technology and breeder reactors. Some stated that the breeder technology could be kept alive without construction at the present time.
Some felt that given the EC energy supply shortages it was unlikely that the advance toward breeder technology would be reversed. A number of U.S. delegates believed that the U.S. breeder program would also be developed.
All felt that the Joint Working Group on Nuclear Energy should be established in the context of relations between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament to continue the study of the common problems of nuclear nonproliferation and access to supply of nuclear materials.
An addendum sets out a list of subjects, arising from the discussions, which should be studied in the joint working group.
ADDENDUM: FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The draft agenda for the proposed Joint Working Group on Nuclear Energy should include the following items:
1. Review of comparative advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources;
2. Problems related to storage of nuclear waste (cost, safety, environmental impact, etc.);
3. Review of technical developments concerning nuclear energy; 4. Review of estimates of uranium supplies worldwide and assessment; and
5. Evaluation and legislative and executive decisions concerning nuclear energy made between this meeting and the forthcoming 12th meeting between the delegations.
B. DRAFT CODE OF PRINCIPLES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND
Mr. Lange regretted the fact that at the previous meeting the delegations had not managed to conclude their discussion of the working document. They must now do so as quickly as possible. In Dublin in April 1976 it had been agreed that the members of both delegations should, if they so wished, indicate their views on the working document to the rapporteurs. Only Mr. Archer and Mr. Hougardy had availed themselves of this opportunity: Mr. Archer had submitted written comments, Mr. Hougardy had outlined his views in an orat statement in the European Parliament.
Mr. Lange pointed out that both delegations had organized hearings on the American pattern, on the understanding that there was no obligation on the experts invited to attend. It emerged from the hearings that a number of undertakings were prepared to accept a code only on a voluntary basis; Mr. Lange felt that this was more or less tantamount to a declaration that they wished to continue with the fairly "ruthless" methods currently employed in industry. Other undertakings seemed prepared to accept a binding code.
ACTION BY PARLIAMENT
In the meantime the European Parliament had gone one step further; it had declared itself in favor of binding regulations.1 Mr. Lange now proposed the following procedure: the discussions that the delegations had had to date seemed to point to the need for international regulations on the activities of undertakings operating internationally. Any proposals that the delegations had to make need not go into detail. The delegations should now consider the relevant documents in the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress-i.e., the Lange/ Gibbons working document, the contributions by Mr. Archer and Mr. Hougardy and the OECD directives already in force.
Mr. Lange felt that the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs should consider the aspects of the question which were of particular relevance to its sphere in the autumn and submit a second report at the November part-session. Parliament would then have to urge the Council and Commission to take action. It was up to the U.S. Congress to decide what further steps be taken.
In Mr. Lange's view there was no point in discussing the matter any further. The object of this meeting was simply to make some progress by drawing up a procedural proposal.
Mr. Gibbons said that he proposed to put the document that he had drawn up in conjunction with Mr. Lange into the form of draft legislation and then to submit it to the appropriate Committees of the Congress.
1 See p. 65.
Lord Bruce of Donington considered Mr. Gibbon's proposal very encouraging. There were likely to be difficulties in the European Communities, and Lord Bruce did not have much confidence in the Commission in this area.
Mr. Martinelli felt that in any case an international body should be set up to insure that the rules were observed. He did not anticipate much intergovernmental cooperation in this field.
Mr. Martin also wondered how one could prevent the wrongful use of confidential industrial data that the multinationals would be required to give to an international organization. He regretted the fact that the Lange/Gibbons working document contained no specific provisions on this point. It was really a question of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
Mr. Martin would prefer the two delegations to content themselves with the existing OECD code which depended on voluntary cooperation; the application of this code was to be reviewed in 2 years. Alternatively, audit committees could be set up with authority to watch over the activities of the multinational undertakings.
Mr. Cousté also drew attention to the danger of having too many codes of conduct for multinationals. His personal view was that the OECD's approach was the right one and that it would be preferable to monitor the OECD code's effectiveness before any further proposals were made.
Mr. Normanton stressed that the working document by Mr. Lange and Mr. Gibbons had not, as such, been adopted by the European Parliament. Parliament's resolution of April 19, 1977, merely concerned the question of whether, if a code were adopted, it should be binding
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CODE
Unethical conduct by undertakings was certainly not a monopoly of the multinationals, and there was therefore, in Mr. Normanton's view, no justification for drawing up regulations solely for these undertakings. He did not consider it likely that a code like the one outlined in the Lange/Gibbons document could be properly implemented in the Community in the short term since it contained many provisions that were not at present operative in any of the Member States. Mr. Normanton also feared that the Lange/Gibbons draft code could place United States and European undertakings at a disadvantage as compared with enterprises in other countries.
Mr. Glinne asked the U.S. delegation two questions: for some time the Study Centre for Transnational Corporations had been trying to collect as much objective data as possible on the multinational undertakings. Why did the United States have reservations about the Centre's activities? Secondly, Mr. Glinne wanted to know what were the views of the U.S. trade unions on an international code.
Mr. Frenzel regretted that Mr. Gibbons intended to table a draft law. In his view the American multinationals needed rules to protect them more than the governments needed rules enabling them to keep the activities of the multinationals under observation.