Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.7.4-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate ought never to have been necessary. Sadly, the Commission has today been proved right. The Commission proposed the speedy withdrawal of old-fashioned single-hull tankers some time ago. Unfortunately the Council did not follow our advice. It failed to act with the necessary urgency and adopt the Commission’s proposals following discussion with Parliament. Had it done so, the
would have been banned since 1 September 2002. It would therefore never have broken up and sunk off the coast of Europe.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the
disaster need never have happened. As a Commission, we did everything in our power to prevent it. We were unsuccessful, but we must ensure no second
or second
founders off our coasts. We must also strive to ensure that such incidents do not occur along the coasts of other seas, off other continents. We should remember that the seas are a common heritage, and that our concern has to extend to their farthest reaches.
There are lessons to be learnt from all this. Those were my very words when the
sank off the coast of Brittany. I must reiterate them today, as we discuss the case of the
which sunk off Spain, off the coast of Galicia to be precise. There are lessons to be learnt and measures to be taken. The first lesson is crystal clear. Speed is of the essence, and so are determination and decisive action. These situations need to be dealt with once and for all, to ensure no further similar tragedies happen.
The immediate action required is obvious. The authorities must compensate those affected and they must undertake the clean-up operation required to return the coast to its previous condition. I will remind the House that this is a particularly rich coast, both in terms of fish and shellfish production and from an environmental point of view. Almost all of it is covered by Natura 2002. So, the affected areas need to be cleaned and restored. The chain of events leading to the disaster must also be traced. It should be borne in mind that back in 1997 a number of oil companies rejected this vessel, on the grounds that it was dangerous and unsafe. It appears that the last time the vessel underwent an inspection as required in the European Union under the Paris Memorandum was in 1999. Furthermore, the vessel had put into two European ports before this summer. Regrettably, in neither of these was it inspected as required.
It is important to study all the links in the chain and establish what exactly happened and where responsibility lies. The lessons to be learnt to prevent a repeat of such situations should then become clear. The present situation involves a vessel with a Greek owner, flying the flag of the Bahamas, inspected by a United States classification society and managed by a Swiss company. It has links with other countries too, all of which offer substantial tax advantages.
We are called on to take all the urgent action in our power to prevent a further tragedy of this kind. That involves the immediate application and implementation of agreements and directives adopted by European Union Ministers. Application of the Erika I package cannot wait until June of next year, nor can the Erika II package be left until February of 2004. They must be put into practice now. They must be made effective, which means meeting the target of inspection of 25% of vessels entering a port by the port authorities, 25% of the most dangerous vessels, those posing the greatest risk. The standards specified in existing provisions must be applied. Single-hull tankers must be replaced by double-hull ones as a matter of urgency. The Community system for following up information on maritime traffic in all areas must be set up at the earliest opportunity. Steps should also be taken to facilitate emergency intervention, by designating protection areas, mooring areas and areas for emergency shelter. The European Maritime Safety Agency should start operations too. It is tasked with ensuring that the correct procedures are followed in all European ports, and also with providing technical support to the various countries and to the Commission.
Discussions with the COPE Fund ought to be pursued. This fund was set up for the specific purpose of covering compensation and the cost of restoring and cleaning the environment. This is over and above standard compensation. It complements the FIPOL Fund.
In addition, at the next Council of Ministers meeting on 6 December, as an urgent measure, I shall propose the adoption of an administrative decision by all Member States of the Union to ensure that heavy fuel oil is only transported in double-hull tankers during the transitional period until single-hull tankers are phased out as already planned. Heavy fuel oil is after all the most polluting of all these products. Each of the vessels involved in the latest three accidents, namely the
the
and the
was an old-fashioned single-hull tanker carrying heavy fuel oil. Heavy fuel oil is the most dangerous product. Consequently, stricter safety measures are needed. This could easily be achieved through an administrative decision by the governments of the Member States.
We need to go further. That means working to increase the FIPOL and COPE Funds. It also means persevering with the Commission’s work on future criminal sanctions in the European area. Going further also means that port authorities should improve the application of the directive on inspection. It has been shown that there are ports where hardly any inspection takes place. These could almost be termed ports of convenience. This amounts to taking fraudulent advantage of the present situation and has to be stopped. In addition, going further means reconsidering the basis of international maritime law at global level within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation. International maritime law is based on Nineteenth Century principles, yet here we are in the Twentieth Century, when our seas are criss-crossed daily by hundreds of thousands of vessels loaded with cargoes that are highly dangerous because of their volume or content. A century and a half ago this just did not happen. Going further also means strengthening the rights of coastal states in the 200-mile zone, and in straits. In particular, these rights need to be strengthened so that they can be defended against the risks of those particularly dangerous cargoes.
Ladies and gentlemen, going further should also mean talking to our neighbours. I have in mind those who share with us a common interest in certain enormously fragile seas. For example, the Baltic which we share with Russia, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea. We should cooperate with Russia and with other states in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Baltic"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples