The OSPAR convention opens today in Sintra, Portugal, and the issue of nuclear discharges from Sellafield will be uppermost in the minds of most delegates. The British government, through its Environment Minister, Mr Michael Meacher, has displayed an encouraging willingness to consider all the options for its nuclear reprocessing plant but, in effect, is ruling out its early closure. The Irish delegation has hopefully done its homework and forged useful alliances, because there is a real possibility that Britain, which is virtually isolated on this issue, might be pressurised into major concessions.
The gathering in Sintra is the first annual meeting of the OSPAR commission. OSPAR was born out of a ministerial meeting of the former Oslo and Paris Commissions six years ago which adopted the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic - known as the OSPAR Convention. Its provisions came into force earlier this year and they oblige the 15 member-states "to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate marine pollution".
The delegates will divide into two camps. The Nordic countries are taking an aggressive lead because studies have shown that currents bring Irish Sea radioactivity right up to their most important fishing grounds. Ireland is planning a less confrontational approach. This may prove successful, but it seems strange to have Ireland playing what seems to be second fiddle in opposition to Sellafield. The United Kingdom is on its own. Last night, France intimated that it will pledge to cut drastically the discharges from its Cap de la Hague reprocessing plant. France used to defend its reprocessing activities obdurately, but its present Environment Minister is a member of the Greens. The attitude of other countries will be crucial. Germany, where the Green movement is strong, is anxious to see reprocessing wind down, but it sends large quantities of its own waste to Sellafield for reprocessing. It is with countries such as Germany that alliances will be vital.
Mr Joe Jacob, the Minister of State with responsibility for nuclear matters, has eschewed megaphone tactics for more subtle and private diplomacy. In this he may be right. It makes it harder rather than easier for the British government to contemplate drastic concessions if they are being pushed very publicly towards them by another government. He will have a private meeting with Mr Meacher before the convention gets under way today.
But Mr Jacob may not be pressing hard enough. He wants discharges to be reduced gradually to "close to zero" but is equivocal about the timescale. The Norwegians, on the other hand, want a commitment to early cessation. All that the British government offers at present is "demanding but achievable reductions in discharges by 2020", and in this it is supported by the state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, which maintains that zero discharges from nuclear installations will not be achievable for the foreseeable future.
"Demanding but achievable" has all the hallmarks of total waffle. Neither the British government nor BNFL has defined exactly what it means. One must wonder, when BNFL says that zero discharges are not possible technically, if what it actually means is that zero discharges would not be cost-effective. The British government should be pressed at Sintra to name a date - an early date - when reprocessing at Sellafield will stop. The alternative is to stand alone at the nuclear dustbin of Europe.