Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-02-Speech-4-017"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Shipwreck of the Erika2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000302.2.4-017"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-02-Speech-4-0182
lpv:speaker	lp:Johan Van Hecke2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christelijke Volkspartij (1999-07-20--2001-09-30)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2002-09-17)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, recent history and the shipwreck, in particular, have shown that our coasts are under constant threat from shipping disasters. The debate on preventing these disasters has already been held in Strasbourg and it highlighted the importance of a European plan for maritime safety. In addition to prevention, however, we should not be blind to the ramifications of such disasters, not least the ecological ramifications. Many hundreds of kilometres of French coastline have been polluted. Thousands of fish and birds have been killed. It cannot be ruled out that certain habitats may have been permanently damaged, and the restoration of the environment is often a long drawn-out process. The present system of compensation, which has an upper limit and which only takes into account financially quantifiable damage to the environment, is no longer satisfactory. We need to move towards removing the upper limit on compensation payments as a matter of urgency, also in the case of environmental damage which cannot be quantified financially. The polluter pays principle must be applied consistently. I advocate zero tolerance of marine pollution. For this purpose, stricter and better controls are required. But we must also give some consideration to the economic ramifications. I am in favour of a European recovery plan for the affected industries, from fisheries, via mussel farms and oyster beds, to the hotel and catering industry. In short, a contingency plan which kicks in in the event of shipping disasters. Those who are at the receiving end of other people’s reckless pursuit of profit deserve our solidarity, certainly as an interim measure. Finally, I would like to highlight the health aspect. Belgian volunteers, too, sacrificed their Christmas holidays to clean the beaches and rescue birds and fish, often with their bare hands. I was surprised to read reports in the press that the sludge was carcinogenic. I was even more surprised to read that the French authorities had wind of this days before but did not warn the volunteers to take protective measures. I would like to know from the Commissioner whether and, if so, when the European Commission was informed of the possible threat to public health. We must learn from past experiences. Shipping disasters such as that involving the could well strike again off the Dutch, English, Spanish or Belgian coasts. The regulations which we are drawing up today in Europe should be regarded as a precedent. We should therefore be strict with the polluters and generous to the victims."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Erika"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph