Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.5.1-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am pleased that you are the one chairing this debate because I know that as a Bavarian you always offer a sympathetic ear where ports and maritime matters are concerned, and I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bouwman, for the work which he has done and also for cooperating with us in the run-up to tomorrow's vote. There are a few points at stake tomorrow. Firstly, we know that the ship is the most environmentally friendly mode of transport for carrying passengers and goods. At the same time we know that ships make a hefty contribution to polluting the sea with rubbish, cargo residues and oily slime. The fuel used by ships happens to be heavy oil and we know that this heavy oil leaves a residue of between 1% and 3% as oily slime, which is typically discharged into the sea.
I think that we agree that ships have to dispose of waste and residues in port. It follows – and in fact there is no other logical conclusion – that the cardinal rule for clean seas is that it must no longer be worthwhile for waste to be disposed of illegally on the high seas. This is what this is about, and a majority of us have said as much in debates here.
In January we had a very thorough debate with you, Commissioner, on the consequences of the
disaster. On this occasion we once again drew together all the points on ship safety and clean seas. And this directive on port reception facilities for cargo residues is, of course, also about the question of how to make our seas cleaner. Just for information, we know that 70 000 m3 of detritus is illegally discharged into the North Sea alone every year and, conversely, we know that at present a maximum of 5% to 10% of ships obey the rules and dispose of their waste in port.
This scandal is not acceptable in the eyes of the Council either. The Council is after all also saying that all ports must have appropriate port reception facilities available and must be equipped with them. The conflict now is ultimately over the issue of how payments will be made. In its first reading, Parliament said by a large majority that the ships must make a significant contribution, of at least 90%. And therein lies the difference with the Council, which is saying that a contribution has to be made. But a contribution might also only mean half a euro and in this case God knows this would be too little. Nothing would change. There would be no financial pressure on ships to obey the rules.
What is needed is a standard waste disposal fee for all ships irrespective of how much they actually use the disposal facilities, meaning that the financial incentive to dispose of waste at sea has to be removed, which – as has already been explained here today – was possible in the Baltic Sea through the HELCOM Agreement and the ‘no-special-fee’ system. If it can be done there it must also be possible for it to work for the remaining European seas, because this is not only about the environment: it is about clean waters, it even has consequences for tourism and – the decisive point – alongside the environmental issue it is also about fair competition. The same conditions must apply to all ships in port and only if Parliament, the Council and the Commission create these conditions together will this fair competition be restored for ports and ships.
I think that this is also about the credibility of the Union and, in particular, Parliament. I think that people are tired of seeing the hypocrisy of Europe and of ministers each time that there is a catastrophe, as we saw of course with ‘Erika’. Oil comes onto the beaches and then politicians and ministers appear and try to clear it up themselves with a tiny little bucket, but when a fortnight later a robust directive is up for debate they have forgotten yesterday's fine words. We will not be able to rule out accidents altogether, but we can take optimal precautions. This consistent directive is an important step towards doing this.
I also hope that our liberal colleagues will perhaps reconsider before tomorrow whether they might not – including for reasons of parliamentary identity – join us once again as they did in the first and also in the second reading, because we will then be going into the conciliation procedure anyway and there we will have to see how much ground the Council can give. I believe – for environmental and competition reasons as well as on the basis of the decisions made two months ago, in January – that we should adopt these amendments tomorrow, in the form in which we debated them in the committee, with a broad majority."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples