Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.4.3-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the PPE-DE Group is very pleased with the end result – one reservation aside – because the new directive will ultimately enable us to make progress in marine protection, and in establishing a level playing field for the Union’s ports. The significance of the directive resides first and foremost in the fact that all Member States will be obliged to ensure that port reception facilities are set up, within the next two years, in all ports subject to this requirement. Captains will also be obliged to use these facilities. We hope that the rationale behind these two commitments will lead to a reduction in the amount of ship-generated waste deposited illegally in the sea, thus strengthening the marine environment and also improving competition between ports.
I believe that the conciliation procedure was successful in the end, for we did at least manage to secure our demand for ships to have to pay a significant contribution towards the costs of the facilities, irrespective of how much they make use of them. Parliament would rather have succeeded with its demand for ‘significant’ to represent at least 90%, as this would have satisfied us, and there would no longer be any financial interest whatsoever in simply dumping waste at sea. After all, if ships had to pay anyway, then they might as well use the facilities. Sadly, the Council could not bring itself to accept this logical, no special fee provision, hence our reservation against the directive. And we hope that if it becomes apparent that ships are continuing to discharge waste into the sea, the Commission will propose an amendment at the revision stage in three years’ time.
Having said that, Madam Vice-President, we are grateful to you for the fact that your statement – which is, after all, of crucial importance – does at least, in effect, secure a bottom line of 30% as the amount agreed by the Council and Parliament, and we are relying on the Council to act on your statement accordingly.
Secondly, as my honourable friend has already said, we have scored two other victories for marine protection and the citizens of the European Union. Firstly, we have stipulated that 25% of all commercial shipping will in fact be obliged to undergo inspection, in order to ensure that waste disposal is being carried out in accordance with the regulations. MARPOL is all well and good but not when it stays on the bookshelf! We will only be able to protect the sea if we actually monitor whether waste disposal has taken place.
Secondly, we have put pressure on the Member States to meet their obligation to actually set up these port reception facilities. We have ensured that Member States will be required to introduce compensation measures, in case ships are forced to remain in ports unnecessarily, simply because there are no waste disposal facilities available, or they are inadequate. In this way, although the ships will have to pay, they will also be protected.
Mr President, on a final note, I would like, on behalf of my group, to thank the committee chairman, Mr Hatzidakis, and the rapporteur, Mr Bouwman, for their committed and successful handling of these negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples